PDA

View Full Version : Did Paul break the law in persecuting Christians?



rejoice44
Jan 18th 2013, 12:00 PM
What specific biblical law did Paul break? Was Paul within his rights as a practicing Jew to persecute Christians?

Redeemed by Grace
Jan 18th 2013, 01:10 PM
What specific biblical law did Paul break? Was Paul within his rights as a practicing Jew to persecute Christians?

Paul didn't persecute Christians. It was his pre-saved Saul that did, IMO. As Saul, though shall not kill would be one that quickly comes to mind.

Walls
Jan 18th 2013, 02:56 PM
What specific biblical law did Paul break? Was Paul within his rights as a practicing Jew to persecute Christians?

We must remember that except for a few exceptions, the first Christians were converted Jews in and around Jerusalem. The Law of Moses required that a Jew worship only God. But the Christians/Converted Jews were declaring Jesus to be both God and Messiah (who was predicted by the prophets to be Immanuel - that is, "God with us"). I believe that within the context of the Law of Moses, Paul's persecution of them was legal. What might be debatable was that not all those that he persecuted were put to death as the Law requires. Some were cast into prison - a retribution not foreseen by the Law of Moses.

Thomas Forward
Jan 18th 2013, 04:26 PM
We must remember that except for a few exceptions, the first Christians were converted Jews in and around Jerusalem. The Law of Moses required that a Jew worship only God. But the Christians/Converted Jews were declaring Jesus to be both God and Messiah (who was predicted by the prophets to be Immanuel - that is, "God with us"). I believe that within the context of the Law of Moses, Paul's persecution of them was legal. What might be debatable was that not all those that he persecuted were put to death as the Law requires. Some were cast into prison - a retribution not foreseen by the Law of Moses.

Yes. I think Walls nailed it on the head.


God bless.

rejoice44
Jan 18th 2013, 04:37 PM
Paul didn't persecute Christians. It was his pre-saved Saul that did, IMO. As Saul, though shall not kill would be one that quickly comes to mind.

To Paul the worship of Jesus was worshiping other Gods, was it not?


Deuteronomy 13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;


Deuteronomy 13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.


When you consider that the law said to take disobedient children and stone them, how could one fault Paul for persecuting those that worshiped a false God?

rejoice44
Jan 18th 2013, 04:45 PM
We must remember that except for a few exceptions, the first Christians were converted Jews in and around Jerusalem. The Law of Moses required that a Jew worship only God. But the Christians/Converted Jews were declaring Jesus to be both God and Messiah (who was predicted by the prophets to be Immanuel - that is, "God with us"). I believe that within the context of the Law of Moses, Paul's persecution of them was legal. What might be debatable was that not all those that he persecuted were put to death as the Law requires. Some were cast into prison - a retribution not foreseen by the Law of Moses.

Didn't the law require that they be examined first and witnesses brought forth? Paul was not an authority unto himself. Paul went through the Sanhedrin. In the case of Stephen the witnesses were there, but the others, that Paul went into their houses to gather, they could not be stoned without the testimony of witnesses.

teddyv
Jan 18th 2013, 05:56 PM
What might be debatable was that not all those that he persecuted were put to death as the Law requires. Some were cast into prison - a retribution not foreseen by the Law of Moses.This is likely due to the Roman occupation. I understand that only the Romans were allowed to execute people.

ClayInHisHands
Jan 18th 2013, 06:39 PM
Saul/Paul was wrong 100%. Those who didn't believe Jesus, whether their unbelief was deliberate(willful pride, etc.) or out of ignorance, they were sinning. Saul/Paul was not in any way shape or form justified in his actions. I believe he repented without one utterance of the words "but" or "but I thought."

What would be the difference between Paul's justification towards his judgment of Christians as opposed to the Jews of today? I believe the answer is...nothing.

rejoice44
Jan 18th 2013, 07:05 PM
Saul/Paul was wrong 100%. Those who didn't believe Jesus, whether their unbelief was deliberate(willful pride, etc.) or out of ignorance, they were sinning. Saul/Paul was not in any way shape or form justified in his actions. I believe he repented without one utterance of the words "but" or "but I thought."

But this doesn't answer what Levitical law Saul/Paul broke.


What would be the difference between Paul's justification towards his judgment of Christians as opposed to the Jews of today? I believe the answer is...nothing.

The Jews have two thousand years of Christian testimony. They have everything dated to the birth of the Messiah. They have nearly two thousand years without a priest or temple. They have not been able to make atonement for their sins in all that time. What evidence did Paul have?

ClayInHisHands
Jan 18th 2013, 07:15 PM
But this doesn't answer what Levitical law Saul/Paul broke.

I'm not really sure at this moment how to answer exactly.




The Jews have two thousand years of Christian testimony. They have everything dated to the birth of the Messiah. They have nearly two thousand years without a priest or temple. They have not been able to make atonement for their sins in all that time. What evidence did Paul have?

Are you suggesting that those Jews who didn't except Christ in Pauls time, when they died still denying Christ, that they will indeed enter in God's rest and live eternally? Not implying you are, but I know a lot of people say, we don't know, but I beg to differ. If someone willing denies Christ and then dies...they are not saved. Doesn't mean we are trying to be God, but if we can't say this at all, then how can warn anyone?

rejoice44
Jan 18th 2013, 07:24 PM
I'm not really sure at this moment how to answer exactly.




Are you suggesting that those Jews who didn't except Christ in Pauls time, when they died still denying Christ, that they will indeed enter in God's rest and live eternally? Not implying you are, but I know a lot of people say, we don't know, but I beg to differ. If someone willing denies Christ and then dies...they are not saved. Doesn't mean we are trying to be God, but if we can't say this at all, then how can warn anyone?

The short answer to your question is no. I don't believe they will enter God's rest.

Walls
Jan 18th 2013, 07:35 PM
I'm not really sure at this moment how to answer exactly.

Within the context of the Original Posting, Paul was acting Lawfully. The comment about Roman occupation, and the Jews getting permission to kill offenders of their Law, was a good one. It goes to show how far Israel had fallen under foreign rule (one of the curses of Deuteronomy Chapter 28). They had to get men's permission to execute God's Law.


Are you suggesting that those Jews who didn't except Christ in Pauls time, when they died still denying Christ, that they will indeed enter in God's rest and live eternally? Not implying you are, but I know a lot of people say, we don't know, but I beg to differ. If someone willing denies Christ and then dies...they are not saved. Doesn't mean we are trying to be God, but if we can't say this at all, then how can warn anyone?

You are correct in all you say, except that the original posting restricted answers to matters of Law. The issue of the Jews' future after rejecting their Messiah is thoroughly thrashed out in some other threads (not to some poster's satisfaction I know).

ClayInHisHands
Jan 18th 2013, 07:59 PM
The short answer to your question is no. I don't believe they will enter God's rest.

Thanks for clarifying.

ClayInHisHands
Jan 18th 2013, 08:04 PM
Within the context of the Original Posting, Paul was acting Lawfully.

But according to God, Paul was sinning completely, correct?


The comment about Roman occupation, and the Jews getting permission to kill offenders of their Law, was a good one. It goes to show how far Israel had fallen under foreign rule (one of the curses of Deuteronomy Chapter 28). They had to get men's permission to execute God's Law. You are correct in all you say, except that the original posting restricted answers to matters of Law. The issue of the Jews' future after rejecting their Messiah is thoroughly thrashed out in some other threads (not to some poster's satisfaction I know).

They too were sinning, correct? In this case, the crucifying of Jesus.

chad
Jan 18th 2013, 09:46 PM
Paul himself admits he was a blashphmer, persecutor and a violent man. He persecuted the Christians out of ignorance and unbelief. He considered his actions sinful and called himself - the worst of sinners (1 Tim 1:12-17). Ironically, Paul himself was persecuted by the Jews, who also persecuted Christ Jesus, so in a way he could understand their thinking and ignorance, for he himself acted this way.

rejoice44
Jan 18th 2013, 10:55 PM
Paul himself admits he was a blashphmer, persecutor and a violent man. He persecuted the Christians out of ignorance and unbelief. He considered his actions sinful and called himself - the worst of sinners (1 Tim 1:12-17). Ironically, Paul himself was persecuted by the Jews, who also persecuted Christ Jesus, so in a way he could understand their thinking and ignorance, for he himself acted this way.


Didn't Paul say in Plippians 3:6 that he was blameless in the righteousness of the law regarding persecuting Christians?

Consider the good Paul achieved in peresecuting the Christians. He separated the true Christians from the pretenders. He expanded the Christian church by dispersing the Christians from Jerusalem. Those Christians that were killed got to go home early. God used Paul's ignorance for good.

Walls
Jan 19th 2013, 08:05 AM
But according to God, Paul was sinning completely, correct?



They too were sinning, correct? In this case, the crucifying of Jesus.

Yes. No doubt that they were sinning, but that was not the question posed in the original posting. Let me give an example. In the Covenant of Law of Sinai many offenses were punishable by death. Let us take the example of fornication and fornication with those of a foreign nation. Israel did this in Numbers Chapter 25 and a certain Phineas took up his javelin and killed both Israelite and Midianitess with one thrust. God richly rewards Phineas and his offspring for this. But if you went into Brooklyn, New York, where, if you could see all things, no doubt you will find a Jew fornicating with a member of the the nations, and you grabbed your .357 magnum and shot them both, God would be totally unimpressed. Why?

Because you are not under the Law of Sinai. Your commandment from the Lord in the new economy of God is to fellowship with fornicators of the nations for the gospel's sake (1st Cor.5:10). So too the question at hand. The question was not, "is it right to persecute Christians?" The question was, did Paul (a Jew under Law) break any Law in doing so. If he did, all you have to do is (1) show which Law he broke, and (2) why the Law concerning worshiping a man as God, had suddenly become invalid to the Jew.

Slug1
Jan 19th 2013, 04:03 PM
Paul didn't persecute Christians. It was his pre-saved Saul that did, IMO. As Saul, though shall not kill would be one that quickly comes to mind.Killing is not a sin. Murder is! So did Saul kill or murder, all in the name of God, due to his beliefs through "The Law" at the time he was Saul?

So we have to look at whether it was "wrong or sinful" to kill Christians, based on "The Law".

Either way... he was forgiven.

ClayInHisHands
Jan 19th 2013, 10:35 PM
I understand what the Original Poster was asking. But the fact that there is dialogue that is considering that Paul was possibly okay "according to the law" is crazy. These kinds of debates are, I believe, what confuses unbelievers and even believers, and may cause them to scratch their heads.

