Paul the religious zealot

[Wilhemena]

I was contemplating Paul and how he was a religious zealot first as a Pharisee and then as a Christian after he became a believer in our Lord and Savior. In the days of biblical times was the world used to having religious zealots and I mean by that do you think it was the norm or do you feel it is as it is today where people are wary of those who are fanatics for their beliefs?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I was contemplating Paul and how he was a religious zealot first as a Pharisee and then as a Christian after he became a believer in our Lord and Savior. In the days of biblical times was the world used to having religious zealots and I mean by that do you think it was the norm or do you feel it is as it is today where people are wary of those who are fanatics for their beliefs?

Human nature does not change much from age to age so Paul was zealous like some Christians today are. There are plenty of Christians who are not zealots today and I think that was so in the first days of the church too.

 

[Lamb]

I was contemplating Paul and how he was a religious zealot first as a Pharisee and then as a Christian after he became a believer in our Lord and Savior. In the days of biblical times was the world used to having religious zealots and I mean by that do you think it was the norm or do you feel it is as it is today where people are wary of those who are fanatics for their beliefs?

Since the Jews were so law driven, I do believe that if we were to go back in time we would view them as religious zealots. So perhaps the first Christians also seemed like zealots because of their culture.

 

[Stravinsk]

I was contemplating Paul and how he was a religious zealot first as a Pharisee and then as a Christian after he became a believer in our Lord and Savior. In the days of biblical times was the world used to having religious zealots and I mean by that do you think it was the norm or do you feel it is as it is today where people are wary of those who are fanatics for their beliefs?

Do you mean like in instances like these?

Acts 26:9-11



Saul/Paul (as a convert at the time of writing) paints himself as blameless with regards to being a Pharisee and "very high up" in the Jewish religion(Philippians 3:5-6). His first acts recorded in the bible under this "blameless state" are of a murdering savage that goes so far as to compel people to blaspheme.

I'm not sure an observant Jew would recognize him as being a religious zealot *for their faith*. The new believers were still attending synagogue services, still worshiping as the Jews did, and on the same Sabbath -at the time of Saul/Paul's persecution they were not starting new churches and setting up idols to different gods.

If, however, Saul/Paul is aligning himself with the Pharisees and chief priests (whom Yeshua condemned as blind guides and sons of hell) - then perhaps yes. He may have been blameless in *their* traditions/teachings.


Both Judaism and Christianity have their own Pharisees and extra writings.

For Jews - Talmud
For Christians - writings of Pharisee Saul/Paul

 

[Rens]

Do you mean like in instances like these?

Acts 26:9-11



Saul/Paul (as a convert at the time of writing) paints himself as blameless with regards to being a Pharisee and "very high up" in the Jewish religion(Philippians 3:5-6). His first acts recorded in the bible under this "blameless state" are of a murdering savage that goes so far as to compel people to blaspheme.

I'm not sure an observant Jew would recognize him as being a religious zealot *for their faith*. The new believers were still attending synagogue services, still worshiping as the Jews did, and on the same Sabbath -at the time of Saul/Paul's persecution they were not starting new churches and setting up idols to different gods.

If, however, Saul/Paul is aligning himself with the Pharisees and chief priests (whom Yeshua condemned as blind guides and sons of hell) - then perhaps yes. He may have been blameless in *their* traditions/teachings.


Both Judaism and Christianity have their own Pharisees and extra writings.

For Jews - Talmud
For Christians - writings of Pharisee Saul/Paul

He wasn't saved then. He was a murderer, he didn't stay one. He was sent to the gentiles who lived in sin. They tried to kill him and once I think he died. If someone is persecuted for their faith it's a good sign.

 

[Stravinsk]

He wasn't saved then. He was a murderer, he didn't stay one. He was sent to the gentiles who lived in sin. They tried to kill him and once I think he died. If someone is persecuted for their faith it's a good sign.

Read carefully. Compare Acts 26:9-11 directly to Philipians 3:5-6. He is saying here (as a convert) that his actions while a Pharisee were blameless. To him, speaking as a convert, taking people out of the synagogue, having them imprisoned and even compelling them to blaspheme was *blameless*. He is making these claims as a convert, remember. In the present tense of when he is writing them, he is making these claims.

Yeshua called the Pharisees and Teachers of the law blind guides and servants of Hell. Of course he is referring to his contemporaries at the time. If Saul/Paul is identifying with them and calling his actions *blameless* as one of them (after his conversion, remember!) then he is also calling himself one of those whom Yeshua condemned.

