In PFAL, V.P. discusses how Paul was expressively told several times by the holy spirit not to go to Jerusalem. By removing the man-made commas, he shows how the verse reads differently. That is,"...we ceased, saying, the will of the Lord be done" verses, "...we ceased saying the will of the Lord be done."
As further evidence as to the proof of this teaching, V.P. points out that all Asia heard the Word of the Lord in 2 years and 3 months. However, V.P. says that after being arrested at Jerusalem, the closest Paul came to convincing anyone to accept the new birth was "almost". That was after Paul gave his defense before King Agrippa and the King said to Paul that he "almost persuaded him to be a Christian".
In Acts 28:33-35, Paul is asked to address a group of Jewish leaders in Rome. In so doing, the text reads that Paul tried to convince them about Jesus. In verse 24 it says that, "Some were convinced by what he said." Paul did, in fact, lead people to Christ after his arrest at Jerusalem. Hence, another "staple" teaching of TWI is debunked.
I've missed a namechange? Are you The Poster formerly known as _____________?
In PFAL, V.P. discusses how Paul was expressively told several times by the holy spirit not to go to Jerusalem. By removing the man-made commas, he shows how the verse reads differently. That is,"...we ceased, saying, the will of the Lord be done" verses, "...we ceased saying the will of the Lord be done."
As further evidence as to the proof of this teaching, V.P. points out that all Asia heard the Word of the Lord in 2 years and 3 months. However, V.P. says that after being arrested at Jerusalem, the closest Paul came to convincing anyone to accept the new birth was "almost". That was after Paul gave his defense before King Agrippa and the King said to Paul that he "almost persuaded him to be a Christian".
In Acts 28:33-35, Paul is asked to address a group of Jewish leaders in Rome. In so doing, the text reads that Paul tried to convince them about Jesus. In verse 24 it says that, "Some were convinced by what he said." Paul did, in fact, lead people to Christ after his arrest at Jerusalem. Hence, another "staple" teaching of TWI is debunked.
First of all, he noted that it was what we think of as Asia MINOR, all of THAT heard in 2 years, 3 months,
but he makes light of the difference.
Second of all, I knew he was wrong because I read the book of Philemon.
Paul wrote to Philemon about Onesimus. Onesimus ("profitable" or "useful") was a servant to Philemon.
Onesimus had run away, then met Paul in prison and got saved.
Paul wrote to Philemon to smooth the path Onesimus had to walk when he returned to Philemon.
======================
1Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer,
2And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:
3Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
4I thank my God, making mention of thee always in my prayers,
5Hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints;
6That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus.
7For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother.
8Wherefore, though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is convenient,
9Yet for love's sake I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ.
10I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
11Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me:
12Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels:
13Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel:
14But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.
15For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;
16Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?
17If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself.
18If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account;
19I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.
20Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord.
21Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say.
22But withal prepare me also a lodging: for I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you.
23There salute thee Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus;
24Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers.
25The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.
=====================
Paul seemed to think Onesimus' purpose for fleeing was his later salvation,
having heard from Paul during that time Paul was in prison.
Myself, I'm particularly thankful for the letters written from Paul while he was in prison.
I don't know what us modern folk would read if they didn't exist.
Ephesians 6:20
For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.
Philippians 1:7
Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace.
Philippians 1:14
And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.
Colossians 4:3
Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds:
Colossians 4:18
The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Remember my bonds. Grace be with you. Amen.
2 Timothy 2:9
Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.
First of all, he noted that it was what we think of as Asia MINOR, all of THAT heard in 2 years, 3 months,
but he makes light of the difference.
It's an even smaller area than that. Biblically, "Asia" refers to the Roman province of Asia, which is just a part of what we know call Asia Minor. In included Ephesus.
22 All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar's household. 23 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen . [To the Philippians written from Rome, by Epaphroditus.]
Well - who witnessed to the saints of Caesar's household?????
22 All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar's household. 23 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen . [To the Philippians written from Rome, by Epaphroditus.]
Well - who witnessed to the saints of Caesar's household?????
I always assume they would have been slaves. A lot of Christians were Roman slaves. At least that what I was told by someone not in TWI, which gives it some credibility.
