Paul's hypocrisy and its consequence

[Zao is life]

Did God send Paul to Jerusalem?

Acts 21:4. God speaks to the Apostle Paul through believers, saying he should not go to Jerusalem but Paul is not listening. He has made up his mind and is hastening to Jerusalem, but the Holy Spirit is speaking to His disciples, giving His express will that Paul should not go: “and finding disciples, we tarried there seven days who said to Paul through the Spirit that he should not go up to Jerusalem”.

Literally, that is, ‘not set foot in’, not as in Acts 20:23, a warning of danger, but now an imperative command. (Schofield) Perhaps they tarried the seven days due to lengthy discussions in the hopes of persuading Paul. It was not his wish that he was delayed in his intentions, the sign that he was not waiting on guidance moment by moment on the Holy Spirit, but presuming he knew the will of God, making a decision about where he was to go, rather than be content to be on the journey, in God’s will, waiting on the Lord as he did when he was stopped from going into Asia.

In Ephesus (Acts 18:20) he would not delay and said that he ‘must by all means, go to Jerusalem (Acts 18:21). He was determined but was he open to the leadings of the Holy Spirit, so that he could change his plans whenever the Holy Spirit would forbid action? It seems not for in Acts 20:16, it is recorded that Paul hasted.

Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus because he would not spend time in Asia, for he ‘hasted, if it were possible for him to be in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost’. Haste is actually the sign that the devil is at work, for to walk in the Light means that every step that we take (as had Paul previous to this) must be taken deliberately and carefully according to the minute by minute guidance we are afforded if we living in close communion with the Lord Jesus Christ and led by the Spirit. Confusion comes if we are not.

Paul has lost his way and is now driven by his own thoughts, which may not be wrong in themselves, such as wanting to get offerings to the brethren in Jerusalem, after all, his desire is still to serve Christ and those to whom he had preached the gospel. He had not turned aside from his ministry but he had ceased to hear God speaking to him and he was also refusing to hear those to whom God was having to resort to speak though and therefore playing straight into the hands of the enemy who delights in God’s children getting it slightly wrong (not to touch the fruit) with tragic results in putting oneself outside of God’s will.

More than anything else, Satan would want to end Paul’s missionary journey’s and have him out of action, and this is what happened. Paul called the elders of Ephesus to him at Miletus and said his goodbyes to them, explaining that he was ‘bound in the S(s)pirit’ (Acts 20:22) What he was meaning was the he was bound in his own spirit, whereas in 21:4 it is the Holy Spirit who tells him he should not go to Jerusalem. The Holy Spirit does not bind a man and gives him the freedom to do as he wishes.

The final warning comes in Cesarea, this time not in words, which had so far failed to get through to Paul, but by way of a physical demonstration which convinced Paul’s travelling companions (21:12) so that they and Philip the evangelist, all men of God and led by the Spirit, united in discernment that God was commanding Paul not to go to Jerusalem and ‘besought him not to go’. Not just one person note, it was a company of brethren who Paul was ignoring.

Christ has said ‘when two or more are gathered in my name’ or are in agreement ‘there I am in the midst of them’ which is sufficient warning to us whenever we decide to go it alone and step outside of the counsel of brethren who are walking in the Light. What was Paul thinking of??

His fellow disciples gave up at that point, realising that Paul’s mind was set and closed, a dangerous thing for a follower of Christ. They ceased (21:14) and there was nothing left for them to do but to put the matter in the hands of God. “The will of the Lord be done” and resigned themselves to accompanying Paul despite their understanding that it was not God’s will, and that their brother in Christ, whom they would not abandon, was in mortal danger.

It is true that God used God in ‘the prison years’ but we do not know how much was lost with the leading Apostle out of action and what the long term result in the church would be. God brings good out of our stupidity, but it does not say that everything we lost is restored. @Zao is life

IMO the Holy Spirit was giving you the understanding of the scriptures that you expressed in the above post. Calm, insightful, unrushed - and true in every respect

 

[PS95]

Arriving in Tyre during his missionary journeys, Paul stayed there seven days with disciples in Tyre, "who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should NOT go up to Jerusalem."

