Replies

Of course Paul was a Jew...a Jew who had converted to Christianity by divine influence. His words to the audience in Acts 22:3 were an attempt to get the audience to identify with him in hopes he could convert them as well. He then recounted his own conversion and the crowd in the latter part of the chapter rejected both him and his message. So you need to read further than verse 3 to see what really went on. This does not make Paul a Jew who practiced the Old Law.

In chapter 23, Paul was not acquitted. He made use of the schism between the Pharisees and Sadduccees concerning resurrection of the dead to disrupt the council thus clearing the way to escape. His words concerning the resurrection form part of the basic tenants of Christianity...Christ’s resurrection from the dead being essential to the core beliefs. He held his belief in the matter both as a Pharisee practicing the Old Law and later, after his conversion, as an Apostle of Christ...because the words were the truth. The Pharisees found no fault in him only on this point and that was enough to save Paul’s life. This argument between the Pharisees and the Sadducees became so heated that soldiers had to intervene and rescue Paul. So, no, he wasn’t acquitted, just removed from the scene.

So yes, Paul was a Jew, and no, he did not continue to uphold the Law of Moses after his conversion.

So your contention, Paul is a Jew, is correct...in part.

Of course Paul was a Jew...a Jew who had converted to Christianity by divine influence. His words to the audience in Acts 22:3 were an attempt to get the audience to identify with him in hopes he could convert them as well.

so, he is lying about being a Jew, or you are playing word games here. what is he then? My bible says he is a Jew.

In chapter 23, Paul was not acquitted. He made use of the schism between the Pharisees and Sadduccees concerning resurrection of the dead to disrupt the council thus clearing the way to escape.

this is utter and complete garbage. "baffle em with B.S." is not a valid defense.

The Pharisees found no fault in him only on this point and that was enough to save Paul’s life. This argument between the Pharisees and the Sadducees became so heated that soldiers had to intervene and rescue Paul. So, no, he wasn’t acquitted, just removed from the scene.

do you remember what Paul was doing before his meeting on the road to Damascus?

Acts 22
4 I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women,
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.

How is it he was able to 'persecute this Way to the death', yet when he was on trial, suddenly he gets aquitted.
yes, he certainly was acquitted by the Pharisees.
AND suddenly you are an expert on Jewish law to be able to tell me what technicalities he was able to get off on?

So yes, Paul was a Jew, and no, he did not continue to uphold the Law of Moses after his conversion. So your contention, Paul is a Jew, is correct...in part.

Again, where does it say he did not uphold the law?
paul spoke many times, vehemently about Law in Grace in the context of Salvation, as in we are saved by Grace through faith but he never disowned the Law