Are most people still in agreement that it was not God's will for Paul to go to Jerusalem?
The question becomes very interesting if we think of Luke/Acts as being Paul's legal defense, and Theophilus as being the magistrate who heard his case on Nero's behalf. Who's fault was all this mess that Paul had gotten himself into? Was it Paul's fault for going to Jerusalem? Or was it his God's fault for sending Paul there?
A very delicate situation indeed! How would this presentation affect the decision of a Roman magistrate about this new religion, and the man who represented it?
Good point, Steve. This line of reasoning also brings us back to the subject of inerrancy and Theopneustos. There is plenty of room for the scenario you suggested if one is not so insistent that everything has to fit like a hand in a glove.
Are most people still in agreement that it was not God's will for Paul to go to Jerusalem?
Hi Para,
As for "most people" do you mean "most people who've gotten out of TWI" or just "most people"? The evangelical (scholarly) world (for what it's worth) pretty much read Acts as if it was doctrine and the antics of the heros as being totally of God.
Take for instance Peter at the beginning of the "church which is his body" (which I still see as having begun on Pentecost 29CE): He stands up and says "this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel (in reference to the outpouring of the holy spirit). Well, in hindsight, was it? I say no, but fundamentalists cannot but believe that Peter was speaking ex cathedra even then. Well, he was not the Pope (yet) and he was uninformed (at the time).
My point is that Paul's trip (in that it happened and was RECORDED IN SCRIPTURE) was OK with God for most people. Reading critically I don't see any way in which, though Paul was trying to do a really nice thing for the impoverished "saints" in Jerusalem, that he could have been following guidance from Jesus.
I don't think anyone truly knows the correct meaning of that scripture. It's my belief that Wierwille simply used it to promote his little "now you see it, now you don't" trick with the comma in order to convince us he had an inside track on such matters.
Waysider has a point. The verse itself is ambiguous.
But, I believe that, if you read the context of those chapters, it becomes pretty clear that Paul was going to Jerusalem against the revealed will of God.
Acts 20:22 & 23; And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:
Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.
Why was the Holy Spirit witnessing in every city that Paul was headed for trouble? Perhaps because Paul wasn't listening.
Acts 21:4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.
That's pretty straightforward. I don't see how you can argue that it was okay with God for Paul to do this. It had become a matter of public record in the Churches in that area that the Apostle was in disobedience to the will of God. That's a pretty serious breach of leadership and responsibility.
And here's the story of Agabus which ends with the confusing affirmation.
Acts 21:10-12; And as we tarried [there] many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver [him] into the hands of the Gentiles.
And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.
So judging from the context, it seems pretty clear to me that Paul's trip was not God's will. VP certainly exaggerated the consequences of Paul's disobedience. There were people saved after Paul's incarceration. But one of the things I find interesting along these lines is the fact that Paul remained in prison for the rest of his life.
Consider that every other incident of incarceration of Paul, Peter, John and the other apostles in the Book of Acts tells of miraculous release.
• An Angel set the Apostles free when they were jailed shortly after the healing of the lame man (5:19 & 20)
• Peter was sprung by an Angel after the death of James (12:7)
• Paul and Silas were freed by an earthquake after having been wrongly imprisoned in Phillippi (16:25-30)
But, after Paul went to Jerusalem, was mobbed and jailed as the believers and Agabus had prophesied, he stayed in prison for the rest of his life. He was not freed. Why not? Consider what kind of message it would have sent to the Church if God had publicly warned his "chief" apostle against a course of action, then immediately wiped away the consequences of said action. It would have set a double standard in the Church. You must obey the will of the Lord unless you're an Apostle in which case you can do whatever you want and it's blessed. I think the fact that the Lord left Paul in bonds reinforces the belief that his trip to Jerusalem was an act of public disobedience.
The related question is why would such a great man do such a dumb thing? Aside from the fact that we're all flawed, I believe the answer is because he believed that he had indeed already "fully preached the gospel" and that the next step in God's calendar was to bring Jesus back to judge the earth and setup his Kingdom. This obviously opens a discussion way beyond the scope of this thread, but that explains why Paul was so desperate to get back to his beloved brethren. He was terrified that they were about to be judged as opponents of the Lord and was willing to sacrifice himself in a last ditch attempt to save them from their hard hearted unbelief.
