Paul's hypocrisy and its consequence

[PS95]

But then he won't argue....what fun is it then?

Besides, we are talking about Paul here....
It kinda is necessary.
Paul started how many city-wide riots over religious disagreements?

Told the Galatians he wished the jews to become unichs.

He wasn't as meek and mild as people tend to think....he had a razor sharp wit and tongue.

Just saying....

I have never thought of Paul and meek and mild. But outspoken & bold after all, he was a pompous Phairsee previoulsy who needed humbling- but he did not tell his brothers to cut anything off- he said that to false teachers. I am not very kind to the JWs if you havent noticed but I would really like to see more love among the brethen on these boards. cuz I dont see much.-- all I see if fighting no matter who says what. "You will know them by the love among the members", said Jesus.
I see more love among the catholics, and the cults than the rest of us on here. And how they love to point that out! Can you blame them?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Disagreeing is fine, of course. That's not the same as attacking him. No, Zoa does not think we are under the law. On the contrary, that's a part of why he had trouble with understanding why it appeared Paul went under the law toward the Jews after criticizing Peter.
He sees now that Peter acted out of fear.

Though that's true, I don't think that's enough detail to explain the problem. Peter wanted to remain friendly with those who had been conditioned by Judaism to reject Gentiles entirely. That is compromise, and not just "fear."

Paul questioned Peter's loyalty to the Gospel of salvation for *all.* That was Paul's concern as an apostle to the Gentiles, to make clear that the people who he was leading to Christ, who were never under the Law, would not be disparaged for not being under the Law.

Paul wasn't saying he was better than Peter. He was just saying that Peter was wrong, and needed to fix things so that the Gospel could remain available for all, without division.

It is an entirely different matter to reach out to unsaved Jews. They could not be reached if the evangelist begins by denouncing their historic culture, which was integrally attached to all of their moral standards. One would have to begin by showing, as a Jew, that there is still respect for Jewish customs before trying to explain how it is not offended by its transition into Christianity.

Furthermore, those Jews who had recently converted to Christianity, who had wanted to continue in the Law, had to be brought along slowly, as well. If Paul got it, so could they. But it can take time.

One does not begin by insulting Jewish history and tradition. Rather, external forms of respect are harmless when it does not divide the Church. In Israel there was less interest in introducing Gentile liberties among a people who had been taught to separate from such people.

Among the Gentile Christians Peter should not have disparaged the ways of the Gentiles that had never been part of the culture of the Law. But neither should Jews in Israel be disparaged for having had those cultural trappings of the Law. In all cases Paul is very consistent, to remain respectful within the culture while trying to teach the unbigoted truth of God's word.

The sciptures are not terribly clear about the Spirit not speaking directly to the disciples, and that is where the mix up began. Apparently, there are bible commentators who dont agree on this. - That's too bad.
I hope that he and Hepzibah will be able to better reconcile this now. A few prayers is always good?!! Both of them, imho are part of the body of Christ. Nice to talk with you.

The matter of going to Jerusalem can be dealt with separately. But I've already addressed this.

 

[Zao is life]

Hello @Zao is life … The way I see it, since Paul was a chosen vessel, he couldn’t possibly be a hypocrite. I believe that from the beginning of his conversion, Paul was “told” what to do.
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

- Acts 9:6 (KJV)

And in Acts 9:15, the Lord told Ananias:
But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

Only Jesus was perfect. Everyone else is capable of being hypocritical at times - including Peter, and including Paul. Hypocrisy did not characterize Peter, or Paul. If it did then if you told a lie even once in your life then you are a liar by character. Which is not the case, is it?

No one is talking about hypocrisy characterizing Paul's life. Anyone who is not a hypocrite can become guilty of hypocrisy at times. Only Jesus was without sin. Paul was capable of making a mistake.

It's quite possible that because of his zeal to go up to Jerusalem Paul failed to understand the Holy Spirit inspired words "do not" as God telling Paul not to go, and saw it instead as being forewarned of what would inevitably happen to him in Jerusalem, and the disciples and his companions as telling him not to go because of their love and concern for him - but because he was Paul, he was prepared not only to be bound in Jerusalem but even to die for the name of Christ.

