Paul's hypocrisy and its consequence

[Zao is life]

Returning to this. Not to keep it going but because it’s interesting. The first time I read the OP I didn’t connect that you were the one who posted the OP. As we talked more …reading the OP is more now knowing a little of the interaction we’ve had later in the thread. If that makes sense. I still have some questions or thoughts. They said through the Spirit Paul was not to go up to Jerusalem but prior in acts 20 there is this:

Acts 20:21-25 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. [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 Spirit witnesses in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. ( did bonds and afflictions abide him?) 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 you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. (Not forgetting where Paul spoke of finishing the course. Did the course get sidetracked? It appears not because to finish …one has to move forward?)

If it wasn’t the Will of God that Paul go…then what of even before the prophet and others told of Paul being bound, Paul already spoke of knowing “bonds and affliction abide me”? I count my life not dear unto me …so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus… significant is …let these men alone for if this be a work of men then it will come to nothing, but if this work be of God “then nothing can over throw it” unless you be found to fight against God. The proof to me is what Work this was of for Paul to go…did it come to nothing being found a work of men? Imo no. For did the ministry given of God unto Paul fail?

Don’t forget
Ezekiel 3:24-25 Then the spirit entered into me, and set me upon my feet, and spoke with me, and said unto me, Go, shut thyself within your house. [25] But you, O son of man, behold, they shall put bands upon you, and shall bind you with them, and you shall not go out among them:

There still remains a difference in Peter and Paul’s rebuke. Peter fearing what men could do to the body at that point. Paul spoke of “including the Greek also” and was blamed for bringing a Greek into the temple and thereby soiling the temple. Peter showed fear of including the gentiles …but Paul brought a Greek also into the temple for purification.

Also, Paul sat with a weak brother in the temple too afraid to eat meat. If what happened with James and them was hypocritical of Paul…then it would also be hypocritical for Paul to not eat meat for the benefit of the weaker brother without knowledge of Christ whom meat offended. If Paul had been given Liberty…why not eat meat rather than observe what causes the weaker brother an offense? Isn’t that the same being put back under the law? I don’t think so, but under “charity” in observance of “the grace of God.”

I’m not good at the timing. With what happened when Paul observed the purification in the temple with the timing of the letters. But OT speaks of their excluding you …binding your feet and hands …they put Paul out of the temple and shut the door…because he brought a Greek into the temple. This is different than Peter dissembling for fear of what the Jews would do if Peter was found sitting with the gentiles. OT they were always stubborn and rebellious. Their reaction over a Greek found brought in caused their reaction to Paul …don’t forget James said let them know what is said about you is not true. Do this thing to appease them. And Paul did the opposite of appeasing them but revealed their worst nightmare of what they heard of Paul…we saw a Greek was brought into the temple and made our temple dirty.

So to answer what I said I would get to on Friday.

The fact that Paul had not take a Greek into the temple has been cleared up so no need to answer that.

Acts 20:21-25
"And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there save that the Holy Spirit witnesses in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide [meno] 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."

"Bonds and afflictions abide [meno] me" some translations render as "(.. except that the Holy Spirit warns me in town after town that) imprisonment and persecutions are waiting for me.

The word meno [Strongs Greek] 3306 a primary verb; to stay (in a given place, state, relation or expectancy):--abide, continue, dwell, endure, be present, remain, stand, tarry (for), X thine own.

I think that other more modern English translations are correct in the way they translate the meaning of meno, and what Paul was saying.

".. 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."

Paul was expecting his course to be finished in the way that had been prophesied, i.e the Holy Spirit had warned Paul in town after town that imprisonment and persecutions were waiting for him in Jerusalem.

His course did not get "sidetracked" - because his ministry to Christ remained his ministry - but God knew what awaited Paul in Jerusalem, and God was warning Paul what awaited him if he go there, and Paul's disciples knew what Paul believed the message to be saying to Paul, and they knew that Paul was convinced it was God's will that he go to Jerusalem, yet they implored him not to go - and the words "do not" were the words related to him by those in Tyre:

Acts 21 (NETfree version)
3 After we sighted Cyprus and left it behind on our port side, we sailed on to Syria and put in at Tyre, because the ship was to unload its cargo there.
4 After we located the disciples, we stayed there seven days. They repeatedly told Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem.

KJV: "And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem."

Paul was only able to bear testimony to Christ to the Jews once after arriving in Jerusalem - because the Roman governor who delivered Paul from the hands of those who were beating him allowed Paul to give his defense afterward before a large crowd of Jews.