Dave Anderson's book was a great help to me in developing these opinions, by the way. I think he sent me one of the last copies in print, which I still have. I think his research about the deep division between the Judeans and Gentiles in the First Century Church puts the entire NT into perspective. So I highly recommend reading The Two Ways of the First Century Church.
I think I've abused the short post rule, so that's all for now.
But, after Paul went to Jerusalem, was mobbed and jailed as the believers and Agabus had prophesied, he stayed in prison for the rest of his life. He was not freed. Why not? Consider what kind of message it would have sent to the Church if God had publicly warned his "chief" apostle against a course of action, then immediately wiped away the consequences of said action. It would have set a double standard in the Church. You must obey the will of the Lord unless you're an Apostle in which case you can do whatever you want and it's blessed. I think the fact that the Lord left Paul in bonds reinforces the belief that his trip to Jerusalem was an act of public disobedience.
Also, it does not say that Paul spent the rest of his life in prison. That is something everyone has assumed, including non-TWI folks. I mean, maybe he did, maybe he didn't, we don't know. The Books of Acts ends very abruptly.
Also, it does not say that Paul spent the rest of his life in prison. That is something everyone has assumed, including non-TWI folks. I mean, maybe he did, maybe he didn't, we don't know. The Books of Acts ends very abruptly.
The fact that Luke/Acts ends so abruptly where it does is one of the considerations that inclines me to think it was written as a legal brief for presentation to the Roman magistrate who heard Paul's case in lieu of Nero.
The fact that Luke/Acts ends so abruptly where it does is one of the considerations that inclines me to think it was written as a legal brief for presentation to the Roman magistrate who heard Paul's case in lieu of Nero.
Love,
Steve
Interesting thought. I often wonder if Acts ends so abruptly because Luke was martyred and never got a chance to finish it. It's not an original thought of mine, I must say. A friend of mine shared this with me and I thought that was likewise interesting.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
12
9
8
9
Popular Days
Aug 29
12
Aug 27
7
Aug 19
7
Aug 21
4
Top Posters In This Topic
Jbarrax 12 posts
Steve Lortz 9 posts
waysider 8 posts
Broken Arrow 9 posts
Popular Days
Aug 29 2010
12 posts
Aug 27 2010
7 posts
Aug 19 2010
7 posts
Aug 21 2010
4 posts
Popular Posts
roberterasmus
Hi Para, As for "most people" do you mean "most people who've gotten out of TWI" or just "most people"? The evangelical (scholarly) world (for what it's worth) pretty much read Acts as if it was doc
Gen-2
Well okay, I was reading this and started laughing. Just last night I had a discussion with my Nurse. She was talking about her God and how her preacher gave a mighty teaching,... On - whatever. But
Gen-2
I've missed a namechange? Are you The Poster formerly known as _____________?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Shhhhh! I don't think anyone can tell. :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
First of all, he noted that it was what we think of as Asia MINOR, all of THAT heard in 2 years, 3 months,
but he makes light of the difference.
Second of all, I knew he was wrong because I read the book of Philemon.
Paul wrote to Philemon about Onesimus. Onesimus ("profitable" or "useful") was a servant to Philemon.
Onesimus had run away, then met Paul in prison and got saved.
Paul wrote to Philemon to smooth the path Onesimus had to walk when he returned to Philemon.
======================
1Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer,
2And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:
3Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
4I thank my God, making mention of thee always in my prayers,
5Hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints;
6That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus.
7For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother.
8Wherefore, though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is convenient,
9Yet for love's sake I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ.
10I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
11Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me:
12Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels:
13Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel:
14But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.
15For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;
16Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?
17If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself.
18If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account;
19I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.
20Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord.
21Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say.
22But withal prepare me also a lodging: for I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you.
23There salute thee Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus;
24Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers.
25The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.
=====================
Paul seemed to think Onesimus' purpose for fleeing was his later salvation,
having heard from Paul during that time Paul was in prison.