So it's quite possible that he went not out of disobedience but out of failing to understand that God did not want him to go.

His second mistake was to do what James and the elders in Jerusalem (who possibly were told about the prophecy and out of their fear of the reaction of the Torah-observant Jewish believers to Paul's presence) asked Paul to do - and the only reason they gave Paul as to why they asked him to do it was in order to placate the Torah-observant Jewish believers in order to prevent them causing a scene which could lead to Paul's arrest.

Paul did not make himself guilty of hypocrisy deliberately and knowingly or out of fear of the Torah-observant Jewish believers. He did so because the people who had the authority in the church in Jerusalem asked him to. It was his second mistake, because in the process he did something to placate the Judaizing party in Jerusalem, which is what Peter did at the time Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy, and it makes no difference that Paul did not (like Peter) do it out of fear of them.

Paul's act of hypocrisy was not sinful but done out of not thinking, and not first asking the Lord and waiting on the Lord to tell him whether or not he should do that,

and through his zeal going up to Jerusalem without considering whether the Holy Spirit inspired words "DO NOT go" were an instruction and not merely a forewarning about what would inevitably happen to him if he did go, was not an act of disobedience but a case of Paul not realizing that in his zeal he had got himself on his own mission instead of on the Lord's mission, and thinking he was still on the Lord's mission.​

 

[Zao is life]

It wasnt hypocrisy, as I think you see now. Since others are seriously upset by the fact that you thought it was- perhaps an apology is in order. It would show your humble spirit and end these attacks. I admit to being curious as to why it was hypocrisy on Peter's end and not Paul's but it really was a matter of me not reading more carefully. It is confusing after all. the Spirit DOES speak to us through others many many times. That is not debatable! This could have been however, just the way they were interpreting what they had seen in a vision or heard from Paul . As you see by the various answers of others- The text is not clear . However, I lean that way because
I think that 24:11 is a beautiful encouragement to Paul that he did the Lord's will in Jerusalem. so amen to that.
since the confusion offended so many- perhaps an apology is in order. At the very least, it will stop the attacks on you. And at the worst- you will have to make friends with Wrangler hahaha. Just kidding, but it will show your humble spirit and silence them.

good nite- it's really late here..............

No. In the first place I do not need to show those who have attacked me that I have humility by apologizing for anything I've said in my OP or since then, because they are not God and I'm not interested in what they think, but only in what God thinks and knows about me and my motives - and He KNOWS they have falsely accused me - and so do I know.

If I had to apologize because of their inability to control themselves and because they behave like the Judaizing party in Jerusalem acted towards Paul, I would be doing so for the same reasons Peter did when Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy,

because some of these people would have me arrested for blasphemy if they could because by their words they have implied that I am a blasphemer because I have pointed out the fact that Paul made himself guilty of hypocrisy when he did what he did, because he did it to placate the Torah-observant Jewish believers in Jerusalem who hated Paul's doctrine.

So they believe Paul apparently was like Christ and could not have made any mistakes and therefore they attack me as though I am committing blasphemy by saying Paul made himself guilty of hypocrisy when he did that - and they imply in their attacks that I'm claiming that Paul was a hypocrite by character - which is a lie.

IMO after saying you had the same questions in your mind about why Paul did that and whether or not God wanted him to go to Jerusalem in the first place, and at least partly agreeing with what I was saying, your post above advising me to apologize to those who have attacked me - instead of advising them to apologize to me - makes you yourself guilty of hypocrisy, and IMO you have done so in order to appease them, just like Peter did to appease the same sort of "believers".

So no, I do not need to apologize and it does not show a lack of humility on my part if I do not apologize to those who should be apologizing to me.

Copy @Wrangler @Randy Kluth​

 

[Zao is life]

Apology accepted. I've gone back through the entire thread and OP to search for the answer to my question, and don't find it. The OP certainly says -- and I agree -- that Acts identifies an incident of hypocrisy for Peter and one for Paul. But that was never my question.

You: Peter and Paul only each made themselves guilty of hypocrisy only once.
Me: How do you know that?
You: Paul and Peter were guilty of hypocrisy at least once.

I agree with you on this last comment (which certainly follows from the OP). But again, that was never my question.

