From: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: An Old Question For Robert A. Levene
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:16:10 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/18.0 - Midrash, Denver CO

To: swarren@convex.com

 SW> Date: 9 Nov 92 18:46:24 GMT
 SW> Message-ID: <1992Nov9.184624.7800@news.eng.convex.com>
 SW> 
 SW> In article <9211060339.AA12234@aplpy.jhuapl.edu>
 SW> levene@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Robert A. Levene) writes: >

              -=> Quoting Steve Warren to Robert A. Levene <=-

 SW> You argue that he does not hold to Pharisean conventions, but
 SW> Paul himself stated that he considered his education as a Pharisee
 SW> to be dung.

     Actually, I think the context meaning of what he was trying to
     say, is that EVERYTHING comparied to Messiah in the mundane, is
     as dung.  This includes even those things that Messiah Himself
     has commanded us concerning.  Not that those things in his "list"
     are dung, but that if it become an "opponent", then it is dung.
     Go back and re-read that portion, and see if he is calling all
     those things "dung" by themselves, or in comparison.

 SW> He once was a Pharisee, but he was most definitely not a Pharisee
 SW> when he wrote the epistles.  Demonstrating that he did not act
 SW> like a Pharisee is simply proof that the change he was declaring
 SW> in Yeshua was genuine and effective in himself.  No one who trusts
 SW> in Yeshua remains the same.

     Well..., actually, that has to be qualified too.  He DID say late
     in his ministry when before the Beit-Din in the Book of Acts, that
     he IS [present tense] a P'rush/Pharisee.  You see, being a
     Pharisee in and of itself was not bad, it is just that there were
     bad P'rushim, ... and good P'rushim too.  Nichodemus was a P'rush
     for one example, so was Yosef of Arimathea {sp} if I recall
     correctly.

 SW> As far as being a henchman for the High Priest, far from it; Saul
 SW> was motivated by an intense zeal such that he was willing to use
 SW> whatever authority existed in the land in order to have permission
 SW> to root out the followers of the way.  He was not acting on behalf
 SW> of the Priests; he was acting on behalf of his own zeal and
 SW> concern for the nation.  If this happened to coincide with the
 SW> desires of the Priesthood then so be it.  He was not alone among
 SW> the Pharisees of that day, although you may wish to distance the
 SW> Pharisees from that outbreak of persecution.  If other Pharisees
 SW> participated in the same way then your argument is shown to be
 SW> fallacious.

     Of course, this would be correct.  While the P'rushim didn't
     like the Tz'dukim, both were in the Sanhedrin, and if one did
     something on behalf of the Sanhedrin, it was usually at the
     request of the Tz'dukim, {who mostly were Priests}, but were
     powerful and in political power.  So..., there was very likely
     much working together - while they each bit their own tongue.

... 012 Think not that I am come to annul the Torah or the Prophets: 210    
--  
Bill Carlson - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG