Saul - Apostle Paul had a devil?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Ferd

yes. gift... opportune moment for God to deal with an issue and I happened to be willing and in the way? It was prophetic in a very scary way. it was 100% accurate and dealt with both spiritual and actual events that I didn't know anything about. and it freaked me out.


I have been used in a number of gifts at times but never again like that one.

something like that.

Yea, I am crazy careful with what I post about the bible and fact check myself constantly. but I have always done that. I think its utterly irresponsible to not do so.

LOL. im kind of an historian of sorts. at church when someone preaches and uses some point of history, they come to me afterwards and ask if they got it right! its kind of funny but I always want to be on the right side of the facts where Gods people are concerned.

My aside - I am always very cautious about giving tongues and interpretation. Recently, God gave me the interpretation in such a soft manner, I was arguing with Him about delivering the message. LOL! Soooo, everyone is waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and I am standing there arguing with God - "You are going to have to use someone else, because you normally come to me stronger and I am not sure and......" You have to hand it to my pastor that he wouldn't move on because he knew God wanted to say something, and he waited, and waited. LOL!

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I've been thinking about your post and wanted to focus on this particular part you wrote above.

Reading Philippians 3:6 - "Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless."

He is stating that aside from his zeal by persecuting the church, he was deemed righteousness and blameless according to the law. That means that he is testifying, under the law, that he was upright in the moral, civil and ceremonial aspects of the Jewish faith.

You say that he was in sin by violating Lev. 19:18. Apparently, he doesn't believe he was violating the law - correct?

I took the verse from Philippians 3:6 into question before I posted, and still decided that what I was going to post (and so did) was still accurate. Here's why:

1 Timothy 1:15 (NIV)

15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.

The KJV reads "of whom I am chief". Whether "the worst" or "chief", the Greek word is protos, and it means: foremost, or number 1, i.e. the first. The Greek word for "preeminence" in Colossians 1:18, as it relates to Christ, is derived from protos.

Therefore, the meaning is obvious. Paul called himself, in the present indicative active tense of eimi, or "am", from the verb "to be" the foremost sinner.

The fact that Paul conjugated the verb in the present tense meant that for him, as of the writing of 1 Timothy, he considered himself, in that moment, to be the foremost of sinners.

To have written the verb in the indicative mood indicates Paul was attempting to describe an objective reality as opposed to a subjective interpretation (i.e. he would have used the subjunctive mood of the verb if he wanted to express some hesitancy, doubt, or vagueness about the idea of him being the foremost sinner).

Lastly, the fact that he wrote the verb in the active voice means he was applying the action of the verb, i.e. the action of existence and being the foremost sinner to himself, i.e. he was actively existing, in the present tense, in a concrete reality, the foremost sinner.

So, what about the verse in Philippians? Well, Paul wrote 1 Timothy after he wrote Philippians, so either one of three things are occurring in Paul's writing.

He either:

1.) Began to understand his past life differently from Philippians to 1 Timothy, so that his testimony changed from "blameless according to the righteousness which is in the law" to "foremost sinner". This would be a kind of progressive revelation, as God helped him to understand more about himself.

or

2.) He meant something different from what it appears he actually wrote, either in Philippians or 1 Timothy.

or

3.) Paul introduced an incongruity into the Scriptures of the New Covenant by contradicting himself, perhaps even lying, between what he wrote to the Philippian Church and what he wrote to Timothy.

I reject the third option. I'm not overly dogmatic about the first two options, though, if I had to choose, I think that Paul wasn't trying to say he was NOT a sinner in Philippians.

Remember what 1 John 3:4 reads: Sin is a transgression against the Torah/Law.

Paul clearly violated the commandment in Leviticus 19:18. Did he break any others? I'm not sure.

So, how could Paul have said that according to the righteousness which is in the Torah/Law, he was without fault, i.e. blameless?

It must be remembered what Paul was writing about in Philippians 3. He was making the case that, if anyone was going to have confidence in the flesh, he also could have such confidence, and so, gave a testimony of who he used to be. I think Paul's statement regarding being blameless according to the righteousness in the law was not something he was trying to say was an actually reality for him, but rather, when he was in the flesh, living without Christ, pre-conversion, he assumed/thought of himself as blameless according to the righteousness that is in the law.

To me, it's similar to what Paul wrote about himself in 2 Corinthians 11. Though he was testifying, he wasn't expecting anyone to take him seriously, even though he meant the things he wrote. They actually happened. The issue was that he was pretending to boast to show how much he was equal to the "super-Apostles" he was writing about earlier in the chapter.

In the same way, when Paul spoke of his past in Philippians, if what he wrote to them was intended to be a concrete reality of how he actually saw himself, he obvious had a change of heart by the time he wrote 1 Timothy, unless he didn't agree with John's definition of sin (which is a different can of worms, one I'm not prepared to address).

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I took the verse from Philippians 3:6 into question before I posted, and still decided that what I was going to post (and so did) was still accurate. Here's why:

1 Timothy 1:15 (NIV)



The KJV reads "of whom I am chief". Whether "the worst" or "chief", the Greek word is protos, and it means: foremost, or number 1, i.e. the first. The Greek word for "preeminence" in Colossians 1:18, as it relates to Christ, is derived from protos.

Therefore, the meaning is obvious. Paul called himself, in the present indicative active tense of eimi, or "am", from the verb "to be" the foremost sinner.

The fact that Paul conjugated the verb in the present tense meant that for him, as of the writing of 1 Timothy, he considered himself, in that moment, to be the foremost of sinners.

To have written the verb in the indicative mood indicates Paul was attempting to describe an objective reality as opposed to a subjective interpretation (i.e. he would have used the subjunctive mood of the verb if he wanted to express some hesitancy, doubt, or vagueness about the idea of him being the foremost sinner).

Lastly, the fact that he wrote the verb in the active voice means he was applying the action of the verb, i.e. the action of existence and being the foremost sinner to himself, i.e. he was actively existing, in the present tense, in a concrete reality, the foremost sinner.

So, what about the verse in Philippians? Well, Paul wrote 1 Timothy after he wrote Philippians, so either one of three things are occurring in Paul's writing.

He either:

1.) Began to understand his past life differently from Philippians to 1 Timothy, so that his testimony changed from "blameless according to the righteousness which is in the law" to "foremost sinner". This would be a kind of progressive revelation, as God helped him to understand more about himself.

or

2.) He meant something different from what it appears he actually wrote, either in Philippians or 1 Timothy.

or

3.) Paul introduced an incongruity into the Scriptures of the New Covenant by contradicting himself, perhaps even lying, between what he wrote to the Philippian Church and what he wrote to Timothy.

I reject the third option. I'm not overly dogmatic about the first two options, though, if I had to choose, I think that Paul wasn't trying to say he was NOT a sinner in Philippians.

Remember what 1 John 3:4 reads: Sin is a transgression against the Torah/Law.

Paul clearly violated the commandment in Leviticus 19:18. Did he break any others? I'm not sure.

So, how could Paul have said that according to the righteousness which is in the Torah/Law, he was without fault, i.e. blameless?

It must be remembered what Paul was writing about in Philippians 3. He was making the case that, if anyone was going to have confidence in the flesh, he also could have such confidence, and so, gave a testimony of who he used to be. I think Paul's statement regarding being blameless according to the righteousness in the law was not something he was trying to say was an actually reality for him, but rather, when he was in the flesh, living without Christ, pre-conversion, he assumed/thought of himself as blameless according to the righteousness that is in the law.

To me, it's similar to what Paul wrote about himself in 2 Corinthians 11. Though he was testifying, he wasn't expecting anyone to take him seriously, even though he meant the things he wrote. They actually happened. The issue was that he was pretending to boast to show how much he was equal to the "super-Apostles" he was writing about earlier in the chapter.

In the same way, when Paul spoke of his past in Philippians, if what he wrote to them was intended to be a concrete reality of how he actually saw himself, he obvious had a change of heart by the time he wrote 1 Timothy, unless he didn't agree with John's definition of sin (which is a different can of worms, one I'm not prepared to address).

I am still thinking about what you have written here. I have something else I have to study for Sunday, so I just want to say that at the outset of your post, regardless of what you are saying that the Greek is implying, Paul could not have meant he was the "chief" of ALL sinners.

I could take what he said to mean "to myself, I am Chief", but not "ABOVE" everyone else. It's not possible he could have been the worst sinner of any other person. He could have been "to himself" though.

That's all I have time for right now.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I am still thinking about what you have written here. I have something else I have to study for Sunday, so I just want to say that at the outset of your post, regardless of what you are saying that the Greek is implying, Paul could not have meant he was the "chief" of ALL sinners.

I could take what he said to mean "to myself, I am Chief", but not "ABOVE" everyone else. It's not possible he could have been the worst sinner of any other person. He could have been "to himself" though.

That's all I have time for right now.

Huh?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Huh?

LOL! Sorry, I am really busy and didn't articulate that well.

I believe that in his humility he is saying that he views himself alone as chiefest of sinners. That doesn't mean he was the chiefest of sinners.

