Who taught Christianity to Paul?

[outhouse]

Paul may build himself up, but he also tears himself down.

.
.

We see it depends on his audience entirely.

He does chaneg his direction in ethos, depending on on who he is trying to pursuade and what his end request is through logos.

 

[outhouse]

There is reason to believe he was a Pharisee though. If he wanted to lie about his past, why choose to label himself a Pharisee? It doesn't really build him up. Claiming to be a Sadducee would have built him up much more. That, and later on, Pharisees, from a Christian perspective, were seen very negatively.


.

he Saducees were hated more then the Pharisees.

Not only that Pharisees were multi cultural and had many internal disagreements and many different aspects that were lamost different sects within.

Some were said to mirror the Zealots in many ways. So in the end, not all Pharisees were hated, and they were not hated as much as the Saducees. Some of the Pharisees sects would not have been enemy to the movement.

 

[outhouse]

So you think that Paul persecuted Christians in foreign cities? If so, who hired him to do that, and what authority did they have in foreign cities?

Yes in foreign places. The movement completely failed in Judaism with Jesus death.


Its why the movement did no exist in any shape or form in Galilee after his death.


It only grew in Helleistic society, so that is where Paul had to hunt.


We dont know under what authority.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

We dont know under what authority.

Doesn't the NT claim that it was by the authority of some high church council in Jerusalem?

I don't think he persecuted Christians at all myself. I'm guessing he just made that part up to help sell his theology. I've heard the technique used so often:

I was once the worst of all sinners, but the Holy Spirit came to me and turned me completely around!

It's standard stuff at Christian tent revivals.

 

[outhouse]

Doesn't the NT claim that it was by the authority of some high church council in Jerusalem?

I don't think he persecuted Christians at all myself. I'm guessing he just made that part up to help sell his theology. I've heard the technique used so often:

I was once the worst of all sinners, but the Holy Spirit came to me and turned me completely around!

It's standard stuff at Christian tent revivals.

No high church councils existed then.

They were still working out of houses. pater familias

 

[Ingledsva]

Hi Ingledsva, NO, Paul was saying that ADAM was a "type" or "figure" of the coming One. Why are you trying to change what he said? Now, I am going to give you a hint. The FIRST sentence of verse 15 states absolutely HOW Adam was a "type" or "figure" of Messiah. Doesn't that make sense, that he makes a claim in one sentence and then the next sentence he clarifies that claim? KB

AGAIN - pure bull. Fifteen is back to contrasting Adam and Messiah. MOSES is the type.


ROMANS 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.


Are you really going to argue with your own Bible, which says Moses is the type of the coming Messiah? LOL!


It says GOD said that!


Decided to add even more -


Here is another verse telling you the same thing.


Act 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.


And this –


John 5:46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me (JESUS), for he (MOSES)wrote about Me (JESUS).”


And here is a page for you –


http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Like_Moses/like_moses.html




*

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No high church councils existed then.

They were still working out of houses. pater familias

I meant high Jewish council of course. You don't think anyone or any group was behind Saul's persecution of the new sect?

 

[outhouse]

I meant high Jewish council of course. You don't think anyone or any group was behind Saul's persecution of the new sect?

Saducees would have been deeply against anyone trying to imitate Jesus teachings.


We have a rebel trying to incite a riot at Passover, while they made a example of Jesus as for what "not to do" the Hellenistic followers were willing to die and become martyrs for the cause. This would have made them dangerous to temple authorities. Which would have also had Roman endorsement to hunt them down and stop potential threats to the money flow in the temple.

Whats funny is because the movement went FULLY Hellenistic, it became tame and the opposite of th eZealots that started the movement .

And the Galilean trouble makers and other Zealots ended up taking the temple out a few decades later. They targeted the wrong group.

Of course the Zealots were probably to large to deal with, without a full blown civil war which also woud have stopped all cash flow. So going after a widespread small sect all through the Diaspora made sense I guess.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Saducees would have been deeply against anyone trying to imitate Jesus teachings.

