Did Paul have knowledge of Moses and the Law before conversion?

[happy traveller]

The implication of the OP is that the Pharisees were trying to please God by following HIS Law to the letter. That the Pharisees were experts in God’s Law.

But Saul the pharisee was trying to follow the law to the letter:
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. Rom7:7&8
Now we would agree, that God did not give the law to Israel so that sin could produce all manner of concupiscence in people through what was holy, just and good. But that is what happened to Saul. Sometimes its good to relate what is written to human life. Paul is speaking of when the law came to him, this would be at 13 for a young Jewish lad I imagine. He made a personal commitment to God. He was raised strictly, obey the law or you are condemned. The TC were the pinnacle of the law. Saul knew what coveting entailed/what he should not do if he did not want to break that law. Imagine a young teenager believing if they did not obey the law they were condemned to hell. Before them is ''thou shalt not covet'' Thou shalt not lust/have impure thoughts. Heaven or hell/eternal life hinges on obeying the commandment. What is going to be the result. Well really think hard about it. The greater the risk involved in an activity the more excitement it stirs up in you. The higher the stake you play for, again, the greater excitement that is stirred up in you. A young teenager is playing for the highest stake of all-eternal life, and it isn't a game! What greater risk can you take than doing something that can condemn you to hell. THOU SHALT NOT COVET. Need I go on?

 

[pescador]

But Saul the pharisee was trying to follow the law to the letter:
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. Rom7:7&8
Now we would agree, that God did not give the law to Israel so that sin could produce all manner of concupiscence in people through what was holy, just and good. But that is what happened to Saul. Sometimes its good to relate what is written to human life. Paul is speaking of when the law came to him, this would be at 13 for a young Jewish lad I imagine. He made a personal commitment to God. He was raised strictly, obey the law or you are condemned. The TC were the pinnacle of the law. Saul knew what coveting entailed/what he should not do if he did not want to break that law. Imagine a young teenager believing if they did not obey the law they were condemned to hell. Before them is ''thou shalt not covet'' Thou shalt not lust/have impure thoughts. Heaven or hell/eternal life hinges on obeying the commandment. What is going to be the result. Well really think hard about it. The greater the risk involved in an activity the more excitement it stirs up in you. The higher the stake you play for, again, the greater excitement that is stirred up in you. A young teenager is playing for the highest stake of all-eternal life, and it isn't a game! What greater risk can you take than doing something that can condemn you to hell. THOU SHALT NOT COVET. Need I go on?

No thanks, that's enough.

BTW, here is Romans 7:7-8 in understandable English: " What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! Certainly, I would not have known sin except through the law. For indeed I would not have known what it means to desire something belonging to someone else if the law had not said, “Do not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of wrong desires. For apart from the law, sin is dead." You quoted verse 8 only. Also, "concupiscence" means strong sexual desire or lust. That's a mistranslation; it means "strong sexual desire", whereas the previous verse talks about coveting -- having or showing a great desire to possess something belonging to someone else", which fits the context of verse 7 that you omitted. You then used lust/impure thoughts about a teenager as an example, which clearly doesn't fit.

 

[happy traveller]

No thanks, that's enough.

BTW, here is Romans 7:7-8 in understandable English: " What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! Certainly, I would not have known sin except through the law. For indeed I would not have known what it means to desire something belonging to someone else if the law had not said, “Do not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of wrong desires. For apart from the law, sin is dead." You quoted verse 8 only. Also, "concupiscence" means strong sexual desire or lust. That's a mistranslation; it means "strong sexual desire", whereas the previous verse talks about coveting -- having or showing a great desire to possess something belonging to someone else", which fits the context of verse 7 that you omitted. You then used lust/impure thoughts about a teenager as an example, which clearly doesn't fit.

Doesnt it fit?
Thou shalt not covet, thou shalt not have impure thoughts, thou shalt not lust. Concupiscence, strong sexual desire, correct. How many women could you desire that do not belong to someone else? Very few in Paul's day
KJV
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

 

[A_Thinker]

Hi there,

One among us is adamant that Paul was not knowledgeable concerning Moses and the Law before conversion.

I would appreciate insight on this issue.

I have always had the impression that he was quite well informed in such matters.

Thanks for your help.

Paul was a Pharisee ... an expert in the Law. He was so convinced of the validity of Jewish belief that he was commissioned to find and persecute any of the followers of Jesus he found.

