Author Topic: Arrest in Philippi (Read 5362 times)

Red Warrior · « **on:** January 14, 2015, 05:02:52 PM »

Arrest In Philippi
Capture 2 human heroes in battle. Cannot be negated if Paul or Silas are in battle.

Is this CBN on evil Saul (Paul)?

Redoubter · « **Reply #1 on:** January 14, 2015, 05:05:12 PM »

Quote from: Red Warrior on January 14, 2015, 05:02:52 PM

Arrest In Philippi
Capture 2 human heroes in battle. Cannot be negated if Paul or Silas are in battle.

Is this CBN on evil Saul (Paul)?

No. Saul is Saul, and Paul is Paul.

Unless you somehow convert Paul to a gray EC or band him in with one...then that's fine. But silly.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 14, 2015, 05:10:41 PM »

but paul is still saul and this has nothing to do with "species" or "kinds"

browarod · « **Reply #3 on:** January 14, 2015, 05:53:31 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on January 14, 2015, 05:05:12 PM

Quote from: Red Warrior on January 14, 2015, 05:02:52 PM
Arrest In Philippi
Capture 2 human heroes in battle. Cannot be negated if Paul or Silas are in battle.

Is this CBN on evil Saul (Paul)?

No. Saul is Saul, and Paul is Paul.

Unless you somehow convert Paul to a gray EC or band him in with one...then that's fine. But silly.

It's the same unique person so I'm curious why the name is differentiated? Is this some weird variant of the David/King David ruling?

LukeChips · « **Reply #4 on:** January 14, 2015, 05:58:10 PM »

Saul's name was changed to Paul when he was converted in the Bible.

Red Warrior · « **Reply #5 on:** January 14, 2015, 06:04:08 PM »

Quote from: LukeChips on January 14, 2015, 05:58:10 PM

Saul's name was changed to Paul when he was converted in the Bible.

As we Christian Church folks like to say, chapter and verse?

Minion of Jesus · « **Reply #6 on:** January 14, 2015, 06:15:31 PM »

All I could find was Acts:9, "But Saul, who is also called Paul,...

jbeers285 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 14, 2015, 06:17:27 PM »

pretty sure it was in first balaam when his donkey's guardian angel used the holy grail but it didn't work so he tried having saul meet the messiah and he drew 2 pictures and that time it worked

Drrek · « **Reply #8 on:** January 14, 2015, 06:18:49 PM »

Quote from: LukeChips on January 14, 2015, 05:58:10 PM

Saul's name was changed to Paul when he was converted in the Bible.

This is not entirely accurate. Saul is still referred to as Saul from the time of his conversion in Chapter 9 of Acts, until verse 9 of chapter 13 when its says " Then Saul, who was also called Paul," and from that point on he is referred to exclusively as Paul.

Redoubter · « **Reply #9 on:** January 14, 2015, 06:33:09 PM »

The issue is that Saul is the character at the start, and then per the ability he "becomes" Paul. He is not considered "Paul" until that point.

A card that refers to "King David" does not work if it is just "David" so this is a consistent ruling.

Sorry for those who wanted a CBN battlewinner on defense

Red Warrior · « **Reply #10 on:** January 14, 2015, 06:51:34 PM »

Regardless of Redemption rulings, here's a little Bible Study for us...

Saul is Hebrew, Paul is Roman (that is, Latin).

Galatians 1:17-18
"I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days."

3 years after his conversion, Luke still refers to the missionary from Damascus as “Saul”. Side note: Paul refers to Peter (Greek for rock) as Cephas (Aramaic for rock). Same person. Same name. Different languages.

Acts 11:25-26
"Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch."

Acts 13:9
"Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas..."

As I see Drrek has already pointed out, from this point on in Acts, Luke refers to him as Paul from then on. We don't know if this was for narrative reasons or if Saul himself began to go by this name. As a Roman Citizen, the name would certainly have connected well with gentiles and officials he encountered (like Surgius Paulus in Acts 13).

LukeChips · « **Reply #11 on:** January 14, 2015, 07:57:22 PM »

He was also a pharasee, trained by a pharasee (gamaliel).