Saul/Paul is a Pharisee.
Like the Pharisees that led the Jews at the time.

To me they are the same. I don't listen to Saul/Paul - not because there is not some good things he does say - but because he often mixes in stuff that doesn't belong or misrepresents.
I also don't pay attention to the Talmud. I've read parts of the Babylonian Talmud - and many parts are evil.

 

[user1234]

Stravinsk:

Saul/Paul is a Pharisee. Like the Pharisees that led the Jews at the time.


To me they are the same. I don't listen to Saul/Paul - not because there is not some good things he does say - but because he often mixes in stuff that doesn't belong or misrepresents.

Saul WAS a Pharisee. He became a follower of Jesus, we refer to him as Paul. People didnt really refer to themselves as christians right away , it was a term put on Jesus' believers by others as a derogatory term.
To not listen to Paul is to ignore two-thirds of God's Word, and to miss out on. the many blessings to be gleaned from it. That's both risky and sad.

And to say Paul 'often mixes in stuff that doesn't belong or misrepresents' is setting yourSELF up as being the judge over God's Word.
What is your source of information, and who gives you that authority you claim to have?

Millions have been blessed by and accomplished much good through the reading and believing of God's Word, as penned by Moses, the prophets, Paul, Peter, John etc. Do you set yourself up as judge over them as well?

Jesus loves you ..... You'll find that throughout scripture, including and especially in Paul's writings.

 

[Rens]

Read carefully. Compare Acts 26:9-11 directly to Philipians 3:5-6. He is saying here (as a convert) that his actions while a Pharisee were blameless. To him, speaking as a convert, taking people out of the synagogue, having them imprisoned and even compelling them to blaspheme was *blameless*. He is making these claims as a convert, remember. In the present tense of when he is writing them, he is making these claims.

Yeshua called the Pharisees and Teachers of the law blind guides and servants of Hell. Of course he is referring to his contemporaries at the time. If Saul/Paul is identifying with them and calling his actions *blameless* as one of them (after his conversion, remember!) then he is also calling himself one of those whom Yeshua condemned.

Saul/Paul is a Pharisee.
Like the Pharisees that led the Jews at the time.

To me they are the same. I don't listen to Saul/Paul - not because there is not some good things he does say - but because he often mixes in stuff that doesn't belong or misrepresents.
I also don't pay attention to the Talmud. I've read parts of the Babylonian Talmud - and many parts are evil.

It is a weird thing to say that he was blameless, but he also said he was the worst sinner, I think if you read the context he doesn't mean it like that, blameless to the letter and dead rules maybe without wit. A few sentences later he says he sees it as garbage. He just said this cause those religious Jews were boosting that they were so good, while they weren't either.

 

[user1234]

It is a weird thing to say that he was blameless, but he also said he was the worst sinner, I think if you read the context he doesn't mean it like that, blameless to the letter and dead rules maybe without wit. A few sentences later he says he sees it as garbage. He just said this cause those religious Jews were boosting that they were so good, while they weren't either.

Yes, exactly!
It's kinda like in THIS tone ......
'Okay, you wanna boast? I'll give ya boast!
I was...This this and this! I did that that and that!
If anybody thinks they got the goods, top THIS!
I was as good as you could get!
If anybody thinks they were good, I was better,
and if they thought they were the best, I was blameless!
If anybody thought they were doing what God wanted, it was ME!
I did it all and THEN some, ... I even persecuted those dirty christians,
and I thought I was doing God a favor!'

But he counted ALL that as ..... (joke thread alert .....
..... What's brown and sounds like a bell?)
DUNG !!!

That's right! Worse than rubbish ... excrement! (sorry)
He wasn't saying that his own righteousness was worth anything,
but that, like scripture says, our righteousnesses are like filthy rags.
It's the excellency of the righteousness of Christ that is 'boost-worthy',
(thank you Rens, lol), not our own, and the fact that we stand before
the Throne of God clothed in HIS righteousness as a gift of His grace is so amazing! Jesus Is the One worthy of all our praise!

 

[Rens]

Even Peter didnt understand him.
I think he talks like that ofter. That part where he says women have to shut up was sarcasm, cause first he says they should prophesy in church.

 

[user1234]

Even Peter didnt understand him.
I think he talks like that ofter. That part where he says women have to shut up was sarcasm, cause first he says they should prophesy in church.

Maybe, but he doesnt mix things in that dont belong there. If it's in the bible it's God's Word. That's what I was saying in reply to post #6

 

[Stravinsk]

Stravinsk:

Saul WAS a Pharisee.

