|
|
Post by alon on May 10, 2014 12:35:52 GMT -8
One of the sillier things most in mainC are taught is that "Saul" (Rav Sha'ul) had his name changed to "Paul" at his conversion. Below is an excerpted version of Acts 9, KJV, where his conversion in recorded:
edit: I was half asleep when I wrote this. I should have said "below is a redaction of Acts 9"- better would be to read it for yourself and see how many times he is still called "Saul," not "Paul," even in the KJV!
Acts 9: 1 And Saul, ..., went unto the high priest, ... 3 And as he journeyed , he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? ... And the Lord said unto him, Arise , and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do . ... 8 And Saul arose from the earth; ... 10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. ... 11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise , and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold , he prayeth , 12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in , and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. ...15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way : for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: ... 17 And Ananias went his way , and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said , Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest , hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight , and be filled with the Holy Ghost. ... Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. ...22 But Saul increased the more in strength ... 26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. ...
Nowhere here do we see a change of name. In fact, later we see:
Acts 13:9 "Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost , set his eyes on him,"
The fact is that Rav Sha'ul was born both a Jew and a Roman Citizen (Acts 22:3, 22:28, 23:6), so he had both a Jewish name, Sha'ul, and a Roman name, Paul. This was so from his infancy.
From the website “Catholic Answers”; Full Question: Why did God change Saul's name to Paul?
Answer: He didn't. Many mistakenly assume the Lord changed Saul's name to Paul sometime after Saul converted from Judaism to Christianity, which happened during his encounter with Christ on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-19). Unlike the instance of Jesus changing Simon's name to Kepha (Gk. Petros) as a way of signifying the special role he would play in the Church (Mt 16:18, Jn 1:41-42), in Paul's case there was no name change.
Saul of Tarsus was born a Jew, "circumcised on the eight day, of the race of Israel, or the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrew parentage, in observance of the law a Pharisee" (Phil 3:5). The Hebrew name given him by his parents was Saul, but, because his father was a Roman citizen (and therefore Saul inherited Roman citizenship), Saul also had the Latin name Paul (Acts 16:37, 22:25-28), the custom of dual names being common in those days. Since he grew up in a strict Pharisee environment, the name Saul was by far the more appropriate name to go by.
So, the Catholics got this one right! But what about mainstream folks? Let's look at the contortions they go through in order to support their doctrine that "Saul" became "Paul" at his conversion. In "Expositions of the Holy Scripture: The Acts" Alexander Maclaren says "Why was it that at this period the Apostle took up this new designation? I think that the coincidence between his name and that of the governor of Cyprus, who believed at his preaching, Sergius Paulus, is too remarkable to be accidental. And though, no doubt, it was the custom for the Jews of that day, especially for those of them who lived in Gentile lands, to have, for convenience' sake, two names, one Jewish and one Gentile -- one for use amongst their brethren, and one for use amongst the heathen -- still we have no distinct intimation that the Apostle bore a Gentile name before this moment. And the fact that the name which he bears now is the same as that of his first convert, seems to me to point the explanation.I take it, then, that the assumption of the name of Paul instead of the name of Saul occurred at this point, stood in some relation to his missionary work, and was intended in some sense as a memorial of his first victory in the preaching of the Gospel."
So "Paul" is a trophy name! And this after acknowledging it was the custom to have both a Gentile and a Jewish name. Amazing.
Jack Zavada, in his treatise "Conversion of Paul - Bible Story Summary: The Damascus Road Conversion of Paul was a Miraculous Turnaround" gives the more typical mainC explanation; "After his conversion, Saul changed his name to Paul."
The fact is there was no change of name involved in the "conversion" of "Paul." Furthermore, I'd argue there was no "conversion" either in the sense meant by Christianity. Rav Sha'ul remained a Jew, he was simply convinced by Yeshua that He, Yeshua, was HaMoshiac. Sha'ul would later say "They have known me for a long time; and if they are willing, they can testify that I have followed the strictest party in our religion - that is, I have lived as a Parush." Acts 26:5. That says to me that there was no "conversion" on the road to Damascus.
Just another couple of the mainC doctrines that we need to disabuse ourselves of.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by Questor on May 11, 2014 20:32:43 GMT -8
One of the sillier things most in mainC are taught is that "Saul" (Rav Sha'ul) had his name changed to "Paul" at his conversion. Below is an excerpted version of Acts 9, KJV, where his conversion in recorded: edit: I was half asleep when I wrote this. I should have said "below is a redaction of Acts 9"- better would be to read it for yourself and see how many times he is still called "Saul," not "Paul," even in the KJV!