I'm only talking about what is recorded in scripture when I count how many times scripture records Peter and Paul making themselves guilty of hypocrisy. I'm not talking about what is not in the Bible - only God knows how many times you and I and Peter and Paul and John up the road who we don't even know, is guilty of hypocrisy.

So since you meant how many times God may know about Paul or Peter being guilty of hypocrisy even though I was talking only about how many times scripture records them of being guilty of hypocrisy, I apologize again for seeing your question as deliberately ignoring the scriptures I was talking about where Peter and Paul made themselves guilty of hypocrisy.​

 

[Zao is life]

He may have told the others at the time, that it was an error. Leaving that out of scripture would be one way that God can show who has discernment and who has not, if they seek the truth of it. To them of course, as He already knows our hearts.

I agree.

 

[Zao is life]

IMO Paul made himself guilty of hypocrisy by what he did - which was done because James and the elders asked him to do it and told him the reason why they wanted him to do it - which was to appease the Torah-observant Jewish believers in Jerusalem who had heard about Paul's doctrine regarding the law, and hated it.

Anyone reading this has lied even once in his lifetime. It does not make every person who ever lied a liar by character as though it characterizes the person. Neither does having made or making yourself guilty of hypocrisy at some point.

Just so every one knows:

@Wrangler and some others who have posted in this thread have carried on like many Muslims would no doubt carry on if anyone had to accuse their prophet of making himself guilty of hypocrisy at any point during his time. @Wrangler treats acknowledging another human being - even an apostle - of being capable of making himself guilty of hypocrisy as though such an assertion is blasphemy, hence Wrangler and those who agree with him in attacking me because of what I'm saying about this make themselves guilty of idolatry.

Then @Wrangler proceeds to continue to show himself up every time he opens his mouth in this thread with another false accusation hurled about me (while he imagines in himself that he has the knowledge that only God has of my thoughts and motives), going ahead as Wrangler does with for example accusing me of "dishonesty and lying" or as some call it "gaslighting" when I speak about how much I value Paul and his work and place him in very high esteem etc etc.

Just so everyone understands that the reason I'm very calm about it and do not keep responding to every post @Wrangler or anyone else makes when they repeatedly falsely accuse me, is because I know that God indeed does know my thoughts and my motives regarding what I am saying about Paul's actions that day and about my attitude towards Paul, and I have been neither dishonest nor prideful or begun with or maintained any bad motive.

- so the only people who have something to be concerned about in regards to what they say about my thoughts and motives for what I am saying in the OP about Paul's actions in Jerusalem that day, are those who repeatedly falsely accuse me

- but that is between them and God, and I don't have anything to worry about. Neither does anyone else who does not have the same prideful disposition @Wrangler and others are displaying, and has not falsely accused me.

 

[honeycomb]

I’d like to add a little more for consideration. We know that Paul was a chosen vessel and that God had His hand on Paul. It is God who had sent Paul on this mission to Jerusalem.

Yes; repeatedly, the disciples that were with Paul warned him not to go to Jerusalem because they said that the Holy Spirit had spoken to them. So consider, why wouldn’t the Holy Spirit speak to Paul directly? After all, it was the Holy Spirit who had, from the beginning, instructed Paul in a vision to go to Jerusalem for Pentecost. Does the Holy Spirit ever contradict Himself? No. Did the disciples truly hear from the Holy Spirit or was it just that since they were so concerned for Paul’s safety, they imagined it was the Holy Spirit telling them to warn him?

Paul had personally heard the Holy Spirit’s message to him; God was sending him on a divine mission to Jerusalem. Paul, a chosen vessel for God, would not be deterred by anyone. Even though Paul knew the journey would be very difficult, Paul obeyed God.

And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. 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. And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.

- Acts 20:22-25 (KJV)

Blessings,
PEtRA

 

[Zao is life]

reading the whole thread or dont comment is probably a good idea-There is an evolution of understanding happening. How is that bad? geez you people are chronically on attack. Why not try helping him instead of insulting him. ya know, BECOME A JEW LIKE PAUL DID?

@VictoryinJesus is an example of a Christian disagreeing with another Christian (me) about what I'm saying. I don't know of what spirit these other guys are, whether teenagers with serious issues or some other thing.