Dude, you aren't reading what I wrote. Yes, as a FORMER PHARISEE/CONVERT - Saul/Paul says, in Philippians 3:5-6, that his actions AS A PHARISEE/HEBREW OF HEBREW AND CONCERNING THE LAW - he is BLAMELESS.

In Saul/Paul's world - again - according to him - AS A CONVERT - he says he was BLAMELESS in taking out new Christians from the synagogues - meaning - they were worshiping on Sabbath with the Jews - singling them out - putting them in prison, agreeing to them being stoned, and compelling them to blaspheme.

That is what he says is his "zeal" - persecuting the believers - and by extension he says this is BLAMELESS regarding the "righteousness of the law". There is no law that allowed him to do what he was doing!

So from this verse alone I know he is a liar. The new Christians didn't have their own churches at the time. There is no mention they were doing anything that merited any of the actions Saul/Paul was taking upon them.

Yes, I realize that in the very verses following he says his actions here he "counts for loss". This is not "correcting himself" - it is rather a perfect example of his doublespeak. His actions of murder, imprisonment and compelling to blaspheme innocent people had 0 justification under the law, but he says they do by quoting the "righteousness of the law", then counts it for loss!

He became a follower of Jesus, we refer to him as Paul. People didnt really refer to themselves as christians right away , it was a term put on Jesus' believers by others as a derogatory term.
To not listen to Paul is to ignore two-thirds of God's Word, and to miss out on. the many blessings to be gleaned from it. That's both risky and sad.

Saul/Paul's "blinding light" experience has 0 named witnesses. It's just his story. What's more, in each of the 3 accounts of it the details change. As for "missing out" - I know I am not. I grew up going to Christian churches reading and having read to me the words of Saul/Paul - so I am fairly familiar with them.

He mixes in truth with error - often.

And to say Paul 'often mixes in stuff that doesn't belong or misrepresents' is setting yourSELF up as being the judge over God's Word.
What is your source of information, and who gives you that authority you claim to have?

I don't need any external authority to point out what is plainly written and represented as the Word of God penned by someone who claims to be his spokesman.

Here's one example that immediately comes to mind:

Proverbs 14:15 The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps.

Yet Saul/Paul calls "believing anything" or "believing all things" an attribute of Love!

1 Corinthians 13:7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

 

[user1234]

Dude, you aren't reading what I wrote. Yes, as a FORMER PHARISEE/CONVERT - Saul/Paul says, in Philippians 3:5-6, that his actions AS A PHARISEE/HEBREW OF HEBREW AND CONCERNING THE LAW - he is BLAMELESS.

In Saul/Paul's world - again - according to him - AS A CONVERT - he says he was BLAMELESS in taking out new Christians from the synagogues - meaning - they were worshiping on Sabbath with the Jews - singling them out - putting them in prison, agreeing to them being stoned, and compelling them to blaspheme.

That is what he says is his "zeal" - persecuting the believers - and by extension he says this is BLAMELESS regarding the "righteousness of the law". There is no law that allowed him to do what he was doing!

So from this verse alone I know he is a liar. The new Christians didn't have their own churches at the time. There is no mention they were doing anything that merited any of the actions Saul/Paul was taking upon them.

Yes, I realize that in the very verses following he says his actions here he "counts for loss". This is not "correcting himself" - it is rather a perfect example of his doublespeak. His actions of murder, imprisonment and compelling to blaspheme innocent people had 0 justification under the law, but he says they do by quoting the "righteousness of the law", then counts it for loss!



Saul/Paul's "blinding light" experience has 0 named witnesses. It's just his story. What's more, in each of the 3 accounts of it the details change. As for "missing out" - I know I am not. I grew up going to Christian churches reading and having read to me the words of Saul/Paul - so I am fairly familiar with them.

He mixes in truth with error - often.



I don't need any external authority to point out what is plainly written and represented as the Word of God penned by someone who claims to be his spokesman.

Here's one example that immediately comes to mind:

Proverbs 14:15 The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps.

Yet Saul/Paul calls "believing anything" or "believing all things" an attribute of Love!

1 Corinthians 13:7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Hi Stravinsk ...
Sorry, my fault for not reading your profile, I didn't realize you claimed to not be a saved believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. My mistake, I'm sorry for assuming.

As a self-proclaimed deist, that puts your post in a different light. It makes sense, then, that there are portions, in this case, major portions of scripture you dispute or even discard.
Interestingly enough, you use the very same bible as fact in order to prove it to be fiction.
But you're not the first, and surely won't be the last.
But there's been many a hammer of unbelief that's been broken over the anvil of truth that is God's Word. (My own included)

But it's not too hard to see that the bible proclaims that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, and that's something all the New Testament writers agree on.
Early on, perhaps some of them had minor disputes over secondary issues, but the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things, and it's pretty plain to see who their God and Saviour is. And therefore, ours.