But some of the Jews wanted him killed even more, and even though ".. the scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God", Paul's life was in danger, because a great many Jews did not agree with the scribes of the Pharisees, and some bound themselves by oath to murder Paul.

God clearly did not want to allow Paul to be put to death by the Jews - because God protected Paul through it all - and that's why he was sent to Ceasarea

- but from that time onward Paul's previous course which consisted of many missionary journeys to many parts of the Roman Empire, came to an end.

Nevertheless God still used Paul during all his house arrest days. Some Romans who met Paul during their course of duty became saved because of Paul's testimony, and Paul wrote at least some of his epistles from his house arrest in Rome.

So as I said in my post before this, the fact that God foreknew what would happen, and why it would happen does not mean that it was God's will that it should happen that way - but we know that God does not always choose to intervene to stop someone from making a decision - even if we are under the false belief that God wants us to do something that He in fact does not want us to do

- but God is able to work the consequences of it for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose, as in Paul's case.

 

[Zao is life]

Before I forget regarding James and the elders advising Paul to observe the law so the Jews will know what they have heard of Paul is not true.

This is maybe a bad comparison but let’s say I am a devout Catholic since childhood in observation of all the Catholic preaches and observes as communion. But some in the body have gotten word that I teach things that are contrary to the observation of the Catholic communion, and they are thinking I’ve become as one in error. How the Catholic Church has gotten wind that I break bread and drink wine with those not able to partake of the bread (wafer) or drink of the wine, nor communion. Under advisory of the church I’ve once kept the customs of as one of them, they now hear I do that which is not within the Catholic observance of the Lord’s table in partaking of the bread and wine…I’m advised to come in to observe with those concerned, to put their minds at ease that what they have heard of me is not true. “Just show them it’s not true. Come to the Lord’s table in observation of the Catholic customs of communion.” So I go …but I take with me “a tattooed” “drunk sinner” friend who is not Catholic giving him a good seat, and later the church gets wind that I brought a friend in to partake of the Lords table…against their rules of allowing this one to partake of what is “holy” following the Catholic customs of communion. Did I appease their concerns of what they heard? It’s not a trick question. It’s pretty clear.

OK but Paul did not take that Gentile into the temple. Besides this they all knew what Paul had been teaching Gentiles regarding the laws of Moses. That's what they hated. As it turned out it did not make any difference to them what Paul was doing in the temple. His presence in the temple and in Jerusalem and in the world was not welcome, as far as they were concerned.

 

[Zao is life]

I cant find the post now but yeah, I thought you were coming around. My mistake. I see you are now even worse than before. Judaizers? Seriously? You are very mixed up bro. diggin in deeper in that dung now, huh? it's ridiculous now how you accuse anyone who tried to help you. I told you that I didnt fully understand it so I always just shrugged it. BUT I also never fully looked in to it. I Just let it go knowing that I misunderstood something. We are worlds apart here. You dont have to apologize to anyone- that's on you.
You disregard motives of Paul and Peter, and that is a big part of your issue here. It's certainly not all.
Pray about this because you are NOT RIGHT.
Whatever-

Apply some balm to it and maybe you'll feel better. Your hypocrisy screams from the same room in Antioch where Peter withdrew from the Gentiles and their table after the party of Torah-abiding Jewish "believers" arrived from Jerusalem,

and from the same Temple Mount in Jerusalem where Paul underwent a ritual required by Mosaic law with the sole purpose of appeasing the same Torah-observing Jewish believers - the very thing which got him recognized by Jews from Asia who stirred the whole of Jerusalem up against him because of his teaching regarding the law of Moses.

Actually I must correct myself. Your hypocrisy does not originate in the same places as any of the apostles - that would be an insult to them - a gross insult to them, because any once-off hypocritical act on their part was understandable in terms of their work and the history surrounding that time - so your hypocrisy does not scream from a room in Antioch or the Temple Mount but an electronic room in a forum, and your hypocrisy is far worse than theirs.

PS: The only balm that will make you feel better does not consist in you joining the others in hurling false accusations and personal insults at me as above - what you say above is the wound that smells of your own hypocrisy. The only balm that will work for your wound consists of the pure ingredient of your apology to me for telling me to apologize to those who need to apologize to me (for all their false accusations and personal insults they have hurled at me, which you now have joined in with and now owe me a second apology for).

