Print

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(damam @ Apr 3 2006, 12:23 PM)

Perhaps you are talking about Matthew 15:10-20?
I guess you could argue that this is proof he was a proponent of eating unclean food.  But that certainlyis not my oppinion of this scripture.  And there is definitely nothing here about him praying over pork and then rebuking his apostles for refusting to eat it.

claim #2
I dont recall the story but if it is true that would not necessarily change anything since he was a helenistic jew.  He might have even been an official citizen of rome but I doubt it.
Either he was a convert and that would make him a liar or he was a full fledged jew.  

@ DAMAN:

Perhaps you can also explain to me why Saul/Paul (who you claim was a religous JEW at birth), assisted in the deaths of several ethnic and religous JEWS even the prophet Stephen?

Was he a JEW when he was helping the gentiles stone JEWS.

I have seen history channel documentaries that attempt to connect HITLER with religous jewish family/upbringing. (The Irony)

One More Question: How does any revelation about Saul affect the the (your) Christian face since it is the blood of the lamb that grants salvation.

[throwingks]

QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 3 2006, 05:02 PM)

Was he a JEW when he was helping the gentiles stone JEWS.

I have seen history channel documentaries that attempt to connect HITLER with religous jewish family/upbringing. (The Irony)

That is referring to the race Jew not religious Jew. We already established when we mention Jew in this thread, we meant religion. Hitlers mother was half-jewish "if that is possible, in the religious sense." That doesn't mean he can't hate Jews, and blame them for the world's problems. I know self-hating black people. Does that not mean they are black anymore? Hell, that fits Bobby Fischer's profile as well. But, he is not Jewish anymore (the religion).

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Apr 3 2006, 07:13 PM)

That is referring to the race Jew not religious Jew. We already established when we mention Jew in this thread, we meant religion. Hitlers mother was half-jewish "if that is possible, in the religious sense." That doesn't mean he can't hate Jews, and blame them for the world's problems. I know self-hating black people. Does that not mean they are black anymore? Hell, that fits Bobby Fischer's profile as well. But, he is not Jewish anymore (the religion).

Thank You DAMAN..........

[damam]

QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 3 2006, 01:02 PM)

@ DAMAN:

Perhaps you can also explain to me why Saul/Paul (who you claim was a religous JEW at birth), assisted in the deaths of several ethnic and religous JEWS even the prophet Stephen?

Was he a JEW when he was helping the gentiles stone JEWS.

I dont have much time to respond so ill make it fast . . .

First, stoning was a common jewish practice for breaking the law.  It involved the stoning jews.  Saul showing up at a good old fashion stoning would not necessarly have been out of the question.  jews usually stoned jews, but occasionaly gentiles joined in.  In the case of a stoning conviction given by the sanhedrin, an official of the sanhedrin would be present to ensure the rules of stoning were adhered too (ie announce the convected crime, right sized stones, no women stoners, etc).

Second, Saul studied under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) who was the who was the grand poopah of the Sanhedrin (the high court of Judea).  It has been surmised that since he studied under Gamaliel, he was also a part of the Sanhedrin or at the very least filled some sort of official role.  Stephen, in Acts 7, was speaking to the Sanhedrin.  So he was likely to have been there when Stephen spoke.  He was also likely to have been one of the members of the sanhedrin that took stephen out of the city and stoned him thus explaining his presence.  Note that he had not converted at this point.

Third, as a worker of the Sanhedrin one of his job would have been over seeing stonings as well as arresting people for heresey.  The passage to which your alluding too (Acts 7:58) could have had him there as an official representative for the Sanhidrin.  We also know that he prosecuted many christians and in order to do so he would have to have had the authority of the sanhedrin to do it since they were still a jewish sect at this point in the eyes of the romans.(Acts 8:1-3).  

QUOTE

One More Question: How does any revelation about Saul affect the the (your) Christian face since it is the blood of the lamb that grants salvation.

it doesnt.  as i stated the claim #2 is trivial to me.  Paul being a gentile would make absolutely no difference to me.  

The reason why christ's apostles breaking the sabath to eat wheat grain is so controversial is because in order to be christ he had to have lived his life on earth by the laws and traditions.  Its the closest example of him breaking that because he basically allowed them to do it.  So when you suggest that he ate pork . . . well that would be incredibly controversial to say the least.

[jha'dhur]

QUOTE(damam @ Apr 4 2006, 05:59 PM)

I dont have much time to respond so ill make it fast . . .

First, stoning was a common jewish practice for breaking the law.  It involved the stoning jews.  Saul showing up at a good old fashion stoning would not necessarly have been out of the question.  jews usually stoned jews, but occasionaly gentiles joined in.  In the case of a stoning conviction given by the sanhedrin, an official of the sanhedrin would be present to ensure the rules of stoning were adhered too (ie announce the convected crime, right sized stones, no women stoners, etc).

Second, Saul studied under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) who was the who was the grand poopah of the Sanhedrin (the high court of Judea).  It has been surmised that since he studied under Gamaliel, he was also a part of the Sanhedrin or at the very least filled some sort of official role.  Stephen, in Acts 7, was speaking to the Sanhedrin.  So he was likely to have been there when Stephen spoke.  He was also likely to have been one of the members of the sanhedrin that took stephen out of the city and stoned him thus explaining his presence.  Note that he had not converted at this point.

Third, as a worker of the Sanhedrin one of his job would have been over seeing stonings as well as arresting people for heresey.  The passage to which your alluding too (Acts 7:58) could have had him there as an official representative for the Sanhidrin.  We also know that he prosecuted many christians and in order to do so he would have to have had the authority of the sanhedrin to do it since they were still a jewish sect at this point in the eyes of the romans.(Acts 8:1-3).  
it doesnt.  as i stated the claim #2 is trivial to me.  Paul being a gentile would make absolutely no difference to me.  

The reason why christ's apostles breaking the sabath to eat wheat grain is so controversial is because in order to be christ he had to have lived his life on earth by the laws and traditions.  Its the closest example of him breaking that because he basically allowed them to do it.  So when you suggest that he ate pork . . . well that would be incredibly controversial to say the least.

You seem to be insinusting that because he had a proffessor, that practiced Judaism that makes him a religous JEW.

Was this before or after his conversion from Saul to Paul. The whole "convert" thing implies a transition would you agree?  

[damam]

QUOTE(jha'dhur @ Apr 4 2006, 01:56 PM)

You seem to be insinusting that because he had a proffessor, that practiced Judaism that makes him a religous JEW.

Was this before or after his conversion from Saul to Paul. The whole "convert" thing implies a transition would you agree?

i dont want to get into the Sanhedrin to much.  Suffice it to say they had some very odd and horrible laws and view points.  Simply put they did not hire non-jews, it was there belief that everything the sanhedrin did was g-ds work and to do so would have been tainting it.  Dont believe me research the Sanhedrin and view point on gentiles.

Paul comes to christ in Acts 9:1-19.  Acts 13:9 is when saul becomes paul (atleast its the first time we the reader are made aware of it).  He had at this point left the sanhedrin.  Interstingly, Paul never discusses or explains his name change, its luke that does it, and he never really goes into detail as to the why either.  But the name change occurs well after he comes to christ and only starts appearing when he starts apostylitizing to the gentiles.  This has actually been suggested as a reason for the name change.  1 Timothy 2:7 states that g-d told him to teach the gentiles.  Saul ( Sha’ul pronounced shaw-ool ) could have changed his name to something easier to pronounce for the gentiles or a gentile equivaelent of his name for greater acceptance.  Another suggestion is that it marked a new chapter in his life as your suggesting.  We just dont really know.