His letter to the church at Rome is, in large part, an attempt to reconcile his past beliefs ... with his new belief ...

 

[Studyman]

But Saul the pharisee was trying to follow the law to the letter:

I know this is a popular religious philosophy of the land I was born into. Philosophies we were instructed to "prove" and "test", by comparing them to the Holy Scriptures.

When a person does compare your opening statement to scriptures, they find the entire Law and Prophets, and the Word's of the Lord's Christ Himself, teaches just the opposite.

Matt. 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? (Not trying to follow God's Law "to the letter" as many preach)

7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Not the "Letter" of the Law of God as many preach)

John 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

And Stephen, who Paul helped kill.

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: 53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

This is the point I'm trying to make.

Here I am, confronting a religious philosophy which implies the Pharisees were simply the innocent victim of an unjust God with unjust Laws they were commanded to keep, and their SIN was trying to please God by obeying Him "to the letter".

But when a person actually reads the Holy Scriptures for themselves, they find that the Pharisees weren't "trying to keep God's Commandments" to the letter at all.

Mal. 2:7 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.

8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.

9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.
So I am being forced to choose between your popular religious philosophy, which preaches the Pharisees SIN was striving to obey God.

And I have the entire Law and Prophets, EVERY Word Jesus used to define the Pharisees, and Paul himself, teaching just the opposite.

One of you is telling the truth, and the other is promoting a falsehood. You can't both be right.

I am suggesting the Holy Scriptures are right in this case, and it is the religious philosophy of man being questioned here that is wrong.

Because I don't like it when a person picks one word or sentence from my reply, then totally ignore everything else I posted, including Scriptures, I will address the rest of your post later. It's a "do unto others thing" for me. I just felt compelled to share what the Scriptures actually said about your opening statement. And to humbly share my understanding that if our foundation is false, everything built on it is false.

 

[Studyman]

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. Rom7:7&8

Don't omit what Paul already taught us in Rom. 6. leading up to Romans 7.

Rom. 6:15 What then? shall we sin, (transgress God's Commandments) because we are not under the law, (Dead) but under grace? (Alive) God forbid. (That means NO!!)

16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin (Transgression) unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, (Pharisees) but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. (Gospel of Christ)

18 Being then made free from sin, (Transgression) ye became the servants of righteousness. (Children of Abraham)

With this as Paul's foundation, and us as "servants of righteousness", we can properly understand Rom. 7.

Now we would agree, that God did not give the law to Israel so that sin could produce all manner of concupiscence in people through what was holy, just and good. But that is what happened to Saul. Sometimes its good to relate what is written to human life.

I don't agree with your words here at all. I do agree with Paul though. He is explaining why the penalty for rejecting and breaking God's Commandments is death.

9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

So we know God is perfect, and righteous, and His Laws are perfect, Holy, Just and Good. So why did God place the death penalty for transgression?

Paul answers this question perfectly.

13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. (That means NO, God's Law was not created to kill me) But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

Rejecting God, judging and/or disobeying Him and/or His Laws is really really wicked. Transgressing God's Commandment is "Exceedingly" wicked, really evil. With the death penalty for transgression, we see how serious and "exceedingly sinful" transgression is to God.

It's a serious matter. We all have sinned, that is, we all have looked at God's Laws and said "we will not walk therein". Now God is a Merciful God, so HE arranged for our sin to be cleansed. But it's such a serious matter, Sin is so Evil, so wicked, that it wasn't cleansed by words or sacrificial "works of a Priesthood Law". It was so serious that God had to Sacrifice HIS OWN SON to be tortured horribly, then nailed to a cross while religious men who you preach to the world were trying to obey God, mocked Him.

When I see Sin the same way God sees sin, I will "Strive against sin". I will "Resist sin" unto the end so that I can be found by HIM, well, I'll let Peter tell you.

2 Pet. 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

Paul is speaking of when the law came to him, this would be at 13 for a young Jewish lad I imagine. He made a personal commitment to God. He was raised strictly, obey the law or you are condemned. The TC were the pinnacle of the law. Saul knew what coveting entailed/what he should not do if he did not want to break that law. Imagine a young teenager believing if they did not obey the law they were condemned to hell. Before them is ''thou shalt not covet'' Thou shalt not lust/have impure thoughts. Heaven or hell/eternal life hinges on obeying the commandment. What is going to be the result. Well really think hard about it. The greater the risk involved in an activity the more excitement it stirs up in you. The higher the stake you play for, again, the greater excitement that is stirred up in you. A young teenager is playing for the highest stake of all-eternal life, and it isn't a game! What greater risk can you take than doing something that can condemn you to hell. THOU SHALT NOT COVET. Need I go on?