ClayInHisHands
Jan 19th 2013, 10:40 PM
Killing is not a sin. Murder is! So did Saul kill or murder, all in the name of God, due to his beliefs through "The Law" at the time he was Saul?

So we have to look at whether it was [COLOR="#FF0000"]"wrong or sinful"[/COLOR="#FF0000"] to kill Christians, based on "The Law".

Is there a difference between "wrong and sinful"? Can you give me an example.


Either way... he was forgiven.

If he wasn't wrong according to the law then why would God forgive him? Forgive him for what?



Not trying to be rude Ken. I'm just trying to understand what the reasoning is behind your comments.

rejoice44
Jan 19th 2013, 11:56 PM
I understand what the Original Poster was asking. But the fact that there is dialogue that is considering that Paul was possibly okay "according to the law" is crazy. These kinds of debates are, I believe, what confuses unbelievers and even believers, and may cause them to scratch their heads.

Where is the debate? The question is what Law did Paul break? How can there be harm in examining the scripture. Paul himself, when speaking of Israel said, "My hearts desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but without knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." (Romans 10:1-3)

Wasn't this Paul's sin, that he didn't submit himself to God's righteousness? How did God perceive Paul's actions of persecuting the Christians? Paul did this in his zeal for God. If you need to find a law Paul broke it would be his unbelief in the record of God's son. (1 John 5:10) It was the sin of Moses when he struck the Rock twice. Moses did not believe God when God told him to speak to the Rock. The Old Testament is the record of God's son. Joel 2:27-32, and in Micah 5:2, and in Isaiah chapter 53, and throughout the Old Testament, starting with the tree of life.

Paul's problem was that he was without knowledge. It was not God's fault that Paul was without knowledge, but rather it was in the fact of Paul's zeal for God, that there was pride in his own righteousness. Paul was blinded by his own righteousness, and he could not see the righteousness of God, which is found in Christ Jesus.

I could even hear God say to Satan about Paul, have you considered my servant Saul, a perfect an upright man. (Blameless in the righteousness of the law) Do you consider that there was nothing in the law that Saul/Paul did not try to keep to perfection. Who else was there in Paul's day, that had a zeal of the law like Paul had? We see that same zeal used to promote Christ after Paul's conversion. Surely there was no servant greater than Paul to be observed in the New Testament, though Steven and Philip seemed to be on a par with Paul.

You cannot know God without God drawing you to him. But God only draws those of a meek and contrite spirit, and of a repentant heart. God drew Paul to him by blinding him so that he might see. When God brings strife into your life you can do one of two things. You can harden you heart as Pharaoh, or you can repent as Job.

I asked the question, what law did Paul break when he persecuted Christians because of a bible study on sin, and wondered what others thought. And I am still wondering what others might think.

Slug1
Jan 20th 2013, 03:02 AM
Is there a difference between "wrong and sinful"? Can you give me an example. Wrong OR sinful is what I said.

OK... based on the Law, an adulterer was stoned to death. That means she was "killed" for the act of committing adultery. Under the "Law" this killing of an adulterer was neither wrong nor sinful.

Now... if a person decided to kill another and stoned them to death, this was wrong due to the act of murdering.


If he wasn't wrong according to the law then why would God forgive him? Forgive him for what?Because the "Law" ended even though many Jews refused this fact.

Check out this scripture: Acts 9:1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest Based on scripture, Saul wasn't just "killing" anymore, he was committing murder, which is a sin.


Not trying to be rude Ken. I'm just trying to understand what the reasoning is behind your comments.Hooah, thus the reason for your questions... no problem at all :)

Walls
Jan 20th 2013, 08:20 AM
I understand what the Original Poster was asking. But the fact that there is dialogue that is considering that Paul was possibly okay "according to the law" is crazy. These kinds of debates are, I believe, what confuses unbelievers and even believers, and may cause them to scratch their heads.

On the one hand you are right. At first glance it is a mundane subject with no bearing on our Christian life. But there is a more important issue hidden in it and which seems to be coming out. Up until now, no one is able to prove from the Law if Paul was correct or not ACCORDING TO THE LAW. And what has come out in this matter is that although we Christians know that the Law is nailed to the cross with Christ, the question is, to what extent did God still hold Jews to the Law? After 70 AD the matter is clear. God allowed the Temple to be destroyed and Jews to be dispersed. Jerusalem and the Temple are central to the Law so the Law was unachievable to even the most devout Jew after 70 AD. But as Paul persecuted the converted Jews in and around Israel, and having admitted ignorance in the matter of Jesus' disciples, the Temple and Jerusalem were still standing, and the Feasts and the Law were still in full swing. Nobody from God had told the Jews that the Law was passing away. Even our Lord Jesus had kept it perfectly. So to judge Paul according to the Law, as the original poster requested, would necessitate a debate on (a) was the Law still valid for an unsuspecting Jew, and (2) what law did Paul break? This is even more pertinent when we consider that that New Covenant with Israel is also one of Law, and all indications are that the Law of the New Covenant is identical to the Old. It is just the Covenant that is replaced, and its ratification in Jesus' blood, not in that of bulls and goats.

The reason I say a more important issue might be hidden in this matter is that even today, with no Temple, there are Christians who are striving to keep the Law, as we have witnessed on this Forum in the past months even. Now that is no mundane subject because the language of Galatians in this matter is harsh and condemning. It is obvious that the Holy Spirit is not gentle in this matter. If the thread could thrash out (a) whether an unsuspecting (uninformed) Jew of say 40 AD was still subject to the Law or not, and (b) what Laws were broken in the persecution of the Christian, it might go a long way to establishing whether the Law is still valid today.

I don't have high hopes for this, but maybe....

TheDivineWatermark
Jan 20th 2013, 08:33 AM
This is even more pertinent when we consider that that New Covenant with Israel is also one of Law...


I agree with this.



The reason I say a more important issue might be hidden in this matter is that even today, with no Temple, there are Christians who are striving to keep the Law [...] Now that is no mundane subject because the language of Galatians in this matter is harsh and condemning.

Very excellent point.

rejoice44
Jan 20th 2013, 01:25 PM
---Check out this scripture: Acts 9:1 Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest Based on scripture, Saul wasn't just "killing" anymore, he was committing murder, which is a sin.--

Not wanting to get into a debate over translations, but both the ERV and the ASV have "slaughter" in lieu of "murder".

One only has to turn to the Old Testament to see that a word, "harag", that is translated murderer in several places also is applied to God. It can be argued that Acts 9:1 does not necessarily mean Paul was a murderer.

Slug1
Jan 20th 2013, 07:47 PM
One only has to turn to the Old Testament to see that a word, "harag", that is translated murderer in several places also is applied to God. It can be argued that Acts 9:1 does not necessarily mean Paul was a murderer.Which ones so I can view the context of these OT scriptures?

In the case of the Acts 9:1 scripture, the word is:



phonos: a murder
Original Word: φόνος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: phonos
Phonetic Spelling: (fon'-os)
Short Definition: murder, slaughter
Definition: murder, slaughter, killing.

Cognate: 5408 phónos – murder (intentional, unjustified homicide). See 5407 (phoneuō).
copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc.


STRONGS NT 5408: φόνος

φόνος, φόνου, ὁ (ΦΑΝΩ; cf. φόβος, at the beginning), from Homer down, murder, slaughter: Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19, 25; Acts 9:1; Romans 1:29; ἐν φόνῳ μαχαίρας, Hebrews 11:37 (Exodus 17:13; Numbers 21:24; Deuteronomy 13:15; Deuteronomy 20:13); plural φόνοι, murders: Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21; Galatians 5:21 (T WH omit; L Tr brackets φόνοι); Revelation 9:21.

THAYER'S GREEK LEXICON, Electronic Database.
Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2006, 2011 by Biblesoft, Inc.
All rights reserved. Used by permission. BibleSoft.com


φόνου (phonou) — 2 Occurrences

Acts 9:1 N-GMS
BIB: ἀπειλῆς καὶ φόνου εἰς τοὺς
NAS: threats and murder against
KJV: and slaughter against
INT: threats and murder toward the

Romans 1:29 N-GMS
BIB: μεστοὺς φθόνου φόνου ἔριδος δόλου
NAS: full of envy, murder, strife, deceit,
KJV: full of envy, murder, debate, deceit,
INT: full of envy murder strife deceit

pilgrim77
Jan 20th 2013, 08:52 PM
What specific biblical law did Paul break? Was Paul within his rights as a practicing Jew to persecute Christians?

I believe we have to look at it from the standpoint and perspective that the old testament law of Moses had already been replaced by the new testament of Jesus blood. Since all the promises written to the Jews in the laws of Mosaes were fulfilled in Jesus then we are to go by the new commandments that Jesus gave us which supplants all the lawsx of the old testament, and that is:

13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. (John)

Since Jesus had already died for the sins of the whole world and rose again from the dead, the legalism of the old testament laws of Moses were no longer in effect. Now the only law that God's chosen people were supposed to go by was to love one another. This means that Paul was actually breaking every law in the book by persecuting the Christians because he was doing it out of hatred. The reason Paul hated the Christians was the same reason the scribes and Pharisees hated Jesus.

rejoice44
Jan 20th 2013, 09:07 PM
Which ones so I can view the context of these OT scriptures?

2 kings 17:25
Psalm 78:31
Lamentations 2:4,21,43
Ezekiel 9:6
Amos 9:4
Exodus 13:15

chad
Jan 24th 2013, 03:16 AM
What law did Paul break by persecuting Christians?

Matthew 22:36-40
(Mat 22:36 NIV) "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
(Mat 22:37 NIV) Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
(Mat 22:38 NIV) This is the first and greatest commandment.
(Mat 22:39 NIV) And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
(Mat 22:40 NIV) All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Paul in persecuting Christians, broke the law – love the lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, because if Paul loved God, he would not persecute his believers and followers. And he also broke the second commandment, love thy neighbour as yourself. In persecuting the first believers and followers of Christ, did Paul act in love. Did he love them as he would himself?

John 15:20-25
(John 15:20 NIV) Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.
(John 15:21 NIV) They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me.
(John 15:22 NIV) If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin.
(John 15:23 NIV) He who hates me hates my Father as well.
(John 15:24 NIV) If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father.
(John 15:25 NIV) But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: 'They hated me without reason.'







Didn't Paul say in Plippians 3:6 that he was blameless in the righteousness of the law regarding persecuting Christians?