We have a rebel trying to incite a riot at Passover, while they made a example of Jesus as for what "not to do" the Hellenistic followers were willing to die and become martyrs for the cause. This would have made them dangerous to temple authorities. Which would have also had Roman endorsement to hunt them down and stop potential threats to the money flow in the temple.

So you think that Rome authorized Paul to persecute (and arrest) Christians in foreign cities? In 35 CE?

 

[outhouse]

So you think that Rome authorized Paul to persecute (and arrest) Christians in foreign cities? In 35 CE?

I dont know about that early.

I dont know that Romans authorized him as much as turned their backs to the Saducees orders.

Rmans worked hand in hand in the runnng of the temple, Romans placed Caiaphas in power.

I think Romans would have been happy not to have had to get involved.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I dont know about that early.

I dont know that Romans authorized him as much as turned their backs to the Saducees orders.

Rmans worked hand in hand in the runnng of the temple, Romans placed Caiaphas in power.

I think Romans would have been happy not to have had to get involved.

But the Jerusalem Jewish council had no authority to arrest people in foreign cities, did it? I understand that was Paul's mission, so I'm curious who gave him the authority to do that.

 

[Ken Brown]

AGAIN - pure bull. Fifteen is back to contrasting Adam and Messiah. MOSES is the type.


ROMANS 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.


Are you really going to argue with your own Bible, which says Moses is the type of the coming Messiah? LOL!

It says GOD said that!

Decided to add even more -

Here is another verse telling you the same thing.

Act 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

And this –

John 5:46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me (JESUS), for he (MOSES)wrote about Me (JESUS).”

And here is a page for you -

Yeshua - the Prophet Like Moses*

Hi Ingledsva, well, if you understand Paul, then explain what he meant here:

"But not as the offence, so also is the free gift."

KB

 

[Ken Brown]

Expert? you want me to raise the discussion here up a few levels when you cannot even grasp reality at lower levels?

Did Paul write using rhetoric?

Aristotle influenced Paul in his education?

Did he use different ethos for each community?

Did he use different levels of pathos?

Did he use logos as a tool?

Which mode did he use, Judicial, deliberate or epideictic the best?

When ignorance uses only a literal interpretation, all these become jumbled together and the reader is unable to process the proper context in which Paul was trained to write.

Hi outhouse, no, I just want you to explain how the writer of Romans 5:14 considered Adam to be a "type" or "figure" of the coming One. Now if that takes you bringing in one of your "experts," then so be it. KB

 

[outhouse]

But the Jerusalem Jewish council had no authority to arrest people in foreign cities, did it?.

Dude they were the Nazis of the Levant! ya man they took out whole Roman legions with a single cross


Your taking a dive with that reply.

 

[outhouse]

I understand that was Paul's mission, so I'm curious who gave him the authority to do that.

I explained it pretty clear.

 

[outhouse]

Hi outhouse, no, I just want you to explain how the writer of Romans 5:14 considered Adam to be a "type" or "figure" of the coming One. Now if that takes you bringing in one of your "experts," then so be it. KB

He wasn't claiming adam a type or figure of the coming one.

Its your own interpretation most here find as nonsense.


Your not holding some magic secret here, you have a opinion. People started debating adams relationship some 900 years after Jesus death. Its just another perversion of something they didn't understand.

 

[Ingledsva]

AGAIN - pure bull. Fifteen is back to contrasting Adam and Messiah. MOSES is the type.


ROMANS 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.


Are you really going to argue with your own Bible, which says Moses is the type of the coming Messiah? LOL!

It says GOD said that!

Decided to add even more -

Here is another verse telling you the same thing.

Act 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

And this –

John 5:46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me (JESUS), for he (MOSES)wrote about Me (JESUS).”

