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

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 ]

 

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)

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

 

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.

[ July 09, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Dan Todd ]