In a message dated 03/07/2003 0:13:17AM, mwgrondin@...
<< the author of Acts
(presumably Luke) could hardly have had a "preference for Jewish practices",
since Paul was clearly his hero, and of course Paul was very much at odds
with the Jerusalem leadership. >>
John observes,( On PAul and the Jerusalem Council)
Well, it would appear the writer of Acts would steer us in that direction.
But was it true? Or is this a Later assumption by Luke.( Or the writer of
Acts) his slant on it as it were.( As Luke was not Jewish) He may not have
understood ALL the differences
between The different sects but only the later (edited would it appear there
was actual conflict long after the Temple has been destroyed)
It would appear from Acts 23:6-9 That Paul had no problem reconciling the
fact that the was a Pharisee (And the son of a Pharisee) of the school of
Gamaliel(Acts22 1-to Act 23), and that he still claimed this designation
Despite his new belief in a Yeshuan Character (or Vision)
In his mind and the mind of the council (Jerusalem) there appears to be a
strange amalgam of both the Old Law and the New Vision.
It may be that Paul was not really trusted until he stood and defied the
It would appear that Being a Pharisee and a Jew (Which he says over and
over) was his calling card, his edge?
He could bridge the Gap between Gentile and Jewish beliefs (Something
may not have been able to do)
As for Peter ( Kefa) It would appear that he "waffled back and forth".
Unsure of his own vision (Of the unclean and clean)
so I wonder if it is so much being at odds as That Paul was sure of his
vision (Stating it over and over) So convinced that he was persuasive.
Whereas the others were not as sure sometimes. Paul seems to be an
"either or Guy"( He either disbelieved and persecuted or believed entirely
and admonished those that did not)
Perhaps he problem was not Paul's but James? If James and others never
trusted Paul.( considering his earlier persecution) and yet James (The
brother) appears to be
an absolute monolith in the early church which Paul praises and admires.( The
Brother of the Lord) and the Same Yakov in the Thomasine saying.
Paul may not have been as much at odds with the council (Per se) as
other teachers who taught the keeping of the whole Law to the Gentiles.( And
I am trying to understand how they reconciled these belief systems
together between 30 AD And the first Gospel.( Because Id say much of the
evidence of this belief system died with the destruction of the Temple and
the Raising of Jerusalem)
Paul's letters appear to all be adversarial in style (The great debater
as it were)
but all of them appear to be so because he is absolutely sure of what he
"believes he saw and heard"
And he cannot believe anyone else would not understand as clearly as he
Although, Paul appears to wax mystical if not Gnostic in many places?
This is why I would hope that there might be some evidence of The
that this particular Pharisaical School actually taught and read.
What and which of these writings and or prophecies allowed them to
Both Be Pharisee and Follower of the Way.( both Simultaneously)
Was their a Wisdom writing which Something along the lines of the
or others, Perhaps Essene. Which demanded that A Jesus Character fill that
On Paul's health-
I think Paul was a Sick man (Also) in all probability going blind.
His Visual Disturbances which respond to fasting seem to be symptomatic of A.
One which abstaining from Rich food would temporarily correct. A Small
of Alcohol (take a little wine for thy stomach sake) would also lower blood
sugar. He is about the right age for sudden onset adult Diabetes.
His constant need of Companions, ( In case his blindness returned)
also in some societies (the Greek) would have given him the Status of Oracle
(In many of the philosophers eyes) So this might explain the fact that they
did not dismiss his arguments outright, but rather listened even if they did
not adopt his religion.
His mood swings? High Blood sugar versus LOW blood sugar (60 or
less dbl.) which causes anger and irritation in the Diabetic subject.
His apparent better treatment than other prisoners may have been
in part to
this recurring blindness (Back and forth). Depending on the Place he could
claim he was healed and could see,( In front of the Church/Eklesia) or this
disability to his own advantage,( IN being treated a little better than
average) Note that man Blind from Birth in the Gospel Narrative who (healed
by Jesus) Is more or less excused for what the sanhedrin believes is a
Blasphemy, and that he had held a special place all his life at the Temple
(So that all Knew of Him).
This blindness would have responded to rigorous Fasting, his Journeys
(On foot and the exercise) also would have helped. At least until the damage
was too severe. His imprisonment And changed lifestyle might have extended
his life. Which if he had continued in a fairly rich lifestyle would have led
Assuming this to be a correct analysis, his change to Christian more
or less may have "Saved his life".
It would have been a Neat trick if he had actually
been healed of That" Thorn". since this disease state is currently incurable.
We see through a Glass darkly./ See with what a Large hand I write
with my own hand.