…and if so, did he know what he was talking about or had he even lost leave of his senses?
We could also ask the questions: Could or can a Pharisee be a Born of God (Born Again) son of God at the same time and are the two compatible or, even, can a man serve two masters? Was Paul a brother of Yashua Anointed living under His glorious Grace or, was he living as a Pharisee, a servant of Moses – The Whole Law – The Old Covenant – The Torah?
OK, so what’s going on, because in The King James Bible in Acts 23:6 it alleges that Paul said this:
Acts 23:6 (KJV) 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.
The thing is, have the Freemason and Cainite-Judeo-Christian Religious translators of the KJV got this right? because a while back I had a similar problem with this verse from The KJV as well where Paul is alleged to have said this:
1 Tim 1:15 (KJV) This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
Yet immediately prior to that Paul had already said this in the past tense:
1 Tim 1:13-14 (KJV) Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 14 And The Grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
Who was BEFORE a blasphemer and thereby the chief of sinners!!
Now it looks to me as if someone was mucking about with tenses in these verses of the KJV Bible, so it behoves us to do a little searching out to see what the satanic Freemason, Judaising, Trinity believing translators of the KJV were up to.
Interestingly the same Greek word for ‘am’ is found in both 1 Timothy 1:15 and Acts 23:6 and from Strong’s Concordance we have the following:
G1510 eimi i-mee’ First person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic): – am, have been, X it is I, was. See also G1488, G1498, G1511, G1527, G2258, G2071, G2070, G2075, G2076, G2771, G2468, G5600.
Now other scholars have this ‘eime’ ‘i-mee” word as a ‘historical present’ verb meaning that ‘have been’ would be a better or more accurate translation i.e. “I have been a Pharisee” past tense and not “I am a Pharisee” present tense. However, I am going to be bolder than that and state categorically that the ‘eime’ ‘i-mee” word is an outright corruption of the Greek MSS of the Holy Scriptures and that the G2258 word was there originally and again from Strong’s Concordance:
G2258 ēn – ane Imperfect of G1510; I (thou, etc.) was (wast or were): – + agree, be, X have (+ charge of), hold, use, was (-t), were.
Notice, we still have the G1510 word involved only it’s what they call ‘imperfect of G1510’ so there is a connection, but the bottom line is that we now have The Truth of the matter whereby what Paul really said was: “I was a Pharisee”, and NOT “I am a Pharisee.”
Now as usual I can hear all the Judaising detractors screaming and shouting and I can even see them jumping up and down, stamping their feet and foaming at the mouth in true Pharisaical style, but alas all to no avail, because I have more evidence that Acts 23:6 in its KJV present tense guise is a contamination and a corruption:
Acts 26:5 (KJV) Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
Here Paul confirms for us that his Pharisaical life was always a part of his past and which ended dramatically on the road to Damascus, which he further explains in more graphic detail in Philippians:
Phil 3:4-8 (KJV) 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: 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; 6 Concerning zeal, persecuting The Church; touching the righteousness which is in The Law, blameless. 7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 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 (to gain) Christ. (Brackets mine)
Notice, first, that Saul the Pharisee was trusting in the flesh which is what Pharisees naturally do. Notice, too, that Paul was (past tense) a Pharisee according to The Law and thereby in direct association with The Law, or hand in hand with The Law. So what does this mean? Can a man be under Yashua Anointed’s glorious Grace and hold a position or title that, without close relationship to The Law and the flesh, would not exist? Where is The Law in Pharisaism? Everywhere. Where is The Law and Pharisaism in Grace? Nowhere, so what use would a Pharisee be to Yashua Anointed? He would be no use to Him at all – completely useless.
Moreover, in verse 8 Paul then tells us that he now considers the office of Pharisee, along with everything else to do with his old lifestyle, to be excrement or crap. So with this in mind do you think that Paul would have then declared himself as still being a Pharisee when he addressed the Sanhedrin or would he have declared himself as having been a Pharisee in the past tense? Answers on the back of a postage stamp thank you.
And, again, when in your studies, always keep in mind that The King James Bible contains The Holy Scriptures, but that The King James Bible of itself is not The Holy Scriptures, for it has many errors and corruptions.