Acts 9: 1 And Saul, ..., went unto the high priest, ... 3 And as he journeyed , he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? ... And the Lord said unto him, Arise , and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do . ... 8 And Saul arose from the earth; ... 10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. ... 11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise , and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold , he prayeth , 12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in , and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. ...15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way : for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: ... 17 And Ananias went his way , and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said , Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest , hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight , and be filled with the Holy Ghost. ... Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. ...22 But Saul increased the more in strength ... 26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. ...Nowhere here do we see a change of name. In fact, later we see: Acts 13:9 "Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost , set his eyes on him," The fact is that Rav Sha'ul was born both a Jew and a Roman Citizen (Acts 22:3, 22:28, 23:6), so he had both a Jewish name, Sha'ul, and a Roman name, Paul. This was so from his infancy. From the website “Catholic Answers”; Full Question: Why did God change Saul's name to Paul?
Answer: He didn't. Many mistakenly assume the Lord changed Saul's name to Paul sometime after Saul converted from Judaism to Christianity, which happened during his encounter with Christ on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-19). Unlike the instance of Jesus changing Simon's name to Kepha (Gk. Petros) as a way of signifying the special role he would play in the Church (Mt 16:18, Jn 1:41-42), in Paul's case there was no name change.
Saul of Tarsus was born a Jew, "circumcised on the eight day, of the race of Israel, or the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrew parentage, in observance of the law a Pharisee" (Phil 3:5). The Hebrew name given him by his parents was Saul, but, because his father was a Roman citizen (and therefore Saul inherited Roman citizenship), Saul also had the Latin name Paul (Acts 16:37, 22:25-28), the custom of dual names being common in those days. Since he grew up in a strict Pharisee environment, the name Saul was by far the more appropriate name to go by.So, the Catholics got this one right! But what about mainstream folks? Let's look at the contortions they go through in order to support their doctrine that "Saul" became "Paul" at his conversion. In "Expositions of the Holy Scripture: The Acts" Alexander Maclaren says "Why was it that at this period the Apostle took up this new designation? I think that the coincidence between his name and that of the governor of Cyprus, who believed at his preaching, Sergius Paulus, is too remarkable to be accidental. And though, no doubt, it was the custom for the Jews of that day, especially for those of them who lived in Gentile lands, to have, for convenience' sake, two names, one Jewish and one Gentile -- one for use amongst their brethren, and one for use amongst the heathen -- still we have no distinct intimation that the Apostle bore a Gentile name before this moment. And the fact that the name which he bears now is the same as that of his first convert, seems to me to point the explanation.I take it, then, that the assumption of the name of Paul instead of the name of Saul occurred at this point, stood in some relation to his missionary work, and was intended in some sense as a memorial of his first victory in the preaching of the Gospel."So "Paul" is a trophy name! And this after acknowledging it was the custom to have both a Gentile and a Jewish name. Amazing. Jack Zavada, in his treatise "Conversion of Paul - Bible Story Summary: The Damascus Road Conversion of Paul was a Miraculous Turnaround" gives the more typical mainC explanation; "After his conversion, Saul changed his name to Paul."The fact is there was no change of name involved in the "conversion" of "Paul." Furthermore, I'd argue there was no "conversion" either in the sense meant by Christianity. Rav Sha'ul remained a Jew, he was simply convinced by Yeshua that He, Yeshua, was HaMoshiac. Sha'ul would later say "They have known me for a long time; and if they are willing, they can testify that I have followed the strictest party in our religion - that is, I have lived as a Parush." Acts 26:5. That says to me that there was no "conversion" on the road to Damascus. Just another couple of the mainC doctrines that we need to disabuse ourselves of. Dan C
I don't have any difficulty with either of his names, although I prefer Sha'ul since it is not a Greco/Roman name, and we are not talking about Greco/Roman anything when we are discussing Yehoshua.
But then, I also have difficulty with those MainC Believers that quote Paul above Yehoshua on the same subject, and tell me that Paul had special training with Yehoshua, so Paul would know best.
Sha'ul/Paul is very good at explaining Judaism with a 'Son of Man' twist to Gentiles as well as Jews, but only if you filter the changes made, just here and there, by those who never spoke or understood Hebrew from a Hebraic point of view. Take out the few lines that make you want to just scream at the translators, because they certainly make 'Paul' out to be the last word on Messiah when Messiah had yet to give the Revelation to John, with particular emphasis on assemblies established by Sha'ul.