The second apology is the second layer of the balm that is the only thing that will make you feel better.

Until you apply that balm I won't be responding to any of your posts after this - your wound which is exposed above smells a little. I don't need to look at your wound, so I won't. So apply the balm first.
​

The difference between your wound and Peter's and any wound of Paul's is that unlike you, they would have repented of hypocrisy immediately after realizing they had been hypocritical, because they were true saints, and they were both chosen apostles of Christ. Chosen of God.

Their words and works which are written in our Bibles follow them. Your words and works produce no fruit unto God and are not inspired by the Holy Spirit - but they will follow you because you chose to write them down - and I doubt whether you will apply the only balm to your wound that I told you about in this post.

 

[PS95]

His presence in the temple and in Jerusalem and in the world was not welcome, as far as they were concerned.

which is precisely whey he went and did what he did because it was the Lord's will for Him.

Apply some balm to it and maybe you'll feel better. Your hypocrisy screams from the same room in Antioch where Peter withdrew from the Gentiles and their table after the party of Torah-abiding Jewish "believers" arrived from Jerusalem,

and from the same Temple Mount in Jerusalem where Paul underwent a ritual required by Mosaic law with the sole purpose of appeasing the same Torah-observing Jewish believers - the very thing which got him recognized by Jews from Asia who stirred the whole of Jerusalem up against him because of his teaching regarding the law of Moses.

Actually I must correct myself. Your hypocrisy does not originate in the same places as any of the apostles - that would be an insult to them - a gross insult to them, because any once-off hypocritical act on their part was understandable in terms of their work and the history surrounding that time - so your hypocrisy does not scream from a room in Antioch or the Temple Mount but an electronic room in a forum, and your hypocrisy is far worse than theirs.

PS: The only balm that will make you feel better does not consist in you joining the others in hurling false accusations and personal insults at me as above - what you say above is the wound that smells of your own hypocrisy. The only balm that will work for your wound consists of the pure ingredient of your apology to me for telling me to apologize to those who need to apologize to me (for all their false accusations and personal insults they have hurled at me, which you now have joined in with and now owe me a second apology for).

The second apology is the second layer of the balm that is the only thing that will make you feel better.

Until you apply that balm I won't be responding to any of your posts after this - your wound which is exposed above smells a little. I don't need to look at your wound, so I won't. So apply the balm first.
​

The difference between your wound and Peter's and any wound of Paul's is that unlike you, they would have repented of hypocrisy immediately after realizing they had been hypocritical, because they were true saints, and they were both chosen apostles of Christ. Chosen of God.

Their words and works which are written in our Bibles follow them. Your words and works produce no fruit unto God and are not inspired by the Holy Spirit - but they will follow you because you chose to write them down - and I doubt whether you will apply the only balm to your wound that I told you about in this post.

I'm not reading that past you calling me a hypocrit. I'm in good company with Paul. Ciao----

 

[VictoryinJesus]

The idolaters in this thread who have exalted Paul have made it obvious to me that they do not value Paul or his work or his achievements or his theology nearly as much as I do

- because such appreciation for Paul's work as I have is impossible for idolaters.

Thank you for helping me. You’ve pointed out many things I have never noticed. You’ve corrected things I had wrong. For this I am thankful.

To be honest I’m always confused. It always goes the same way on the board. I meet people with good insight that show me things I haven’t seen. Often their insight blows me away and I love how they see differently giving their perspective on God’s word. But it’s always the same …they also always have this voice of I’m correct and because I’m correct I am to go harshly on those in the wrong. A little knowledge and it’s always I’m able to be as Christ and rebuked others as Christ rebuked them (those idolizers or adulterers). That is what we are talking about here I think. How Paul rebuked Peter. Then Paul did the same thing he rebuked Peter for doing. I’ve had interactions with epi asking why the attitude? And his response is always it’s out of love that he is tough on the people here. Being convinced he knows best. I hate to use epi as an example because there are many more but I did see you having a blow of fist with epi on the thread(I think?). Many love his insight. But it’s not just one but every time I meet someone who can easily give insight to the word like it comes naturally to them…with it always come this attitude as a spokesperson (and the ONLY correct) spokesperson for God everything they say is right and Lord they give others a fit with how wrong they are. It is so confusing…meeting countless spokespersons of God who are persuaded they are all right and others are dead wrong. Who should you believe when they are All saying something different?

