2007-10-02 05:05:11 · 10 answers · asked by kloneme 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Although you use somewhat of a misquote, the point is he became a Jew to the Jew, a Greek to the Greek, a Roman to the Roman, etc.
Paul understood the postive effect of good marketing and salesmanship. We see this technique used everyday in modern advertising. Note the different ad layouts for say Coca Cola in a woman's magazine Like Redbook, compared to a man's magazine like GQ, or an ethnic magazine like Ebony or even People verses People in Spanish. Companies with a product become like those to whom they are targeting to have their product appeal to those specific populations.
2007-10-02 05:12:36 · answer #1 · answered by Carol D 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Different peoples have different philosophies and Christianity is somewhat malleable across them. For example, most Jews at Paul's time did not believe the body was separate from the soul while Greeks believed they were, in fact, separate. For Jews, ANY resurrection has to be bodily whereas for Greeks a resurrection could be spiritual and mysterious in nature.
Also, Jews were still concerned with the Law of the Torah and to them Jesus was likely presented as Peter understood him (see Galatians) where Paul actually believed he was a final blood sacrifice to end all the Law's requirements of people, which the Greeks had a model for in Apollo, Mithras, etc.
There's a great scene in the movie The Last Temptation of Christ where Paul (Harry Dean Stanton) is saying Jesus said this or that. After he's finished Jesus (Willem Dafoe) tells him that he didn;t say any of that stuff. Paul replis that he would do or say anything to get them to accept the truth underlying the stories. I think that's probably an accurate depiction of Paul.
2007-10-02 05:18:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Paul was trying to tell you that it wasn't about him, it was all about Christ. It didn't matter who he was. What mattered was Christ and getting the gospel out to the unbelievers. In his disguise he did nothing wrong, because Paul was a Jew that was sent to the Gentiles. He travelled to the rich as well as the poor. He knew how to act rich and he knew how to act poor. He had been both.
2007-10-02 05:11:57 · answer #3 · answered by Jeancommunicates 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The correct quote is something like "...be all things..."
The context is that it's important to relate to all people.
For example, Paul was a tentmaker, Jew, Pharisee, Roman, citizen of Tarsus, and other things. If he met a Pharisee, he would stress his Pharisee status.
2007-10-02 05:15:22 · answer #4 · answered by zeal4him 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That isn't what he said. His point was, as my dad always said, "I don't like worms, but fish do. So, when I go fishing I use worms for bait." Simply put, we want to use means that will attract people to believe the gospel; to use anything else is non-productive at best and counter-productive at worst. Any idea or product is, ideally, presented with means that attract those who need it.
2007-10-02 05:14:36 · answer #5 · answered by reap100 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How much would you believe a man if He came to you in fancy clothes and you being poor,,this is what Paul was showing us, to become like them but without sinning..If you go to the poor we should be like the poor..
2007-10-02 05:10:54 · answer #6 · answered by I give you the Glory Father ! 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Saul/Paul was a Jew, a Greek-speaking trader, a Roman citizen.
He was "all things to all men so that ...." etc
He did not need to disguise.
///
2007-10-02 05:11:10 · answer #7 · answered by Iain 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Christianity is about deception and fear of an imaginary place.
2007-10-02 05:17:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
He didn't use the word "disguise". That's a lie from you.
2007-10-02 05:08:53 · answer #9 · answered by CJ 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Read it in the KJV and it will make more sense.
2007-10-02 05:09:52 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