Consider the good Paul achieved in peresecuting the Christians. He separated the true Christians from the pretenders. He expanded the Christian church by dispersing the Christians from Jerusalem. Those Christians that were killed got to go home early. God used Paul's ignorance for good.

Walls
Jan 24th 2013, 10:54 AM
I believe we have to look at it from the standpoint and perspective that the old testament law of Moses had already been replaced by the new testament of Jesus blood. Since all the promises written to the Jews in the laws of Mosaes were fulfilled in Jesus then we are to go by the new commandments that Jesus gave us which supplants all the lawsx of the old testament, and that is:

13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. (John)

Since Jesus had already died for the sins of the whole world and rose again from the dead, the legalism of the old testament laws of Moses were no longer in effect. Now the only law that God's chosen people were supposed to go by was to love one another. This means that Paul was actually breaking every law in the book by persecuting the Christians because he was doing it out of hatred. The reason Paul hated the Christians was the same reason the scribes and Pharisees hated Jesus.

While all you say is true, you must remember that;

This is not the Law of Moses
By the time Paul was persecuting it was not written nor in the cannon of scripture
Paul was not present when our Lord Jesus gave this verbal teaching

The Law of Moses required the death penalty for certain offences and whatever commands there were in place concerning the care (and love) of a neighbour, any Jew not killing a blasphemer became a Law-breaker him/herself.

Nick
Jan 28th 2013, 04:16 AM
Interesting topic. If we really believe that the writings of Paul are the inerrant Word of God, then we must accept the fact that we are under no part of the Law of Moses. How, then, do we reconcile the statements of the Lord Jesus concerning the Law? "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

And what does Paul means when he says "the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith; now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law? It sounds like Jesus is saying the Law is still in force. It sounds like Paul is saying the Law has been done away with. Which one is it?

Noeb
Jan 28th 2013, 04:41 AM
What does this mean?

Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

chad
Jan 28th 2013, 06:28 AM
IMO, the written law was fulfilled. The law of the spirit still remains.


Interesting topic. If we really believe that the writings of Paul are the inerrant Word of God, then we must accept the fact that we are under no part of the Law of Moses. How, then, do we reconcile the statements of the Lord Jesus concerning the Law? "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

And what does Paul means when he says "the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith; now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law? It sounds like Jesus is saying the Law is still in force. It sounds like Paul is saying the Law has been done away with. Which one is it?

Nick
Jan 28th 2013, 03:05 PM
IMO, the written law was fulfilled. The law of the spirit still remains.

I think Paul is basically saying the spirit of life sets us free from the death produced by the interaction of the Law of Moses and our sinful nature. In order words, I take Paul's verse below to mean to the law was flawed as it relates to us.

"For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man," (Romans 8:3). The Law of Moses was not able to produce righteous people because of the strength of our sinful nature. The Law itself is perfect and righteous. But our sinful nature wars against the Law. So why keep the law at all when Paul gives us another alternate through Jesus?

Noeb
Jan 28th 2013, 04:16 PM
It's "the law" (natural/moral) not the law of Moses. The principle applies to Gentiles as well so that should be obvious. That a dead man is free from law is easily understood. The law remains. It's the old man that died. A man that cannot do anything (dead) cannot break the law. The law is written on the heart, so it's not going anywhere.

Fenris
Jan 28th 2013, 05:51 PM
An interesting question. I'm too lazy to look it up right now, in what way did Paul "persecute" Christians?

Nick
Jan 28th 2013, 06:08 PM
An interesting question. I'm too lazy to look it up right now, in what way did Paul "persecute" Christians?

Hs dragged Christians from their homes and put them in prison. in fact, that's what he was planning to do on the road to Damascus when he was encountered by Jesus. The NT doesn't cite specific examples of Paul's persecution other than what he said he did. Paul claimed to be a persecutor of Christians so the assumption is he was. He did hold people's coats as they stoned Stephen to death, and approved of the murder, but he didn't do the actual stoning.

Fenris
Jan 28th 2013, 06:10 PM
Hs dragged Christians from their homes and put them in prison.
OK so he arrested them. Did they go on trial or were they just locked up forever?

Noeb
Jan 28th 2013, 08:11 PM
Hs dragged Christians from their homes and put them in prison. in fact, that's what he was planning to do on the road to Damascus when he was encountered by Jesus. The NT doesn't cite specific examples of Paul's persecution other than what he said he did. Paul claimed to be a persecutor of Christians so the assumption is he was. He did hold people's coats as they stoned Stephen to death, and approved of the murder, but he didn't do the actual stoning.Sure he did. You don't have to throw a stone to have done it.

Act 26:10 Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.


Paul
Act 6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.

Act 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.


The witnesses
Act 7:58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

Deu 17:7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.

Fenris
Jan 28th 2013, 08:17 PM
Act 7:58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him:

Kind of a headscratcher. The Sanhedrin was not carrying out capital punishment at this time.

Noeb
Jan 28th 2013, 08:33 PM
Kind of a headscratcher. The Sanhedrin was not carrying out capital punishment at this time.Sure they were. Through Rome. They crucified Jesus. The Church was causing quite an uproar. Before Act 6:9 is verses 7-8

Act 6:7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.
Act 6:8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.



To keep the peace and the situation cozy, Rome would assist.

Act 25:7 And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove.
Act 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.
Act 25:9 But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me?
Act 25:10 Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.
Act 25:11 For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar.



Paul was a citizen of Rome.
Act 22:25 And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?

Why was he present for Stephens trial and sentence? The Sanhedrin was quite capable of capital punishment. Or an illegal act? High priest? Did it have to be the Sanhedrin? What does Josephus wars of the jews say?

Fenris
Jan 28th 2013, 09:01 PM
Sure they were. Through Rome. They crucified Jesus.Yes. The Romans crucified Jesus. Were they present at Stephen's trial?



Paul was a citizen of Rome.Yup. And so?




Why he was present for Stephens trial and sentence? I have no idea.


The Sanhedrin was quite capable of capital punishment. Or an illegal act?
The Sanhedrin had stopped carrying out capital punishment by this time. That is, as I am always told, why they had the Romans crucify Jesus.

Hawkins
Jan 28th 2013, 09:08 PM
What specific biblical law did Paul break? Was Paul within his rights as a practicing Jew to persecute Christians?

The law in heart is never written in human context, perhaps it is but it's not shown to humans in the form of context anyway.

For sure that soul murdering is a serious crime. I don't think that you need to worry about that there's not enough law context for someone like Satan/Lucifer to accuse Saul of soul murdering.

Even though Paul is thought to be a Jew, and the accuser should be Moses instead of Satan. The Bible (book of Rev) also says that not everyone considered to be a Jew by humans is alway a Jew. God can reject anyone being a Jew at all.

Noeb
Jan 28th 2013, 09:11 PM
Yes. The Romans crucified Jesus. Were they present at Stephen's trial?

Yup. And so?


I have no idea.


The Sanhedrin had stopped carrying out capital punishment by this time. That is, as I am always told, why they had the Romans crucify Jesus.Like I said, to keep the peace and the situation cozy, Rome would assist like they did with Jesus.

Act 25:7 And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove.
Act 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.
Act 25:9 But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me?
Act 25:10 Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.
Act 25:11 For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar.

The Sanhedrin was quite capable of capital punishment. Or an illegal act? High priest? Did it have to be the Sanhedrin? What does Josephus wars of the jews say?

Fenris
Jan 28th 2013, 09:16 PM
Like I said, to keep the peace and the situation cozy, Rome would assist.I'm sorry, I do not understand what this means. Keep what situation "cozy"? Rome would "assist" what?



The Sanhedrin was quite capable of capital punishment.I don't know what you mean by "capable". We know that about the year 30 the Sanhedrin stopped carrying out the death penalty.


Or an illegal act? High priest? I don't understand what you are saying here.


Did it have to be the Sanhedrin?As opposed to who? The man on the street?


What does Josephus wars of the jews say?I give up, clue me in.

rejoice44
Jan 28th 2013, 09:21 PM
OK so he arrested them. Did they go on trial or were they just locked up forever?

It doesn't say.

Fenris
Jan 28th 2013, 09:24 PM
It doesn't say.

Fair enough. So did the High Priest have the right to arrest sinners?

Noeb
Jan 28th 2013, 09:25 PM
Yes. The Romans crucified Jesus.You mean the Jews:rolleyes:

rejoice44
Jan 28th 2013, 09:27 PM
Kind of a headscratcher. The Sanhedrin was not carrying out capital punishment at this time.

The law isn't specific as to who was to carry out capital punishment, was it? Didn't the king often carry out capital punishment. Didn't the people who were witnesses put their hand on the head of the person charged, and then they would stone them.

Noeb
Jan 28th 2013, 09:29 PM
It doesn't say.Yes it does.

Act 22:4 I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women,
Act 22:5 as the high priest and the whole council of elders can bear me witness. From them I received letters to the brothers, and I journeyed toward Damascus to take those also who were there and bring them in bonds to Jerusalem to be punished.

Act 6:12 And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council,

rejoice44
Jan 28th 2013, 09:30 PM
Fair enough. So did the High Priest have the right to arrest sinners?

I don't believe that it was so cut and dried as want to present it. The question wasn't about whether the New Testament is true or not, but rather whether Paul was within the law in having blasphemers stoned.

Noeb
Jan 28th 2013, 09:30 PM
So did the High Priest have the right to arrest sinners?Jews going after other Gods? What does the law say? What does the thread say? Did you read it?

rejoice44
Jan 28th 2013, 09:33 PM
Yes it does.

Act 22:4 I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women,
Act 22:5 as the high priest and the whole council of elders can bear me witness. From them I received letters to the brothers, and I journeyed toward Damascus to take those also who were there and bring them in bonds to Jerusalem to be punished.

Act 6:12 And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council,

The scripture you present only says they were brought to be punished. It doesn't say whether some rotted in jail or not, or exactly what the punishment was, though we know many were killed.

Fenris
Jan 28th 2013, 09:43 PM
The law isn't specific as to who was to carry out capital punishment, was it?
The Sanhedrin had to have the trial. The punishment itself was carried out by the witnesses I believe.


Didn't the king often carry out capital punishment. What the king did was something different. But that's not really relevant here, Israel did not have a Davidic king on the throne in the first century (or actually since the Hashmoneans).


Didn't the people who were witnesses put their hand on the head of the person charged, and then they would stone them.
Witnesses to the crime, yes.

