Was Saul of Tarsus EVER.....

[ktn4eg]

....a member of the Sanhedrin?

Please cite specific Bible verses to support your position. (Since most all of us here in BB Land ask for such when questioning other BB Landers' basis of whatever doctrine or practice is being debated.)

Moreover, can any of you Talmudic scholars cite in the Talmud (or any other post OT Hebraric/Jewish writings where it specifically states (in no uncertain terms!) that being married is/was a requirement for membership in the Sanhedrin?








Please understand that I'm only asking these questions simply because, as a non-seminarian-trained, never-been-called-to-preach (much less been called to pastor a church), simple-minded lay person, I've been TOLD from many a Baptist pulpiteerer that, before he was called the Apostle Paul, Saul of Tarsus was indeed a member of the Sanhedrin; and, in order to be a member of it, an individual must have been married!!

I'm not questioning that possibility in the life of Saul of Tarsus, it's just that every preacher I've heard that said such has never provided me with SPECIFIC (i.e., "No-Doubt-About-It," "There-It-Is-In-Black-and-White," "Read-It-For-Yourself!") documentation to support such assertion(s) as these.

Thanks in advance for your level-headed-approach replies.

 

[Scarlett O.]

The Bible does not state whether or not Paul (Saul) was a member of the Sanhedrin.

Galatians 1:14 says that Paul was "advancing" in Judaism at an early age. But how far he advanced is not stated.

 

[WITBOTL]

Acts 22:3 says Paul was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel and "taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers..."

Acts 5:34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law among all the people...

by council is understood the Sanhedrin, Thayer says:
"the Sanhedrin, the great council at Jerusalem, consisting of the seventy one members, viz. scribes, elders, prominent members of the high priestly families and the high priest, the president of the assembly. "

So Paul was at least instructed by the Sanhedrin...

 

[ktn4eg]

Acts 22:3 says Paul was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel and "taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers..."

Acts 5:34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law among all the people...

by council is understood the Sanhedrin, Thayer says:
"the Sanhedrin, the great council at Jerusalem, consisting of the seventy one members, viz. scribes, elders, prominent members of the high priestly families and the high priest, the president of the assembly. "

So Paul was at least instructed by the Sanhedrin...

What precisely did the Sanhedrin instruct Saul of Tarsus to do?

















That's the point behind my question(s): Since (apparently) God's Word doesn't come right out in black and white and tell us, we can only SPECULATE.

Yet, I've heard plenty of pulpiteers rather boldy proclaim as actual fact a lot of things such as this. But, whenever I try to pin them down on their bold assertions, they angrily reply that (apparently) "I don't have time to answer such foolishness as this!!"















Silly me!! And here, all along, I was foolish enough to believe that if one is to occupy the pulpit, then one ought to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Tim. 2:15 [KJV]) What was I thinking?!!? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[ktn4eg]

Bumping this thread.

 

[ktn4eg]

Bumping this thread.

Bumping this thread again since apparently no one out there in BB land can provide me with absolute proof from the Word of God that Saul of Tarsus was, in fact, actually a member ("in good standing"[?]) of the Jewish sanhedrin.

 

[convicted1]

Well, I see it like this. Whenever the bible is silent concerning something, no one should speak. I don't think anyone could give more the speculation in regards to the OP's question.

 

[ktn4eg]

Well, I see it like this. Whenever the bible is silent concerning something, no one should speak. I don't think anyone could give more the speculation in regards to the OP's question.

My point exactly. To me, it's no sin to admit that "I just don't know for sure about .... (Fill in the blank)."

I have more respect for people whose ideas/positions/whatever don't always agree with mine, but yet have at least the integrity to admit there are some things that they can't be 100% adamant on as opposed to those whose statements give one the impression that he/she is THE SOLE REPOSITORY OF "THE TRUTH" about whatever it is where we may not entirely see things "eye to eye."

In many cases, I've come across LOST people that appear to have more integrity about them in this respect than some BAPTIST preachers!!!