So it's not really me or even Paul you have a dispute with, it's the Word of God and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who loves us and gave Himself FOR us.

There isn't any other name under heaven whereby men must be saved, and if you call upon His name, He will save you.

But since Paul penned both of those things, and you claim that he is a liar, it makes sense that you wouldn't believe him when he tells you about the love of God and the salvation that is a free gift of God's grace through faith in Jesus.

I pray you come to receive God's gift for you, and soon, settle it once and for all, it will be a joyous day and you won't regret it in the long run. But until you do, you will continue to decide for yourself which parts of scripture to believe or not, and you'll continue to have more frustrations and questions as you try to figure out just what to believe.

With love, I and many here I'm sure, would tell you, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, and then the Holy Spirit will open up the scriptures and your understanding and a new adventure will begin. You can do that today, Stravinsk. Praying for you, friend, in all sincerity. Peace.

 

[Stravinsk]

Hi Stravinsk ...
Sorry, my fault for not reading your profile, I didn't realize you claimed to not be a saved believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. My mistake, I'm sorry for assuming.

Re: underlined - I claimed that? Where? Now you are lying.

I believe Yeshua - as outlined in the Gospels of Matthew and John. They are eyewitnesses to His words. Luke and Mark are not eyewitnesses, and neither is Saul/Paul.

As for being "saved" in the present tense. Well, Yeshua tells me that not only is this God's decision but that those who believe him and endures to the end will be saved. They will be raised on the last day.

News for you - The last day hasn't come.

 

[user1234]

Re: underlined - I claimed that? Where? Now you are lying.

I believe Yeshua - as outlined in the Gospels of Matthew and John. They are eyewitnesses to His words. Luke and Mark are not eyewitnesses, and neither is Saul/Paul.

As for being "saved" in the present tense. Well, Yeshua tells me that not only is this God's decision but that those who believe him and endures to the end will be saved. They will be raised on the last day.

News for you - The last day hasn't come.

I didn't mean that offensively, nor was I intending to lie, I merely was referring to your claiming to be a deist, and so I simply took that and combined with your post, that you were claiming to be not a saved believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now I'm confused .... If you ARE a believer in Jesus, but you list yourself as a deist, what does that actually mean? I was under the impression that a deist was someone who claimed to believe in a god, but did not believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
Also, if Jesus didn't save you, what are you believing Him for? I'm not understanding that.

Maybe you could ease up a bit too on calling people liars. First Paul and then me. If I made a mistake about the definition of a deist, that's all it was. I wasn't being a liar.
As far as God's Word goes, just because sometimes peopke come across things that appear to be contradictions in the bible, doesn't make the writer a liar.
Usually it it turns out the reader just misunderstood something. Again, PEACE, friend.

 

[Stravinsk]

I didn't mean that offensively, nor was I intending to lie, I merely was referring to your claiming to be a deist, and so I simply took that and combined with your post, that you were claiming to be not a saved believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now I'm confused .... If you ARE a believer in Jesus, but you list yourself as a deist, what does that actually mean? I was under the impression that a deist was someone who claimed to believe in a god, but did not believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
Also, if Jesus didn't save you, what are you believing Him for? I'm not understanding that.

Deists, by definition believe in a Creator by the evidence of Creation. We point to Creation itself as evidence of the Creator. In this sense, all persons, whatever religion they are - if they believe this - that there is a Creator and that the Creation itself is evidence of that - are, on this basic belief - Deists. That is where the commonality ends, however. There are Deists who believe in the words of Yeshua. There are Deists who do not.

Also on this belief - Deists cannot be, by the very nature of being Deist - agnostic or atheist. These are positions that deny a Creator, either by saying "Creator doesn't exist" or saying "it's not possible to know if a Creator exists". Atheist and Agnostic are by definition NOT DEISTS.

The "strong suit" of Deism is pointing to Creation as evidence of Creator. That being said - we are much more hesitant with revealed religion. If a revealed religion be truth - then it should not crumble with inspection or testing. Saul/Paul makes very great claims based on a conversion that has no named witnesses. It is solely from his word much like Islam started on one man's word - the supposed prophet Muhammad. Muslims blindly believe Muhammad. Christians (most) blindly believe Saul/Paul.