Fenris
Jan 28th 2013, 09:45 PM
I don't believe that it was so cut and dried as want to present it. The question wasn't about whether the New Testament is true or not, but rather whether Paul was within the law in having blasphemers stoned.
Who was he acting as an agent for?

Also, I think you mean "idolatry", blasphemy is something else in Judaism.

Fenris
Jan 28th 2013, 09:46 PM
Jews going after other Gods? What does the law say?
It doesn't say anything about "arrest" and it does not grant such authority to the High Priest.

Fenris
Jan 28th 2013, 09:49 PM
You mean the Jews:rolleyes:

Ah, and here I thought it was the Romans.

Noeb
Jan 28th 2013, 09:59 PM
The scripture you present only says they were brought to be punished. It doesn't say whether some rotted in jail or not, or exactly what the punishment was, though we know many were killed.brought before the council is very clear

rejoice44
Jan 28th 2013, 10:00 PM
Who was he acting as an agent for?

The Sanhedrin


Also, I think you mean "idolatry", blasphemy is something else in Judaism.

You are right. I was thinking of this verse. Acts 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said , This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G989&t=KJV) words against this holy place, and the law:

rejoice44
Jan 28th 2013, 10:01 PM
brought before the council is very clear

You are right and I am wrong.

Noeb
Jan 28th 2013, 10:02 PM
It doesn't say anything about "arrest" and it does not grant such authority to the High Priest.
oh whoopi!.....so the law does not say those going after other Gods are to be brought before the council?

Fenris
Jan 28th 2013, 10:04 PM
The Sanhedrin

I thought he was acting on behalf of the High Priest.

Nick
Jan 28th 2013, 10:04 PM
OK so he arrested them. Did they go on trial or were they just locked up forever?

It doesn't say. After the stoning of Stephen they all scattered. Who knows? Paul made many claims about his life as Saul. I'm not sure if any of them can actually be verified. I do know that the Apostles feared him. That part is recorded in Acts.

Fenris
Jan 28th 2013, 10:05 PM
oh whoopi!.....so the law does not say those going after other Gods are to be brought before the council?

It doesn't say "arrest" or "council", no. I also don't understand how Paul could go arrest people in Damascus.

Fenris
Jan 28th 2013, 10:06 PM
I do know that the Apostles feared him. That part is recorded in Acts.
Hmm that is an interesting tidbit. 'Course, Paul wrote Acts, right?

Nick
Jan 28th 2013, 10:08 PM
Hmm that is an interesting tidbit. 'Course, Paul wrote Acts, right?

In a way, yes. His travel companion, Luke, wrote Acts but I'm sure Luke's writing was influenced by Paul, at least a good majority of Acts. It is however obvious that the writing style of Acts differs from Paul's letters.

Noeb
Jan 28th 2013, 10:13 PM
Fenris, see Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews book 20, ch9 paragraphs 1 and 2 and on
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-20/chapter-9.html

The ISBE says
4. Jurisdiction:
In the time of Christ the Great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem enjoyed a very high measure of independence. It exercised not only civil jurisdiction, according to Jewish law, but also, in some degree, criminal. It had administrative authority and could order arrests by its own officers of justice (Mt 26:47 (http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=mat&chapter=26&verse=47); Mk 14:43 (http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=mar&chapter=14&verse=43); Acts 4:3 (http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=act&chapter=4&verse=3); 5:17 (http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=act&chapter=5&verse=17) f; 9:2; compare Sanhedrin 1 5). It was empowered to judge cases which did not involve capital punishment, which latter required the confirmation of the Roman procurator (Jn 18:31 (http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=joh&chapter=18&verse=31); compare the Jerusalem Sanhedrin 1 1; 7 2 (p. 24); Josephus, Ant, XX, ix, 1). But, as a rule, the procurator arranged his judgment in accordance with the demands of the Sanhedrin.

For one offense the Sanhedrin could put to death, on their own authority, even a Roman citizen, namely, in the case of a Gentile passing the fence which divided the inner court of the Temple from that of the Gentiles (BJ, VI, ii, 4; Middoth 11 3; compare Acts 21:28 (http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=act&chapter=21&verse=28)). The only case of capital punishment in connection with the Sanhedrin in the New Testament is that of our Lord. The stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:54 (http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=act&chapter=7&verse=54) ff) was probably the illegal act of an enraged multitude.

Noeb
Jan 28th 2013, 10:27 PM
It doesn't say "arrest" or "council", no.So the accused would just willy-nilly come along willingly and have an affair of two or three people, didn't matter who judged, start the stoning, then recruit more people to finish off the job? Here I thought you knew the law.

Noeb
Jan 28th 2013, 10:36 PM
I also don't understand how Paul could go arrest people in Damascus.they were given authority by Rome

Fenris
Jan 28th 2013, 10:49 PM
. But, as a rule, the procurator arranged his judgment in accordance with the demands of the Sanhedrin.

Says who? Josephus, or whoever made these notes?

Fenris
Jan 28th 2013, 10:50 PM
So the accused would just willy-nilly come along willingly and have an affair of two or three people, didn't matter who judged, start the stoning, then recruit more people to finish off the job? Here I thought you knew the law.I know that the Sanhedrin stopped carrying out the death penalty about the year 30.

Fenris
Jan 28th 2013, 10:51 PM
they were given authority by Rome

Rome gave the the High Priest the authority to arrest Jews in other Roman provinces?

Nick
Jan 28th 2013, 11:34 PM
I know that the Sanhedrin stopped carrying out the death penalty about the year 30.


Your point makes sense in that the High Priest had to appeal to Rome to have Jesus crucified which would indicate that had no authority of their own.

Noeb
Jan 28th 2013, 11:34 PM
I know that the Sanhedrin stopped carrying out the death penalty about the year 30.What does this have to do with what the law says?

Noeb
Jan 28th 2013, 11:42 PM
Rome gave the the High Priest the authority to arrest Jews in other Roman provinces?Does it matter? Seems they did whatever they wanted until they crossed Rome and were removed/replaced. In fact, it appears the reason so many Christians went to Damascus was to get out of the High Priest's jurisdiction under Rome and Damascus wasn't even part of Rome at the time. So basically they again did what they wanted and unlawfully kidnapped the Christians and brought them back to Jerusalem.

Noeb
Jan 28th 2013, 11:44 PM
Your point makes sense in that the High Priest had to appeal to Rome to have Jesus crucified which would indicate that had no authority of their own.We know that's not true. They couldn't put someone to death without Rome. Doesn't mean they didn't (Stephen) and doesn't mean they didn't have any authority in everything else.

Nick
Jan 28th 2013, 11:52 PM
We know that's not true. They couldn't put someone to death without Rome. Doesn't mean they didn't (Stephen) and doesn't mean they didn't have any authority in everything else.

That's a fair point.

Noeb
Jan 28th 2013, 11:52 PM
Says who? Josephus, or whoever made these notes?What does it say?
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/244649-Did-Paul-break-the-law-in-persecuting-Christians?p=2945626#post2945626

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 12:00 AM
That's a fair point.I'm no expert on the subject. I haven't read all the way through (only here and there) Josephus' works. What I have read combined in all works including scripture indicates if it benefited Rome or didn't cause problems the Jews could either do it with Romes approval or 'get away with it'. Interesting topic. Seems both happened from what I have read, but I still don't know how this relates to the thread question, what did in fact happen, and what the law says concerning what happened. For some reason, Fenris doesn't think a Jew could be forced to answer for idolatry. That's baffling.

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 12:17 AM
I'm no expert on the subject. I haven't read all the way through (only here and there) Josephus' works. What I have read combined in all works including scripture indicates if it benefited Rome or didn't cause problems the Jews could either do it with Romes approval or 'get away with it'. Interesting topic. Seems both happened from what I have read, but I still don't know how this relates to the thread question, what did in fact happen, and what the law says concerning what happened. For some reason, Fenris doesn't think a Jew could be forced to answer for idolatry. That's baffling.

We all know the story about how Jesus was shuffled around from one Roman jurisdiction to another before Pilate was coerced by the crowd to crucify him. Perhaps because it was a public execution of the worst kind? I don't know why they wouldn't need the same approval from Rome to murder other Christians like Stephen. That was a public stoning/execution. Fenris raises a good point about the Sanhedrin eliminating the death penalty around year 30. Jesus' crucification was "by the book" so to speak according to the law at the time, in that the high Priest needed Rome's approval. Roman citizens crucified Jesus, not the Jews, which lends further credence to Fenris' point.

Perhaps they had a change in policy after Christianity started to spread, but that would be odd since Christians started a church in Rome after the Pentecost. The other alternative theory is that not everything Paul claimed about himself was true, and that he did in fact dictate as Luke wrote. I personally would rather not go there in my mind because it would caste doubt on everything from Acts through Philemon, which would only serve to hinder my faith.

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 12:43 AM
We all know the story about how Jesus was shuffled around from one Roman jurisdiction to another before Pilate was coerced by the crowd to crucify him. Perhaps because it was a public execution of the worst kind? I don't know why they wouldn't need the same approval from Rome to murder other Christians like Stephen. That was a public stoning/execution. Fenris raises a good point about the Sanhedrin eliminating the death penalty around year 30. Jesus' crucification was "by the book" so to speak according to the law at the time, in that the high Priest needed Rome's approval. Roman citizens crucified Jesus, not the Jews, which lends further credence to Fenris' point.

Perhaps they had a change in policy after Christianity started to spread, but that would be odd since Christians started a church in Rome after the Pentecost.Apples and oranges (Jesus/Stephen). How much time had passed and how had the environment changed? I posted the scripture describing what was happening in Jerusalem.

Pilate was not coerced -def= by force or threat
The Sanhedrin did not eliminate the death penalty, they had it taken away
Jews crucified Jesus

Other than Stephen, we're not told in scripture "how" the others were punished or put to death and by "whom".
Clearly, even if Rome carried it out like they did Jesus, it was still Jews just like it was with Jesus.
If that were the case, how could the physical hands that carried it out not being Jewish lend any credence to Fenris' point? Which, as far as I can tell is just that a Jew could not be forced to answer for idolatry, contrary to the law.

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 12:54 AM
Apples and oranges (Jesus/Stephen). How much time had passed and how had the environment changed? I posted the scripture describing what was happening in Jerusalem.