After leaving Tyre and staying one day at Ptolemais, Paul "came to Caesarea, and entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him, and a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea, and "he came to us, took Paul's belt, tied his own hands and feet with it, and said, "The Holy Spirit says this: 'This is the way the Jews in Jerusalem will tie up the man whose belt this is, and will hand him over to the Gentiles.'"

When they heard this, Paul's travelling companions and the local people "begged him not to go up to Jerusalem".

Then Paul replied, "What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be tied up, but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.", and "because he could not be persuaded, we said no more except, "The Lord's will be done." -- Acts 21:3-14.

Then, while in Jerusalem, Paul was advised by James and the elders and other disciples:

"Thousands of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all ardent observers of the law. They have been informed about you - that you teach all the Jews now living among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What then should we do? They will no doubt hear that you have come.

So do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself live in conformity with the law." -- Acts 21:3-24

It was a number of years before this that Paul had written to the Thessalonians and Galatians, saying,

"But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification [Greek: hagiasmos, purification] of the Spirit and belief of the truth." 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." -- Galatians 5:1.

Despite this, acting on the advice of James and the other elders of the church in Jerusalem, Paul "took the men the next day, and after he had purified himself along with them, he went to the temple and gave notice of the completion of the days of purification, when the sacrifice would be offered for each of them." -- Acts 21:20-26.

Paul had accused Peter of hypocrisy when Peter, after eating with the Gentiles in Antioch, withdrew from them when Jews associated with James came from Jerusalem (Galatians 2:11-21).

Now Paul, contrary to his own doctrine, acting on the advice of James and other elders did the same - he purified himself in accordance with Mosaic law in order to appease Jews who claimed to believe the gospel, yet maintained strict observance of Mosaic law.

Of the Jewish believers who insisted that Gentiles obey the law of Moses, Paul had previously told the Gentiles, "They court you eagerly, but for no good purpose; they want to exclude you, so that you would seek them eagerly." -- Galatians 4:17

As a result, instead of thus appeasing the Jews when he purified himself in the temple in accordance with Mosaic law, Paul was accused by the Jews of defiling the temple, and was arrested and bound in chains. He remained under arrest until he died.

Paul listened to the advice he received from James and the elders, as well as other Jewish disciples who kept the law of Moses, and as Peter had done in Antioch, Paul did something to show the Jews that Paul still kept the law of Moses.

The fact that Paul was repeatedly warned by Christian prophets speaking by the Holy Spirit not to go to Jerusalem, implies that it was not the will of God that Paul go to Jerusalem, or that he be arrested - but Paul, "returning to the weak and beggarly elements of the law" in order to make a show to unbelieving Jews of being a Torah-observant Jew, lost his freedom for the rest of his life, effectively ending his missionary journeys.

OBVIOUSLY (before someone shouts this false accusation) it does not mean that Paul lost his salvation - but he suffered the consequence of his hypocrisy for the rest of his life - and this is why prophesying by the Holy Spirit Paul was repeatedly warned by Christians NOT TO go to Jerusalem. But he never listened.​

I have wondered why Paul or the disciples from Caesarea didn't tell the apostles what the Spirit warned. If they had known, I assume they wouldnt have asked Paul to do that. So I assume he kept it from them...........

 

[Randy Kluth]

Never a good thing to make a false accusation like the above in the pretense that you never noticed that there was no attacking of Paul going on in the OP whatsoever. Just an objective analysis of the facts as recorded by Luke in Acts. Was Luke attacking Paul too? Because if the OP was, so was Luke.

Never a good thing to turn something that is not meant in a critical way into something bad like an attack on an apostle because the fact that you are making a pretense of seeing it as an "attack" is too obvious and shows that you are attacking the poster, not the OP.