With all due respect. You may have the Spirit of God and be a hundred percent correct. Like Paul rebuking Peter…you may be as Paul who had no one left to rebuke him because those who could rebuke Paul were hypocrites themselves. But don’t forget if you are correct Paul as you point out …became what he preached against?

I wondered why you keep inserting in the post to me how “The idolaters in this thread who have exalted Paul…” every time when I wasn’t even discussing others but only the text…why you kept goading those idolaters even in the post to me which had nothing to do with them. I could see you felt the abundant need to say it as many times as you can so they will read it. To stir them up? I’ve experienced this countless times on the board. It’s a common thing. Maybe you are a hundred percent right. But it appears the topic of this thread is not whether Paul was disobedient but instead to prove Paul was disobedient as the Avenue to prove “idolatry” is lifting Paul to a status of never wrong. Ok I agree that I do think Paul would speak against idolatry of Paul. This also goes on in other threads concerning Jesus and the debates over whether Jesus pointed to the Father …or all the debates over was Jesus equal with God or a man…I don’t say that to get in a debate over it but only pointing out some debate whether it’s idolatry in that topic also. It all makes my head spin.

I get that is a lot of rambling but I don’t know what to respond any further. This is where I’m at on the topic. Right or wrong.

One is about the test of Prophets being if the thing comes to pass. So the Prophet who bound his feet and hands to show the owner of the belt would be bound the same way in Jerusalem …it indeed come to pass as the Prophet said.

I’m still undecided of or by which spirit those told Paul not to go. I get it’s capitalized but I question who decided it should be. As you’ve pointed out some of these were the same that told Paul to keep the mosaic law to appease the Jews. you said “Like Joseph who was sold into Egypt. Like Jesus. Like Paul. He followed in His Master's footsteps.”
I’m seeing when Jesus was told not to go. He rebuked this spirit.

One thing you said stands out….how God works all things for the good of those who are called and love Him. But then you said the good and the bad… hinting I think that Paul did bad. But no worry because God also takes that which is bad to do and works it for good also. How can The Love you said yourself that Paul had for the people be …bad? Which is more obedience to Christ …to listen and not go…this being good obedience? Or to love those who hate and despise you, not only loving those who love you? To love your neighbor as you love yourself. Which is obedient? I think of the verses that speak on not suffering for doing wrong or evil…but suffering for doing right. I’m careful to not call it evil that Paul went. How could it be wrong for Paul to follow in the master’s footstep? I’m stuck at whether obedience is doing as others say to do or whether obedience is doing as the master …which you admit Paul did follow in Christ footsteps.

The undecided here to me is did Paul mistake the instructions of going or did those telling him not to go? The quick answer is Paul heard wrong. Never considering maybe they heard wrong. To me I have to ask again is Love wrong? Is to follow in the master’s footsteps disobedience? Or obedience unto righteousness?

I’m not idolizing Paul. It’s hopeful to me to see Christ alive in Paul. It’s hopeful for now to see “He lives!” After His crucifixion. To read of where Paul spoke to the Corinthians and hear not Saul or Paul but Christ speaking telling them to “do no wrong” and “I trust” “you will know we do not fail” …to hear Christ call them to “be made complete”. Even in that exchange with the Corinthians calling Paul a reprobate and as one who fails…I don’t think it’s about Paul but Christ speaking out of His temple that they are calling “a reprobate” and “as one who fails”… I’m hesitant then since Christ walks and speaks in Paul to then speak against “following in the masters footsteps” calling it disobedience and wrong but God foreknew and worked disobedience and wrong doing (Love for your neighbor) into something good. Isn’t that backwards? Consider where He kept asking Peter “do you Love Me?”

John 21:18-19 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go." [19] (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, "Follow me."

To me the same applies to Paul. And to us.
To show “what kind of death he was to glorify God” …crucified with Christ, as dead, yet behold “we live” “to glorify God”
When you were “young” a child still needing to be fed milk, not yet able to hear Spiritual things but I spoke to you yet as carnal…”you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted”

But when you became “old” able to bear all things “you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go”

This was to Peter in what death he would glorify God. From “youth” to “maturity” …but I still do not think Saul would have gone into captivity UNLESS Paul became “a man” putting away childish things not dressing (girding)himself and going where he wanted to go …but instead “stretching out his hands, and another dressing him and carrying him where he did not want to go” —into captivity. When Paul exclaimed he was ready to go and die …we call it zeal to have that kind of love. But Saul had zeal of another sort glorifying himself. I don’t think Saul would have been willing to be tied and bound unto captivity for the sake of others. Paul is a different story being dressed (girded)by another. “Girded” by another …yes I’m hesitant to persecute the way of Love and call it (first) disobedience and wrong doing but instead… if you suffer, let it be for doing that which is right to do. It can’t be wrongdoing to be as the master and to follow in His footsteps. That is just where I’m at. Seeing “young” and girding yourself walking wherever you want …or going on to maturity to be dressed of another …I don’t want to call maturity first disobedience that God has to fix or correct as it begins in disobeying His voice in mishearing the Spirit. Not if it is the obedience of Christ in Paul to go, against others begging Christ not to go. “But for the Grace of God, here I go?”