I don't agree with any of this, but then my understanding isn't founded on the religious philosophy that implies the Pharisees were trying to please God by obedience, and God rejected them for doing what He said to do..

 

[Studyman]

Paul was a Pharisee ... an expert in the Law. He was so convinced of the validity of Jewish belief that he was commissioned to find and persecute any of the followers of Jesus he found.

His letter to the church at Rome is, in large part, an attempt to reconcile his past beliefs ... with his new belief ...

How can the Pharisees be experts in God's Law when Jesus said they "taught for doctrines the Commandments of men"?

Where in God's Law is it written to murder God's True Church members, as the Pharisees did?

Romans 1; 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Is Paul not speaking of the Pharisees here? Where is the implication here that these men were "experts in God's Law"?

Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

I trying to figure out where the teaching that the Pharisees were "Experts in God's Law" comes from. The Law and Prophets say they weren't. Jesus said they weren't. Paul says they were ignorant of God's Righteousness and went about establishing their own, "but not according to knowledge".

So how do you reconcile your statement with these and volumes of other scriptures which seem to clearly show the Pharisees didn't know GOD at all.

And what about Zacharias and Simeon. Were these not the true "experts in God's Law"?

I believe these questions are relevant and I hope you might answer them.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Here I am, confronting a religious philosophy which implies the Pharisees were simply the innocent victim of an unjust God with unjust Laws they were commanded to keep, and their SIN was trying to please God by obeying Him "to the letter".

Thank you for plainly expressing your intent.

I certainly do not believe this 'philosophy' I would be surprised if many do...

As you have stated it, this is Blasphemy.

I am concerned that you have been so quick to assume others here believe such an erroneous doctrine.

 

[Studyman]

Thank you for plainly expressing your intent.

I certainly do not believe this 'philosophy' I would be surprised if many do...

As you have stated it, this is Blasphemy.

I am concerned that you have been so quick to assume others here believe such an erroneous doctrine.

Carl,

YOU said the Pharisees, namely Paul before his conversion, were "Experts in the Law of God". The implication was that the Pharisees were trying to earn salvation by following God's Law "to the Letter".

I have heard this doctrine preached by "many" who come in Christ's name for many years now. And have gone about to post the actual Words of the Holy Scriptures which expose this popular religious philosophy as to its origin, which isn't from God. My intent is to shine the Light of Christ on this religious philosophy which is not created by you, but you are furthering just the same.

Here are your own words.

"In this passage 'the letter' refers to the Law - Paul and the Pharisees were experts in the Law but didn't recognise the Author of the Law when He appeared to them face to face.
These were experts in knowledge of scripture, but they didn't know Him."

I don't believe your religious philosophy in this matter because Jesus and Paul teaches just the opposite. The implication here is subtle, that the Pharisees followed God's instructions to the letter, but it didn't help them. Even though they were "Experts of the Law" and followed it "to the letter", they still didn't know Him.

This implies that the Pharisees were just doing what God Commanded, striving to obey Him. But they didn't know God even though they were "Experts on HIS Instructions".

My intent is to shine the Light of Christ on these winds of doctrine to discern whether they are wrought in God or not.

The Bible is full of scriptures which expose this religious philosophy.

Rom. 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

This is one of many, many Scriptures which show they were NOT "experts in knowledge of scripture".

I asked you many questions and posted several scriptures which bring question to your religious philosophy in this matter, but you refuse to answer or discuss the Scriptures posted.

I posted the inspired Word's of the Christ regarding Zacharias and Simeon, who were real experts in God's Instructions, who knew God and the Christ when HE came. But you refused to acknowledge the Scriptures regarding them as well.

I would post them all again, but you weren't interested in them the first time.

So you are free to deflect and refuse to have an honest, unbiased examination of the scriptures which bring question to your religious philosophy Carl. Or you can engage in an examination of the Scriptures and accept were they take you.

I have nothing to do with your choice either way.

 

[Fervent]

Carl,

YOU said the Pharisees, namely Paul before his conversion, were "Experts in the Law of God". The implication was that the Pharisees were trying to earn salvation by following God's Law "to the Letter".