The dishonesty of some of the Christians in this board like the dishonesty your post has just exposed is something that becomes really tiring, and makes for yet more exercising of a virtue called patience.​

I saw it as an attack on Paul, right or wrong. And you attacking me for my opinion just shows your unwillingness to address the points and pivot to something personal.

In case you wish to ignore it, the point I was making is less the question of Paul's hypocrisy than what was meant by these apparent contradictions. If you do not see calling Paul a "hypocrite" as an attack on him, then I wonder where your reasoning powers have gone? You said...

"Paul had accused Peter of hypocrisy when Peter, after eating with the Gentiles in Antioch, withdrew from them when Jews associated with James came from Jerusalem (Galatians 2:11-21).
Now Paul, contrary to his own doctrine, acting on the advice of James and other elders did the same - he purified himself in accordance with Mosaic law in order to appease Jews who claimed to believe the gospel, yet maintained strict observance of Mosaic law."

Then you seemed to indicate Paul ended up jailed and dead because of his obstinacy in pleasing the believing Jews. But I don't believe it was the believing Jews who were the problem, and certainly not the cause of his arrest. Rather, it was the unbelieving Jews who were not convinced by his willingness to observe the Jewish customs.

You seem to imply that James and the other Christian leaders observed the Law. They did not. James referred to the Law of God now as the "Law of Liberty," which clearly is no longer bound by the covenant at Sinai.

And then you indicated you "liked" Hepzibah, who said this....

"Paul has lost his way and is now driven by his own thoughts, which may not be wrong in themselves, such as wanting to get offerings to the brethren in Jerusalem, after all, his desire is still to serve Christ and those to whom he had preached the gospel. He had not turned aside from his ministry but he had ceased to hear God speaking to him and he was also refusing to hear those to whom God was having to resort to speak though and therefore playing straight into the hands of the enemy who delights in God’s children getting it slightly wrong (not to touch the fruit) with tragic results in putting oneself outside of God’s will."

This is clearly an attack on Paul, and you appear to endorse it.

 

[Hepzibah]

"Paul has lost his way and is now driven by his own thoughts, which may not be wrong in themselves, such as wanting to get offerings to the brethren in Jerusalem, after all, his desire is still to serve Christ and those to whom he had preached the gospel. He had not turned aside from his ministry but he had ceased to hear God speaking to him and he was also refusing to hear those to whom God was having to resort to speak though and therefore playing straight into the hands of the enemy who delights in God’s children getting it slightly wrong (not to touch the fruit) with tragic results in putting oneself outside of God’s will."

This is clearly an attack on Paul, and you appear to endorse it.

Anyone saying this is an attack on Paul, does not understand how the Holy Spirit leads the people of God, nor how we can benefit from Paul's error in our own walk.

Anyone seeking guidance knows, that the Spirit does it step by step, though I am not discounting special occasions where He may divert from this. But this is the usual way and Paul shows it when he attempted to enter Asia but was prevented. It is called 'opening doors' to ascertain what God wants.

The main problem with this episode with Paul is that he was going with urgency, and being guided by the Spirit requires one to take things step by step with prayer. A calm approach is needful. We need to be looking constantly for confirmation as it is so easy to confuse the small still voice of God with our own voice or even worse, the enemies.

We also need to be turning to fellow believers for their response to prayers on the issue. No-one is a lone wolf and especially Paul. We are told that he had a 'thorn' in his side to help stop him from pride, so he obviously had a weakness here due to the extraordinary revelations from God that could have turned anyone's head in that direction. So I would think that Paul usually took care over this matter.

The event is a test for us as to whether we really are walking in the Spirit ourselves and are aware of the ways of God.

 

[Davy]

Arriving in Tyre during his missionary journeys, Paul stayed there seven days with disciples in Tyre, "who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should NOT go up to Jerusalem."