Drrek · « **Reply #12 on:** January 14, 2015, 08:03:29 PM »

Quote from: LukeChips on January 14, 2015, 07:57:22 PM

He was also a pharasee, trained by a pharasee (gamaliel).

Yes but that's not really pertinent to this discussion.

LukeChips · « **Reply #13 on:** January 14, 2015, 08:57:49 PM »

Quote from: Drrek on January 14, 2015, 08:03:29 PM

Quote from: LukeChips on January 14, 2015, 07:57:22 PM
He was also a pharasee, trained by a pharasee (gamaliel).

Yes but that's not really pertinent to this discussion.

I was just stating all the facts hat I know about Saul and Paul.

sorry.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #14 on:** January 14, 2015, 09:49:14 PM »

It is important to note that we have always ruled that Saul cannot block Paul due to unique character rules, so apparently the name is not a distinguishing feature in those cases.

Drrek · « **Reply #15 on:** January 15, 2015, 01:22:08 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 14, 2015, 09:49:14 PM

It is important to note that we have always ruled that Saul cannot block Paul due to unique character rules, so apparently the name is not a distinguishing feature in those cases.

And King David cannot be in your territory at the same time as David, yet promised land's effect only works with King David, not David. The reason I've always seen given is they are the same unique character, but from different points in time, so cards can refer to King David and not David, but they are still the same person.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #16 on:** January 15, 2015, 07:06:48 AM »

... and we want to keep ruling Promised Land that way? Who came up with that anyway?

LukeChips · « **Reply #17 on:** January 15, 2015, 09:34:46 AM »

We should change that ruling, David did just as much work (maybe more) on the Promised land than King David.

The Guardian · « **Reply #18 on:** January 15, 2015, 02:00:59 PM »

Quote from: LukeChips on January 15, 2015, 09:34:46 AM

We should change that ruling, David did just as much work (maybe more) on the Promised land than King David.

What's your scriptural evidence for that claim?

LukeChips · « **Reply #19 on:** January 15, 2015, 02:36:10 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on January 15, 2015, 02:00:59 PM

Quote from: LukeChips on January 15, 2015, 09:34:46 AM
We should change that ruling, David did just as much work (maybe more) on the Promised land than King David.

What's your scriptural evidence for that claim?

When David kill's Goliath, and all of his conquests. I can't remember the exact scripture though.

The Guardian · « **Reply #20 on:** January 15, 2015, 02:39:56 PM »

Better start reading then

LukeChips · « **Reply #21 on:** January 15, 2015, 02:42:05 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on January 15, 2015, 02:39:56 PM

Better start reading then

I will try and get that done by tomorrow.

browarod · « **Reply #22 on:** January 15, 2015, 04:02:07 PM »

Given that the verse on Promised Land is from Joshua, and David wasn't king until at earliest I Samuel (David and Goliath story happens in I Samuel and David is not king by that point), if PL was only going to include 1 variant of David I'm not sure why King David was chosen, since neither would have been around at the time of Joshua. What reasoning was behind the choice to even include any variant of David on the card at all let alone the latter, King version?

LukeChips · « **Reply #23 on:** January 15, 2015, 04:11:47 PM »

Quote from: browarod on January 15, 2015, 04:02:07 PM

Given that the verse on Promised Land is from Joshua, and David wasn't king until at earliest I Samuel (David and Goliath story happens in I Samuel and David is not king by that point), if PL was only going to include 1 variant of David I'm not sure why King David was chosen, since neither would have been around at the time of Joshua. What reasoning was behind the choice to even include any variant of David on the card at all let alone the latter, King version?

I think because King David ruled Israel and David didn't even though they are the same guy...

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #24 on:** January 15, 2015, 06:30:23 PM »

The problem I see is with consistency throughout the game. We can target King David if the SA just says David, but we cannot target David if the SA says King David. You can't have King David and David in territory at that same time. Saul cannot block Paul. Converted evil Salome cannot use Garden Tomb.

So, we have created a system where sometimes the name has to be exact and sometimes it doesn't. It is up to the host (and new players) to go to seminary to determine which is appropriate for their ruling question.

News:

Author Topic: Arrest in Philippi (Read 5362 times)

browarod

LukeChips

LukeChips

LukeChips

LukeChips

LukeChips

LukeChips

browarod

LukeChips