Pilate was not coerced -def= by force or threat
The Sanhedrin did not eliminate the death penalty, they had it taken away
Jews crucified Jesus

Other than Stephen, we're not told in scripture "how" the others were punished or put to death and by "whom".
Clearly, even if Rome carried it out like they did Jesus, it was still Jews just like it was with Jesus.
If that were the case, how could the physical hands that carried it out not being Jewish lend any credence to Fenris' point? Which, as far as I can tell is just that a Jew could not be forced to answer for idolatry, contrary to the law.

My point was Romans beat, tortured and nailed Christ to the cross, not the Jews. The Jews brought Jesus before Pilate and the Romans carried out the death sentence in accordance with the law at the time. btw, "coerced" also means to 'persuade an unwilling person'. Was Pilate a willing participant in front of the mad crowd or did he have serious vocal reservations? If you recall, Jesus let Pilate off the hook by saying they (the mad crowd) were guilty of the greater sin.

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 01:14 AM
Right. The Jews crucified Jesus just as the book of Acts says, and they said, "let this be on us and our children". If you choose to doubt the book, that's your business, but this is Bible Chat. It also says the Jews caught, tried, and stoned Stephen, as Josephus said the Jews did later. It's absolutely pointless to say the Sanhedrin had that power taken from them when we know the Jews did it on more than one occasion.

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 01:42 AM
Rights. The Jews crucified Jesus just as the book of Acts says, and they said, "let this be on us and our children". If you choose to doubt the book, that's your business, but this is Bible Chat. It also says the Jews caught, tried, and stoned Stephen, as Josephus said the Jews did later. It's absolutely pointless to say the Sanhedrin had that power taken from them when we know the Jews did it on more than one occasion.

I didn't say I doubt the book of Acts or the events as Paul describes them in his letters. I said it was an alternative theory that many have, but one I choose not to subscribe to for the reasons I mentioned. I think we're splitting hairs here. Back to the OP, the law of the land was that capital punishment was up to Rome to decide so any murder, including Stephen, without Rome's approval, and for whatever reason, was illegal and punishable by death. Do you think the Roman government cared or even remotely acknowledged the Law of Moses? The Jews were under Roman control at the time. To Rome, the Law of Moses was irrelevant. They had their own Gods and Ceasar was one of them.

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 02:27 PM
Yes, the law of the land worked to the Jews advantage. That's why we have 3 documented accounts (2 in scripture) of the Jews being responsible for the deaths of Jesus and Christian's. The 2 in scripture lay it at the feet of the Jews, Jesus' death even by their own mouth. What point does one have in saying they could not do what they did?

Yes, Rome cared. It was an issue they had to contend with and this is how they chose to do it. They let all their provinces execute their own religions and laws. They would not have done that if they found it irrelevant. This way was easier than total control.

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 02:53 PM
Your point makes sense in that the High Priest had to appeal to Rome to have Jesus crucified which would indicate that had no authority of their own.

Yes. Also, the High Priest at this time was generally appointed by Rome. To the highest bidder. And he was generally a Saducee. The Sanhedrin was composed of Pharisees. They didn't get along.

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 02:55 PM
What does this have to do with what the law says?

What does the law say?

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 02:56 PM
Does it matter?
It matters to me. These details are very mysterious and seem more story than fact.

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 02:57 PM
What does it say?
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/244649-Did-Paul-break-the-law-in-persecuting-Christians?p=2945626#post2945626
The ISBE says

Dunno who this is, but it isn't Josephus.

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 03:13 PM
. For some reason, Fenris doesn't think a Jew could be forced to answer for idolatry. Not exactly what I said. Was the High Priest empowered to hire agents to arrest people for idolatry?

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 03:19 PM
The Sanhedrin did not eliminate the death penalty, they had it taken awayBy whom? Source?


Jews crucified JesusYou're the only person I've heard say this. Everyone else seems to think the Romans carried it out. Which makes perfect sense; crucifixion was a Roman punishment, they crucified more than 100,000 Jews (mostly political rebels) in the first century. If the Jews had to punish someone for idolatry (actually not something Jesus was accused of anyway) wouldn't they have stoned him?


a Jew could not be forced to answer for idolatry, contrary to the law. "Forced to answer"? You make it sound like they're guilty until they prove their innocence.

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 03:50 PM
Yes, the law of the land worked to the Jews advantage. That's why we have 3 documented accounts (2 in scripture) of the Jews being responsible for the deaths of Jesus and Christian's. The 2 in scripture lay it at the feet of the Jews, Jesus' death even by their own mouth. What point does one have in saying they could not do what they did?

Yes, Rome cared. It was an issue they had to contend with and this is how they chose to do it. They let all their provinces execute their own religions and laws. They would not have done that if they found it irrelevant. This way was easier than total control.

The provinces were ruled by the Roman Magistrates whose job it was to keep law and order. The Tribunes were responsible to ensure people, including Jews, were treated fairly. Since the Jews murdered Stephen as recorded in Acts they needed to first go through the Roman judicial process at the time. There is no account of that in Acts. Nowhere in the NT does it say The Senate allowed the High Priest to carry out executions of its own people. Therefore, Stephen's murder, and any other murder carried out by the Jews, was illegal under Roman law. Religious persecution was NOT an exception. The Law of Moses was irrelevant to Roman Law.

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 04:00 PM
You're a piece of work ndibari. You just said what I have been. Where do you think you disagree?

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 04:05 PM
You're a piece of work ndibari. You just said what I have been. Where do you think you disagree?

The only point where I see us disagreeing is on the legality and due process of Jews murdering Jews for following the Way. Christianity wasn't outlawed by Rome until sometime later under Emperor Nero.

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 04:09 PM
Fenris said, " You're the only person I've heard say this."

Funny

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 04:11 PM
Ndibari, where did we ever disagree there?

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 04:17 PM
Ndibari, where did we ever disagree there?

Perhaps I misread your tenor, which comes across like the Jews had some type of authority to murder their own people for breaking the Law of Moses. They didn't have such authority so any murder, arrest, persecution of those following the Way was illegal UNLESS authorized by Rome. In other words, the stoning of Stephen was illegal. Paul's claim about imprisoning Christians was illegal. Roman Law superseded the Law of Moses.

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 04:20 PM
Well, I said "illegal" a few times and said Paul "kidnapped".

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 04:21 PM
Therefore, Stephen's murder, and any other murder carried out by the Jews, was illegal under Roman law.
If he had been granted a trial I don't think it could be termed "murder". Although the Sanhedrin was not carrying out death penalties at the time.


Religious persecution was NOT an exception. Kind of a funny way to term it. Jews attempting to carry out Jewish law on a Jewish person were engaging in "religious persecution"?

You're drawing the Romans, who crucified more than 100,000 Jews in the first century - including Jesus- as the good guys here. Which is...interesting. By "interesting" of course I mean "not historically correct".

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 04:23 PM
Well, I said "illegal" a few times and said Paul "kidnapped".

Fair enough. Then how can Paul make the claim that he was "blameless" under the Law when the bible says we are to obey the laws of the land? In fact, Paul says this in Romans 13:1-7.

Submission to the Authorities

13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 04:43 PM
" Philippians 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh."
blameless in ceremony and outward observance, but not in heart. Blameless in the law not the law of the land. I don't know why you are jumping over to Romans. He was following the law concerning idolatry.

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 04:45 PM
If he had been granted a trial I don't think it could be termed "murder". Although the Sanhedrin was not carrying out death penalties at the time.

Kind of a funny way to term it. Jews attempting to carry out Jewish law on a Jewish person were engaging in "religious persecution"?

You're drawing the Romans, who crucified more than 100,000 Jews in the first century - including Jesus- as the good guys here. Which is...interesting. By "interesting" of course I mean "not historically correct".

The Romans beheaded Paul and crucified Peter upside down (along with his wife according to tradition). Good guys? No. Christianity was not outlawed until Emperor Nero. What I was referring to is the earlier persecution of Christians. Paul appealed to Ceasar by choice, was placed on house arrest, not killed. That didn't happen until later under the new Roman regime.

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 04:50 PM
" Philippians 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh."
blameless in ceremony and outward observance, but not in heart. Blameless in the law not the law of the land. I don't know why you are jumping over to Romans. He was following the law concerning idolatry.

When Paul referred to himself as "blameless" under the Law he was referring to his life as Saul before his conversion. How can a blameless person defy the law of the land (i.e. kidnapping, murder, etc.)?

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 05:04 PM
Fenris - If I may, let me pose the question differently. Let's say for sake of argument that Stephen was stoned for the reasons written in Acts. Was the Sanhedrin permitted under Roman law to carry out that act without a trial?

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 05:08 PM
Fenris, what the law says and what was done has already been established in the thread. If you'd like to attemtp to dispute this, go for it.

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 05:10 PM
Ndibari, he was following the law. Where's your confusion?

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 05:17 PM
Ndibari, he was following the law. Where's your confusion?

My confusion is which law? Applied broadly, the same law he was following included the law of the land. Was kidnapping and murder following the law of the land?

1 Peter 2:13-17 "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor."

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 05:24 PM
Huh? Where does the law say follow another law of another empire or country?

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 05:33 PM
Fenris and Noeb - the crux of this debate boils down to two questions:

1) Was the Sanhedrin permitted under Roman law to persecute Christians? If not, then the Jews that murdered Stephen were criminals under the law of the land. Do we agree on that?

2) Does that Law of Moses, broadly applied, include the law of the land? If so, then Saul was not "blameless" and was also a criminal under the law of the land. Do we agree on that?

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 05:39 PM
Huh? Where does the law say follow another law of another empire or country?

Love thy neighbor as thyself is not one of the specific 10 commandments, but very much considered part of the law. Is your interpretation of the law restricted to only the 10 commandments?

Leviticus 19:18 "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord."

More to the point:

Deut 4: 5-6; 13-14 "Look, I have taught you the laws and rules the Lord my God commanded me. Now you can obey the laws in the land you are entering, in the land you will take. 6 Obey these laws carefully, in order to show the other nations that you have wisdom and understanding."

"The Lord told you about his Agreement, the Ten Commandments. He told you to obey them, and he wrote them on two stone tablets. 14 Then the Lord commanded me to teach you the laws and rules that you must obey in the land you will take when you cross the Jordan River."

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 05:42 PM
I don't know how any of your three points apply here.

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 05:47 PM
What the Jews were allowed under Roman law had nothing to do with their law.

Love your neighbor would only be applicable in that eliminating evil from among them (said concerning idolatry) was God's command and desire that was good for them.

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 05:52 PM
I don't know how any of your three points apply here.