After leaving Tyre and staying one day at Ptolemais, Paul "came to Caesarea, and entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him, and a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea, and "he came to us, took Paul's belt, tied his own hands and feet with it, and said, "The Holy Spirit says this: 'This is the way the Jews in Jerusalem will tie up the man whose belt this is, and will hand him over to the Gentiles.'"

When they heard this, Paul's travelling companions and the local people "begged him not to go up to Jerusalem".

....​

Much of your theory is just conjecture. Paul already knew he was to go up to Jerusalem, and then be taken to Rome.

Acts 19:21
21 After these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, "After I have been there, I must also see Rome."
KJV

Paul saying that above before... he went to Jerusalem and was made captive, shows he already knew beforehand that he would go to Rome. Thus Christ had to have already shown him that he would be taken captive and wind up in Rome.

Thus Paul's speech to the brethren about his departing...

Acts 20:22-25
22 And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:
23 Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.
24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.
25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.
KJV

Thus Paul understood beforehand what would befall him at Jerusalem, for he already knew he was to go to Rome. That doesn't show he disobeyed The Holy Spirit, but that it was already planned for him to go.

Acts 22:17-21
17 And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance;
18 And saw Him saying unto me, "Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning Me."
19 And I said, "Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on Thee:
20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him."
21 And He said unto me, "Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles."
KJV


Acts 23:11
11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, "Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of Me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome."
KJV

Then while captive at Rome at his own house, he was allowed to preach The Gospel to all that came there, for two years. I don't see that as some kind of punishment for Paul disobeying The Holy Spirit with going up to Jerusalem, for that idea that's just conjecture.

 

[RedFan]

Much of your theory is just conjecture. Paul already knew he was to go up to Jerusalem, and then be taken to Rome.

Acts 19:21
21 After these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, "After I have been there, I must also see Rome."
KJV

Paul saying that above before... he went to Jerusalem and was made captive, shows he already knew beforehand that he would go to Rome. Thus Christ had to have already shown him that he would be taken captive and wind up in Rome.

SOME of your theory is just conjecture. The passage you quote indicates Paul's plan to travel to Rome after Jerusalem, nothing more. He knew he would go to Rome next, but not necessarily in chains. The suggestion that "Christ had to have already shown him that he would be taken captive and wind up in Rome" just does not follow from the text. Your "had to have" surmise is incorrect.

 

[Zao is life]

I saw it as an attack on Paul, right or wrong.

False.

Not worth even reading anything more that you write when you start off with your own judgments of my motive for the OP. The Holy Spirit is fully aware that I was not "attacking" Paul but merely pointing out his mistake.

You often make yourself God, able to judge the motives of others, like you can read their minds and know what's in their hearts.

Therefore your opinions are a not worth the time, as the false accusation comes from someone who believes we need to do good works for the purpose of helping the (finished) work of Christ for our salvation along, though He shed blood for our sins, and His purchase price needs not our payment. I don't have to read further, or respond to nonsense and nonsensical arguments from you, because you don't even believe the true gospel, and you have before told me that good works that we do are our payment for our salvation - "our part" in the redemption price that only the blood of Messiah could pay.

 

[Zao is life]

I have wondered why Paul or the disciples from Caesarea didn't tell the apostles what the Spirit warned. If they had known, I assume they wouldnt have asked Paul to do that. So I assume he kept it from them...........

From what Paul said about being willing to be bound in Jerusalem and even die in Jerusalem for the name of Christ, it's obvious that he believed that the disciples and his travel companions were concerned for him because of the repeated prophecies telling Paul not to go to Jerusalem because if he did, he would be bound there.

Paul's words and determination show IMO that he mistook it for a prophecy about something that would "inevitably" happen to him in Jerusalem, not realizing that it was God telling him not to go to Jerusalem. The words of the disciples who prophesied through the Holy Spirit said Paul was NOT TO go.

I'm 100% sure that I'm correct in my belief that if Paul had seen it as an instruction from God rather than a prophecy about what would "inevitably" happen to him, he would have obeyed and not gone up to Jerusalem.