Myself, I'm particularly thankful for the letters written from Paul while he was in prison.
I don't know what us modern folk would read if they didn't exist.
Ephesians 6:20
For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.
Philippians 1:7
Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace.
Philippians 1:14
And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.
Colossians 4:3
Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds:
Colossians 4:18
The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Remember my bonds. Grace be with you. Amen.
2 Timothy 2:9
Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_%28Roman_province%29
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Was it "all without exception" or--------?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It's like saying, "All those in Poland heard The Word.
Would that be Poland, the country, which has a population of 38 MILLION or Poland, Ohio, which has a population of 3 THOUSAND??
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Not to mention Philippians 4:
22 All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar's household. 23 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen . [To the Philippians written from Rome, by Epaphroditus.]
Well - who witnessed to the saints of Caesar's household?????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I always assume they would have been slaves. A lot of Christians were Roman slaves. At least that what I was told by someone not in TWI, which gives it some credibility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paradiseden
Are most people still in agreement that it was not God's will for Paul to go to Jerusalem?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The question becomes very interesting if we think of Luke/Acts as being Paul's legal defense, and Theophilus as being the magistrate who heard his case on Nero's behalf. Who's fault was all this mess that Paul had gotten himself into? Was it Paul's fault for going to Jerusalem? Or was it his God's fault for sending Paul there?
A very delicate situation indeed! How would this presentation affect the decision of a Roman magistrate about this new religion, and the man who represented it?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Good point, Steve. This line of reasoning also brings us back to the subject of inerrancy and Theopneustos. There is plenty of room for the scenario you suggested if one is not so insistent that everything has to fit like a hand in a glove.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
I thought Paul went to Jerusalem on his own, to bring the gift that people gave him? I haven't really researched this much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Here's something for you to peruse, teach. :)
http://my.en.com/~anders/intro.html
Have fun. It's by GSC's own David Anderson. It's free to print off to "make it your own".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Teach,
Keep in mind David Anderson is right up there with VPW and LCM as far as his qualifications to do biblical research.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Thanks for that David Anderson link, good stuff, thanks.
Thanks for the heads up on his qualifications, I started reading
Chapter four, I like the way he reasons the word, but I do see
traces of VeePee, or the world teachings that VeePee continued to
use in his teaching, thanks for that insight.
Edited by teachmevpLink to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Hi Para,
As for "most people" do you mean "most people who've gotten out of TWI" or just "most people"? The evangelical (scholarly) world (for what it's worth) pretty much read Acts as if it was doctrine and the antics of the heros as being totally of God.
Take for instance Peter at the beginning of the "church which is his body" (which I still see as having begun on Pentecost 29CE): He stands up and says "this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel (in reference to the outpouring of the holy spirit). Well, in hindsight, was it? I say no, but fundamentalists cannot but believe that Peter was speaking ex cathedra even then. Well, he was not the Pope (yet) and he was uninformed (at the time).
My point is that Paul's trip (in that it happened and was RECORDED IN SCRIPTURE) was OK with God for most people. Reading critically I don't see any way in which, though Paul was trying to do a really nice thing for the impoverished "saints" in Jerusalem, that he could have been following guidance from Jesus.
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Guidance is acquired in many ways I think.
But it comes out the same, a determined action to take.
The factors involved are the source.
From any source inside and out. Both.
How one sees the outward appearance is judged from the inside.
And changeable.....
If it happened as it says in Acts.
There were prophecies of trouble if he went to J town.
And according to pfal/vpw, God told Paul not to go.
That's a stretch, or outright fabrication of intent.
"the will of the Lord be done"
Is a genuine prayer, a fervent belief that it will happen.
A godly saying of peace and Godspeed.
That the will of the Lord will be done regardless if Paul goes or not.
Not some direct order but a way of life that is known.
Like if someone was telling me the will of the Lord for me.
Well, they could just keep it to themselves till they see I see it myself.
And that would come from the Lord.
Paul and the others knew what would happen.
So what. So did many godly men and women as they did what they had to do.
Hebrews 11?
We are followers of virtue and love and the spirit.
