SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Do you know of famous single Christians?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 )
PosterThread
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7469
Mississippi

 Re:

Hmmm...Jimmy, I thought you were going to mention yourself! :-)


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2012/5/11 11:09Profile
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7469
Mississippi

 Re:

QUOTE
______________________________________________________________
I see. Thanks! I wonder if he actually was a member of the Sanhedrin, or if being a married was even a requirement to be a part of this group. Apparently, if you trust the differing "factoids" on the internet, these things are inconclusive as well. It's amazing what an ignoramus such as myself can conjure up through Google.
______________________________________________________________

Paul, I heard this taught back in the mid 60s at Bible School, long before the internet.

Besides the reasons given here, some would suggest that since he writes about marriage as he does, it appears to have been penned by one intimately acquainted with marriage.

Some early writers, like Eusebius, infer that Paul was a married man but then in 1Cor.7:7,8 many believe he is saying he is single.

But does it really matter? Doesn't to me.


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2012/5/11 11:24Profile
ArtB
Member



Joined: 2004/4/27
Posts: 431
New York

 Re:

Ginnyrose wrote:

"Some early writers, like Eusebius, infer that Paul was a married man but then in 1Cor.7:7,8 many believe he is saying he is single.

But does it really matter? Doesn't to me."

I agree, it does not matter if Paul was married or unmarried, Paul was appointed an Apostle as chosen directly by our Lord Jesus.


_________________
Arthur Biele

 2012/5/13 13:50Profile
yuehan
Member



Joined: 2011/6/15
Posts: 510


 Re:

I've heard this said before, but Scripture does not explicitly affirm that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin.

Personally I think Paul's affirming the benefits of singlehood in 1 Corinthians 7 makes more sense if he had never married.

 2012/5/13 16:19Profile
ArtB
Member



Joined: 2004/4/27
Posts: 431
New York

 Re:

Yuehan wrote "I've heard this said before, but Scripture does not explicitly affirm that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin."

Scripture does confirm that Paul is a member of the Sanhedrin.

The Sanhedrin consisted of 71 judges. God thus commanded Moses, "Gather to Me 70 men of the elders of Israel... and bring them to the Tent of Meeting, so that they should stand there with you" (Numbers 11:16). This was the first Sanhedrin. Counting Moses himself, it consisted of 71 members. Since the membership of the Sanhedrin is fixed by the Torah, its number cannot be changed.

At the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7) , it was the Sanhedrin where Stephen presented his defense. Only members and the accused were present. When the decision was made to execute Stephen, Acts states that Saul (Paul) gave his approval of the execution. That was the act of an official member of the Sanhedrin. That is the reason Paul is believed to be a member of the Sanhedrin.

As for the requirement of having a wife, The Torah required all members of the Sanhedrin must be without any genetic defect including their genitals, thus it became traditional that members be married, and preferrably with a child. The Jews did not take any chances in failing the letter of the Law, they made sure they followed God's instructions in this matter very accurately.

If Paul was married, what became of his wife?

Paul may have answered this in 1 Corinthians 7 12-16

12 "To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband.Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?"

Paul's wife, if he truly had a wife, had the right to remain Jewish, and therefore separate from him to remain in her Jewish heritage and family. Paul was an ardent enforcer of the Jewish religion condemning Jewish Christians to death for Heresy. Suddenly, Paul meets Jesus on the road to Damascus, and he abruptly becomes a Christian far from home. It would not be unreasonable that she may have decided to seperate from Paul.




_________________
Arthur Biele

 2012/5/13 22:28Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

1) Paul never claimed to be a part of the Sanhedrin. Had he been part of it, he surely would've claimed such in passages like Philippians 3.

2) In Acts 7:58, Saul of Tarsus is described as a "young man" who merely held the coats of the people who stoned Stephen. Young men would not have qualified as one of the seventy elders of Israel. These were roles for older distinguished members of Israel's elders. And as it is, this court was largely comprised of the Sadducee party. There were very few Pharisees on the council. And it is hard to imagine somebody on the council checking coats at the door.

3) Paul acted more like somebody who worked for the court than somebody who was a part of the court. In Acts 9:1-2, he had to obtain permission from the high priest to go and terrorize Christians outside of Jerusalem. It's hard to imagine somebody who has a judicial role in the Jewish government going out to make arrests. They would have been too busy.

4) Paul's marital status is entirely unknown in Scripture. Anybody claiming to know that in fact he was married presumes that Paul was a rabbi or of something of greater religious significance in Israel. Such assumptions however, are just that. They are assumptions that Paul never claims for himself, and are without one iota of Scriptural support. While I personally favor the idea that he was probably married at some point in his life, that is something that cannot in fact be gleaned from the Scriptures themselves.

5) Stephen's stoning was not an official act of the Sanhedrin. It was done by a violent mob, without any official decision being made. Historically, under Roman occupation, the Sanhedrin did not have authority to execute people. Which is why they had to hand Christ over to Rome in order to execute him. Had the Sanhedrin officially executed Stephen, they would have come under the wrath of the Romans.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2012/5/13 23:16Profile
ArtB
Member



Joined: 2004/4/27
Posts: 431
New York

 Re:

KingJimmy,

Your 1st point is invalid. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But the fact that he voted strongly implies he was a member of the Sanhedrin. Only members can vote.

Your Point 2. Paul's remembrance of the death of Steven has Paul actively and willingly supporting the death of Stephen. Paul in his letters accepted responsibility for Stephens death. Why? because the vote by the Sanhedrin must be unanimous. Paul voted. The Sanhedrin is the only Judicial branch for the enforcement of the Mosaic laws. Paul had to be a member of the Sanhedrin.

Point 3. Again, Paul was very zealous for the Mosaic Law, and Paul fully understood that the New Covenant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was not Compatible with the Mosaic Covenant. He was willing to leave Jerusalem in order to exterminate Christianity, which was wooing Jews away from the Mosaic Covenant. A Covenant that God annihilated upon the death of Jesus.

Point 4. On this I agree. And I pointed that out in my above posting.

Point 5. They voted on it. Paul voted too. Since when do angry mobs of Jews take the Law in their hands to caste judgement of death, apart from a vote from the Sanhedrin.

And since when do angry mobs stop to take a vote??? :)

My best wishes to you, brother Jimmy. It is a good thing that we are not saved only because our knowledge of every thing biblical is perfect, but by the shed blood of Jesus Christ shed on the cross, our Paschal Lamb, for all time.

May God continue to richly bless you in all things, KingJimmy.

Sincerely,

ArtB


_________________
Arthur Biele

 2012/5/14 0:43Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy