Paul's struggle with the old and the new?

Thread starter #1
I like Paul. I was once put off by him. I once saw his journey as too wishy washy. I even tried to justify and find something that would lead me to believe that he wasn't an apostle.
I mean, how could one so insecure be a prophet? How could he speak for God one minute and then be a non-secure human man the next?

Anyway, I think it was because of his struggle with the Old and the New. He was given the task from God to provide the transition.
 
Thread starter #2
The Transition? Something was there. A mystery/secret given to Paul directly from God to present to man.

I do like and appreciate God using one human to do this task vs using a council of men. Just seems less confusing that way.

So here is a man given this chore. Imagine the confusion between flesh and spirit? The Old and New?

A human trying to figure out what to say and think? Should I say what I think or what God thinks? What about my fellow Jews? The Gentiles? The mystery/secret?
God's plan? Jesus and the Cross?
All of that plus the Old and the New.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #3
Maybe Romans 7 is a good place to start. Paul's own struggle.

Transitions? Maybe Romans 14.

Something was changing when Paul was tasked with delivering the gospel. He had to present the Old with the New.

I sure would have hated to be tasked with Paul's mission.
 
Thread starter #4
Obedience?

Paul has now got to show that through these changes or transitions, obedience to God has to prevail.
Even with the washing. The LOVE. The Cross. The sacrifice. The price paid. The slate wiped clean.

Even through all of that Paul still has to explain some type of obedience to God.

Exactly what that is and how we view that with the Cross is where some questions arise.

Maybe that is the balance. What that obedience to God means vs the Law. I'm sure that concept was another one of Paul's struggles.
 
Thread starter #5

This video will explain what was going on in Paul's head. Paul had learned how the Lost Sheep could come back into covenant with God. :) You can, too.
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
I can't say that I ever saw it this way? But I can see your point. I think he was using himself as an example, but likely did not struggle with fleshly desires. His struggle was not the old and the new, but rather the struggle with Peter, who was mixing the law and grace. Yet Peter was more respected so it was a task to over rule Peter. f I personally don't believe the story in Acts where he shaved his head based on a vow. Does not make since that he would take a vow, yet say, let your yes be yes and your no be no. Acts has many contradictions, but yet Luke never claimed to be inspired. He simply said he had investigated these things
 
I can't say that I ever saw it this way? But I can see your point. I think he was using himself as an example, but likely did not struggle with fleshly desires. His struggle was not the old and the new, but rather the struggle with Peter, who was mixing the law and grace. Yet Peter was more respected so it was a task to over rule Peter. f I personally don't believe the story in Acts where he shaved his head based on a vow. Does not make since that he would take a vow, yet say, let your yes be yes and your no be no. Acts has many contradictions, but yet Luke never claimed to be inspired. He simply said he had investigated these things
Paul took a Nazarite vow, it’s was in the Law. Preachers don’t teach anything in the OT so that’s why christians don’t know these things :) Curious to know what other contradictions you believe are in Acts?
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
Paul took a Nazarite vow, it’s was in the Law. Preachers don’t teach anything in the OT so that’s why christians don’t know these things :) Curious to know what other contradictions you believe are in Acts?
Several, I'll post tomorrow
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
Busy day today, but I'll start with this one... In Acts it says Paul went to Jerusalem, acts 9, but in Galatians, Pauls words, 1;22, he said he was unknown to Jerusalem
 

Israel

Senior Member
I like Paul. I was once put off by him. I once saw his journey as too wishy washy. I even tried to justify and find something that would lead me to believe that he wasn't an apostle.
I mean, how could one so insecure be a prophet? How could he speak for God one minute and then be a non-secure human man the next?

Anyway, I think it was because of his struggle with the Old and the New. He was given the task from God to provide the transition.
Yeah, Paul was inserted into that "struggle" and God has graciously allowed for its viewing to be played out in a man so that even what may find itself as the weakest can find hope.

But for this very reason I was shown mercy, so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display His perfect patience as an example to those who would believe in Him for eternal life.

