ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Why Saul To Paul

Why did God change Saul's name to Paul?

Join Our Free Penpals and Take The Who Is Paul Bible Quiz
 ---Phil on 10/12/12
     Helpful Blog Vote (1)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog



Cluny, I agree with you on that point. What a mess!

Somewhere along the way some strange Idea came in to inflict suffering on those who disagreed with one or the othr. Constantine's Sword 300AD started that mess. That's when "Christianity" and those professing to be Christian became violent.

But I can't find anywhere Wycliff or Hus ever murdered anyone.

Calvin did his share of murder, of his own people too in fact who wouldn't knuckle under "his" authority.

So much for not "lording it over" the flock.
---kathr4453 on 10/19/12


\\Certainly not the consensus of those who were burned at the stake by the RCC. Wycliffe was long before any known reformation of the 1500's. I believe he was around 1200.\\

Don't forget the Roman Catholics who were killed by Protestants when they got the chance, kathr.

Neither side has clean hands in this matter.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/17/12


Was it?

It was never the consensus in the East.


Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/16/12

Really:

Bishop Kallistos on his book (The Orthodox Church. Penguin Books:) writes:

///During the first eight centuries of the Church's history the Roman see was noted for the purity of its faith, other Patriarchates wavered during the great doctrinal disputes, but Rome for the most part stood firm. It was above all to Rome that everyone appealed to guidance in the early centuries of the Church. (pg. 28)//

Keep in mind this is the time period of the first seven Ecumenical Councils!

Early Church Fathers from East and West claiming Peter is indeed the 'Rock' of he Church.
---Ruben on 10/17/12


\\For centuries it was the consensus of the majority that there was only one true church, Papal Rome.\\

Was it?

It was never the consensus in the East.

Western Europe is NOT the spiritual center of the universe, nor was it ever.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/16/12


For centuries it was the consensus of the majority that there was only one true church, Papal Rome.

phil//

Certainly not the consensus of those who were burned at the stake by the RCC. Wycliffe was long before any known reformation of the 1500's. I believe he was around 1200.

Did England ever knuckle under Roman Rule?
---kathr4453 on 10/16/12




"The consensus of Christians for 2000 years before you came along was that Saul's Graeco-Roman name was Paul. Deal with it."

For centuries it was the consensus of the majority that there was only one true church, Papal Rome.

Faith and believing God instead of men changed that, and the Reformation was birthed.

It is the unwillingness to be broadened in the heart, and stubborn as to the truth, that prevents advancement in the realization of God.

The folly of such a proclivity should have ended at Calvary. I ascertain it has not.
---Phil on 10/16/12


\\ In addition to his Roman name, he was given a Jewish name "Saul".\\

Many observant Jews in this country have a Hebrew name as well as an American name. Frequently, but not always, they begin with the same letter.

Many Orthodox have such a practice in the USA, where their baptismal name is not always the same as their civil name, e.g., Walter for Vladimir, William for Basil, Freida for Eleftheria (Liberty).

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/16/12


Paul was born a Roman citizen....Paul was part of his Roman name. In addition to his Roman name, he was given a Jewish name "Saul". [Saul was the Hebrew name of Paul].....He was given a Jewish name perhaps in memory of Israel's first king, a member of the tribe of Benjamin, to which Paul's family belonged.
---pat on 10/16/12


\\He is not recorded as being know prior to Acts 13 as Paul. That is an assumption, not Scripture.

Acts 13 notes the change, retains it from there forward, and who, other than God, could have brought that about?\\

If God were responsible for his name change, don't you think the Scripture would have said so? Why are you making the assumption that God changed it?

The consensus of Christians for 2000 years before you came along was that Saul's Graeco-Roman name was Paul. Deal with it.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/16/12


---Cluny on 10/15/12

All that you say is good. There is gravity in what you point out.

My contention is Paul's zeal, race, religion, pride, upbringing, ambition, motiviations, and endless things concerning his flesh, would have made it difficult for him to accept being called anything but what was correct and proper, that being, the deserved recognition of who he was and his Jewish name.

He is not recorded as being know prior to Acts 13 as Paul. That is an assumption, not Scripture.

Acts 13 notes the change, retains it from there forward, and who, other than God, could have brought that about?
---Phil on 10/16/12




\\Paul was not tainted to the extent you believe. His imbibing of Roman culture was negligible, if at all.\\

To be conversant with a culture is not the same thing as being tainted by it.

Greek had been the lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean area since the time of Alexander. Everyone had to speak some Greek to get along. Just what language do you think Our Lord used to converse with the Canaanite woman, anyway? Or the centurion?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/15/12


---Cluny on 10/14/12 "
Phil, I'm not talking about St. Paul's religious background, but his CULTURAL background as well."

To the Jew of all eras, there is no other culture.

This mindset, of racial purity and preeminence, is inherent by their close association to God.

Though the passion may rise and fall with circumstances, they all retain this understanding. It is of God.

Paul was not tainted to the extent you believe. His imbibing of Roman culture was negligible, if at all.
---Phil on 10/14/12


Phil, I'm not talking about St. Paul's religious background, but his CULTURAL background as well.

Or can you tell the difference?

A casual reading of his Epistles in Greek make it clear that he was quite conversant with Greek letters and learning.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/14/12


Phil, You must believe that the Quran ,book of Mormon,Science and Health key to the Scriptures (Mary Baker Eddy)etc were all written by God since they "claim" to be Just like Paul and Luke!
Who has the authority to select which writings are "God breathed"? You?
You just "go-with-the-flow" general consensus,that solves everything!
---1st_cliff on 10/14/12


Rightly divide Phil. Oh, can't rightly divide what isn't there phil? On another one you your Gnostic Journey's? Did you FIND the answer in Scripture Phil? Oh, that's right, if you had, you wouldn't be asking right? I really believe Phil, most Christians really don't care. It's not important to our personal growing relationship to the Lord.

Just another Gnostic Journey I don't care to go on.

Anyone who denies the Holy Spirit and calls the Holy Spirit an IT..should know the answer here to your own question.

Or did you ask, to try to teach us something? Not interested!
---kathr4453 on 10/14/12


---Cluny on 10/13/12 "Because that was his Graeco-Roman name."

Ac 22:3 . I am a Jew... brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the perfect manner of the law... zealous toward God

Phl 3:4 If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
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,
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church, touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Can I be persuaded such a man as this, with his religious background, would accept anyone calling him other than his Jewish name?

Evidence is needed. Please provide.
---Phil on 10/14/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance


---kathr4453 on 10/13/12 "Paul was known by BOTH NANES even before his conversion."

If you have the resources and the honesty to show where this is recorded in the Scpritures, I would be grateful.

It is not recorded. Furthermore, it says "who is also Paul", not who was known as Paul.

Rightly divide Kathr.
---Phil on 10/13/12


\\He went by Simon Peter, and Peter.
---kathr4453 on 10/13/12\\

Don't forget that one time St. Paul referred to him as "Cephas".

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/13/12



---1st_cliff on 10/13/12 "Acts was written by Luke not God"

It is unfortunate that you believe this. I despair of your conclusion.

Jn 10:35 ..unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God

2Pt 1:21 For not by the will of man was prophecy carried on at any time, but, being carried on by holy spirit, holy men of God speak.

Your ratiocination deposes God, and insinuates a flaw that does not exist.

Do not think that with exceeding joyfulness the Prophets opened their mouths to denounce their fellows.

The were impelled from outside themselves, not advancing their own thoughts.
---Phil on 10/13/12


Phil, you are grabbing at straws. We see it RECORDED in Scripture GOD changing Abram name to Abraham, we also see God changed Jacob's name to Israel, we do not see any thing where GOD changed Saul's name to Paul.

Paul was known by BOTH NANES even before his conversion. Saul may have made that choice himself, seeing PAUL was his ROMAN Name. It means SMALL. Paul stating he was the least of the apostles may have chosen Paul for that reason.

Let's not add to scripture what is not there Phil.

Simon's surname was Peter.

He went by Simon Peter, and Peter.
---kathr4453 on 10/13/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling


\\Thereafter he is referred to as Paul by Holy Spirit in the rest of the Acts. \\

Because that was his Graeco-Roman name.

\\What is the reason God recorded changing Saul's name to Paul?\\

Because St. Paul was known as both.

You don't actually think that the Holy Spirit dictated the very words used by the writers of the Bible, do you?

The Koine Greek of the NT was not a special divine language or idiom, but the "common" Greek understood in all places of the Roman Empire by literate people.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/13/12


Well, he was being called "Saul" in Acts, while he was persecuting the church. The name "Saul" in Hebrew means "asked". This is the same as of the king named Saul who so went against God. Saul the king asked a medium for Samuel. Saul was asked by Jesus why he was persecuting Jesus (Acts 9:4).

"Paul" seems to mean "little", in Latin. By humbling himself to Jesus, he became little, in a way, I would say > he stopped being a big-shot with the Pharisees.
---willie_c: on 10/13/12


Phil, What's with this "God recorded"? (you said 3 times)
Acts was written by Luke not God !
---1st_cliff on 10/13/12


---Cluny on 10/12/12 "It might not have been God who did it."

I cannot see who else could have.

If God chooses to record something, it is for a very significant reason. He recorded a name change.

Thereafter he is referred to as Paul by Holy Spirit in the rest of the Acts.

What is the reason God recorded changing Saul's name to Paul?
---Phil on 10/13/12


Shop For Christian Debt Consolidation


For the same reason God change Abram name to Abraham.

Genesis 17:5
Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham, for a father of many nations have I made thee.
---kathr4453 on 10/12/12


In Acts 13:9, we read "Saul who was also called Paul." So, it wasn't a name change, he was also known as Paul. See, Paul was a Roman citizen, and Romans had 3 names, the first was known as "Pranomen" which was just a title formality. the second name was known as "nomen" and it identified the tribe you came from or identified the person from whom you received Roman citizenship. The third name was the most important, it was known as your "cognomen" which identified your family name. Saul was Paul's Hebrew name.

And really now researching it God never changed his name.
---kathr4453 on 10/12/12


true Cluny, also Saul/Paul remained Saul throughout the Hebrew focused part of Acts.
---Scott1 on 10/12/12


The Scripture is silent on why Saul changed his name to Paul, just as Abram became Abraham. What's important is that they are God's elect, vessels of honour, chosen before the foundations of the world to receive salvation - as revealed in the Scripture.

"The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." Deuteronomy 29:29
---christan on 10/12/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief


It might not have been God who did it.

Most commentators say that Paul (PAVLOS in Greek) was his Greek name, as he lived in a Greek city and was learned in Hellenic culture.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/12/12


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.