I have heard this doctrine preached by "many" who come in Christ's name for many years now. And have gone about to post the actual Words of the Holy Scriptures which expose this popular religious philosophy as to its origin, which isn't from God. My intent is to shine the Light of Christ on this religious philosophy which is not created by you, but you are furthering just the same.

Here are your own words.



I don't believe your religious philosophy in this matter because Jesus and Paul teaches just the opposite. The implication here is subtle, that the Pharisees followed God's instructions to the letter, but it didn't help them. Even though they were "Experts of the Law" and followed it "to the letter", they still didn't know Him.

This implies that the Pharisees were just doing what God Commanded, striving to obey Him. But they didn't know God even though they were "Experts on HIS Instructions".

My intent is to shine the Light of Christ on these winds of doctrine to discern whether they are wrought in God or not.

The Bible is full of scriptures which expose this religious philosophy.

Rom. 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

This is one of many, many Scriptures which show they were NOT "experts in knowledge of scripture".

I asked you many questions and posted several scriptures which bring question to your religious philosophy in this matter, but you refuse to answer or discuss the Scriptures posted.

I posted the inspired Word's of the Christ regarding Zacharias and Simeon, who were real experts in God's Instructions, who knew God and the Christ when HE came. But you refused to acknowledge the Scriptures regarding them as well.

I would post them all again, but you weren't interested in them the first time.

So you are free to deflect and refuse to have an honest, unbiased examination of the scriptures which bring question to your religious philosophy Carl. Or you can engage in an examination of the Scriptures and accept were they take you.

I have nothing to do with your choice either way.

Romans 10 isn't about the Pharisee's, but about the disposition of the Jews in general. Nor does it speak to Paul's expertise in the law. In fact, the manner in which Pharisee's are spoken of often paints an inaccurate picture. They were not the only lawyers and scribes, but were marked off by a teaching about resurrection claiming that it was a real, bodily resurrection. Paul studied the Scriptures and was an expert in exegetical principles of his day, but as even today it is possible to be an expert in what is written without recognizing the source and power. He knew the Scriptures, which is why he so masterfully expounds on them in his epistles building a bridge between the history and the mystery.

 

[Carl Emerson]

YOU said the Pharisees, namely Paul before his conversion, were "Experts in the Law of God". The implication was that the Pharisees were trying to earn salvation by following God's Law "to the Letter".

That was an implication you made not me...

The 'philosophy' you seem to be opposing doesn't seem to be commonly held...

Particularly you reference to believing God is 'unjust'... what true believer would believe that?

 

[Studyman]

Romans 10 isn't about the Pharisee's, but about the disposition of the Jews in general. Nor does it speak to Paul's expertise in the law. In fact, the manner in which Pharisee's are spoken of often paints an inaccurate picture. They were not the only lawyers and scribes, but were marked off by a teaching about resurrection claiming that it was a real, bodily resurrection. Paul studied the Scriptures and was an expert in exegetical principles of his day, but as even today it is possible to be an expert in what is written without recognizing the source and power. He knew the Scriptures, which is why he so masterfully expounds on them in his epistles building a bridge between the history and the mystery.

I know that is the popular religious philosophy taught in the religions I was born into.

But this philosophy doesn’t hold up if one relies on scriptures, in my view.

God said the Shepherds led Gods people astray. How?

If I listen to you and Carl, I would have to believe that they led Gods people astray by convincing them to follow Gods Law “to the letter” as they were “experts”. But if they were experts then why did God send them Prophets? What did the Pharisees do to the Prophets who told them they were teaching lies about God?

Those who Followed the Pharisees had a Zeal for God, but not after knowledge. Why?? Who taught them?? If the Pharisees were experts as you preach, then why did Israel lack knowledge, why were they Ignorant?

I know how precious men’s religious beliefs are. But I have posted many scriptures here, which show the doctrine which promotes the religious philosophy that the Pharisees were experts in Gods law is untrue. They were experts in their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Their centuries old religious traditions.

They didn’t teach or follow Gods law. Zacharias did, Simeon did. But Paul, as a Pharisee, was deceived. He was snared by satan to do its will. A child of the devil. At least that is what Jesus said.

All the Prophesy about the Shepherds. Every Word Jesus used to describe them completely contradicts this doctrine that is being promoted.

Paul was a Pharisee, he was an expert in the Jews religion which Jesus said transgressed Gods Laws.

Jesus said they didn’t know God, but Zacharias did?

