|
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
g wrote: > ftr, this comment is germane to the critique of > your comments to Judy--acc to the NT, the Ap. > Paul's Judaisim (the Pharisaic 'doctrine' he was > taught) radically conflicts with the 'doctrine' > of God, as above, acc to JC Radically conflicts? Why then did Jesus say to the Jews, "Search
the
scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5:39 KJV) Why did he tell his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." (Matthew 23:2-3 KJV) jt: He also told the Jewish leaders that their
traditions had made
the Word of God of no effect in the lives of the ppl.
Don't forget
the Torah which is all the extra teaching they loaded
on to the
ppl.
It does not look to me like there was a radical conflict in regards
to
doctrine / teaching. Rather, the conflict was in actually walking according to the teaching rather than treating it academically. jt: It was the teaching itself also because although
they sat in
Moses' seat and were responsible for teaching the ppl
these
leaders were not understanding and doing it themselves
so they
were no example for the ppl to follow.
g wrote:
> S/Paul's mind was changed radically about JC > as he followed JCs instructions in Acts 9, > after he got floored Yes, his mind was changed radically, but did he abandon all
his former training, or did his former training take on a new
perspective? I think it was the latter.
jt: He began to receive understanding from the Lord
in
person.
g wrote:
> there is no NT evidence that the Ap Paul relied > on on any other experience as the source of sound > doctrine The point was that he had subjective experience with knowledge
rather than just a mental exercise or argument.
With regard to his use of his Pharisaical training, I think the
NT
evidence is found in his frequent reference to the Hebrew Scriptures. "As it is written" was a common phrase of his. Acts 26 also indicates that his arguments were such that other Hebrew men could relate to them, suggesting a reliance on Pharisaical training that other educated men in his day could relate to. jt: He had access to the scriptures, why would he need
Pharasiacal
training when Jesus said they were the blind leading
the blind. The
more honorable ones in Berea were able to check what
Paul taught
by the scriptures. Why arn't they and the Spirit
of God enough?
"And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice,
Paul,
thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad. But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." (Acts 26:24-28 KJV) jt: Yes and the hot shots were also surprised at
the disciples who were
unlearned fishermen and they took note that they had
been with Jesus.
Jesus can make ppl appear to be pretty
smart.
Paul also quoted secular poets (Acts 17:29, Titus 1:12), indicating
that
he did not discard his education completely in his efforts to further Christ. I guess if Paul would quote Epimenides here in this forum and affirm what he said was true that we would have somebody complaining about how Paul was focusing too much on Epimenides and not talking enough about Jesus Christ! jt: But he didn't quote Epimenides or any other apostle
of darkness.
and ppl make so much out of that one solitary
line.
Note that even Jesus Christ himself apparently made reference to
the
philosophers and thinkers of his day. "Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple,
and
taught. And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" (John 7:14-15 KJV) jt: Don't you have this backward David. They were
marvelling at his
understanding BECAUSE he had never learned. When did he
make
reference to any philosopher or thinker of his
day?
The bottom line? Whether we have knowledge or not, all things are
for
Christ and to the glory of Christ. jt: Before we try and get into his presence with the
"strange fire" we
might need to check some of
these things in the light of His Word.
judyt
"Man in his pomp is like the beasts
that perish" |