Whoever we cross paths with, no matter the situation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I don't think anyone truly knows the correct meaning of that scripture. It's my belief that Wierwille simply used it to promote his little "now you see it, now you don't" trick with the comma in order to convince us he had an inside track on such matters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Waysider has a point. The verse itself is ambiguous.
But, I believe that, if you read the context of those chapters, it becomes pretty clear that Paul was going to Jerusalem against the revealed will of God.
Why was the Holy Spirit witnessing in every city that Paul was headed for trouble? Perhaps because Paul wasn't listening.
That's pretty straightforward. I don't see how you can argue that it was okay with God for Paul to do this. It had become a matter of public record in the Churches in that area that the Apostle was in disobedience to the will of God. That's a pretty serious breach of leadership and responsibility.
And here's the story of Agabus which ends with the confusing affirmation.
So judging from the context, it seems pretty clear to me that Paul's trip was not God's will. VP certainly exaggerated the consequences of Paul's disobedience. There were people saved after Paul's incarceration. But one of the things I find interesting along these lines is the fact that Paul remained in prison for the rest of his life.
Consider that every other incident of incarceration of Paul, Peter, John and the other apostles in the Book of Acts tells of miraculous release.
• An Angel set the Apostles free when they were jailed shortly after the healing of the lame man (5:19 & 20)
• Peter was sprung by an Angel after the death of James (12:7)
• Paul and Silas were freed by an earthquake after having been wrongly imprisoned in Phillippi (16:25-30)
But, after Paul went to Jerusalem, was mobbed and jailed as the believers and Agabus had prophesied, he stayed in prison for the rest of his life. He was not freed. Why not? Consider what kind of message it would have sent to the Church if God had publicly warned his "chief" apostle against a course of action, then immediately wiped away the consequences of said action. It would have set a double standard in the Church. You must obey the will of the Lord unless you're an Apostle in which case you can do whatever you want and it's blessed. I think the fact that the Lord left Paul in bonds reinforces the belief that his trip to Jerusalem was an act of public disobedience.
The related question is why would such a great man do such a dumb thing? Aside from the fact that we're all flawed, I believe the answer is because he believed that he had indeed already "fully preached the gospel" and that the next step in God's calendar was to bring Jesus back to judge the earth and setup his Kingdom. This obviously opens a discussion way beyond the scope of this thread, but that explains why Paul was so desperate to get back to his beloved brethren. He was terrified that they were about to be judged as opponents of the Lord and was willing to sacrifice himself in a last ditch attempt to save them from their hard hearted unbelief.
Dave Anderson's book was a great help to me in developing these opinions, by the way. I think he sent me one of the last copies in print, which I still have. I think his research about the deep division between the Judeans and Gentiles in the First Century Church puts the entire NT into perspective. So I highly recommend reading The Two Ways of the First Century Church.
I think I've abused the short post rule, so that's all for now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Hiya, Jerry! Good to see you're still kicking!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
But, after Paul went to Jerusalem, was mobbed and jailed as the believers and Agabus had prophesied, he stayed in prison for the rest of his life. He was not freed. Why not? Consider what kind of message it would have sent to the Church if God had publicly warned his "chief" apostle against a course of action, then immediately wiped away the consequences of said action. It would have set a double standard in the Church. You must obey the will of the Lord unless you're an Apostle in which case you can do whatever you want and it's blessed. I think the fact that the Lord left Paul in bonds reinforces the belief that his trip to Jerusalem was an act of public disobedience.
----------------------------------------------------
It would have sent the message that "God forgives." I mean, it's not like he didn't suffer any consequences at all.
just my opinion
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Also, it does not say that Paul spent the rest of his life in prison. That is something everyone has assumed, including non-TWI folks. I mean, maybe he did, maybe he didn't, we don't know. The Books of Acts ends very abruptly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The fact that Luke/Acts ends so abruptly where it does is one of the considerations that inclines me to think it was written as a legal brief for presentation to the Roman magistrate who heard Paul's case in lieu of Nero.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Interesting thought. I often wonder if Acts ends so abruptly because Luke was martyred and never got a chance to finish it. It's not an original thought of mine, I must say. A friend of mine shared this with me and I thought that was likewise interesting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.