But the Witnesses of Yeshua trump any and every other so called prophet that follows. They are given first place when judging any other teaching of men on this subject.

As for believing Yeshua - I do believe Him. He tells me certain things and I believe Him. If I believe Him, I cannot believe teachings that contradict Him.

That being said, there are many (as He said there would be) that claim to be Him or speak for Him. I have tested Saul/Paul and believe he is a false prophet. He mixes truth with error. Or, yeast in the dough. Yeast causes dough to rise - but Yeshua is risen in the middle of the FEAST OF UNRISEN (UNLEAVENED) BREAD. He is raised by God - and not by false teachings - the YEAST of the Pharisees.

On being saved - in the sense you mean it - in the present tense. This is not a teaching of Yeshua. "Will be" is not the same as "is". As a believer in the Witnesses of Matthew and John - there is no passage in them that says salvation (in the eternal sense) is something that can be had or attained in the present. It is a possibility for persons in the future.

See for yourself: "Saved":

https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=saved&t=KJV#s=s_primary_40_1

Search "save" "salvation" "saved" in Gospels of Matthew or John. It is not something someone can claim because it is God's decision and happens at a later time. That time is "The Last Day".

When is the "Last Day"? No one knows. However, I have a strong suspicion (note - suspicion, not a claim of fact) that it will fall on the Last Day of the Feast of Tabernacles - because of this: John 7:37

Maybe you could ease up a bit too on calling people liars. First Paul and then me. If I made a mistake about the definition of a deist, that's all it was. I wasn't being a liar.
As far as God's Word goes, just because sometimes peopke come across things that appear to be contradictions in the bible, doesn't make the writer a liar.
Usually it it turns out the reader just misunderstood something. Again, PEACE, friend.

Having a misunderstanding of a term is one thing. However, having that misunderstanding cannot justify making a claim that someone said something they didn't. You are forgiven. Please do not put words in my mouth in future.

 

[user1234]

Having a misunderstanding of a term is one thing. However, having that misunderstanding cannot justify making a claim that someone said something they didn't. You are forgiven. Please do not put words in my mouth in future.

Yeah, no I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I only came to a conclusion based on your post and your profile saying you were a deist. At first, I assumed you were a christian, and I apologized for that mistake. Then I merely stated I DIDN'T KNOW that you claimed you weren't a saved believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. That was simply a conclusion I came to, not an attempt to put words in your mouth. Plus, you seemed to agree at one point, saying you WILL be saved, but cant say that you ARE NOW, so I'm not really sure what I said wrong. You say you believe in Jesus, but you dont believe the Gospel accounts of Mark and Luke, Paul you called a liar, ..... I'm just trying to understand what it is you're believing so I can communicate more clearly with you, friend. It's been rather confusing so far.
And once again, I say, Peace, Stravinsk.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Sometimes folk come to spurious conclusions.

 

[user1234]

Sometimes folk come to spurious conclusions.

sometimes :=D:

 

[Stravinsk]

Yeah, no I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I only came to a conclusion based on your post and your profile saying you were a deist. At first, I assumed you were a christian, and I apologized for that mistake. Then I merely stated I DIDN'T KNOW that you claimed you weren't a saved believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. That was simply a conclusion I came to, not an attempt to put words in your mouth.

Coming to an opinion on something (or someone) is very different from claiming they said something they did not.

I believe in the words of Yeshua as given by His 2 Witnesses. Matthew and John. I have never made the claim you keep saying I have.

And by the way - if it isn't blatantly obvious - anyone can claim "Jesus is Lord. Raised from the Dead!". The Mormons claim it. Every denomination of Christendom claims it. The nutcases who claim they ARE Jesus Christ claim it. We recently had a poster here claiming he was God and everyone lived in his AI universe. This person would readily tell you that not only was he God but also that he was a "saved believer in the Lord Jesus Christ".

Your worldview on this matter is a bit simple and probably relies on what? Romans 10:9-10.

Yeshua says different. Matthew 7:21-23

Plus, you seemed to agree at one point, saying you WILL be saved, but cant say that you ARE NOW, so I'm not really sure what I said wrong. You say you believe in Jesus, but you dont believe the Gospel accounts of Mark and Luke, Paul you called a liar, ..... I'm just trying to understand what it is you're believing so I can communicate more clearly with you, friend. It's been rather confusing so far.
And once again, I say, Peace, Stravinsk.

Mark, Luke and Saul/Paul are not eyewitnesses to the life of Christ. Matthew and John are. If one compares Luke (especially Luke) to Matthew and John reading side by side one will see many problems - contradictions in teachings.