Bible Study Did paul lie when he said he did not know the high priest

[jgredline]

According to Acts 23:5
Paul replied, "Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.'"

Here is the problem that I see with this.
The high priest Ananias commanded that Paul be struck on the mouth. Paul rebuked him for doing so, and those who stood by condemned Paul for reviling the high priest. Paul responded by claiming, “I did not know … that he was the high priest†. But this is highly unlikely, since Paul himself was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin and worked closely with him before his conversion.

What do you guys think of this passage?

 

[thessalonian]

I am no expert in Jewish law, but one passage that may shed some light on it is:

John 12
49
But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, 11 said to them, "You know nothing,


It sounds from this passage like the office of high priest was not a permanent one. Perhaps it was one that changed each year between members of the Sanhedren. Something that bears looking in to. So Paul may well not have known Annais was the current high preist. I will look more in to it. Perhaps George can be of some assistance. ;-) . Though I would think that he might not want to come to Paul's aide.

Hope that helps.

Blessings

 

[Georges]

High Priests by that time were appointed by the Roman authority...initiated by I believe the Herodians...there were numerous changes....

What is odd is that Paul should have known who the HP was....as it appears he was still close to the Herodians...Paul (being related to the Herodians) began his career working for the HP group but ran afoul of them....As legend has it, early in Paul's career, he fell in love with the HP's daughter and converted to Judaism. In his attempt to win the woman, Paul was rejected and in turn rejected Judaism....he may not have known who the HP was but that would have been strange....especially if he ran in Jewish-Chrisitan circles...

 

[MrVersatile48]

Would ya believe Thess & I had the same thought @ this one? :

George, Paul only learnt who the high priest was when that guy said: he'd been moving in Christian circles for a while 8-)

Ian

 

[Georges]

Here is the list....who was the HP de jour....

High Priest under Herodians and Romans
Ananelus 37-36 BC
Aristobulus III 36 BC
Ananelus (restored) 36-30 BC
Joshua ben Fabus 30-23 BC
Simon ben Boethus
Mattathias ben Theophilus
Joazar ben Boethus 4 BC
Eleazar ben Boethus 4-3 BC
Joshua ben Sie 3 BC-6 AD
Ananus ben Seth 6-15
Ishmael ben Fabus 15-16
Eleazar ben Ananus 16-17
Simon ben Camithus 17-18
Joseph Caiaphas 18-36
Jonathan ben Ananus 36-37
Theophilus ben Ananus 37-41
Simon Cantatheras ben Boethus 41-43
Matthias ben Ananus 43
Aljoneus 43-44
Jonathan ben Ananus 44 (restored)
Josephus ben Camydus 44-46
Ananias ben Nebedeus 46-52 Jonathan 52-56
Ishmael ben Fabus 56-62 (restored?)
Joseph Cabi ben Simon 62-63
Ananus ben Ananus 63
Joshua ben Damneus 63
Joshua ben Gamaliel 63-64
Mattathias ben Theophilus 65-66


A lot of HP's in a short period of time...some of them served more than one term...

 

[thessalonian]

...there were numerous changes....

Depending on the timing of Acts 23, Paul may not have been up to date on a current change. Sounds like it is quite possible he really did not know. Thanks for the info George. It's interesting.

 

[jgredline]

I too was thinking of George when I asked the question. As I look through one of my bibles, this particular passage I have marked with a question mark.
In fact as I look through my bible I see alot of tough passages. I thought I would begin to post some of them in the hopes we could find some coman ground where people can throw thoughts around with out everything turning into a Salvation issue. We could leave those in the Apologetics section.
''Can't we all get along - Rodney King''
Anyway George thanks for the insight. I will ponder it some more and see what i/we can come up with.

jg

 

[Oscar3]

:roll: :roll:

 

[jgredline]

It seems more plausible, to me to take Paul’s statement as sarcastic but not false. In this case, his statement, “I did not know … he was the high priest,†could be translated something like this: “This is the high priest of God’s Law? I would never have known it by his unlawful command to strike m!â€Â

 

[Lewis]

It seems more plausible, to me to take Paul’s statement as sarcastic but not false. In this case, his statement, “I did not know … he was the high priest,†could be translated something like this: “This is the high priest of God’s Law? I would never have known it by his unlawful command to strike me!â€

Hmmmmmm

 

[jgredline]

Just thinking out loud or in this case o the key board.

 

[Oscar3]

What a tough question. I looked in some commentaries and they all seem to skip this verse :roll:

 

[John the Baptist]

Re: Did paul lie when he said he did not know the high pries

According to Acts 23:5
Paul replied, "Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.'"

Here is the problem that I see with this.
The high priest Ananias commanded that Paul be struck on the mouth. Paul rebuked him for doing so, and those who stood by condemned Paul for reviling the high priest. Paul responded by claiming, “I did not know … that he was the high priest†. But this is highly unlikely, since Paul himself was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin and worked closely with him before his conversion.