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Thank you for helping me. You’ve pointed out many things I have never noticed. You’ve corrected things I had wrong. For this I am thankful.

To be honest I’m always confused. It always goes the same way on the board. I meet people with good insight that show me things I haven’t seen. Often their insight blows me away and I love how they see differently giving their perspective on God’s word. But it’s always the same …they also always have this voice of I’m correct and because I’m correct I am to go harshly on those in the wrong. A little knowledge and it’s always I’m able to be as Christ and rebuked others as Christ rebuked them (those idolizers or adulterers). That is what we are talking about here I think. How Paul rebuked Peter. Then Paul did the same thing he rebuked Peter for doing. I’ve had interactions with epi asking why the attitude? And his response is always it’s out of love that he is tough on the people here. Being convinced he knows best. I hate to use epi as an example because there are many more but I did see you having a blow of fist with epi on the thread(I think?). Many love his insight. But it’s not just one but every time I meet someone who can easily give insight to the word like it comes naturally to them…with it always come this attitude as a spokesperson (and the ONLY correct) spokesperson for God everything they say is right and Lord they give others a fit with how wrong they are. It is so confusing…meeting countless spokespersons of God who are persuaded they are all right and others are dead wrong. Who should you believe when they are All saying something different?

With all due respect. You may have the Spirit of God and be a hundred percent correct. Like Paul rebuking Peter…you may be as Paul who had no one left to rebuke him because those who could rebuke Paul were hypocrites themselves. But don’t forget if you are correct Paul as you point out …became what he preached against?

I wondered why you keep inserting in the post to me how “The idolaters in this thread who have exalted Paul…” every time when I wasn’t even discussing others but only the text…why you kept goading those idolaters even in the post to me which had nothing to do with them. I could see you felt the abundant need to say it as many times as you can so they will read it. To stir them up? I’ve experienced this countless times on the board. It’s a common thing. Maybe you are a hundred percent right. But it appears the topic of this thread is not whether Paul was disobedient but instead to prove Paul was disobedient as the Avenue to prove “idolatry” is lifting Paul to a status of never wrong. Ok I agree that I do think Paul would speak against idolatry of Paul. This also goes on in other threads concerning Jesus and the debates over whether Jesus pointed to the Father …or all the debates over was Jesus equal with God or a man…I don’t say that to get in a debate over it but only pointing out some debate whether it’s idolatry in that topic also. It all makes my head spin.

I get that is a lot of rambling but I don’t know what to respond any further. This is where I’m at on the topic. Right or wrong.

One is about the test of Prophets being if the thing comes to pass. So the Prophet who bound his feet and hands to show the owner of the belt would be bound the same way in Jerusalem …it indeed come to pass as the Prophet said.

I’m still undecided of or by which spirit those told Paul not to go. I get it’s capitalized but I question who decided it should be. As you’ve pointed out some of these were the same that told Paul to keep the mosaic law to appease the Jews. you said “Like Joseph who was sold into Egypt. Like Jesus. Like Paul. He followed in His Master's footsteps.”
I’m seeing when Jesus was told not to go. He rebuked this spirit.

One thing you said stands out….how God works all things for the good of those who are called and love Him. But then you said the good and the bad… hinting I think that Paul did bad. But no worry because God also takes that which is bad to do and works it for good also. How can The Love you said yourself that Paul had for the people be …bad? Which is more obedience to Christ …to listen and not go…this being good obedience? Or to love those who hate and despise you, not only loving those who love you? To love your neighbor as you love yourself. Which is obedient? I think of the verses that speak on not suffering for doing wrong or evil…but suffering for doing right. I’m careful to not call it evil that Paul went. How could it be wrong for Paul to follow in the master’s footstep? I’m stuck at whether obedience is doing as others say to do or whether obedience is doing as the master …which you admit Paul did follow in Christ footsteps.

