open and honest

[cyberlizard]

please can i have some perspectives.

my question is simple.

according to the book of acts, paul who spoke most openly about spiritual gifts and their use was a pharisee. He said so himself long after the damascus road experience (see Acts 23 v.6)

i have posted this message on another forum as well to gauge opinion as to how this could be.

 

[plmarquette]

I am a cradle catholic , who was discipled by evangelical protestants , trained and ordained by Word of Faith Protestants ... my credientials ... as Paul said I was / am a Pharisee ( believe in angels and the resurrection) by my training by Gamaliel ( Acts 5 ) , but I count all that I learned that is contrary to the teachings of "the way" as so much fertilizer ...

 

[Concetta]

6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.


Could it be that Paul was a Pharisee by being the son of a Pharisee? Heritage?

 

[Epiphoskei]

Pharisee wasn't a club that you got initated in, it was a kind of teaching. You became one by being taught by one. You can't get that teaching "undone"... though views change, the fact that you were at one time taught somthing doesn't change.

That and paul never used the term pharisee unless he was trying to instigate somthing, like a riot in the sanheidren. I don't think it affected his convictions.