What do you guys think of this passage?

********
Are you thinking OSAS? In other words. Paul as Saul knew who he was, but the Born Again Paul surely could not recognize satan's fold leaders as needing to be reverenced. What kind of witness would that be?

See Matthew 23:38, Revelation 3:9, Matthew 4:9-10. NO: There is not any way that 'i' could give reverence or honor to Israel's 'so called' high priest of today. And as then, they are not Christians! Both time/frames equal the same answer. What do you call the ones in Revelation 17:5? Do you reduce the size of the original letters there in the compilers caps? Perhaps most of today do, huh?

Your question 'begs' the correct answer as 'i' see it! It is a very good question!!

PS: Had you ever read Steven's 'testimony' in Acts 7:51-60? Surely Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) was included in this wittness?, and with Saul (Paul to be) seen in Acts 7:58, huh!

Why else does one see that Saul was 'kicking against the pricks' of his conscience, as Christ stated in Acts 9:4-6

 

[Poke]

I don't know why anyone would speculate that Paul lied in the absence of good evidence of such. Why would Paul have known this man was the high priest? Is there a record of them meeting before? Was he dressed as the high priest? Were there introductions?

Even if Paul had met this man in the past, it is thought Paul had very bad eyesight and that may have prevented him from recognizing the man.

 

[John the Baptist]

I don't know why anyone would speculate that Paul lied in the absence of good evidence of such. Why would Paul have known this man was the high priest? Is there a record of them meeting before? Was he dressed as the high priest? Were there introductions?

Even if Paul had met this man in the past, it is thought Paul had very bad eyesight and that may have prevented him from recognizing the man.

******
That is a good thought! And is true as far as his eyesight, perhaps? Yet, I still do not think that Paul could treat satan with the respect of Christ?

--J/t/B/

 

[Georges]

Re: Did paul lie when he said he did not know the high pries

According to Acts 23:5
Paul replied, "Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.'"

Here is the problem that I see with this.
The high priest Ananias commanded that Paul be struck on the mouth. Paul rebuked him for doing so, and those who stood by condemned Paul for reviling the high priest. Paul responded by claiming, “I did not know … that he was the high priest†. But this is highly unlikely, since Paul himself was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin and worked closely with him before his conversion.

What do you guys think of this passage?

This is what I see......

Jesus gets struck on the mouth and utters no curse.....Father forgive them....

Paul gets struck on the mouth and utters a curse......Apologizes for not knowing he's a HP as if it mattered who the man was...

Hmm.....

Put the spin on it boys..........let's here it... 8-)

 

[jgredline]

Re: Did paul lie when he said he did not know the high pries

According to Acts 23:5
Paul replied, "Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.'"

Here is the problem that I see with this.
The high priest Ananias commanded that Paul be struck on the mouth. Paul rebuked him for doing so, and those who stood by condemned Paul for reviling the high priest. Paul responded by claiming, “I did not know … that he was the high priest†. But this is highly unlikely, since Paul himself was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin and worked closely with him before his conversion.

What do you guys think of this passage?

This is what I see......

Jesus gets struck on the mouth and utters no curse.....Father forgive them....

Paul gets struck on the mouth and utters a curse......Apologizes for not knowing he's a HP as if it mattered who the man was...

Hmm.....

Put the spin on it boys..........let's here it... 8-)

Goerge, george, georrge

 

[Poke]

Re: Did paul lie when he said he did not know the high pries

Jesus gets struck on the mouth and utters no curse.....Father forgive them....

Paul gets struck on the mouth and utters a curse......Apologizes for not knowing he's a HP as if it mattered who the man was...

Actually, other than at the crucifixion, I can't think of where Jesus accepted being hit, and it's not for lack of the Jews wanting to harm him.

Paul is calling the high priest a hypocrite. Jesus called the Jewish leaders hypocrites all the time, and in no less colorful language.

Even if Jesus would have handled this differently, Paul is not Jesus nor should anyone expect Paul to match Jesus. Paul apologized. Jesus never did.

 

[John the Baptist]

Re: Did paul lie when he said he did not know the high pries

According to Acts 23:5
Paul replied, "Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.'"

Here is the problem that I see with this.
The high priest Ananias commanded that Paul be struck on the mouth. Paul rebuked him for doing so, and those who stood by condemned Paul for reviling the high priest. Paul responded by claiming, “I did not know … that he was the high priest†. But this is highly unlikely, since Paul himself was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin and worked closely with him before his conversion.

What do you guys think of this passage?

********
Are you thinking OSAS? In other words. Paul as Saul knew who he was, but the Born Again Paul surely could not recognize satan's fold leaders as needing to be reverenced. What kind of witness would that be?

