Why would Paul never reference Gamaliel's teachings?

[Pegg]

Paul claimed to be a Pharisee, and Acts claims he was a student of the Jewish father Rabbi Gamaliel. Why than would Paul never once make reference to anything the Rabbi taught him? That isn't the way of a serious Jewish learner at all.

The Mishna says that a good student is like a cistern that loses not a drop of master's teaching.

This raises the question: was Paul really a student of Gamaliel?

Probably because Paul became a disciple of Jesus and promoted Jesus teachings. Jesus was the 'way the truth and the life'... so why would Paul (or anybody else) want to muddy those clear waters with waters from polluted streams???

 

[sincerly]

Paul was never able to show by using scripture how the Law was able to be put to an end. Jews then as now are still looking for that answer.

Hi Roger, You are misunderstanding Rom.10:4(if that is your source).
Paul in his epistles never states that the Decalogue will end. Just as Jesus had said the world will end before it does.
What Paul is conveying is that "the end"/ the purpose/ goal/ of the Decalogue is righteousness. However. the end of those sacrificial, ceremonial laws did have an ending---in Christ---as the propitiation for all who believe.

In verses 11-13, this answer is seen(concerning "ALL" people), "
For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

The disbelief shown by the leaders and most Jewish People at the time of Jesus is still believed. However, just as there were many Jewish believers in that day who did believe, so it is today---with all who believe.

 

[sincerly]

Probably because Paul became a disciple of Jesus and promoted Jesus teachings. Jesus was the 'way the truth and the life'... so why would Paul (or anybody else) want to muddy those clear waters with waters from polluted streams???

Those polluted streams had their beginnings back in Moses day when he called the people a "stiff-necked people". Only a remnant would keep the truth of GOD'S teachings from being polluted with all types of false beliefs. As Rev. 12:17; 14:12, "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. See Gen.3:15 also.(Humanity is very "stiff-necked".)

 

[roger1440]

Hi Roger, You are misunderstanding Rom.10:4(if that is your source).
Paul in his epistles never states that the Decalogue will end. Just as Jesus had said the world will end before it does.
What Paul is conveying is that "the end"/ the purpose/ goal/ of the Decalogue is righteousness. However. the end of those sacrificial, ceremonial laws did have an ending---in Christ---as the propitiation for all who believe.

In verses 11-13, this answer is seen(concerning "ALL" people), "
For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

The disbelief shown by the leaders and most Jewish People at the time of Jesus is still believed. However, just as there were many Jewish believers in that day who did believe, so it is today---with all who believe.

As of yet, you haven't shown me by using Jewish scripture.

 

[sincerly]

YOU SAID...

"Paul didn't quote Gamaliel, because Gamaliel had taught from the Law and the testimony of the Prophets."

YOUR ISAIAH AND ACTS VERSES DO NOT REFERENCE GAMALIEL. THEY ARE VERSE IN GENERAL. IF GAMALIEL WOULD HAVE TAUGHT FROM THE LAW AND PROPHETS THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO ISSUES. BUT HE WAS A RABBI AND IS TEACHING ORAL LAW. THIS IS THE CONVERSION PAUL HAD - TO LEAVE ORAL LAW.

AS JESUS SAID........
Mat 23:17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Mat 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

HE WAS TALKING ABOUT GAMALIEL AND HIS BRETHERN.

As of yet, you haven't shown me by using Jewish scripture.

Roger, you posted three verses from Matthew and don't want to acknowledge Acts and Romans?
How about Mal. 3:6, "For I am the LORD, I change not"; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

The messages to the prophets by GOD wasn't changed by GOD. Gamaliel acknowledged GOD as GOD and HIS messages as truth. As a human being, Gamaliel may have been mislead by the "oral laws" written/propagated by the church fathers/elders, but the Scriptures were upheld.
Even the Disciples were still confused by the teachings of the "oral law" concerning the mission of the Messiah as to overthrow of the Roman yoke---as is seen in Acts 1:6, "When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

 

[1prophet]

What do you mean Gamaliel may have been mislead by the "oral laws" written/propagated by the church fathers/elders, but the Scriptures were upheld. If the Jews upheld the scriptures Jesus would have had no problems. As Jesus said...

Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

 

[sincerly]

What do you mean Gamaliel may have been mislead by the "oral laws" written/propagated by the church fathers/elders, but the Scriptures were upheld. If the Jews upheld the scriptures Jesus would have had no problems. As Jesus said...

Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Prophet, the "oral laws" was what were not according to the written word of GOD and as Jesus taught in those verses you posted.
Gamaliel may have been misled by the oral laws("of the fathers") , but he was right on in the written word/Scriptures---or Paul would have corrected him as he did Peter.
Paul, again, received his teachings from Jesus. Gal,1:11-12.

Mat.23:1-4, "Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."

Those Jews when in the seat of Moses read from the scrolls/scriptures given by GOD, but when they were proclaiming from the "oral laws" these were the "traditions and commandments " made by men.

 

[1prophet]

Well..we are in total agreement.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

Probably because Paul became a disciple of Jesus and promoted Jesus teachings. Jesus was the 'way the truth and the life'... so why would Paul (or anybody else) want to muddy those clear waters with waters from polluted streams???

All I'm saying is it doesn't help establish Paul as a trustworthy source, especially in light of some of the other questionable things he said, such as- 'I became a Jew to the Jews, in order to win the Jews'. I don't see how people just accept the words of somebody like that.