Then, after following the advice of the elders to undergo the purification ritual to appease "Jews who believe, and are all zealous of the law." (Acts 20:20) who considered Paul a wicked man and his teaching to be wicked, Paul actually in the process of heeding THEIR advice (rather than having heeded the advice of all those who had been telling him NOT TO go up to Jerusalem), unnecessarily attracted attention to himself.

God bless our apostle Paul. One mistake during his entire ministry is good going (well, the one we know of).

What I don't understand is how people can exalt themselves to the place of God and, as though they know my motive for the OP, can falsely accuse me of "attacking" Paul.

Maybe they have all the apostles exalted in their minds to God-like status on a high and lofty pedestal and do not realize that even the apostles were capable of making mistakes or errors in judgment, because they too were as human as we are.

None of what I said in the OP takes away from the work or status and authority of Paul, and OF COURSE it does not mean that I believe even for a second something as foolish as "I would not have done that". I hold the apostles, and the apostle Paul in very high esteem and Paul's work - despite the persecution he so often suffered - to me means that today I (we all) still have our understanding greatly enlightened by his epistles.

I place great value on Paul, his work and his epistles, and from the kind of prideful reactions I have got from some, I'm beginning to think that maybe it's because I value Paul MORE than they do, that others here falsely accuse me of "attacking" Paul - because they have never noticed the things I mentioned in the OP - because THEY don't value Paul and his work with the same high level that I do - though they claim to - so they just don't notice things that are important (or else they just don't know the scriptures that well). Or something - only God knows their motive in their hearts and the reason for their ignorant and prideful false accusations.

I have said this only for the sake of anyone else who might read this thread without commenting and be wrongly influenced by the false accusations of those who seem to have exulted themselves to the position of God, knowing the motive, heart and mind of others who they may disagree with - just because they disagree.

I have not "attacked" Paul and those who would want to make themselves the accuser of the brethren on behalf of the one who can no longer do so, need only to be reminded that the reason he can no longer accuse the brethren is because Christ's blood has taken away the indictment - and it was according to law that Christ did so. False accusations against believers in Christ are simply illegitimate - so you can hand them back to the one who handed them to you before you use them against a believer. Copy @Randy Kluth​

 

[Zao is life]

Much of your theory is just conjecture. Paul already knew he was to go up to Jerusalem, and then be taken to Rome.

Acts 19:21
21 After these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, "After I have been there, I must also see Rome."
KJV

Paul saying that above before... he went to Jerusalem and was made captive, shows he already knew beforehand that he would go to Rome. Thus Christ had to have already shown him that he would be taken captive and wind up in Rome.

Thus Paul's speech to the brethren about his departing...

Acts 20:22-25
22 And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:
23 Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.
24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.
25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.
KJV

Thus Paul understood beforehand what would befall him at Jerusalem, for he already knew he was to go to Rome. That doesn't show he disobeyed The Holy Spirit, but that it was already planned for him to go.

Acts 22:17-21
17 And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance;
18 And saw Him saying unto me, "Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning Me."
19 And I said, "Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on Thee:
20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him."
21 And He said unto me, "Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles."
KJV


Acts 23:11
11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, "Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of Me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome."
KJV

Then while captive at Rome at his own house, he was allowed to preach The Gospel to all that came there, for two years. I don't see that as some kind of punishment for Paul disobeying The Holy Spirit with going up to Jerusalem, for that idea that's just conjecture.

You don't know the difference between conjecture and considering what is actually written (like the words which tell us that Paul was told through the Holy Spirit NOT TO go up to Jerusalem)

 

[rebuilder 454]

Never a good thing to make a false accusation like the above in the pretense that you never noticed that there was no attacking of Paul going on in the OP whatsoever. Just an objective analysis of the facts as recorded by Luke in Acts. Was Luke attacking Paul too? Because if the OP was, so was Luke.

Never a good thing to turn something that is not meant in a critical way into something bad like an attack on an apostle because the fact that you are making a pretense of seeing it as an "attack" is too obvious and shows that you are attacking the poster, not the OP.