See Matthew 23:38, Revelation 3:9, Matthew 4:9-10. NO: There is not any way that 'i' could give reverence or honor to Israel's 'so called' high priest of today. And as then, they are not Christians! Both time/frames equal the same answer. What do you call the ones in Revelation 17:5? Do you reduce the size of the original letters there in the compilers caps? Perhaps most of today do, huh?

Your question 'begs' the correct answer as 'i' see it! It is a very good question!!

PS: Had you ever read Steven's 'testimony' in Acts 7:51-60? Surely Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) was included in this witness?, and with Saul (Paul to be) seen in Acts 7:58, huh!

Why else does one see that Saul was 'kicking against the pricks' of his conscience, as Christ stated in Acts 9:4-6

***
Hi, (J/t/B/ here)
let me offer it a little more differently even? Here is a poster who signs her name lets say, sister George, or Mr. Pope George, or whatever or whoever? (it is just some posting!)

And he or she posts that Paul.. does, says, or contradicts Christ! or whatever, huh? (note 1 Corinthians 14:32 for who it is that is called a liar! 2 Peter 1:20-21!!) And the brothers & sisters of 'some' forum (bosses) say that this will not be tolerated by their brother?? huh? In other words, again, is this person a brother that Paul would give 'Godly High Priest Respect' to?

Now: The subject is about being a liar? Right??? Are [we] calling some people that we know to be documented liars, brothers & sisters with some kind of lying respect???????

Perhaps the Lord's Word of Revelation 18:4 of being 'Partakers' of these sins were only understood by Paul, and Christ's 'My People', or, that the warning of receiving of the plagues, was seen as God just blowing smoke? .

Perhaps 'some' best read about the liars of Revelation 21:27? And even then we see the audaciousness of 'one' leaving their postings at the bottom of their page, with The Truth of Ecclesiastes 12:13, as if they are Christ Loving Commandment keepers.

 

[Georges]

Re: Did paul lie when he said he did not know the high pries

[quote="John the Baptist":2cd1a]

According to Acts 23:5
Paul replied, "Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.'"

Here is the problem that I see with this.
The high priest Ananias commanded that Paul be struck on the mouth. Paul rebuked him for doing so, and those who stood by condemned Paul for reviling the high priest. Paul responded by claiming, “I did not know … that he was the high priest†. But this is highly unlikely, since Paul himself was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin and worked closely with him before his conversion.

What do you guys think of this passage?

********
Are you thinking OSAS? In other words. Paul as Saul knew who he was, but the Born Again Paul surely could not recognize satan's fold leaders as needing to be reverenced. What kind of witness would that be?

See Matthew 23:38, Revelation 3:9, Matthew 4:9-10. NO: There is not any way that 'i' could give reverence or honor to Israel's 'so called' high priest of today. And as then, they are not Christians! Both time/frames equal the same answer. What do you call the ones in Revelation 17:5? Do you reduce the size of the original letters there in the compilers caps? Perhaps most of today do, huh?

Your question 'begs' the correct answer as 'i' see it! It is a very good question!!

PS: Had you ever read Steven's 'testimony' in Acts 7:51-60? Surely Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) was included in this witness?, and with Saul (Paul to be) seen in Acts 7:58, huh!

Why else does one see that Saul was 'kicking against the pricks' of his conscience, as Christ stated in Acts 9:4-6

***
Hi, (J/t/B/ here)
let me offer it a little more differently even? Here is a poster who signs her name lets say, sister George, or Mr. Pope George, or whatever or whoever? (it is just some posting!)

And he or she posts that Paul.. does, says, or contradicts Christ! or whatever, huh? (note 1 Corinthians 14:32 for who it is that is called a liar! 2 Peter 1:20-21!!) And the brothers & sisters of 'some' forum (bosses) say that this will not be tolerated by their brother?? huh? In other words, again, is this person a brother that Paul would give 'Godly High Priest Respect' to?

Now: The subject is about being a liar? Right??? Are [we] calling some people that we know to be documented liars, brothers & sisters with some kind of lying respect???????

Perhaps the Lord's Word of Revelation 18:4 of being 'Partakers' of these sins were only understood by Paul, and Christ's 'My People', or, that the warning of receiving of the plagues, was seen as God just blowing smoke? .

Perhaps 'some' best read about the liars of Revelation 21:27? And even then we see the audaciousness of 'one' leaving their postings at the bottom of their page, with The Truth of Ecclesiastes 12:13, as if they are Christ Loving Commandment keepers. [/quote:2cd1a]

Lovey....help....I need some Pentecostal Typing translated....

John....you are being bad again....? You aren't holding to your boy's word....

Didn't Paul say you shouldn't type in tongues if no one was there to translate? Why? Because the one typing in tongues would appear to be a barbarian...

1Cr 14:27 If any man speak(Type) in an [unknown] (incoherent) tongue (type), [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret.
1Cr 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Of course the red is my paraphrase, but the idea is the same.

Just poking a little fun brother John....I'm in a good mood today... :-D