I will ask you a couple of questions and I hope you will answer.
According to the Bible,

what was the main difference between the Pharisees and Zacharias?

Which one was an “expert” in the mainstream religion of that time, and which was an “expert” in the laws and Commandments of God?

Can you see why I have come to this conclusion?

 

[Fervent]

I know that is the popular religious philosophy taught in the religions I was born into.

But this philosophy doesn’t hold up if one relies on scriptures, in my view.

God said the Shepherds led Gods people astray. How?

If I listen to you and Carl, I would have to believe that they led Gods people astray by convincing them to follow Gods Law “to the letter” as they were “experts”. But if they were experts then why did God send them Prophets? What did the Pharisees do to the Prophets who told them they were teaching lies about God?

Those who Followed the Pharisees had a Zeal for God, but not after knowledge. Why?? Who taught them?? If the Pharisees were experts as you preach, then why did Israel lack knowledge, why were they Ignorant?

I know how precious men’s religious beliefs are. But I have posted many scriptures here, which show the doctrine which promotes the religious philosophy that the Pharisees were experts in Gods law is untrue. They were experts in their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Their centuries old religious traditions.

They didn’t teach or follow Gods law. Zacharias did, Simeon did. But Paul, as a Pharisee, was deceived. He was snared by satan to do its will. A child of the devil. At least that is what Jesus said.

All the Prophesy about the Shepherds. Every Word Jesus used to describe them completely contradicts this doctrine that is being promoted.

Paul was a Pharisee, he was an expert in the Jews religion which Jesus said transgressed Gods Laws.

Jesus said they didn’t know God, but Zacharias did?

I will ask you a couple of questions and I hope you will answer.
According to the Bible,

what was the main difference between the Pharisees and Zacharias?

Which one was an “expert” in the mainstream religion of that time, and which was an “expert” in the laws and Commandments of God?

Can you see why I have come to this conclusion?

Please don't put words in my mouth, I never said anything even approaching what you claim with regard to the Pharisee's leading people astray by teaching to the letter. The shepherds and the lying scribes led them astray by adding the halakah to the Scriptures as a hedge, but that doesn't change their expertise on the Scriptures themselves.

Paul himself never divorced himself from his pharisaical upbringing, repeatedly mentioning it as a testimony to his expertise such as in Acts 26 where he speaks to Agrippa of his expertise, and calls it "our religion" in unison with his accusers turning the whole thing on the question of resurrection because it is the shared hope of the pharisee's.

From what I recall, the Bible never directly compares Zacharias with the pharisees or any other of the major sects, so any comparison you're gleaning is something you're adding to the text. Historically, the differences between the major divisions of judaism(pharisee, sauducee, essene) was their view on resurrection and whether they believed in a coming Messiah. The pharisee's believed in both, and that was the entire marker for them. Which is why the pharisee's were the ones continually examining Jesus to see if He was indeed the Messiah.

 

[Studyman]

That was an implication you made not me...

The 'philosophy' you seem to be opposing doesn't seem to be commonly held...

Particularly you reference to believing God is 'unjust'... what true believer would believe that?

Jesus and Paul also opposed the "commonly held" religious philosophies of the religions of the land they were born into. And the preachers who promoted these "Commonly held" winds of doctrine also refused to engage in any honest, unbiased examination of Scriptures.

It's really quite fascinating how God's Truth rules supreme. Surely there is no new thing under the sun.

 

[Studyman]

Please don't put words in my mouth, I never said anything even approaching what you claim with regard to the Pharisee's leading people astray by teaching to the letter. The shepherds and the lying scribes led them astray by adding the halakah to the Scriptures as a hedge, but that doesn't change their expertise on the Scriptures themselves.

My issue here is the difference between the religious philosophy you are promoting, and what the Holy Scriptures actually teach. That's it. I hold the Holy Scriptures as Holy and Truth.

So given that, I know there isn't one place in the Bible that confirms your teaching "The shepherds and the lying scribes led them astray by adding the halakah to the Scriptures as a hedge".

The Holy Christ said the Pharisees and Shepherds "Rejected God's Laws", "Despised God's Laws", "forgot God's Laws", "Corrupted God's Laws", Were Partial in God's Law", Omitted God's Laws", "Transgressed God's Laws", Taught for doctrines the Commandments of Men", "didn't believe Moses", "didn't obey Moses".

All these things were Said by the Spirit of Christ. NOT Once did the Christ inspire it to be written that the Pharisees were "Experts" in God's Law. He said they had the "Oracles of God" but didn't believe them.