Any gathering of apostles for the Yearbook photo that refuse to be joined under their own banner as this:

Voted Least Likely to Succeed

should be shunned.

"Son if you think you ever gunna create for yourself a place better than being right for the wrong reasons, or wrong for the right reasons, you gunna be bitterly disappointed."
"Big" John Timmons to John Jr. "Partners at the Great Divide"
 
Last edited:
Busy day today, but I'll start with this one... In Acts it says Paul went to Jerusalem, acts 9, but in Galatians, Pauls words, 1;22, he said he was unknown to Jerusalem
Hmmm KJV reads that "he was unknown by face unto the churches ... " Personally, I think it's a stretch to say that that would mean he had never been to Jerusalem....especially since he was a Pharisee and a "Hebrew of Hebrews". Wouldn't a 'Hebrew of Hebrews', sometime in his life, want to go to Jerusalem for the feasts, at least? lol Didn't Acts also say that he was present at Stephen's stoning?

All Jews were to present themselves before the Lord 3 times a year... :)
 
Thread starter #13
Maybe Paul is saying in Galatians 1, they didn't know his ministry. He may have went to Jerusalem as Saul but not as the preacher, Paul.

Paul was preaching elsewhere so the churches in Jerusalem had only heard of his "preaching the faith" through reports. Maybe
 
I'm sure one of the greatest Pharisees of all time, who studied under Gamaliel, would have visited the Temple sometime in his lifetime. lol This is fun. What's the next Acts-contradiction?
 

Israel

Senior Member
Maybe Paul is saying in Galatians 1, they didn't know his ministry. He may have went to Jerusalem as Saul but not as the preacher, Paul.

Paul was preaching elsewhere so the churches in Jerusalem had only heard of his "preaching the faith" through reports. Maybe
I see it that way, also. Don't know that he much evangelized there where

(And when James, Cephas, and John) who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
 

Israel

Senior Member
We do know this however:

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. Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.

Saul probably enjoyed a somewhat benign ignoring...Paul...not so much.
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
OK, so I should have looked before I posted....i'm to rusty to shoot from the hip. It's not that Paul had not been to Jerusalem.... I was remembering incorrectly.... It is Luke's version of his time after conversion, specifically when he met Peter. Luke implys he met Peter but Paul says his conversion is from God, not influenced by disciples, that he did not go see the apostles, that he went to see Peter after 3 years....
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
Yea, I'm rusty... The vow I was trying to recall..Acts 21;23. Read the adjoing context. There is no way that Paul would have taken a vow, to show that he was not teaching contrary to the law, example, , vs 21, telling them not to be circumcised. Paul would have never done this. He did preach that you did not need to be circumcised. Paul did not mix law and grace. Did not happen
 
Yea, I'm rusty... The vow I was trying to recall..Acts 21;23. Read the adjoing context. There is no way that Paul would have taken a vow, to show that he was not teaching contrary to the law, example, , vs 21, telling them not to be circumcised. Paul would have never done this. He did preach that you did not need to be circumcised. Paul did not mix law and grace. Did not happen
and then in Acts 16 Paul circumcises Timothy :fine: Paul taught (and this may be what you've implied) that circumcision was NOT NECESSARY for salvation, but was something you did ONLY AFTER your heart was circumcised.
 
Yea, I'm rusty... The vow I was trying to recall..Acts 21;23. Read the adjoing context. There is no way that Paul would have taken a vow, to show that he was not teaching contrary to the law, example, , vs 21, telling them not to be circumcised. Paul would have never done this. He did preach that you did not need to be circumcised. Paul did not mix law and grace. Did not happen
I'm confused about what you're saying. Are you saying that Paul would never have taken a Nazarite vow, a vow of separation to God as detailed in Numbers 6? This Nazarite vow - which obviously the men James referred to had taken - were to shave their heads and offer A SACRIFICE (which Paul was paying for) I know some think that sacrifices are ALL totally fulfilled in Christ, but there were other sacrifices unrelated to Jesus' death, like this one. 30 years after Jesus' ascension Paul is paying for this vow animal sacrifice. Food for thought...
 
Top