What did Saul know, & when did he know it??

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by kcd, Jun 6, 2004.

  1. kcd

    kcd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    One can make a mistake when reading history by assuming the participants had more knowledge of the situation then they actually did at that point in time. For example:

    Why did Saul persecute the Jewish believers in and @ Jerusalem? If you answer, “Because believers who trusted Christ for salvation abandoned the Jewish law,” can you support that from scripture? Had the 12 & their converts dropped observance of the law, & started another religion, do you think they would have been allowed into the temple (Acts 2 thru 21)?

    Isn’t it true the reason why Israel’s leaders persecuted the 12 & their converts was because they knew such preaching was putting the blame for Messiah’s death rightly on them, & not because the 12 & company were starting a new religion (Acts 4:1-3; v13-18; 5:17-28)??

    You ever consider yourself a devout law abiding Jew who has just heard Peter (Acts 2:22-38)? Do you realize what he is asking you to believe? Yes, Israel ignorantly crucified their Messiah, but that’s not all (Deut 21:22-23; Josh 8:29). Isn’t Peter is asking you disregard those scriptures & believe him? Yes, there are no scriptures stating that verbatim, but doesn’t Saul’s extreme reaction (Acts 26:9-12) to those who believed the 12 prove that was his reason for persecution?

    Wasn’t Saul the son of a Pharisee, who learned the scriptures from Gamaliel (Acts 22:3-5), who had acclaim among the people (Acts 5:34)? Because of that training, couldn’t Paul rightly claim he was “a Hebrew of the Hebrews” (Phil 3:5-6)? So did Gamaliel teach students that when the Messiah came that He, who knew no sin, would die according to Deut 21:22-23; Josh 8:29 for Israel, in order that Israel might be made the righteousness of God? Isn’t it true the 12 knew nothing of Christ’s vicarious death then, seeing what they immediately preached to Israel (Acts 2:22-40; 3:12-26; 4:8-12)?

    Consequently isn’t Deut 21:22-23: Josh 8:29 the scriptural reasons why Paul could honestly write Timothy & state that though he wasted the church (Gal 1:13) he done it “ignorantly & in unbelief. “(1 Tim 1:13) for he had lived with a clear conscience before God all his life (Ac 23:1; 24:16)?

    (No content change in this edit - just trying to address a technical question for kcd)

    [ July 09, 2004, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Dan Todd ]
     
  2. Dan Todd

    Dan Todd
    Expand Collapse
    Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    14,452
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow - what a post for a first time poster. Welcome to the board.

    Many - like Paul - were/are so wrapped up in their "religion" that they see nothing else. Many of the religious leaders of that day - blindly following what they had been taught. Others understood exactly who Jesus claimed to be - because they ordered the guard for the tomb - stating that this fellow claimed that He would arise from the dead (the disciples missed that one).

    It took the 2x4 treatment for God to get Paul's attention. But when God got his attention - Paul became the greatest apologist for Christianity that has ever lived.

    Again - welcome to the board.
     
  3. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are psychological factors involved in a religous dispute that transcend the importance of the principles involved. Take a look at the KJV ONLY posts and the CALVANISM VS ARMENIANMISM posts and many others.

    If we were not "gentled" by our baptist heritage and the laws of the land, I do believe some of the brothers on this board would call for stoning some of the others.

    And a person under conviction of the Holy Spirit, before they respond appropriately, HOO BOY - WATCH OUT!
     
  4. MEE

    MEE
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/me3.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,271
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never thought of it as a "2x4 treatment" but I'm sure Saul got the message. [​IMG]

    I think Saul realized who the Lord Jesus was when He asked Saul a question:

    And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, (Acts 9:4) "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?"

    Now, keep in mind that Saul *knew* who the 'Lord' was, but never *knew* that Jesus was the 'Lord' that he was persecuting.

    In verse 5, Saul asked the question: "...Who art thou, Lord ?" And the Lord said, I am Jesus...

    To me, this is where Saul was converted and seen that the God of heaven was the "Lord Jesus Christ."

    MEE [​IMG]
     
  5. kcd

    kcd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dan, thanks for the welcome & I apologize for the broken post.

    Before trying to continue this chain of thought about Saul, any idea what went wrong?

    I tried several times to correct it after pasting but no success, it seems this board doesn’t provide word wrap?

    Paul, I looked into those boards & your point is well made.

    Learning - at least for a few - is an on going life process, but spiritual learning is for all & is an eternal process.

    Reckon some of the brethern will have mellowed in a couple hundred thousand millennium? (lol) ;)

    Please expand on your last statement as I don’t understand your point.

    Hi Mee, Saul’s conversion is paramount in Christianity, for it throughly destroys every other religion & atheist arguments if correctly presented.

    I learned this the hard way while dealing with an Ohio State prisoner, who was a member of the Assembly of Yawheh, basically a doctrinal combination of Seventh Day Adventist & Jehovah Witness.

    Hope to expand on Saul’s conversion if you all can get me up to speed on how to post to this board. (lol) [​IMG]

    [ July 09, 2004, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: Dan Todd ]
     
  6. frewtloop

    frewtloop
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I have picked up from some places the idea that Paul's conversion was a matter of serious concern, and a cause for condemnation, by the Jews who knew him best, particularly those on the Sanhedrin, and that this was one of the reasons, more so than his bold preaching, for his having to be let down over a wall in a basket. Would anyone know any more on that particular line of thinking?