 

[Zao is life]

No wrangler I do not .....................................................
and if you read the thread you would see that I asked Zoe to apologize.
And if you read the thread you would see that Zoe no longer thinks that, after discussing it with others who did not attack his person.

Ever had difficulty understanding something before? Or are you above that?
I had an older sister like you - we called her the witch from Oz. lol

I had to catch up on this thread but you are wrong. Saying that someone made himself guilty of hypocrisy once is not the same as the false implication these hysterical false accusers keep making that I implied that Paul was a hypocrite by character. You are dead wrong. And I corrected you where you told me that in your opinion I should apologize.

 

[Zao is life]

Disagreeing is fine, of course. That's not the same as attacking him. No, Zoa does not think we are under the law. On the contrary, that's a part of why he had trouble with understanding why it appeared Paul went under the law toward the Jews after criticizing Peter.
He sees now that Peter acted out of fear.
The sciptures are not terribly clear about the Spirit not speaking directly to the disciples, and that is where the mix up began. Apparently, there are bible commentators who dont agree on this. - That's too bad.
I hope that he and Hepzibah will be able to better reconcile this now. A few prayers is always good?!! Both of them, imho are part of the body of Christ. Nice to talk with you.

Stop answering for me please. This is the 2nd or 3rd time you are answering for me with @Wrangler and @Randy Kluth, misquoting things I said to you in my replies to your posts, and you are being dishonest, because I did not say that I now see that Peter acted out of fear (as though you informed me of something I never knew). I said that Paul accused him of hypocrisy because he did what he did to appease the Judaizing party from Jerusalem, regardless of Peter's motive for doing so.

AND I said that Paul did so because THE REASON why he was asked to do so by James and the elders in Jerusalem was BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO APPEASE THE JUDAIZING JEWS - those who were Torah-observing believers and BECAUSE the Judaizing Jews in Jerusalem had heard about Paul's doctrine regarding the law

- and it is implied in Acts by what James and the elders said that the Judaizers were in serious opposition to Paul because of his doctrine that they had heard about, and it was feared they would cause a scene (which could get Paul arrested). That's the implication in what James and the elders said to Paul when asking him to do what he did.

Paul made himself guilty that one time (that we know of) of the very same hypocrisy that he had accused Peter of by agreeing to do what James and the elders asked - for the reason they gave Paul as to why they asked him to do it.

And though these hysterical false accusers repeatedly falsely accuse me of thus saying that Paul WAS a hypocrite (falsely implying that I'm saying that hypocrisy characterized Paul), I have neither said even once that hypocrisy characterized Paul, nor changed my mind even once about what I said about him making himself guilty of hypocrisy that day.

Please do not misquote me or say something I did not say. You may be doing so in order to be all things to all men like Paul said he sought to be - but Paul would not have misquoted anyone in order to be "all things to all men". Not even once.

I also replied in Post # 104 to your (contemptible) suggestion that I apologize to people who should be apologizing to me. I have not attacked and falsely accused them of anything in this thread - even once - so there is NO reason why I should apologize to them.

 

[Zao is life]

Thanks for your honesty and courage to be honest.

@PS95 was neither being honest when he misquoted things I said to him,

nor have I seen you trying to be honest and having the courage to be honest

- because in every post where you have falsely accused me you have shown yourself up of neither being honest nor having the courage to be honest. If you did you would have apologized to me long ago for all your hysterical false accusations you have hurled at me.

I'm not holding my breath about receiving any apology from you though. Falsely accusing others as repeatedly as you do is starting to characterize you

- unlike Paul, who though he once made himself guilty of hypocrisy, this was not a habit of his and so did not characterize him as a hypocrite,

and though one of your repeated false accusations against me is saying that I am saying that Paul was "hypocrite" in such a way as to imply that I'm saying hypocrisy is what characterized him,

yet not once have I characterized Paul as a hypocrite.

I will allow your own posts and statements to continue to characterize you though, while you repeatedly show yourself up through hurling false accusation about others and even pretending to yourself and implying to others that you are so God-like that you even know my thoughts and motives for saying what I am saying about what Paul did in Jerusalem.

 

[Zao is life]

Let's not be too hard on Paul yet, though.