Let me simplify: a) Jews were not allowed to persecute Christians under the law of the land, b) Saul was not blameless under the law of the land and c) the Law of Moses, broadly applied, included the law of the land. Add it all up, and the conclusion (at least mine) is that the Jews who murdered Stephen, and Saul who persecuted Christians, committed criminal acts under the law of the land AND violated the Law of Moses. And finally, the Law of Moses points to Christ since Jesus is the culmination of the law (Romans 10:4).

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 05:56 PM
So again, where is "law of the land" concept in the law of Moses?

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 06:13 PM
So again, where is "law of the land" concept in the law of Moses?

Did you not see the quotes from Deut posted above? And why would Peter, Paul and Jesus himself instruct people to obey the law of the land if it weren't important? You know, "render unto Ceasar what is Caesar's...." Let me end with this final thought. The law of the land changes over time. The same laws that applied during Moses' time differed from Jesus's ministry, and greatly differ from today's laws of the land. Regardless, Scripture is clear that we are to obey the laws of the land. God tends to step in and course correct things when the laws of the land run contrary to, overshadow and supersede His will. It may take 430 years for Him to do so, as in the case of the Israelites, but Thy will be done. This is evident all throughout Scripture. It's my belief that God will intervene again and soon, but that is solely my opinion.

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 06:52 PM
Fenris - If I may, let me pose the question differently. Let's say for sake of argument that Stephen was stoned for the reasons written in Acts. Was the Sanhedrin permitted under Roman law to carry out that act without a trial?I have no idea what Roman law was. It hardly seems relevant since The Sanhedrin was not applying the death penalty anyway.

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 06:52 PM
Fenris, what the law says and what was done has already been established in the thread.
Just because you make a post on something doesn't mean that it is "established", sorry.

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 06:57 PM
Fenris and Noeb - the crux of this debate boils down to two questions:

1) Was the Sanhedrin permitted under Roman law to persecute Christians? If not, then the Jews that murdered Stephen were criminals under the law of the land. Do we agree on that? This is a bad question. The question, properly asked, should be "Was the Sanhedrin permitted under Roman law to enforce Biblical laws?". As I've said, this is actually not relevant since the Sanhedrin had voluntarily stopped trying capital cases.


2) Does that Law of Moses, broadly applied, include the law of the land?Again, this is a bad question. What you mean to ask is, does the biblical law include the laws of the land in which the Jews lived? And the answer is most certainly not, unless they happen to overlap.

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 07:00 PM
Ndibari, Deuteronomy is talking about the law, God's law for Israel.

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 07:04 PM
Fenris said, " Just because you make a post on something doesn't mean that it is "established",sorry."

I wasn't talking about my post. Read the thread before commenting. Have just a little courtesy.

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 07:05 PM
More to the point:

Deut 4: 5-6; 13-14 "Look, I have taught you the laws and rules the Lord my God commanded me. Now you can obey the laws in the land you are entering, in the land you will take. 6 Obey these laws carefully, in order to show the other nations that you have wisdom and understanding."

This is talking about the laws in the bible, not the laws in whatever land the Jews find themelves. Would a Jew living in Nazi Germany be obliged to kill Jews, as the laws of the land dictated?

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 08:08 PM
Ndibari, Deuteronomy is talking about the law, God's law for Israel.

Which at the time was the equivalent of the law of the land. They were residing in the desert for quite a while before entering The Promise land.

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 08:12 PM
This is talking about the laws in the bible, not the laws in whatever land the Jews find themelves. Would a Jew living in Nazi Germany be obliged to kill Jews, as the laws of the land dictated?

Not sure why a Jew would be living Nazi Germany unless he or she was suicidal. The same applies to Christians living in Iran today who openly practice their beliefs by handing out bibles trying to convert Muslims to Christianity. If you do that in Iran today you get the death sentence. Hey, maybe some do it for Martyrdom.

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 08:15 PM
Which at the time was the equivalent of the law of the land.
No, it was biblical law.

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 08:20 PM
Not sure why a Jew would be living Nazi Germany unless he or she was suicidal.
Irrelevant. Do you really think the bible commands Jews to follow the laws of the country in which they live- even when these laws contradict the laws in the bible? How about if said laws included idolatry?

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 08:26 PM
Irrelevant. Do you really think the bible commands Jews to follow the laws of the country in which they live- even when these laws contradict the laws in the bible? How about if said laws included idolatry?

The bible is clear on that too. Daniel and the Den of Lions comes to mind as well as Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and the Fiery Furnace. No argument there but we're going off on a HUGE tangent. I'm referring to moral law (murder, kidnapping, etc.) and you're talking about the Great Commandment.

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 08:34 PM
No, it was biblical law.

Which again, was the law of the land at the time established by God. There were certain rituals, ceremonies, etc., most of which are not practiced today. How many Jews adhere to the following?


Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)
Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9) Have you ever done that?
If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).
If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)
If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)
If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16).
If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)
Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)
If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)
People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)
Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 08:38 PM
T I'm referring to moral law
Moral law is already on the bible. So yeah, when the laws of a country coincide with biblical law, you follow them. I'm not seeing this a some kind of revelation.

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 08:39 PM
Which again, was the law of the land at the time established by God.
They were the laws from God.

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 08:40 PM
The law concerning what to do with idolaters is the discussion and it was for Israel as God's people in their land, correct? Now, apply it accordingly.

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 09:01 PM
Moral law is already on the bible. So yeah, when the laws of a country coincide with biblical law, you follow them. I'm not seeing this a some kind of revelation.

So when the laws of the country coincide with the biblical law you follow them, and only them? Ok. What about some of the biblical laws I posted in Leviticus? What would happen in Israel if some of them, particularly the ones concerning stoning, burning, being cut off from their people, etc., were practiced in Modern day Israel?

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 09:07 PM
The law concerning what to do with idolaters is the discussion and it was for Israel as God's people in their land, correct? Now, apply it accordingly.
Who was an idolater?

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 09:08 PM
What would happen in Israel if some of them, particularly the ones concerning stoning, burning, being cut off from their people, etc., were practiced in Modern day Israel?
Those laws remain in effect. There is simply no body (i.e. the Sanhedrin) to carry it out.

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 09:12 PM
Fenris - since Jews do not believe in the New Covenant why do they ignore the laws I posted in Leviticus? Why aren't disobedient children being brought to the elders to be stoned? Why aren't adulterers being killed? Why do Jews cut their hair and shave? Why aren't women on their period considerably ceremonially unclean?

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 09:13 PM
Those laws remain in effect. There is simply no body (i.e. the Sanhedrin) to carry it out.

So the laws are still in effect but since there is no Sanhedrin to enforce them they are simply disregarded? That sounds convenient.

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 09:14 PM
Fenris - since Jews do not believe in the New Covenant why do they ignore the laws I posted in Leviticus?Observant Jews do, when possible.


Why aren't disobedient children being brought to the elders to be stoned? Why aren't adulterers being killed? No Sanhedrin to carry it out.


Why do Jews cut their hair and shave? Observant Jews do not cut their sideburns.


Why aren't women on their period considerably ceremonially unclean?They are and marital relations are prohibited at that time.

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 09:15 PM
How does all this relate?

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 09:15 PM
So the laws are still in effect but since there is no Sanhedrin to enforce them they are simply disregarded? That sounds convenient.
No they are followed where possible. There exists no Sanhedrin to enforce violations however.

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 09:16 PM
How does all this relate?

Because after the year 30 or so the Sanhedrin ceased enforcing laws for which there was capital punishment for violations.

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 09:26 PM
And that relates to the OP how?

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 09:27 PM
Observant Jews do, when possible.

I consider you an observant Jew, at least from what I can tell. Can you honestly tell me you don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric?

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 09:28 PM
And that relates to the OP how?

A bit of a tangent now but that happens.

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 09:28 PM
And that relates to the OP how?

We are wondering how Paul could be arresting people for being idolators when those laws weren't being enforced at that time.

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 09:29 PM
I consider you an observant Jew, at least from what I can tell. Can you honestly tell me you've never worn clothes made of more than one fabric?

Wool and linen? No, I have my new suits checked for that.

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 09:33 PM
Wool and linen? No, I have my new suits checked for that.

That sounds like a daunting task in these times. My hat is off to you. Hey, at least you don't have to worry about making a fashion statement!

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 09:36 PM
Hey, at least you don't have to worry about making a fashion statement!
I'm a fashionable guy. When my wife dresses me. :rofl:

No wool and linen though.

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 09:42 PM
I'm a fashionable guy. When my wife dresses me. :rofl:

No wool and linen though.

Mine does too, and thank God she does. Anyway, enjoyed our conversation. Thanks again.

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 09:44 PM
Mine does too, and thank God she does.
Yes, we are lucky to have them!

Anyway, enjoyed our conversation. Thanks again.

Thank you. The pleasure was all mine.

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 10:04 PM
What makes you think the law was not enforced? An official decision? Big deal. History tells it was. If you want to deny history and join the likes of those that deny the Holocaust go ahead.

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 10:07 PM
And again, are you going to address the OP or not?

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 10:12 PM
Also, Israel does have a judicial system of secular and religious laws, including a supreme court. It ignores the law by choice. It's absurd and a lie to say there's no one to carry them out. There's no one willing. Big difference.

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 10:14 PM
What makes you think the law was not enforced? An official decision? Big deal. History tells it was.What "history"? The NT is not "history", it is a religious document. One may believe in it or one may not.


If you want to deny history and join the likes of those that deny the Holocaust go ahead.

Genuine class.

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 10:14 PM
Also, Israel does have a judicial system of secular and religious laws, including a supreme court. It ignores the law by choice. It's absurd and a lie to say there's no one to carry them out. There's no one willing. Big difference.

Israel's supreme court is not the Sanhedrin.

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 10:16 PM
I gave you Josephus ;)

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 10:17 PM
How many million are in Israel? What excuse is there?

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 10:19 PM
Well, it's real class to deny Jews persecuted Christians ;)

Fenris
Jan 29th 2013, 10:24 PM
Well, it's real class to deny Jews persecuted Christians ;)

Actually, some Jews (the High Priest, Paul by his own admission) caused grief to other Jews (early Jewish Christians).

Nick
Jan 29th 2013, 11:12 PM
Well, it's real class to deny Jews persecuted Christians ;)

We also have 2,000 years to reflect on the atrocities committed by ALL religions in the name God. Let's not forget the Christian Crusades. No religious group is beyond reproach.


Also, Israel does have a judicial system of secular and religious laws, including a supreme court. It ignores the law by choice. It's absurd and a lie to say there's no one to carry them out. There's no one willing. Big difference.