My point in this thread is he claimed to be a Pharisee, yet his rhetoric was totally Hellenic. There's hardly anything Pharasaic about him. I'm not convinced.

 

[sincerly]

Well..we are in total agreement.

That's what I thought

All I'm saying is it doesn't help establish Paul as a trustworthy source, especially in light of some of the other questionable things he said, such as- 'I became a Jew to the Jews, in order to win the Jews'. I don't see how people just accept the words of somebody like that.

My point in this thread is he claimed to be a Pharisee, yet his rhetoric was totally Hellenic. There's hardly anything Pharasaic about him. I'm not convinced.

GS, have you considered Paul's statement in Acts 24:14? "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:"
And
Acts 23:6, "But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."

You are entitled to believe what you choose, but the Scriptures are Clear that Paul's teachings were from the Scriptures that the Jews believed and that he was of the Jewish Pharisee persuasion.

 

[Pegg]

All I'm saying is it doesn't help establish Paul as a trustworthy source, especially in light of some of the other questionable things he said, such as- 'I became a Jew to the Jews, in order to win the Jews'. I don't see how people just accept the words of somebody like that.

My point in this thread is he claimed to be a Pharisee, yet his rhetoric was totally Hellenic. There's hardly anything Pharasaic about him. I'm not convinced.

He 'was' a pharisee before he became a christian. After becoming a christian, he was no longer a pharisee.
They are two different schools of thought. The pharisees were a sect of Judaism who were legalistic about the law of moses....but Christianity was all about mercy and not sacrifice. So these are two views are on opposite ends of the spectrum. If he had chosen to become a christian, he could not be a pharisee at the same time. So of course he was no longer a pharisee... but he was prior to becoming a christian.

 

[Nada]

Paul claimed to be a Pharisee, and Acts claims he was a student of the Jewish father Rabbi Gamaliel. Why than would Paul never once make reference to anything the Rabbi taught him? That isn't the way of a serious Jewish learner at all.

The Mishna says that a good student is like a cistern that loses not a drop of master's teaching.

This raises the question: was Paul really a student of Gamaliel?

All praise goes to God,not men.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

That's what I thought


GS, have you considered Paul's statement in Acts 24:14? "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:"
And
Acts 23:6, "But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."

You are entitled to believe what you choose, but the Scriptures are Clear that Paul's teachings were from the Scriptures that the Jews believed and that he was of the Jewish Pharisee persuasion.

Claiming the Torah came from lesser powers (as in Colossians) is not Pharasaic, and neither is claiming that the death of a false prophet (in Galatians) somehow ties in with Jesus's sacrifice.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

He 'was' a pharisee before he became a christian. After becoming a christian, he was no longer a pharisee.
They are two different schools of thought. The pharisees were a sect of Judaism who were legalistic about the law of moses....but Christianity was all about mercy and not sacrifice. So these are two views are on opposite ends of the spectrum. If he had chosen to become a christian, he could not be a pharisee at the same time. So of course he was no longer a pharisee... but he was prior to becoming a christian.

Again, I'm not convinced. If his rhetoric was in any way Pharasaic I might be convinced. However, asking a question and then answering it with a response is thoroughly Hellenic in style. Its how all the Greek and Roman philosophers argued.

 

[Pegg]

Again, I'm not convinced. If his rhetoric was in any way Pharasaic I might be convinced. However, asking a question and then answering it with a response is thoroughly Hellenic in style. Its how all the Greek and Roman philosophers argued.

He changed his beliefs and ideology when he became a christian... why is that so hard to believe?

 

[sincerly]

He 'was' a pharisee before he became a christian. After becoming a christian, he was no longer a pharisee.
They are two different schools of thought. The pharisees were a sect of Judaism who were legalistic about the law of moses....but Christianity was all about mercy and not sacrifice. So these are two views are on opposite ends of the spectrum. If he had chosen to become a christian, he could not be a pharisee at the same time. So of course he was no longer a pharisee... but he was prior to becoming a christian.

Pegg, This is how Paul described himself: "Phil.3:1-11, "
Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe.
3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
2:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
3:11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead."

Paul did not give up his "foundational beliefs" which were of GOD when he "converted". He was a "follower" of the "WAY" which was later referred to as "Christians". Paul continued to believe in the "law and the prophets" as he attested to in Acts 24:14.

The Scriptures did not change-- Jesus and Paul said to search them.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

He changed his beliefs and ideology when he became a christian... why is that so hard to believe?

Sure a person can change their beliefs, but not their ethnic background. Wouldn't a Jew who becomes a Christian still argue like a Jew?

 

[Pegg]

Sure a person can change their beliefs, but not their ethnic background. Wouldn't a Jew who becomes a Christian still argue like a Jew?

how does a jew argue?

we all have our individual styles, but its not necessarily ethnic based....otherwise you are saying that people are unable to change their behaviors which we know is just not true.

Anyway, the jews themselves have a saying along the lines of "ask 2 jews for their opinion and you'll get 3 opinions" (or something like that) indicating that even among the jews, there are many different schools of thoughts and no two jews think alike.

Paul changed his thinking to come more in line with Jesus views and teachings. Its really not that hard to comprehend how that can happen.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

Paul changed his thinking to come more in line with Jesus views and teachings. Its really not that hard to comprehend how that can happen.

So Jesus taught like a Greek???

 

[Pegg]

So Jesus taught like a Greek???

If asking questions and providing answers means 'teaching like a greek' then sure, yes, ok.

The greeks must have been good teachers too.