In truth, of us is adding to God's Word. ""The shepherds and the lying scribes led them astray by adding the halakah to the Scriptures as a hedge".

Paul himself never divorced himself from his pharisaical upbringing, repeatedly mentioning it as a testimony to his expertise such as in Acts 26 where he speaks to Agrippa of his expertise, and calls it "our religion" in unison with his accusers turning the whole thing on the question of resurrection because it is the shared hope of the pharisee's.

Acts 26 is a perfect chapter to test the popular religious doctrines that the Pharisees were "Expert" on God's Law.

4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;

5 Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived (Past tense) a Pharisee.

Yes, Paul used to be a Pharisee.

9 I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.

10 Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.

11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.

This is what Pharisees did, and Paul used to do. But this behavior was "Transgressing" God's Law. If Paul was Zealous for God, and an Expert in God's Law, he wouldn't make people Blaspheme, nor would he persecute the innocent for fear of death the Law would bring.

So what "Law" taught Paul to do these things? You see, you are promoting the religious philosophy here that Paul did these things because he was an "Expert in God's Laws". And the "Chief Priest" who gave him authority, was also an "Expert of God's Laws".

Where did Paul ever say HE was directed by Scripture or God to live this way?

"Paul himself never divorced himself from his pharisaical upbringing",

Really??? Are you really preaching this to others?

19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

21 For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.

Are you saying Paul never repented of these Horrible Sin's against God? That HE never changed his belief?

How is it Paul didn't know this when HE was an "Expert in the Law"? How is it the Pharisees, who you preach were "experts in the Law" wanted to kill Paul because he was finally doing what the Law taught?

I can't believe you don't see the point I'm making here. Acts 26 by itself, completely destroys the religious philosophy that preaches the Pharisees were experts in the Law. They were experts in their sect of the Pharisees, which were not experts of God's Law, rather, Transgressors of God's Law.

From what I recall, the Bible never directly compares Zacharias with the pharisees or any other of the major sects, so any comparison you're gleaning is something you're adding to the text. Historically, the differences between the major divisions of judaism(pharisee, sauducee, essene) was their view on resurrection and whether they believed in a coming Messiah. The pharisee's believed in both, and that was the entire marker for them. Which is why the pharisee's were the ones continually examining Jesus to see if He was indeed the Messiah.

So then, I can't use the example of Zacharias as a man who actually walked in all the Laws and Commandments of God blameless, as an example of someone who WAS an expert in the Law of God?

But I can listen to some random "other voice" who preaches that "The shepherds and the lying scribes led them astray by adding the halakah to the Scriptures as a hedge"?

Look, I don't believe the Pharisees were experts in the Law of God because of all the Scriptures I posted which say they weren't, because I know they were deceived and doing satan's will, and because the Prophesies of the Law and Prophets about them forgetting God's Laws, not becoming "Experts" in them.

It's all Scripture based for me.

If we don't hold the Scriptures in the same honor, then we will never agree.

Thanks for the discussion anyway. I learned a lot about the Pharisees Sect that i had not seen before.

 

[RDKirk]

Arguing just to argue going on here.

Keep reminding God's people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. -- 2 Timothy 2

 

[garee]

Good responses thanks...

This is what 'one among us' said...
============================
I just posted scriptures where Paul Himself tells us what he was an expert in. HE says "the traditions of his fathers" "Jews religion". He said where his religion came from "at the feet of Gameliel" not Moses. I also posted the Christ's own Words, as well as others, which teach that the "Jews Religion" and the "tradition of the fathers" were not from God or God's Law. Jesus said they didn't even believe Moses. He said their father was satan.
===========================

The thread is here...
Let's TALK about debate!

What I was trying to get across is that the Scriptures without the Spirit were Satans weapon of choice during the temptation in the wilderness.

I was also quoting the verse "the letter kills but the Spirit gives life..." and saying that the letter refers to the Law.

I was also saying the Pharisees knew the Word backwards including the Law but didn't recognise the Author when He arrived and killed His followers.

Concluding then - the Word without the Spirit is deadly

I was also saying that we would have less arguments on CF if we all were hearing the Spirit before expounding on the Word.

And for my efforts to lay bare the Truth I am considered to be expounding some religious philosophy !!

Thanks for helping me to be assured I haven't lost the plot !!!

I just say it as it is - and I guess noses get put out of joint...