I could testify about how I view myself as a sinner, but another person could stand up and say, "Well, I can say that I did worse things than you, so I am chief."

In God's eyes, we have all sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. Because of that, it doesn't make Paul the Chief sinner of us all.

I am saying that I agree with this part of what votivesoul wrote:

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Lastly, the fact that he wrote the verb in the active voice means he was applying the action of the verb, i.e. the action of existence and being the foremost sinner to himself, i.e. he was actively existing, in the present tense, in a concrete reality, the foremost sinner.

[votivesoul]

A separate thought on Philippians 3:6 is that Paul meant what he wrote to be understood as an objective reality in that, when he was a Pharisee persecuting the church, he believed the followers of the Way were fallen, idolatrous Jews who were giving their worship to someone other than God Almighty.

This would, in his eyes, make such Jews covenant-breakers and worthy of the death penalty. Then, out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, he could, according to the righteousness which is of the law, be found blameless when he condemned them to death in council.

But once he met Jesus on the road, and knew Him to be Lord, he suddenly realized the Jews following the Way were not covenant breaking idolaters but actually were faithful Jews following in the commandments of God the Father.

So, by technicality, Paul was blameless according to the righteousness which is of the law, as he understood it at the time regarding those Jews who had come to follow Jesus.

See here:

1 Timothy 1:13,

Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

Paul, ignorant of Jesus' true identity as Lord and Christ, railed against Him and persecuted Him through the havoc he caused the church, but he only did so ignorantly "in unbelief", i.e. he wasn't convinced Jesus was who He and His followers said He was.

In this way, Paul could argue that he was blameless according to the righteousness in the law, especially Leviticus 19:18, because he thought they were guilty of a capital offense, namely idolatry.

If Paul was present to cast his vote against the Lord, he could have reasonably thought of Jesus as a sorcerer (one of the accusations levied against Him) and so, according to Torah, believed Jesus had forfeited his life because of the law which commands that Jews who practice sorcery must be executed, i.e. not be found among God's people (See Exodus 22:18 and Deuteronomy 18:10).

Then, once Jesus was adjured by the High Priest and proclaimed He was the Messiah and Son of Man, Paul could reasonably perceive himself to be innocent of Christ's blood as the Lord apparently "testified" against Himself.

That is, of course, until the Damascus Road encounter.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

A separate thought on Philippians 3:6 is that Paul meant what he wrote to be understood as an objective reality in that, when he was a Pharisee persecuting the church, he believed the followers of the Way were fallen, idolatrous Jews who were giving their worship to someone other than God Almighty.

This would, in his eyes, make such Jews covenant-breakers and worthy of the death penalty. Then, out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, he could, according to the righteousness which is of the law, be found blameless when he condemned them to death in council.

But once he met Jesus on the road, and knew Him to be Lord, he suddenly realized the Jews following the Way were not covenant breaking idolaters but actually were faithful Jews following in the commandments of God the Father.

So, by technicality, Paul was blameless according to the righteousness which is of the law, as he understood it at the time regarding those Jews who had come to follow Jesus.

See here:

1 Timothy 1:13,



Paul, ignorant of Jesus' true identity as Lord and Christ, railed against Him and persecuted Him through the havoc he caused the church, but he only did so ignorantly "in unbelief", i.e. he wasn't convinced Jesus was who He and His followers said He was.

In this way, Paul could argue that he was blameless according to the righteousness in the law, especially Leviticus 19:18, because he thought they were guilty of a capital offense, namely idolatry.

If Paul was present to cast his vote against the Lord, he could have reasonably thought of Jesus as a sorcerer (one of the accusations levied against Him) and so, according to Torah, believed Jesus had forfeited his life because of the law which commands that Jews who practice sorcery must be executed, i.e. not be found among God's people (See Exodus 22:18 and Deuteronomy 18:10).

Then, once Jesus was adjured by the High Priest and proclaimed He was the Messiah and Son of Man, Paul could reasonably perceive himself to be innocent of Christ's blood as the Lord apparently "testified" against Himself.

That is, of course, until the Damascus Road encounter.

I AGREE much more with this post!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

A separate thought on Philippians 3:6 is that Paul meant what he wrote to be understood as an objective reality in that, when he was a Pharisee persecuting the church, he believed the followers of the Way were fallen, idolatrous Jews who were giving their worship to someone other than God Almighty.

This would, in his eyes, make such Jews covenant-breakers and worthy of the death penalty. Then, out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, he could, according to the righteousness which is of the law, be found blameless when he condemned them to death in council.

But once he met Jesus on the road, and knew Him to be Lord, he suddenly realized the Jews following the Way were not covenant breaking idolaters but actually were faithful Jews following in the commandments of God the Father.