    The Worm
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    You are correct that overall the Jewish Christians were not seen as breaking the law of God. But in the NT they are mentioned several times "as a sect" and the charge brought against Paul (that he vehemently denies in Acts 21, 22, 23 etc) is that he was teaching Jews to forsake the Law of God.

    Further - the Christian Jews were boldly saying that Jesus was THE CHRIST (THE Messiah) - something that Jesus did not allow His followers to say publically until the end because He knew that THIS is what would bring persecution from the Jews more than anything else.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  8. kcd

    kcd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Worm, no doubt, Paul’s defection was (as Martha would now say) “ not a good thing!”

    Israel was promised The Messiah, but the Old Testament prophets didn’t understand how a suffering Messiah could deliver of Israel or His glory that would follow, God chose not to reveal such to them then (1 Pet 1:11). Perhaps this is why (1 Cor 2:8).

    I’m trying to put Paul’s revelations (2 Cor 12:1; 1 Cor 14:37) into chronological order so that Christ’s doctrinal changes are understood when such were given to him, because the 12, minus Judas, & Paul were obviously not on the same page doctrinally, which the scriptures prove.

    While truth runs continually thru the Bible the fact remains that until its revelation it’s not known. And when revealed, that doesn’t suggest that saints understood what they were observing or what was read to them prior to its actual revelation (Ezra 8:3-8; Isa 53; Ps 22, etc).

    Most overlook the fact that Christ taught the 12 from the begining not to drop any portion of the law (Mt 5:19; 16:11-12; Mk 7:7-13), & erroneously interpret Paul’s revelations from Christ to have been in effect immediately when the Lord said; “It is finished.” Does scripture support such?

    Had Christ released the 12 from the law after Calvary, isn’t it reasonable to expect that at least one of them would have quoted such to those believing Pharisees (Acts 15:5)? Wouldn’t it been rather stupid & hypocritical, had they, & their converts, in fact been released & dropped their observance of the law, for those Pharisees to insist that the Galatians keep such?

    So had believers in and @ Jerusalem dropped observance to the law, preaching Christ only for salvation, do you think they would have been allowed into the temple in Acts chapters 2 thru 22)?

    Bob, Acts 13:38-39; 1 Cor 7:20; Gal 5:1-4; etc is what Paul preached / taught outside Israel. While Peter admits the yoke of the law was something neither they or their fathers could bear (Acts 15:10), there is no record of the 11 preaching / teaching what Paul had, or their telling their converts to drop any portion of the law. From Acts 21:18-26, is it not apparent that believers in and @ Jerusalem still observed the law, including the 11 since they were never so charged like Paul?

    Consequently, is that not the reason for the need of the Hebrews Epistle? Didn’t that Hebrews Epistle offically release them from the law? Is it not apparent from Deut 13:1-5 that was the reason God had to first reach Israel near & afar off with the gospel before He could conclude the nation in unbelief, & so set aside His covenant, promises, etc with them (Rom 11; Acts 8:25-29)?

    As for; “ the Christian Jews were boldly saying that Jesus was THE CHRIST (THE Messiah) - something that Jesus did not allow His followers to say publically until the end because He knew that THIS is what would bring persecution from the Jews more than anything else.”

    Wouldn’t Deut 21:22-23; Josh 8:29 been the scriptural reason for rejecting Jesus as The Christ? Isn’t that the dilemma the Jew faced when they heard Peter preach? Since he knew nothing [then] of Christ’s vicarious death, didn’t the Jew have to take it on faith & signs that the 12 were telling the truth?

    Don’t many still think the ten commandments are the law, when in fact such are just a part of the law? Is it not true that the law forbids the eating of pork, shrimp, catfish, etc.? Where did the 12 say this (1 Tim 4:3-4)? Could those early Acts believers opened up restaurants selling such & been allowed into the temple?

    That being true &, it is, Deut 13:1-5 being the case, would it not been impossible for the 12 to immediately dropped the law? Wouldn’t the nation of Israel, the covenants, promises, etc.to them have to be set aside first?

    Thanks, fellows. [​IMG]

    [ July 09, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Dan Todd ]
     
  9. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    I imagine that just one millennium will be enough to soften most of them!

    The last statement is a reference to an observed phenomenon that sometimes when someone in under the conviction of the spirit to do the right thing they will be especially obnoxious and antagonistic until they finally get to be right with God.
     
  10. Dan Todd

    Dan Todd
    Expand Collapse
    Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    14,452
    Likes Received:
    0
    I said:
    kcd said:
    Saul studied at the feet of Gamaliel - he should have been able to see the difference between the suffering Messiah and the ruling (reigning) Messiah. His missing Christ as Messiah was, in my opinion, for one of two reasons:

    1. He missed all the OT prophecies regarding the suffering Messiah,

    2. Wilful ignorance. My belief is that many of the religious leaders of Christ's day understood who Christ claimed to be. They wilfully said, "We will not have this man to reign over us!"

    Paul fit into one of those two categories - maybe both. God had a plan for Paul - and had to get his attention. And God did get Paul's attention - and Paul believed immediately - he didn't have to go and study out the facts!

    Hope this helps!
     

Share This Page

Loading...