Can you imagine what our judicial system would be like if all criminals had to do was repent to be forgiven? And how would one determine true repentance besides God? There would be no consequences or justice served. That's why there is a separation between Church and State. Israel's judicial system is a lot like ours here in the US.

Noeb
Jan 29th 2013, 11:58 PM
Actually, some Jews (the High Priest, Paul by his own admission) caused grief to other Jews (early Jewish Christians).Getting closer. You still want to exclude the Sanhedrin for some reason, even after I showed you Josephus said they were involved in the case of James and his companions. Oh, that's right, that just couldn't of happened cuz you said so. Forgot:rolleyes: I wouldn't call being stoned, grief.

Bandit
Jan 30th 2013, 12:06 AM
What specific biblical law did Paul break? Was Paul within his rights as a practicing Jew to persecute Christians?

No, Paul was in the wrong!

Consider Deut. 18:15-19. By persecuting the followers of the Prophet, Paul was persecuting the Prophet. (Now read Acts 9:4.)

Noeb
Jan 30th 2013, 12:16 AM
We also have 2,000 years to reflect on the atrocities committed by ALL religions in the name God. Let's not forget the Christian Crusades. No religious group is beyond reproach.Only a small percentage crucified Jesus, and a much smaller number Stephen and James and his companions. This is true for the crusades as well. Yes, I said that. I don't blame a group for anything or lay at the feet of a group any charge. That's foolish. Still I don't see what this has to do with Fenris denying history.



Can you imagine what our judicial system would be like if all criminals had to do was repent to be forgiven? And how would one determine true repentance besides God? There would be no consequences or justice served. That's why there is a separation between Church and State. Israel's judicial system is a lot like ours here in the US.I have no idea why you've said this, why you think it is why there is a separation of church and state here, why you are mentioning here, or why you think their system is a lot like ours. We don't have religious or, Rabbinic Courts/Tribunals.

rejoice44
Jan 30th 2013, 01:10 AM
No, Paul was in the wrong!

Consider Deut. 18:15-19. By persecuting the followers of the Prophet, Paul was persecuting the Prophet. (Now read Acts 9:4.)

But Jesus didn't just claim to be a Prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and equal to God. Most Jews would have considered that a form of idolatry.

Nick
Jan 30th 2013, 01:17 AM
No, Paul was in the wrong!

Consider Deut. 18:15-19. By persecuting the followers of the Prophet, Paul was persecuting the Prophet. (Now read Acts 9:4.)

The caveat to that being Saul believed they were followers of a false prophet since Jesus didn't fit the biblical description of the Messiah in its entirety. In fact, that is the same contention of the Jews to this day.

Nick
Jan 30th 2013, 01:19 AM
But Jesus didn't just claim to be a Prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and equal to God. Most Jews would have considered that a form of idolatry.

Jesus also referred to Himself as a prophet. Mark 6:4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet (referring to himself) is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.”

Nick
Jan 30th 2013, 01:48 AM
I have no idea why you've said this, why you think it is why there is a separation of church and state here, why you are mentioning here, or why you think their system is a lot like ours. We don't have religious or, Rabbinic Courts/Tribunals.

Were you not referring to the Israeli judicial system ignoring Mosaic law? We do too. The law and its consequences is considered barbaric. Society evolves. There were slaves in Jesus's day and Paul commanded the slaves to obey their masters (Eph 6:5). Even Jesus approved of beating slaves in Luke 12:47-48. I think most would agree that except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and NT. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves. So, based on that should the full consequences of the law remain in tact under any judicial system? Should we reinstate slavery?

Noeb
Jan 30th 2013, 04:37 AM
Were you not referring to the Israeli judicial system ignoring Mosaic law? We do too.We are not Israel :idea:
We do not claim to follow the law and ignore it -take his name in vain.
We do claim to follow Jesus and ignore him.



The law and its consequences is considered barbaric. Society evolves.The law made no provision for this. Following all of it was required. This, Israel was to do, or else reap the consequences.



There were slaves in Jesus's day and Paul commanded the slaves to obey their masters (Eph 6:5). Even Jesus approved of beating slaves in Luke 12:47-48. I think most would agree that except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and NT. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves. So, based on that should the full consequences of the law remain in tact under any judicial system? Should we reinstate slavery?All of this is not correct, but all of it is beside the point made above. Polygamy is never denounced either. So? Thread after thread I have watched you wing it, be corrected, and acknowledge it. Great! If you want to learn, post your opinion and ask where you might be wrong. Start a thread on slavery. Whatever, just stop attending Google Bible College and posting anti-bible rhetoric.

google: old testament sex with slaves
Go to the first hit and the first line is what you said, word for word
"The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves."

Google that, and get a host of bible haters.
Here on this forum, you will find wisdom, knowledge, and people with decades of experience to learn from. Don't abuse it.

Noeb
Jan 30th 2013, 04:52 AM
Should we reinstate slavery?Just to add......The law did not instituted slavery. That's the piece of the puzzle you are missing. :idea:

Nick
Jan 30th 2013, 05:03 AM
Thread after thread I have watched you wing it, be corrected, and acknowledge it. Great! If you want to learn, post your opinion and ask where you might be wrong. Start a thread on slavery. Whatever, just stop attending Google Bible College and posting anti-bible rhetoric.

One of the things I try to do here, and in real life is learn, and when I'm wrong, promptly admit it as opposed to vehemently trying to defend a wrong position. Most importantly, I also try to be respectful of other people's viewpoint. Go ahead and point out where I'm wrong in what I "Googled" (people use search engines for a reason) and I'll be happy to admit it. I also looked at the verses and the context in which they were written after I "Googled" that. You would actually be helping me a great deal by pointing out where I'm wrong. I tend to learn better once I'm corrected.

Do you ever search biblical topics or look for specific verses using Google, or do you have the bible memorized, chapter and verse? Are you a scribe? If so, much respect. For the rest of us neophytes, technology is great tool for enhancing learning. Most churches are adapting to it too. It's pretty cool. In fact, a lot of people I know use their bible app on their iPad instead reading the Bible. Welcome to the Digital Age (we've actually been here for a while).

Noeb
Jan 30th 2013, 05:37 AM
I also looked at the verses and the context in which they were written after I "Googled" that.In the same way you thought the Israelites were to go into a land and obey their law? The translation you used and that of the site are misleading. Paraphrase bibles are.



Do you ever search biblical topics or look for specific verses using Google,Sure, but not to quote anti bible rhetoric.



or do you have the bible memorized, chapter and verse?Pretty much, though my ch/vs memory is fading with age. I do sometimes post based on knowledge, doubt, double check to find I was correct. Sometimes I post on a topic I haven't specifically searched, but since I have studied the Bible for decades and know the heart to of God I give my opinion then search it out and find I was correct. By His Grace of course.



For the rest of us neophytes, technology is great tool for enhancing learning. Most churches are adapting to it too. It's pretty cool. In fact, a lot of people I know use their bible app on their iPad instead reading the Bible. Welcome to the Digital Age (we've actually been here for a while).My post during business hours (and some after) are done on my phone or tablet. I don't know what that has to do with posting anti bible rhetoric though.

Fenris
Jan 30th 2013, 02:08 PM
Getting closer. You still want to exclude the Sanhedrin for some reason
Not for "some reason". Because 1)They stopped trying capital cases by this time and 2)While there was friction between the early Jewish-Christians and their contemporaries, nothing seems to rise to the level of death penalty anyway.


even after I showed you Josephus said they were involved in the case of James and his companions. Josephus said nothing of the sort.

Fenris
Jan 30th 2013, 02:10 PM
But Jesus didn't just claim to be a Prophet. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and equal to God. Most Jews would have considered that a form of idolatry.

This matter wasn't settled until 325 at Nicea. You are anachronistically applying that ruling to events 300 years prior.

Noeb
Jan 30th 2013, 02:20 PM
Well Fenris, don't ask for history not scripture then refuse to read it ;)

Fenris
Jan 30th 2013, 02:20 PM
Well Fenris, don't ask for history not scripture then refuse to read it ;)

I read it. It didn't say what you're claiming it said.

Noeb
Jan 30th 2013, 02:23 PM
What did it say?

Fenris
Jan 30th 2013, 02:28 PM
What did it say?

Some Christian commentator , not Josephus, said that the Romans tended to respect the local court's legal rulings. He cites no evidence, he is probably relying on the NT and it's depiction of trials which may or may not be accurate. Remember, by Josephus's time Judea was in full revolt against Rome, so they most certainly would NOT have respected any rulings from a Jewish court. Rome eventually outlawed the Sanhedrin outright, which is what led to it's demise.

guero
Jan 30th 2013, 02:36 PM
I did not go through all 175 posts, but has anyone brought up the Lord's words?

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matthew 5:17–18).

I would think that this, combined with the Lord's accusation,

And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? (Acts 9:4–5).

would be sufficient to demonstrate that Paul was breaking the law, no?

Fenris
Jan 30th 2013, 02:39 PM
would be sufficient to demonstrate that Paul was breaking the law, no?
Which laws did he break?

Noeb
Jan 30th 2013, 02:41 PM
Some Christian commentator? Fenris, I linked to Flavius Josephus.

guero
Jan 30th 2013, 02:43 PM
Which laws did he break?

I truly, honestly don't mean to be flippant, but if the Lord tells us we are breaking a commandment, should we ask Him which one?

Fenris
Jan 30th 2013, 02:53 PM
I truly, honestly don't mean to be flippant, but if the Lord tells us we are breaking a commandment, should we ask Him which one?

Uhm, yeah. Is this commandment being broken in the bible? Or does God just get to make stuff up on the fly?

Fenris
Jan 30th 2013, 02:53 PM
Some Christian commentator? Fenris, I linked to Flavius Josephus.

No, you linked to a commentary on something Josephus wrote.

Noeb
Jan 30th 2013, 03:28 PM
Guero, I'm confused too. What commandment? And we certainly should ask which one. After all, this is Bible Chat.

Noeb
Jan 30th 2013, 03:33 PM
Sorry Fenris, scholars consider it authentic.

Fenris
Jan 30th 2013, 03:51 PM
Sorry Fenris, scholars consider it authentic.

What "scholars"? Just because you say something doesn't make it so.

Noeb
Jan 30th 2013, 03:59 PM
That's more true for you here. You haven't provided anything. Apply it to yourself for change. You say this in every thread as if it's actually an argument, when it's a joke.