The dishonesty of some of the Christians in this board like the dishonesty your post has just exposed is something that becomes really tiring, and makes for yet more exercising of a virtue called patience.​

Don't believe Randy was being dishonest.
I don't believe that Paul was a hypocrite, he was absolutely and completely sold out to the Lord Jesus Christ

 

[Randy Kluth]

False.

Not worth even reading anything more that you write when you start off with your own judgments of my motive for the OP. The Holy Spirit is fully aware that I was not "attacking" Paul but merely pointing out his mistake.

My calling your post an "attack" on Paul is precisely what you are saying it is now, namely a "mistake." Paul did not make this so-called "mistake" is what I'm saying. It "attacks" Paul unfairly, since there is a perfectly good explanation for what he did without calling it a "mistake."

You often make yourself God, able to judge the motives of others, like you can read their minds and know what's in their hearts.

This has little to do with judging your motives--just calling you out for viewing Paul's actions as "mistakes." That's precisely what you're admitting you did! That' not "judgment"--that's just fact!

Therefore your opinions are a not worth the time, as the false accusation comes from someone who believes we need to do good works for the purpose of helping the (finished) work of Christ for our salvation along, though He shed blood for our sins, and His purchase price needs not our payment.

Nothing I said indicates I believe we "help Christ out with atoning for our sins." ;)

I don't have to read further, or respond to nonsense and nonsensical arguments from you, because you don't even believe the true gospel, and you have before told me that good works that we do are our payment for our salvation - "our part" in the redemption price that only the blood of Messiah could pay.

If you can't or won't defend your position, nobody should listen to you. If you can't represent what I believe properly, you shouldn't engage in any discussion about what I believe.

As for what I said you believe I've been quite accurate. You just admitted you are saying that Paul made "mistakes" in these matters. That is precisely the "attack on Paul" I said you were engaging in and what you obviously don't like.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Anyone saying this is an attack on Paul, does not understand how the Holy Spirit leads the people of God, nor how we can benefit from Paul's error in our own walk.

When you say Paul was in error here and claim that is not an "attack on Paul" is living in fantasyland.

The main problem with this episode with Paul is that he was going with urgency, and being guided by the Spirit requires one to take things step by step with prayer. A calm approach is needful. We need to be looking constantly for confirmation as it is so easy to confuse the small still voice of God with our own voice or even worse, the enemies.

I'm not saying Paul was perfect--he certainly was no more perfect than you or me. But imperfect people can be trained to operate responsibly in a saintly way. And Paul was called to guide the Church in responsible living. If he made "errors" he would then admit them if indeed they were "errors." But if it's just *you* calling some things "errors," then I would accept Paul's version over yours, unless it was painfully obvious you're right--it isn't.

We also need to be turning to fellow believers for their response to prayers on the issue. No-one is a lone wolf and especially Paul. We are told that he had a 'thorn' in his side to help stop him from pride, so he obviously had a weakness here due to the extraordinary revelations from God that could have turned anyone's head in that direction. So I would think that Paul usually took care over this matter.

We all have weaknesses--we have to mitigate them. Having a weakness does not mean you can't be honest when you're in "error" and when you're not. Paul admitted no error in the matters you are describing.

The event is a test for us as to whether we really are walking in the Spirit ourselves and are aware of the ways of God.

How we live our lives responsibly is one matter. Judging whether what Paul did was in "error" or not is another.

 

[Zao is life]

Don't believe Randy was being dishonest.
I don't believe that Paul was a hypocrite, he was absolutely and completely sold out to the Lord Jesus Christ

So was Peter, whom Paul accused of hypocrisy once because for the sake of appeasing the Judaizing party that had arrived in Antioch from Jerusalem, he withdrew himself from the Gentiles' table.

Paul likewise did something in order to appease the Judaizing party in Jerusalem, making himself as guilty as Peter of hypocrisy at that point.