I agree with what you said in the above post and in your following post but just to make sure you understand (and have repeatedly made it clear later in the thread) that Paul's work and teaching and life and the work he did is not diminished in my mind or in reality in any way, and I have always held Paul in very, very high esteem and value his work

- and I'm starting to believe that I value Paul and his work probably more than all those who have repeatedly falsely accused me in this thread of calling Paul a hypocrite in such a way as to imply that I'm saying that making himself guilty of hypocrist once "characterized" Paul as a hypocrite.

I don't believe those who have been falsely accusing me in this thread of the above have done so because they have misunderstood what I'm saying. They know what I am saying but have chosen to repeatedly falsely accuse me of making hypocrisy something that characterized Paul.

 

[Episkopos]

@PS95 was neither being honest when he misquoted things I said to him,

nor have I seen you trying to be honest and having the courage to be honest

- because in every post where you have falsely accused me you have shown yourself up of neither being honest nor having the courage to be honest. If you did you would have apologized to me long ago for all your hysterical false accusations you have hurled at me.

I'm not holding my breath about receiving any apology from you though. Falsely accusing others as repeatedly as you do is starting to characterize you

- unlike Paul, who though he once made himself guilty of hypocrisy, this was not a habit of his and so did not characterize him as a hypocrite,

and though one of your repeated false accusations against me is saying that I am saying that Paul was "hypocrite" in such a way as to imply that I'm saying hypocrisy is what characterized him,

yet not once have I characterized Paul as a hypocrite.

I will allow your own posts and statements to continue to characterize you though, while you repeatedly show yourself up through hurling false accusation about others and even pretending to yourself and implying to others that you are so God-like that you even know my thoughts and motives for saying what I am saying about what Paul did in Jerusalem.

Look how sensitive you are to a perceived attack on your character. Look now at the ease with which you seek to attack Paul's character.

 

[Zao is life]

1st, I must tell you that I worded the post you're responding to wrong. I corrected it now. I think if ZOA refuses to stop criticizing Paul, then he deserves a rebuke. There is nothing wrong, however, with asking questions--just criticizing without genuine Scriptural warrant to do so.

That being said, you're saying exactly what I believe in. I would rather err on the side of Paul than on criticizing the beloved apostle, who appears to have sacrificed everything to communicate the Gospel to all, both Jews and Gentiles.

When it is warranted the Scriptures themselves lead us to conclude if criticism is justified. I don't find that to be the case in the matters being referred to. I see a kind of consistency that is sometimes difficult to navigate through, particularly when dealing with 2 different religions that are related and when dealing with newer or young Christians who have not yet had time to develop a consistent theology.

Thanks brother!

LOL. You deserve a rebuke for repeatedly making false accusations against me about my "criticizing" Paul just because I started a thread about what is biblical history and pointing out that Paul made himself guilty of hypocrisy (once that we know of) by doing what he did in Jerusalem, and falsely accusing me of thus saying that Paul was a hypocrite and implying by what you accuse me of, that I'm claiming that hypocrisy is what characterized Paul.

Your repeated false accusations are a joke and every time you repeat them you are showing yourself up.

 

[Zao is life]

Paul wasn't saying he was better than Peter. He was just saying that Peter was wrong, and needed to fix things so that the Gospel could remain available for all, without division.

When you stop falsely accusing me you will realize that I'm not saying that Paul was better than Peter either, nor am I saying that Peter was better than Paul. Nor have I even once even implied that because Paul also made himself guilty of hypocrisy once by agreeing to do what James and the elders told him very clearly was to appease the Judaizing party in Jerusalem, Paul was a hypocrite by character or that it characterized Paul. That's your false accusation, which whether you believe it or not, if you keep repeating it will characterize you as a false accuser of the brethren.

It is an entirely different matter to reach out to unsaved Jews.

Not if the reason you are doing it is to attempt to placate the believing Jews in their bad attitude towards you. James and the elders made it very clear why they wanted Paul to do what he did, and it was not to "share the gospel" with them (because they were Torah-observant believers) nor to defend his doctrine to them or debate with them (because they had heard about Paul's teaching about the law and considered both it and Paul wicked)

- but the purpose was to attempt to placate them by showing them that Paul was indeed a Torah-observant Jew.