If you read those seven letters in Revelation as being critical of Sha'ul's lasting impact on the seven churches, you begin to see where some people heard Sha'ul clearly, and others did not. Sha'ul did his best, and it was a very good best, but the effect of his teachings were not as well carried out by the churches as Yehoshua seemed to require. If given in 95 A.D., Yehoshua was describing what remained long after Sha'ul's death, and the effect of the remaining church hierarchy on what was taught.
The letters in Revelation are aimed at 2nd/3rd Gen Messianics, and obviously what remained in the Messianic Synagogues after Sha'ul's death was not all what was desired. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 11, 2014 22:35:52 GMT -8
The seven letters in Revelation mostly dealt with the Greek influences which were creeping in with more Gentiles trained in that mythological system. I don't think they were any reflection on Rav Sha'ul, per-se. Maybe on how some of his teachings were being twisted, which is what mythology does to all teaching.
Ephesus- commended for its works: carrying the gospel to the world (Matt 24:12-14) and feeding the flock so members could grow.(John 21:16, 17). 52-54 CE Sha'ul lived there and organized missionary activity. There was a dispute with the artisans whose living was making and selling statuettes of the Airtimes (Acts 19:23-41). Also Rev 2:6, "But you have this in your favor: you hate what the Nicolaitans do - I hate it too."
Nicolaitans were a group of people who believed that since they were redeemed by Jesus and, therefore, free in him, they could participate in immoral ceremonies since idols were not gods anyway. (Sound like any group we now?) They also taught that the world and the flesh was evil, and so should be given over to evil desires. The intellect was pure, and the goal was to improve the intellect and get to heaven. (And again ...) The The church at Ephesus resisted these and other pagan doctrines trying to worm their way into the congregation, but apparently many had become weary of the fight and had lost their first love.
Smyrna was commended and exhorted, so no perils for Pauline discourse there ...
Pergamum- Rev 2:14 "Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: you have some people who hold to the teaching of Bil'am, who taught Balak to set a trap for the people of Isra'el, so that they would eat food that had been sacrificed to idols and commit sexual sin." Again, pure pagan influence.
Thyatira- Rev 2:20 "But I have this against you: you continue to tolerate that Izevel woman, the one who claims to be a prophet, but is teaching and deceiving my servants to commit sexual sin and eat food that has been sacrificed to idols." Thyatira had more trade guilds than any other city. They held meetings which began and ended with pouring of libations to the gods, and usually ended with sexually immoral acts. Messianic believrs could not be guild members, and thus couldn't make a good living unless they participated, so many followed this false prophetess out of "necessity". Others- well, you figure out why ... . But again, paganism creeping into the assembly was the problem, not Rav Sha'ul.
Sardis- Rev 3:1b " "I know what you are doing - you have a reputation for being alive, but in fact you are dead!" Sardis was known for its decadence and immorality, even among the pagan world. Whenever peoples bellies are full and their lusts sated, they tend to let down their guard. The Messianic community at Sardis had grown lazy and cold towards the spiritual dangers in the community around them. (Sounds like maybe there is a warning here for us... think?) This is just human nature, which inclines to paganism if we don't guard against it.
Philadelphia- read about them yourself, as they withstood the trials. Suffice to say this is one reason I am conscientious about telling people I am a believer in Messianic Judaism, but am not Jewish by birth.
Laodicea- Rev 3:16 "So, because you are lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of my mouth!" I don't know, maybe they became lukewarm while reading one of Rav Sha'uls darash's; but I doubt it. Lukewarm churches tend to be self satisfied, with all their programs and a feel good religion. Sha'ul never made anyone feel THAT good!