The undecided here to me is did Paul mistake the instructions of going or did those telling him not to go? The quick answer is Paul heard wrong. Never considering maybe they heard wrong. To me I have to ask again is Love wrong? Is to follow in the master’s footsteps disobedience? Or obedience unto righteousness?

I’m not idolizing Paul. It’s hopeful to me to see Christ alive in Paul. It’s hopeful for now to see “He lives!” After His crucifixion. To read of where Paul spoke to the Corinthians and hear not Saul or Paul but Christ speaking telling them to “do no wrong” and “I trust” “you will know we do not fail” …to hear Christ call them to “be made complete”. Even in that exchange with the Corinthians calling Paul a reprobate and as one who fails…I don’t think it’s about Paul but Christ speaking out of His temple that they are calling “a reprobate” and “as one who fails”… I’m hesitant then since Christ walks and speaks in Paul to then speak against “following in the masters footsteps” calling it disobedience and wrong but God foreknew and worked disobedience and wrong doing (Love for your neighbor) into something good. Isn’t that backwards? Consider where He kept asking Peter “do you Love Me?”

John 21:18-19 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go." [19] (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, "Follow me."

To me the same applies to Paul. And to us.
To show “what kind of death he was to glorify God” …crucified with Christ, as dead, yet behold “we live” “to glorify God”
When you were “young” a child still needing to be fed milk, not yet able to hear Spiritual things but I spoke to you yet as carnal…”you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted”

But when you became “old” able to bear all things “you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go”

This was to Peter in what death he would glorify God. From “youth” to “maturity” …but I still do not think Saul would have gone into captivity UNLESS Paul became “a man” putting away childish things not dressing (girding)himself and going where he wanted to go …but instead “stretching out his hands, and another dressing him and carrying him where he did not want to go” —into captivity. When Paul exclaimed he was ready to go and die …we call it zeal to have that kind of love. But Saul had zeal of another sort glorifying himself. I don’t think Saul would have been willing to be tied and bound unto captivity for the sake of others. Paul is a different story being dressed (girded)by another. “Girded” by another …yes I’m hesitant to persecute the way of Love and call it (first) disobedience and wrong doing but instead… if you suffer, let it be for doing that which is right to do. It can’t be wrongdoing to be as the master and to follow in His footsteps. That is just where I’m at. Seeing “young” and girding yourself walking wherever you want …or going on to maturity to be dressed of another …I don’t want to call maturity first disobedience that God has to fix or correct as it begins in disobeying His voice in mishearing the Spirit. Not if it is the obedience of Christ in Paul to go, against others begging Christ not to go. “But for the Grace of God, here I go?”

To end this topic for me this is where I’m at. Paul may have become a hypocrite for rebuking Peter and then turning around to do the same. But at the same time it appears arrogant for any of us to then turn around to rebuke others in the same manner as if we are above rebuke. It’s using Paul as a poor example and what not to do, and our rebukes are more on spot.

 

[Zao is life]

To end this topic for me this is where I’m at. Paul may have become a hypocrite for rebuking Peter and then turning around to do the same. But at the same time it appears arrogant for any of us to then turn around to rebuke others in the same manner as if we are above rebuke. It’s using Paul as a poor example and what not to do, and our rebukes are more on spot.

Thanks for all the sharing. We learn from one another.

Just to make you aware of where you misunderstand what I am saying:

1. The consequences of Paul's actions were bad for Paul, but God made all things work together for the good for Paul.

Paul himself was as far from being "bad" as it's possible for the most faithful of disciples of Christ to be "bad". His motive was good. His motive was love for his brethren. His actions were not even his own idea. It was the idea of James and the elders of the Jerusalem church, who pressed Paul to do it, and Paul agreed.

2. I've called it "hypocrisy" in this thread because of the action - not the actor - even while being fully aware that Paul was under tremendous pressure from the moment he arrived in Jerusalem, and knowing that I myself would definitely not have made better choices if I were in Paul's shoes. I'm not being critical of Paul. I'm considering the history of what happened, and the consequences Paul had to go through as a result. My respect for Paul has never been diminished.
​

3. As in Joseph who was completely rejected and despised by his Jewish (Israelite) brethren, so with Jesus. So with Paul. Paul followed in his Master's footsteps by being rejected and despised by those he loved - his own - despite his pure motive of love for them.