Hi Thanks I would offer

There are different laws that have different foundations as uses.

The letter of the law is simply scripture as it is written or what the eyes see (the temporal)

There is no personsonal law of Moses. Its simply the first five books God moved Moses to bring God's witness not seen and not the witness of man seen the temporal.

Its why at first both the tablets and the writing of the finger are not attributed to the hand or "mind of Moses" as to what is called a "law of the fathers". (a hierarchy of men)

Even when Moses came down from Mount Sinai the law of the fathers (oral traditions of men) ignore the witnesses of God. This time God moved Moses to hew out to new tablets but again so that mankind would not attribute the work to corrupter mankind the second time God again wrote into the stone the letter of the law. This revealed to the unbelievers God is not served by the corrupted hands of a dying corrupted creation .

God never promised the oral traditions (I heard it through the grape vine could come alongside of sola scriptura again as the witness of men .In that way no man can serve two teaching masters ,Christ in us and mankind law of the fathers form without

The law of the fathers a hierarchy of men is the abomination of desolation which Paul served as Saul before a before his conversion opposes letter of the law.. . all things written in the law and prophets (sola scriptura)

That law of men has no faith coming from God's law. it in Acts 24 was used to murder those who did hold to all things written in the law and the prophets.(sola scriptura)

In that way the whole bible is called the book of law or prophecy written by the finger of God with no philosophical theories of men or again laws of the fathers (oral tradition I heard it through the fathers grape vine)

The law of the fathers sought out to destroy the law and the prophets as all thing written in the bible or sola scriptura

There are also ceremonial laws as shadows .And the law of faith . different law must be sought out so that we can understand the complete or perfect law. Knowing in part make it more difficult to see Him face to face (faith, His understanding. . to faith, His understanding) in His revealed knowledge (sola scriptura)

The law of faith (the work of Christ in us) and the letter of the law that pronounces all mankind guilty and dying work together and in the end of the matter make one new perfect law . Again two law mixed to create one new perfect law.

 

[Studyman]

Hi Thanks I would offer

There are different laws that have different foundations as uses.

The letter of the law is simply scripture as it is written or what the eyes see (the temporal)

There is no personsonal law of Moses. Its simply the first five books God moved Moses to bring God's witness not seen and not the witness of man seen the temporal.

Its why at first both the tablets and the writing of the finger are not attributed to the hand or "mind of Moses" as to what is called a "law of the fathers". (a hierarchy of men)

Even when Moses came down from Mount Sinai the law of the fathers (oral traditions of men) ignore the witnesses of God. This time God moved Moses to hew out to new tablets but again so that mankind would not attribute the work to corrupter mankind the second time God again wrote into the stone the letter of the law. This revealed to the unbelievers God is not served by the corrupted hands of a dying corrupted creation .

God never promised the oral traditions (I heard it through the grape vine could come alongside of sola scriptura again as the witness of men .In that way no man can serve two teaching masters ,Christ in us and mankind law of the fathers form without

The law of the fathers a hierarchy of men is the abomination of desolation which Paul served as Saul before a before his conversion opposes letter of the law.. . all things written in the law and prophets (sola scriptura)

That law of men has no faith coming from God's law. it in Acts 24 was used to murder those who did hold to all things written in the law and the prophets.(sola scriptura)

In that way the whole bible is called the book of law or prophecy written by the finger of God with no philosophical theories of men or again laws of the fathers (oral tradition I heard it through the fathers grape vine)

The law of the fathers sought out to destroy the law and the prophets as all thing written in the bible or sola scriptura

There are also ceremonial laws as shadows .And the law of faith . different law must be sought out so that we can understand the complete or perfect law. Knowing in part make it more difficult to see Him face to face (faith, His understanding. . to faith, His understanding) in His revealed knowledge (sola scriptura)

The law of faith (the work of Christ in us) and the letter of the law that pronounces all mankind guilty and dying work together and in the end of the matter make one new perfect law . Again two law mixed to create one new perfect law.

That's an interesting perspective.

It reminds me of Paul's words in Acts 24.

But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

And again;

Heb. 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

 

[pescador]

That's an interesting perspective.

It reminds me of Paul's words in Acts 24.

But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

And again;

Heb. 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

It says you're in the US and I assume that you're living in the 21st Century, but the language is weird. I looked up these excerpts in my English Bible (NET 2.1); here they are...