And here is a page for you -

Yeshua - the Prophet Like Moses

Hi Ingledsva, well, if you understand Paul, then explain what he meant here:

"But not as the offence, so also is the free gift."

KB

AGAIN - MOSES is the "type," they are CONTRASTING Adam and Jesus - sin, and life.

This is made very plain, when read together, - and for you the next few lines -


Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.


THAT IS CALLED CONTRASTING!!! SHOWING HOW THEY ARE DIFFERENT, - NOT HOW THEY ARE THE SAME "TYPE!"


Adam the sinner is NOT a type of Messiah, Moses given the law IS a type of the Messiah, - AS IT STATES!


Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

"De 18:15-19. Christ the Prophet Is to Be Heard.

15-19. The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet—The insertion of this promise, in connection with the preceding prohibition, might warrant the application (which some make of it) to that order of true prophets whom God commissioned in unbroken succession to instruct, to direct, and warn His people; and in this view the purport of it is, "There is no need to consult with diviners and soothsayers, as I shall afford you the benefit of divinely appointed prophets, for judging of whose credentials a sure criterion is given" (De 18:20-22). But the prophet here promised was pre-eminently the Messiah, for He alone was "like unto Moses" (see on [156]De 34:10) "in His mediatorial character; in the peculiar excellence of His ministry; in the number, variety, and magnitude of His miracles; in His close and familiar communion with God; and in His being the author of a new dispensation of religion." This prediction was fulfilled fifteen hundred years afterwards and was expressly applied to Jesus Christ by Peter (Ac 3:22, 23), and by Stephen (Ac 7:37)."


*

 

[Ingledsva]

Hi Ingledsva, well, if you understand Paul, then explain what he meant here:

"But not as the offence, so also is the free gift."

KB

Decided to try one more time with you – even though I’m not sure you will understand.


Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Rom 5:13 (For until the law, sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam, to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


OK – These first three tell us Adam’s sin caused a penalty over even those whom have not done any great sin SIMILAR to Adam’s transgression. That “similitude” refers to the sin.


Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.


The one you asked about “But not as the offence, so also is the free gift.” Is telling us that just as Adam’s sin was “even over them that had not sinned” - in contrast, - so also Messiah’s Gift would be even over those whom don’t deserve it, because they are sinners.


Rom 5:15 actually says something more like –


Rom 5:15 Contrariwise, but yet in the manner of the offence; in this manner, through the gift therefore of the one, though the offence of the many is death, far more the grace of God, and the gift of one man, Iesous Christos, onto the many in superabundance.


Which is proved by the wording in Rom 5:16.


Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.


*

 

[Ken Brown]

He wasn't claiming adam a type or figure of the coming one.

Its your own interpretation most here find as nonsense.

Your not holding some magic secret here, you have a opinion. People started debating adams relationship some 900 years after Jesus death. Its just another perversion of something they didn't understand.

Hi outhouse, no, you are in error, the writer of Romans 5:14 states explicitly that Adam is a "type" of the coming One:

Rom 5:14 (KJV) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Rom 5:14 (NAS) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

For you to understand how Adam was a "type" or "figure" of the coming One, it requires that the next sentence be translated properly, and this is why I have been pushing you to bring in an expert. KB

 

[Ken Brown]

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam, to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Hi Ingledsva, no, it wasn't Moses whom the writer of Romans 5:14 was comparing to Messiah. Would you disagree with the view of Jamison-Fausset-Brown?

Jamison-Fausset-Brown Commentary:

The simple meaning is, as nearly all interpreters agree, that Adam is a type of Him who was to come after him in the same public character, and so to be "the second Adam").

Now, I will disagree with these vaulted commentators as to their explanation of HOW Adam is a type of Him who was to come, but to WHO they say the coming One was patterned from, I would be in total agreement, just like nearly all interpreters agree, that Adam is a type of Him who was to come.

Ingledsva, are you so bold as to disagree with nearly ALL interpreters? You are becoming like me, aren't you? KB