Slade Henson wrote:I respectfully disagree. I think an apostate Pharisee is one who disbands with Torah and says it is of no effect or no importance.
The reason: Paul, even when he was noted as believing in Messiah, was allowed to engage conversation within the Synagogue. This would not be allowed for an apostate.
-- slade
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, 12 December, 2004 20.49
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth always rational?
Allow me to do a hats off to Slade for his profound play on words -- crystal-myth. Too good !!!!!!
It seems to me that a Pharisee who believes in the Christ, would be considered "apostate" by definition. Within the Messianic community of believers (is there another term?), I can see a continued respect for the (converted) Pharisee, but in the larger Jewish community, he would be considered apostate, would he not?
John
Should we not keep in mind that Paul's stated desire was to be all things to all people that he might win some to Christ?
When I was saved, my first desire was to see my friends saved. I do not think it was much different for Paul. He knew well that they were a self righteous bunch. He had been one of them until God got his attention. He wanted them to know his Savior and to be saved. He wanted them to be new creatures in Christ, not to remain in bondage to the law. Like his Lord, Paul was not willing for any to be lost. Following God's plan, he went first to the Jews. When the majority of them sneered at him, he went to the Gentiles. It's all in the Book.
Terry
Slade, I think, is speaking of the attitudes of those who remained in Judaism. Paul continued to be allowed a hearing. Good point on the part of Slade, I think.
BUT, Terry's point, above, is exellent. I do believe it explains especially what happened in Acts 21. In Paul, I see a determination to remain a Jew as he ministered to the Gentiles and to do so for the very reason given above. Surely, the sacrifice of "purification" was lost in the light of the Cross (?). When we combine verse 24,25, it can be well argued that such involvement was a "peace keeping" move, not to be considered for the Expanding Assembly (i.e. the Gentiles).
I do think that I tend to argue Slade's and Jeff's conclusions from the view point of Torah compliance as a part of the salvation event -- soemthing, I think, each has made clear is NOT the case. I, personally, go to that tendency almost without thinking. Sorry.
Does that change the nature of the discussion? We seem to be in full agreement on the issue of salvation and faith and the like -- actually, very much so. The discussion intensifies, however, when it comes to what it is that God desires of us as disciples. Are we lost if we act on different "command philosophies" ? No (?)
With that in mind, we are free, if you will, to discuss just what it is that God expects. That is how I understand the context of this ongoing thread.
Smitty.