At least Peter and Paul only each made themselves guilty of hypocrisy only once. Not sure how often you have done that.

And your false accusation that you picked up from the accuser of the brethren to act on his behalf does you no good because it's a lie and a false accusation to imply that I claimed Paul was a hypocrite, falsely implying that I made hypocrisy part of Paul's character. Most humans have been guilty of hypocrisy at least once - and that includes Peter, and Paul, from what we can see in the scriptures. It does not mean that "they are hypocrites" as though it's part of their character.

Most humans are guilty of hypocrisy at least once. I do not include yourself and @Randy Kluth in that statement, because going by your determination to act on behalf of the accuser of the brethren by collecting false accusations and false implications about something someone said from the accuser and then hurling them at me, you give me no reason to believe that you're one of most humans with respect to how many times you have been guilty of hypocrisy.

 

[Zao is life]

When you say Paul was in error here and claim that is not an "attack on Paul" is living in fantasyland.

No. Claiming that an objective study of something that is biblical history is an "attack" on Paul is living in fantasyland.

I would bow out now. if I were you - because you've showed yourself up - over and over with your false accusations and false implications.

End of my talking to you about this. You are not qualified because your reactions are amateur and ignorant to the point of childishness.

 

[RedFan]

At least Peter and Paul only each made themselves guilty of hypocrisy only once.

How do you know that?

 

[Zao is life]

How do you know that?

Do you ever read your Bible?

Did you read what Paul said to Peter about what he did in Antioch to appease the visiting Judaizing party from Jerusalem?

Did you read what Paul did in Jerusalem to appease the Judaizing party? How does that square up with the things Paul wrote in Galatians?

Are you claiming that I wrote the New Testament and the above records are not in it?

I'm not talking to you about this anymore. You make it clear you are not qualified because you don't know how I know that both Paul and Peter were guilty of hypocrisy at least once. Your lack of understanding of scripture is shocking. Maybe based on ignorance because you do not read the New Testament.

 

[RedFan]

Do you ever read your Bible?

Did you read what Paul said to Peter about what he did in Antioch to appease the visiting Judaizing party from Jerusalem?

Did you read what Paul did in Jerusalem to appease the Judaizing party? How does that square up with the things Paul wrote in Galatians?

Are you claiming that I wrote the New Testament and the above records are not in it?

I'm not talking to you about this anymore. You make it clear you are not qualified because you don't know how I know that both Paul and Peter were guilty of hypocrisy at least once. Your lack of understanding of scripture is shocking. Maybe based on ignorance because you do not read the New Testament.

No need to get offended, my friend. I just asked a simple question: how you know that Peter and Paul committed only one act of hypocrisy each. (Now you say "at least" once, but that wasn't what you said earlier -- which is why I posed my question.)

 

[Zao is life]

No need to get offended, my friend. I just asked a simple question: how you know that Peter and Paul committed only one act of hypocrisy each. (Now you say "at least" once, but that wasn't what you said earlier -- which is why I posed my question.)

You knowingly implied that I said something I did not say about Paul's character in order to defend and support @Randy Kluth 's false accusations and false implications.

Have fun showing yourself up while you continue to do so, because it will be obvious to every objective reader of this thread what your intention was with the things you have said in your posts to me.

Bye

 

[RedFan]

You knowingly implied that I said something I did not say about Paul's character in order to defend and support @Randy Kluth 's false accusations and false implications.

Have fun showing yourself up while you continue to do so, because it will be obvious to every objective reader of this thread what your intention was with the things you have said in your posts to me.

Bye

I am not supporting Randy! I think today's is my only post to you in my life! And I don't think you've ever made one to me before this (other than a "Like" to my Post #26 in this thread). Could you have me mixed up with someone else?

 

[Jesusfollower]

Yes, before Paul got born again he did lots of evil stuff... like the rest of us.

you mean evil stuff like murdering christian and or putting them in prison? I am not blameless but would never do such a thing.