1,2,3,4,5,6,7 ... yep, that's all of 'em. I don't think we can lay any of these problems at the feet of Rav Sha'ul, or even of those who altered his teachings. I'd have to say these churches went astray on their own, with a little help from the enemy.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by Questor on May 11, 2014 23:31:10 GMT -8
The seven letters in Revelation mostly dealt with the Greek influences which were creeping in with more Gentiles trained in that mythological system. I don't think they were any reflection on Rav Sha'ul, per-se. Maybe on how some of his teachings were being twisted, which is what mythology does to all teaching. Ephesus- commended for its works: carrying the gospel to the world (Matt 24:12-14) and feeding the flock so members could grow.(John 21:16, 17). 52-54 CE Sha'ul lived there and organized missionary activity. There was a dispute with the artisans whose living was making and selling statuettes of the Airtimes (Acts 19:23-41). Also Rev 2:6, "But you have this in your favor: you hate what the Nicolaitans do - I hate it too." Nicolaitans were a group of people who believed that since they were redeemed by Jesus and, therefore, free in him, they could participate in immoral ceremonies since idols were not gods anyway. (Sound like any group we now?) They also taught that the world and the flesh was evil, and so should be given over to evil desires. The intellect was pure, and the goal was to improve the intellect and get to heaven. (And again ...) The The church at Ephesus resisted these and other pagan doctrines trying to worm their way into the congregation, but apparently many had become weary of the fight and had lost their first love. Smyrna was commended and exhorted, so no perils for Pauline discourse there ... Pergamum- Rev 2:14 "Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: you have some people who hold to the teaching of Bil'am, who taught Balak to set a trap for the people of Isra'el, so that they would eat food that had been sacrificed to idols and commit sexual sin." Again, pure pagan influence. Thyatira- Rev 2:20 "But I have this against you: you continue to tolerate that Izevel woman, the one who claims to be a prophet, but is teaching and deceiving my servants to commit sexual sin and eat food that has been sacrificed to idols." Thyatira had more trade guilds than any other city. They held meetings which began and ended with pouring of libations to the gods, and usually ended with sexually immoral acts. Messianic believrs could not be guild members, and thus couldn't make a good living unless they participated, so many followed this false prophetess out of "necessity". Others- well, you figure out why ... . But again, paganism creeping into the assembly was the problem, not Rav Sha'ul. Sardis- Rev 3:1b " "I know what you are doing - you have a reputation for being alive, but in fact you are dead!" Sardis was known for its decadence and immorality, even among the pagan world. Whenever peoples bellies are full and their lusts sated, they tend to let down their guard. The Messianic community at Sardis had grown lazy and cold towards the spiritual dangers in the community around them. (Sounds like maybe there is a warning here for us... think?) This is just human nature, which inclines to paganism if we don't guard against it. Philadelphia- read about them yourself, as they withstood the trials. Suffice to say this is one reason I am conscientious about telling people I am a believer in Messianic Judaism, but am not Jewish by birth. Laodicea- Rev 3:16 "So, because you are lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of my mouth!" I don't know, maybe they became lukewarm while reading one of Rav Sha'uls darash's; but I doubt it. Lukewarm churches tend to be self satisfied, with all their programs and a feel good religion. Sha'ul never made anyone feel THAT good! 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 ... yep, that's all of 'em. I don't think we can lay any of these problems at the feet of Rav Sha'ul, or even of those who altered his teachings. I'd have to say these churches went astray on their own, with a little help from the enemy. Dan C said: "Maybe on how some of his teachings were being twisted, which is what mythology does to all teaching." Not maybe...Definately!!!
There are those that say the bit about Revelation 2:2 (CJB)
2 “I know what you have been doing, how hard you have worked, how you have persevered, and how you can’t stand wicked people; so you tested those who call themselves emissaries but aren’t — and you found them to be liars. " was about Sha'ul, and might be said by those who are offended by Sha'ul, and the way his discourse was translated, but the word is obviously plural, as is the sentence structure, so I don't think so.
And like any good Boss, Yehoshua would have burned Sha'ul's ears about anything Sha'ul said or did wrong in teaching privately, because of Sha'ul's ability to explain Judaism to Gentiles so well. Yehoshua would have spoken very openly to Sha'ul, and Sha'ul would have (and probably did) double down his efforts...perhaps that 'thorn' that was given Sha'ul to keep him from excessive pride and arrogance?
Messinianism would never have gotten a foothold in Rome without the Adversary trying to twist things around...causing First Gen Messianics to die in droves under Nero, which sparked a spiritual flame long after Rome stopped burning. The fact that Christianity was not fully Messianic anymore after the first generation did not deter the Ruach, or there would not be so many Believers that do bear fruit in MainC, and who are keeping that flame alive despite all of history to come to this point where MJ's and MG's at least stand shoulder to shoulder, and where the MG's with sense, send the MJ's to the Jews! (And inadvertantly, in our own communities, to the MainC.)
Wow...that even sounds planned, or something!  |
|
|
|
Post by alon on May 11, 2014 23:50:53 GMT -8
There are those that say the bit about Revelation 2:2 (CJB)
2 “I know what you have been doing, how hard you have worked, how you have persevered, and how you can’t stand wicked people; so you tested those who call themselves emissaries but aren’t — and you found them to be liars. "was about Sha'ul, and might be said by those who are offended by Sha'ul, and the way his discourse was translated, but the word is obviously plural, as is the sentence structure, so I don't think so.I don't think so either. As I pointed out, it was primarily the pagan influences where the congregations were located that were worming their way into the relatively new movement. And they wouldn't have had a translation of the Pauline letters. They would have had the real thing, first edition, in Hebrew. Dan C |
|
- there are 70 faces to 