"But I confess this to you, that I worship the God of our ancestors according to the Way (which they call a sect), believing everything that is according to the law and that is written in the prophets." Acts 24:14-15

"Therefore we must be wary that, while the promise of entering his rest remains open, none of you may seem to have come short of it. For we had good news proclaimed to us just as they did. But the message they heard did them no good, since they did not join in with those who heard it in faith." Hebrews 4:1-2

Paul's letters were written in Koine Greek, the common language of the Mediterranean world of the time. Any decent English translation should reflect that; the stilted language of early 17th Century England has no place in our day and age.

Also, if you're implying that Paul wrote Hebrews, you're disagreeing with the majority of Biblical scholars.

 

[Fervent]

My issue here is the difference between the religious philosophy you are promoting, and what the Holy Scriptures actually teach. That's it. I hold the Holy Scriptures as Holy and Truth.

So given that, I know there isn't one place in the Bible that confirms your teaching "The shepherds and the lying scribes led them astray by adding the halakah to the Scriptures as a hedge".

The Holy Christ said the Pharisees and Shepherds "Rejected God's Laws", "Despised God's Laws", "forgot God's Laws", "Corrupted God's Laws", Were Partial in God's Law", Omitted God's Laws", "Transgressed God's Laws", Taught for doctrines the Commandments of Men", "didn't believe Moses", "didn't obey Moses".

All these things were Said by the Spirit of Christ. NOT Once did the Christ inspire it to be written that the Pharisees were "Experts" in God's Law. He said they had the "Oracles of God" but didn't believe them.

In truth, of us is adding to God's Word. ""The shepherds and the lying scribes led them astray by adding the halakah to the Scriptures as a hedge".






Acts 26 is a perfect chapter to test the popular religious doctrines that the Pharisees were "Expert" on God's Law.

4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;

5 Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived (Past tense) a Pharisee.

Yes, Paul used to be a Pharisee.

9 I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.

10 Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.

11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.

This is what Pharisees did, and Paul used to do. But this behavior was "Transgressing" God's Law. If Paul was Zealous for God, and an Expert in God's Law, he wouldn't make people Blaspheme, nor would he persecute the innocent for fear of death the Law would bring.

So what "Law" taught Paul to do these things? You see, you are promoting the religious philosophy here that Paul did these things because he was an "Expert in God's Laws". And the "Chief Priest" who gave him authority, was also an "Expert of God's Laws".

Where did Paul ever say HE was directed by Scripture or God to live this way?

"Paul himself never divorced himself from his pharisaical upbringing",

Really??? Are you really preaching this to others?

19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

21 For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.

Are you saying Paul never repented of these Horrible Sin's against God? That HE never changed his belief?

How is it Paul didn't know this when HE was an "Expert in the Law"? How is it the Pharisees, who you preach were "experts in the Law" wanted to kill Paul because he was finally doing what the Law taught?

I can't believe you don't see the point I'm making here. Acts 26 by itself, completely destroys the religious philosophy that preaches the Pharisees were experts in the Law. They were experts in their sect of the Pharisees, which were not experts of God's Law, rather, Transgressors of God's Law.



So then, I can't use the example of Zacharias as a man who actually walked in all the Laws and Commandments of God blameless, as an example of someone who WAS an expert in the Law of God?

But I can listen to some random "other voice" who preaches that "The shepherds and the lying scribes led them astray by adding the halakah to the Scriptures as a hedge"?

Look, I don't believe the Pharisees were experts in the Law of God because of all the Scriptures I posted which say they weren't, because I know they were deceived and doing satan's will, and because the Prophesies of the Law and Prophets about them forgetting God's Laws, not becoming "Experts" in them.

It's all Scripture based for me.

If we don't hold the Scriptures in the same honor, then we will never agree.

Thanks for the discussion anyway. I learned a lot about the Pharisees Sect that i had not seen before.

It seems you're reading more into the title of "expert" than is warranted, because no Christian scholar who claims the pharisee's were experts on the law claims that they were correct in everything. The statements of Christ towards them is exactly as I said, they added and subtracted from the law in an unjust manner.

I won't get into an interpretive flame war with regard to Acts 26, but I will point out in order to arrive at your conclusion you've had to inject editorial information that need not be there.

It wasn't pharisaism that caused the men to stone Christians, nor was that a mark of being a pharisee. The whole of pharisaism is in their eschatology, an eschatology that was closest to what was revealed in Christ. Because they studied the Scriptures.