Fenris
Jan 30th 2013, 04:00 PM
Shrug. If I'm contributing nothing, I'll bow out.

Noeb
Jan 30th 2013, 04:32 PM
Fenris, you contribute on the forum but have not here. When someone provides an arguement with sources and you disagree, provide an arguement with sources. Don't say 'my dad can beat up your dad'.

guero
Jan 30th 2013, 04:55 PM
Guero, I'm confused too. What commandment? And we certainly should ask which one. After all, this is Bible Chat.

OK - I am sorry. I just read the title of the thread, which was "Did Paul break the law in persecuting Christians?", but I see the conversation has gone more deeply into what particular part of the law Paul broke.


I would answer as follows. Perhaps others have likewise.

1. Although Paul was persecuting Christians, or, as Scripture says, those of the way [τῆς ὁδοῦ] (Acts 9:2), he is accused of persecuting Christ Himself:

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

2. Persecution of a person is not an act of love for that person.

3. Christ is God:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1).

4. Since Saul (Paul) persecuted Christ, who is God, he did not love God.

5. Since Saul (Paul) did not love God, he broke the most important commandment of the law:

And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might (Deuteronomy 6:5).



I suppose one might debate whether because Saul (Paul) violated this commandment out of ignorance he truly broke the law. Specifically, one might disagree with my point #4 above, "Since Saul (Paul) persecuted Christ, who is God, he did not love God," saying that Paul DID love God, but just didn't realize that Christ is God. This would mean, though, that Paul did not, in fact, love God, but rather loved an idol he had constructed in his mind that he thought was God, but was not. For if Christ said that He is the Truth (John 14:6), then loving what is not true cannot be loving God.

Nick
Jan 30th 2013, 08:48 PM
Sorry Fenris, scholars consider it authentic.

I think the question as to 'what scholars' is a relevant one to ask. Scholars tend to be biased based on their belief system. For example, I'm reading a book written by a Christian author on Atheism. He discusses all the various religions and beliefs from a Christian point of view. Are these scholars Christians or Jewish? That makes a difference.

Dilligence
Jan 30th 2013, 08:52 PM
Paul was a great persecutor of the Lord’s church who took both males and females to prison. In Acts 22:4 he said, “I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.” Was Paul one who was raised in the Lord’s church? Did he have a good Christian home? Absolutely not! He persecuted the church and Christianity. When Paul was doing this, did he think that he was doing the right thing? The answer is that, yes, he absolutely did. Paul thought that he was doing the right thing. We may think we are doing the right thing, but just because we think we are, does not mean that we actually are. In fact, if we went solely on what we “thought” was right, then just about everyone would go to Heaven because most people do what they do because they think it is the right thing to do.

In Acts 23:1 Paul said, “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.” Did Paul have a bad conscience that told him he should not be persecuting Christians or putting Christians into prison? No. He had a clear conscience because he thought he was doing the right thing. When we look in the Scriptures, we see a lot of people who “thought” they were doing the right thing (or what they were supposed to be doing). Paul said that he was very zealous toward God (Acts 22:3). Paul thought he was doing the will of God by persecuting Christians. He thought that Christianity was a sect that was going against God and that was a mockery of God. He thought that he was doing the right thing by persecuting Christians. He thought he was doing the will of God. In Romans 10:2 the Bible describes this as “zeal not according to knowledge.” There are people who go to great lengths to do things for God. They think they are doing the right thing, but in reality they are not because they are not doing what the Bible says.

Noeb
Jan 30th 2013, 09:02 PM
Thanks guero. Then by your definition, Christians love an idol they construct in their mind that they think is God but is not. I don't find a need to push the definition of 'idol' beyond what we find in scripture. Also, if what you say is true, surely Jesus would have said this very thing to those that rejected him, but he didn't.

Finally, if Paul thought Christians were idol worshipers, and scripture doesn't say anyone did, he and anyone else would have been loving God and their neighbor by eliminating evil from among them as the law prescribed.

Nick
Jan 30th 2013, 09:04 PM
Sure, but not to quote anti bible rhetoric.

This is where I respectfully disagree. Why do you think there are so many different versions of the bible? Verses can be interpreted differently. For me, I prefer to get all points of view on Scripture, even the anti-bible rhetoric. It helps shape my own understanding, which changes over time. The same verses I once thought I understood have taken on new meaning.



Pretty much, though my ch/vs memory is fading with age. I do sometimes post based on knowledge, doubt, double check to find I was correct. Sometimes I post on a topic I haven't specifically searched, but since I have studied the Bible for decades and know the heart to of God I give my opinion then search it out and find I was correct. By His Grace of course.

And again, this is where spiritual and intellectual pride can bolster egotism. In Proverbs, it tells us to "lean not on your own understanding". When I assume I know something because I've studied it in the past, and then give my opinion based on that without refreshing it in my mind I'm doing myself and others a disservice. It would be the equivalent of a pastor giving a sermon on a topic he's done many times in the past without refreshing it in his mind.

guero
Jan 30th 2013, 09:56 PM
Thanks guero. Then by your definition, Christians love an idol they construct in their mind that they think is God but is not. I don't find a need to push the definition of 'idol' beyond what we find in scripture. Also, if what you say is true, surely Jesus would have said this very thing to those that rejected him, but he didn't.

Finally, if Paul thought Christians were idol worshipers, and scripture doesn't say anyone did, he and anyone else would have been loving God and their neighbor by eliminating evil from among them as the law prescribed.


Hmmm. This is not what I was trying to say, so I am not expressing it well I guess.


Christians love an idol they construct in their mind that they think is God but is not

I guess this follows from what my statement, "Paul did not, in fact, love God, but rather loved an idol he had constructed in his mind that he thought was God, but was not." ?

Perhaps idol is not the right term. What was in my mind was that there is really only one way to fulfill the Gospel commandment of loving God completely, as commanded in Deuteronomy 6:5, and that is to love the true God with complete love. If either these conditions is not fulfilled (i.e. love is complete and love is of the true God), then the commandment is not fulfilled.

If, for example (to pick a really extreme example), we love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, but understand Him to be identical to the Hindu god Ganesha, then we are not really loving God, but are loving something else. Maybe there are aspects of the thing we are believing that are also true of the true God, but still, it is not God in whom we believe.

Now if we look at a less extreme case, perhaps a person loves God with all his or her heart, soul, mind, and strength, but denies the Divinity of Christ and the existence of the Holy Spirit. If we are Trinitarian Christians we would say that person loves God as he or she knows Him, but that he or sh does not really know the true God. Perhaps idol is too strong a word, as you suggest, if one is mistaken out of innocence, having been brought up in such a faith as a child. On the other hand, if one has been given the opportunity to know the true God but stubbornly holds on to their beliefs out of loyalty to tradition, what would one say? Saul (before he was Paul), to me seems to fall into the latter category. Was he pursuing the Christians out of love for God or out of zeal for Pharisaical correctness? If it is the latter, then I would say that what he was following was not God, but rather the idol he constructed out of his fanaticism and believed was the true God.

The Greek εἴδωλον means not only "idol" or "image", but also "false god". It seems to me that the word "idol" is used in contrast to "true God" in two places:

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols. (1 John 5:20–21).

For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God (1 Thessalonians 1:9).


I understand this all sounds rather offensive, since it implies that only those who hold "correct" beliefs are not breaking God's law. I guess I would answer such objections in two ways:

First, we are commanded by the Lord to be perfect (or are told we will be perfect, depending on the reading):

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:47–48).

Second, I would say that each of has to look very soberly at the commandment and determine whether or not we are following it. If anything is lacking, we need to ask God for forgiveness and mercy and continue to strive in the face of all the obstacles the world, the demons, and our own flesh place in front of us.

Noeb
Jan 31st 2013, 12:27 AM
Perhaps idol is too strong a word, as you suggest, if one is mistaken out of innocence, having been brought up in such a faith as a child. On the other hand, if one has been given the opportunity to know the true God but stubbornly holds on to their beliefs out of loyalty to tradition, what would one say? Saul (before he was Paul), to me seems to fall into the latter category. Was he pursuing the Christians out of love for God or out of zeal for Pharisaical correctness? If it is the latter, then I would say that what he was following was not God, but rather the idol he constructed out of his fanaticism and believed was the true God.He received mercy because he did it ignorantly, not because of pride and willful hardening against the truth. He was following the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I think he falls into the former category in both cases, but thanks for explaining further.

Noeb
Jan 31st 2013, 12:35 AM
This is where I respectfully disagree.You can't. God does not "approve slavery". Does he approve sin? Divorce? Allow and approve are two different things. He allows sin. He does not approve sin.



Why do you think there are so many different versions of the bible? Verses can be interpreted differently. For me, I prefer to get all points of view on Scripture, even the anti-bible rhetoric. So do I but I don't copy and past it here as if it is my words and certainly not if it's incorrect.



It helps shape my own understanding, which changes over time. The same verses I once thought I understood have taken on new meaning.That happens if you only have one translation.



And again, this is where spiritual and intellectual pride can bolster egotism.Can and has are two different things



In Proverbs, it tells us to "lean not on your own understanding".I didn't, and don't.



When I assume I know something because I've studied it in the past, and then give my opinion based on that without refreshing it in my mind I'm doing myself and others a disservice. It would be the equivalent of a pastor giving a sermon on a topic he's done many times in the past without refreshing it in his mind.Where did I assume?

Noeb
Jan 31st 2013, 12:54 AM
I think the question as to 'what scholars' is a relevant one to ask. Scholars tend to be biased based on their belief system. For example, I'm reading a book written by a Christian author on Atheism. He discusses all the various religions and beliefs from a Christian point of view. Are these scholars Christians or Jewish? That makes a difference.What did you find? Fenris?

Nick
Jan 31st 2013, 02:50 AM
What did you find? Fenris?

Not sure what that supposed to mean, and based on your responses to some of the previous posts, mine included, it is clear to me that you have an insatiable need to be right. You can be right. I'll be wrong. Like Fenris, I'm bowing out now.

Noeb
Jan 31st 2013, 05:01 AM
What it meant was, I put forth an argument and source that I believe to be right. No one else did. I can be wrong, but that's rather difficult without an opposing argument. Fenris saying so, by his own words, isn't an argument. You wanted me to do the research for you. Which by your own words isn't fare to you. So I thought just maybe someone might actually put forth an effort instead of merely posting what they feel. I was wrong. If you change your mind, search "testimonium flavianum", and take a look at both sides. Let me know what you think.