4. My apologies for mentioning those who had been personally attacking and falsely accusing me in my post to you. It was on my mind and I wanted to make sure that if you saw anything they kept saying about my "attacking" Paul and "my motives" for doing so, that this wasn't affecting the way you were viewing what I was saying. Because what they were saying and accusing me of was not true.

5. I had to add this - because this is important. Peter did not "become" what Paul accused him of, and I do not believe that Paul believed for one minute that Peter had "become" a hypocrite just because of one act of hypocrisy.

Same with Paul.

I don't think this is you, but some of today's Christians make it clear that they are not able to tell the difference between the human ability to make an error in judgment and as a result do something hypocritical (on one hand), and that person "being" an error in judgment and a hypocrite, on the other hand.

There is a massive difference between a human being making himself guilty of hypocrisy once due to having made an error in judgment once (on one hand) and "being" a hypocrite, on the other hand.

In this thread I did not - and would never - call Paul "a hypocrite" (of being a hypocrite). I've been falsely accused of having done so multiple times in this thread (as you saw), but that's not what I'm saying about this subject.

Anyway, unless you have a question you'd like me to answer after this, I'm considering this thread to have run its course.

God bless

 

[Zao is life]

To end this topic for me this is where I’m at. Paul may have become a hypocrite for rebuking Peter and then turning around to do the same. But at the same time it appears arrogant for any of us to then turn around to rebuke others in the same manner as if we are above rebuke. It’s using Paul as a poor example and what not to do, and our rebukes are more on spot.

Yeah I've been "rebuked" a whole lot in this thread and so I rebuke back. Way, way too much "rebuking" going on in these boards. It's actually coming from a puffed up spirit. I think you know.

 

[Zao is life]

I’m still undecided of or by which spirit those told Paul not to go.

For me the only question is what the will of God was.

Was the Holy Spirit speaking to Paul?

Yes, He was.

Was the Holy Spirit speaking to those who told Paul not to go?

Yes, He was.

Someone was evidently misinterpreting what the Holy Spirit was saying to them.

God foreknew all things that would happen to Paul. He even foreknew what Paul's decision regarding going to Jerusalem would be.

If it was the will of God that Paul go to Jerusalem, knowing that as a result Paul would nearly get murdered by the Jews in Jerusalem and God would have to intervene to save Paul's life, and if God knew that Paul would not get to testify to the name of Christ to the Jews except the once when the Roman governor allowed him to speak in his defense

- which caused some to even bind themselves by oath at that point not to eat or drink till they had killed Paul -

- and since God knew that after that God would have to intervene to protect Paul far away from Jerusalem in Caesarea for two years of house arrest and intervene again when the Jews plotted again to kill him, and since God knew that for the rest of Paul's life he would remain under house arrest in Rome -

was it the will of God that Paul go to Jerusalem?

I'm not answering the above question because I don't know (and can't know) the answer, of course. Only God knows, and only God may speak for Himself.

Besides the above, was the action of doing something to show the Jews he was observant of Mosaic law and what they had heard about his teaching was nothing, an error in judgment (not that it was Paul's idea, but Paul having agreed to do so) that led to one act of hypocrisy (not making Paul "a hypocrite" but one act of hypocrisy only) - since this is what led to all Jerusalem seeking to kill Paul?

We will not know until we all see Jesus and ask Him a million questions (it's okay there will be a million years, and millions and millions of years for us to ask) whether it was His will for Paul to go to Jerusalem.

Sorry I know I said the thread had run its course but I saw you had more questions that I never answered.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

For me the only question is what the will of God was.

Was the Holy Spirit speaking to Paul?

Yes, He was.

Was the Holy Spirit speaking to those who told Paul not to go?

Yes, He was.

Someone was evidently misinterpreting what the Holy Spirit was saying to them.

God foreknew all things that would happen to Paul. He even foreknew what Paul's decision regarding going to Jerusalem would be.

If it was the will of God that Paul go to Jerusalem, knowing that as a result Paul would nearly get murdered by the Jews in Jerusalem and God would have to intervene to save Paul's life, and if God knew that Paul would not get to testify to the name of Christ to the Jews except the once when the Roman governor allowed him to speak in his defense

- which caused some to even bind themselves by oath at that point not to eat or drink till they had killed Paul -

- and since God knew that after that God would have to intervene to protect Paul far away from Jerusalem in Caesarea for two years of house arrest and intervene again when the Jews plotted again to kill him, and since God knew that for the rest of Paul's life he would remain under house arrest in Rome -

was it the will of God that Paul go to Jerusalem?

