Abdurrahman wrote:
4. While preaching in Cyprus, together with Barnabas, the Holy Book tells us that Saul has suddenly changed his name to Paul & no reasons are given, "Then Saul, who also is called Paul, became filled with the Holy spirit.." Acts 13: 9. So what does this Saul or Paul say about his origin? We become really very much confused about a man who seems not to know his origin (or is deliberately changing or hiding it), a man who is sainted & considered the founder of the current Christian faith by most Christians.
Kai replies:
Wrong again bro:
Then Saul who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit…(Acts 13: 9)
I don’t see any change of name here, the passage simply reveals that Saul was known also as Paul.
Secondly, are you stating that every person who considers e.g. the Muslim faith and changes his name has an identity problem, and if he has, how can you judge Paul, well maybe, at least according to your own assessment.
Abdurrahman wrote:
In Acts 16: 37 we find that Paul is Roman, "But Paul said to them, "They have beaten us publicly without being condemned in any trial even though we are Romans." In Acts 21: 37 Paul is thought to be an Egyptian, but he addresses the Jerusalem mob saying that he is a Jew from Tarsus; " Then as Paul was about to be led to the barracks, he asked the commander in Greek, 'May I say something to you?' The commander said, "Do you speak Greek? Aren't you the Egyptian who sometime ago stirred up a revolt & led 4000 terrorists out into the desert?' Paul answered, 'I am a Jew from Tarsus in Cilicia…" In Acts 22: 25-28 Paul again insists that he was Roman, not a one who obtained the citizenship but born Roman, " As Paul was bound with thongs to be flogged, he said to the centurion [commander of 100 soldiers] who stood by, ' Is it lawful for you to scourge a Roman citizen who hasn't been found guilty?'…. the commander said to him, 'Are you Roman?' Paul said, 'Yes.' The commander said, 'I had to pay a big price to obtain my Roman citizenship.' And Paul said, 'But I was born a citizen [Roman]." Still, for more confusion, in Acts 23: 6 Paul shouts out loud that he is a Pharisee! " But when Paul perceived that some of the members of the Sanhedrin [high Jewish council] were Sadducees & the others Pharisees [2 different Jewish creeds], he cried out in the council 'My brothers I am a Pharisee & the son of a Pharisee.."
Kai replies:
What planet are you living on bro??????????????????????
If you were a Jew by biological origin and religion, but so happened to be born with a Roman citizenship, then you are a Jew, perhaps even a Pharisee, with a Roman citizenship.
Are you telling me that every Jew living in USA is confused about his identity, or every Pakistani Muslim living in UK is mentally retarded?
Frankly I think you need to apologize for such a silly statement.
Abdurrahman wrote:
5. To carry on with Paul's story (according to Acts), in Jerusalem Paul was arrested in the temple by Jews from Asia shouting, "he is the man who is teaching against the laws of Jews" Acts 21:28, he was rescued from the mob by Roman soldiers. He was given a hearing infront of the Jewish council & there was a plot to kill him from which he was saved & deported to Caesarea where he spent sometime in prison. The Jews in Jerusalem have plotted to kill the imprisoned Paul. He knows of the plot & the commander of the barracks lets him leave at night escorted safely to Caesarea with a note to its governor Felix urging him to make Paul stand trial infront of his accusers. Paul was imprisoned for almost 2 years after the trial until Festus succeeded Felix. The new governor re-trialed Paul in the presence of King Agrippa, & their verdict was to agree on Paul's appeal to be in the custody of Caesar in Rome. He was called by Festus "insane" Acts 27:24.
Kai replies:
Paul, insane? Really?
Did you ever read the passage?
Probably not, Acts 27: 24 is the wrong passage!
Acts 26: 24 records Festus’ interruption while Paul is proclaiming the Christian message:
‘You are out of your mind, Paul…your great learning is driving you insane’.
Drawing from the context nothing reveals that Paul was actually considered insane, Festus simply reacted by a message, which demanded his change of religion and conversion to the Christian faith.
Face the fact bro, Paul never permitted rape of female war captives or rape of female slaves, or marriage with nine year old girls; now that can be categorized insanity.
Abdurrahman wrote:
After a weary 3-month sea journey in which the ship sank & Paul passed by Malta & Alexandria (of Egypt), they finally reached Rome. There, Paul stayed for 2 whole years in a house he rented boldly preaching the kingdom of God & all about Jesus Christ. .. In Acts 28:17 it is stated that Paul spent 2 years teaching & preaching freely the Jews in Rome (despite of a contradictory statement in Acts 18:2 in which it is mentioned that earlier "Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome"!) History informs us that Paul was killed by the sword in Rome.
Kai replies:
Did you ever consider the time gap between Acts 18 and Acts 28?
Abdurrahman wrote:
6. It is noticed that Paul has introduced in his preachings a lot of new rituals & beliefs that Jesus never preached. He told the Jews & Gentiles to turn away from Moses laws (commandments) [Acts 21: 21], especially circumcision (Acts 15:2).
He was a hypocrite that talked to every sect in the way they believe, as when he circumcised his follower Timothy (Acts 16:3) while preaching among the Jews of Derbe & Lystra (despite being against circumcision Galatians 5:2/3:12)
Kai replies:
Again bro, may I encourage you to read the Christian Scripture before you bring up such statements.
It’s a fact that Paul in the book of Romans, Galatians and Corinthians does not encourage Gentile Christians to start circumcising.
However, again (and we can have a further debate on this if you like), you need to look at the context.
Some Hebrew converts had spread the idea that circumcision was a necessity for salvation (Acts 15: 1-2); this is the very reason why Paul opposes circumcision at this point.
If you don’t mind you can read through the epistle to the Galatians and see that this is the issue which Paul is dealing with.
Otherwise, the New Testament has no objection to circumcision, it’s a free choice; Jewish Christian practice it, fine, Gentiles are under no such obligation.
‘For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is has value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love’ (Gal.5: 6)
As for Timothy, he was a half Jew, and being able to communicate to Jews, you had to be circumcised, otherwise being excepted was impossible.
His circumcision was merely a sacrifice for the sake of the Gospel, not a religious obligation.
As I said circumcision means nothing, it’s left to the individual or the culture to decide; it becomes an issue only if you add it as an extra element to reach salvation.
Abdurrahman wrote:
& as he did with the Greeks in Athens when he felt distressed by the many idol statues he saw there & yet when he preached the Athenians he told them that the altar they had on which is inscribed "To an unknown God" could be worshiped as The Almighty God creator of the world (Acts 17: 16-25) .
Kai replies:
The issue is quite similar here, but in this case we call it contextualization; that is basically communicating the Gospel in language understandable to the recipient of the message. The use of the ‘alter to an unknown god’, fitted perfectly, since the habitants of Athens had no knowledge about Jahveh.
Abdurrahman wrote:
Other signs of his hypocrisy are encountered in his praise for the Old Testament (Moses law) when he is addressing Jews [as in Romans 1:16/2:13/3:31/7:12], yet he degrades the book & the law when talking to non-Jews [Galatians 2:16/3:1-3/3:11-12/3:19/4:5].
Kai replies:
Again may I suggest that you read the context; I doubt you have even read the passages you are referring to.
Nothing in the passage degrades the Law of Moses; Paul admired and honoured the law, in the same way as I value it, in the same way as any Muslim values the Koran.
Paul simply verifies that a law cannot save an individual from hellfire, as everyone has broken the law in the first place. In other words it is not the law that saves, it is the law that guides.
As for salvation, it is faith in Jesus that saves, or more correctly formulated, Jesus that saves but in faith that we receives the salvation.