Same reason Peter withdrew from the Gentile table in Antioch.

The rest of the opinion you express is the sandcastle you erected regarding what happened that day in Jerusalem, which you built on the sandy foundation of Paul doing what he did that day because he merely wanted to reach out to them.

You ignore the reason given in Acts - the reason given by James and the elders who asked Paul to do what he did that day, and continue to make up your own reasons and ascribe those reasons for Paul's actions that you made up, instead of the reason given by James and the elders, agreed to by Paul, and written in Acts.

 

[honeycomb]

I’d like to add a little more for consideration. We know that Paul was a chosen vessel and that God had His hand on Paul. It is God who had sent Paul on this mission to Jerusalem.

Yes; repeatedly, the disciples that were with Paul warned him not to go to Jerusalem because they said that the Holy Spirit had spoken to them. So consider, why wouldn’t the Holy Spirit speak to Paul directly? After all, it was the Holy Spirit who had, from the beginning, instructed Paul in a vision to go to Jerusalem for Pentecost. Does the Holy Spirit ever contradict Himself? No. Did the disciples truly hear from the Holy Spirit or was it just that since they were so concerned for Paul’s safety, they imagined it was the Holy Spirit telling them to warn him?

Paul had personally heard the Holy Spirit’s message to him; God was sending him on a divine mission to Jerusalem. Paul, a chosen vessel for God, would not be deterred by anyone. Even though Paul knew the journey would be very difficult, Paul obeyed God.

And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. 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. And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.

- Acts 20:22-25 (KJV)

Blessings,
PEtRA

One additional point: Keep in mind that God Himself chose Paul. If God had wanted to change Paul’s mission, He would have done so.

 

[Zao is life]

I’d like to add a little more for consideration. We know that Paul was a chosen vessel and that God had His hand on Paul. It is God who had sent Paul on this mission to Jerusalem.

Yes; repeatedly, the disciples that were with Paul warned him not to go to Jerusalem because they said that the Holy Spirit had spoken to them. So consider, why wouldn’t the Holy Spirit speak to Paul directly? After all, it was the Holy Spirit who had, from the beginning, instructed Paul in a vision to go to Jerusalem for Pentecost. Does the Holy Spirit ever contradict Himself? No. Did the disciples truly hear from the Holy Spirit or was it just that since they were so concerned for Paul’s safety, they imagined it was the Holy Spirit telling them to warn him?

Paul had personally heard the Holy Spirit’s message to him; God was sending him on a divine mission to Jerusalem. Paul, a chosen vessel for God, would not be deterred by anyone. Even though Paul knew the journey would be very difficult, Paul obeyed God.

And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. 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. And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.

- Acts 20:22-25 (KJV)

Blessings,
PEtRA

Except that we are assuming that Paul's zeal and determination to press forward to Jerusalem meant that those who were speaking by the Holy Spirit saying DO NOT go to Jerusalem and begging him not to go, were misunderstanding what God was saying TO THEM

because we are assuming that Paul was more in tune with the Holy Spirit's wishes than other believers were at that point in time - making God a respecter of persons.

 

[Zao is life]

One additional point: Keep in mind that God Himself chose Paul. If God had wanted to change Paul’s mission, He would have done so.

God prevented Paul from going to other places before. It does not mean that God had changed Paul's mission if those who were speaking by the Holy Spirit, telling Paul NOT TO go and begging him not to go, were actually speaking what the will of God was, but in his zeal Paul misunderstood, taking it up as a mere warning about what would inevitably happen to him if he did go.

 

[Zao is life]

Look how sensitive you are to a perceived attack on your character. Look now at the ease with which you seek to attack Paul's character.

LOL. Next false accusation please. This is starting to get boring.

PS When I say the above I'm not speaking to God about what YOU said in your false accusation - because I already know what God knows about what I'm saying and my motive for saying it. And God the Father of my Lord Jesus Christ is the God who I'm talking about - not you who "thinks" he's God-like enough to know.

Keep showing yourself up as a person who will falsely accuse the brethren and pretend he is God-like enough to know the motive anmd character of the person he is falsely accusing . I don't mind, even though it gets boring after a while.