So, by technicality, Paul was blameless according to the righteousness which is of the law, as he understood it at the time regarding those Jews who had come to follow Jesus.

See here:

1 Timothy 1:13,



Paul, ignorant of Jesus' true identity as Lord and Christ, railed against Him and persecuted Him through the havoc he caused the church, but he only did so ignorantly "in unbelief", i.e. he wasn't convinced Jesus was who He and His followers said He was.

In this way, Paul could argue that he was blameless according to the righteousness in the law, especially Leviticus 19:18, because he thought they were guilty of a capital offense, namely idolatry.

If Paul was present to cast his vote against the Lord, he could have reasonably thought of Jesus as a sorcerer (one of the accusations levied against Him) and so, according to Torah, believed Jesus had forfeited his life because of the law which commands that Jews who practice sorcery must be executed, i.e. not be found among God's people (See Exodus 22:18 and Deuteronomy 18:10).

Then, once Jesus was adjured by the High Priest and proclaimed He was the Messiah and Son of Man, Paul could reasonably perceive himself to be innocent of Christ's blood as the Lord apparently "testified" against Himself.

That is, of course, until the Damascus Road encounter.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

a separate thought on philippians 3:6 is that paul meant what he wrote to be understood as an objective reality in that, when he was a pharisee persecuting the church, he believed the followers of the way were fallen, idolatrous jews who were giving their worship to someone other than god almighty.
This would, in his eyes, make such jews covenant-breakers and worthy of the death penalty. Then, out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, he could, according to the righteousness which is of the law, be found blameless when he condemned them to death in council.
But once he met jesus on the road, and knew him to be lord, he suddenly realized the jews following the way were not covenant breaking idolaters but actually were faithful jews following in the commandments of god the father.
So, by technicality, paul was blameless according to the righteousness which is of the law, as he understood it at the time regarding those jews who had come to follow jesus.
See here:
1 timothy 1:13,

paul, ignorant of jesus' true identity as lord and christ, railed against him and persecuted him through the havoc he caused the church, but he only did so ignorantly "in unbelief", i.e. He wasn't convinced jesus was who he and his followers said he was.
In this way, paul could argue that he was blameless according to the righteousness in the law, especially leviticus 19:18, because he thought they were guilty of a capital offense, namely idolatry.
If paul was present to cast his vote against the lord, he could have reasonably thought of jesus as a sorcerer (one of the accusations levied against him) and so, according to torah, believed jesus had forfeited his life because of the law which commands that jews who practice sorcery must be executed, i.e. Not be found among god's people (see exodus 22:18 and deuteronomy 18:10).
Then, once jesus was adjured by the high priest and proclaimed he was the messiah and son of man, paul could reasonably perceive himself to be innocent of christ's blood as the lord apparently "testified" against himself.that is, of course, until the damascus road encounter.

very good

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I am still thinking about what you have written here. I have something else I have to study for Sunday, so I just want to say that at the outset of your post, regardless of what you are saying that the Greek is implying, Paul could not have meant he was the "chief" of ALL sinners.

I could take what he said to mean "to myself, I am Chief", but not "ABOVE" everyone else. It's not possible he could have been the worst sinner of any other person. He could have been "to himself" though.

That's all I have time for right now.

I don't think Paul could have meant what you've written above based on the grammatical structure of the verse.

In 1 Timothy 1:15, the word "sinners" is a substantival adjective, or an adjective that functions like a noun (The Greek word is hamartōlous. Therefore, as a noun, "sinners" is essentially a broad term category covering all sinners (as in, "Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners" coupled with Paul's earlier teaching that "all have sinned" from Romans 3:23).

Secondly, the Greek for "of whom" is Genitive (possessive) and plural. So, what Paul is saying (as I understand it according to the grammar) is, of the broad term category "sinners", I was the foremost, or number 1.

Paul is ranking himself. It doesn't mean, that in the eyes of God, Paul actually was, at the time of his writing, the worst sinner in an entire world of sinners, but we don't get God's opinion of Paul in the verse, unless the Holy Spirit specifically inspired him to describe himself that way for a legitimate reason.

Otherwise, I think Paul is merely expressing himself to his son in the Gospel, Timothy, in the way he currently understands himself. It's not a pity-partying call to self-condemnation; rather it's an acknowledgement that if Paul is going to judge anyone in the world as a sinner, the only one he's going to so label is himself. He's not trying to make comparisons between himself and every other sinner in the world. Rather, it's his way of not judging any other sinner as worse than himself or more deserving of divine wrath.