I'm not answering because I don't, and can't know, of course. Only God may speak for Himself.

Besides the above, was the action of doing something to show the Jews he was observant of Mosaic law and what they had heard about his teaching was nothing, an error in judgment (not that it was Paul's idea, but Paul having agreed to do so) that led to one act of hypocrisy (not making Paul "a hypocrite" but one act of hypocrisy only) - since this is what led to all Jerusalem seeking to kill Paul?

We will not know until we all see Jesus and ask Him a million questions (it's okay there will be a million years and millions of millions to ask) whether it was His will for Paul to go to Jerusalem.

Sorry I know I said the thread had run its course but I saw you had more questions that I never answered.

Agree we can’t say for sure. I don’t know. That is why I gave up on finding a definitive answer. I do see what you are saying. To me it comes down was it of Paul’s own accord to go because Jesus said the flesh is weak but the Spirit is willing. If Paul went of Paul’s own accord then to me it’s in Paul’s own power—for his own glory he went into captivity. Then I can suppose a lot but if Christ was the Power given “to become the Sons of God” that continued into the law of Liberty as that man who is not a hearer only but a doer of what He hears the Father say….then what may look like disobedience could actually be doing and not just a hearer only. As the man that looked into the mirror and seeing his own natural face, this man turns away and goes his own way. I personally don’t think Paul turned and went his own way…but gives the example of going ahead in Christ, who continued on in unto the Law of Liberty being transformed. I can’t forget that Jesus did things concerning the law at the start …like telling the woman it’s not meet to give the children’s bread to dogs. I don’t know why Paul did what he did. Maybe it is exactly as you said. You said God foreknew Paul’s choice to go. Even when warned not to go. Still, if that decision was the weak flesh to go being disobedient although God worked it for good. I still don’t see God foreknowing except this one thing “My ways are higher than your ways, and My thoughts are Higher than your thoughts” speaking of the LOVE that goes…to me this is how God foreknew In “love believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things and bears all things” attitudes of the Spirit of God and not the flesh to endure, bear, hope, and believe “you break my heart. I am set to go…”

 

[Zao is life]

Agree we can’t say for sure. I don’t know. That is why I gave up on finding a definitive answer. I do see what you are saying. To me it comes down was it of Paul’s own accord to go because Jesus said the flesh is weak but the Spirit is willing. If Paul went of Paul’s own accord then to me it’s in Paul’s own power—for his own glory he went into captivity. Then I can suppose a lot but if Christ was the Power given “to become the Sons of God” that continued into the law of Liberty as that man who is not a hearer only but a doer of what He hears the Father say….then what may look like disobedience could actually be doing and not just a hearer only. As the man that looked into the mirror and seeing his own natural face, this man turns away and goes his own way. I personally don’t think Paul turned and went his own way…but gives the example of going ahead in Christ, who continued on in unto the Law of Liberty being transformed. I can’t forget that Jesus did things concerning the law at the start …like telling the woman it’s not meet to give the children’s bread to dogs. I don’t know why Paul did what he did. Maybe it is exactly as you said. You said God foreknew Paul’s choice to go. Even when warned not to go. Still, if that decision was the weak flesh to go being disobedient although God worked it for good. I still don’t see God foreknowing except this one thing “My ways are higher than your ways, and My thoughts are Higher than your thoughts” speaking of the LOVE that goes…to me this is how God foreknew In “love believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things and bears all things” attitudes of the Spirit of God and not the flesh to endure, bear, hope, and believe “you break my heart. I am set to go…”

Well, I don't believe Paul went to Jerusalem for Paul's glory. That motive was absent. Nor was he being disobedient if Paul believed God was laying it on his heart to go. I believe Paul's motives were pure, and he thought that's what God wanted him to do at the time.

@VictoryinJesus And because he believed that God wanted him to go and knew what awaited him in Jerusalem, being no Jonah Paul did not hesitate to resign himself to the will of God, saying,

"I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus."

.. and maybe that IS what God wanted him to do at the time, in which case our wondering about why Paul went to Jerusalem is an exercise in futility.

It's a different subject as to whether or not what Paul did in the temple was hypocritical - because the Jews all knew perfectly well what Paul's teaching was regarding that very Mosaic law and temple worship - because Paul had been teaching that all the Mosaic law viz temple worship with the entire system surrounding it, had become obsolete.

And Paul's actions never worked to placate the Jews. The record is silent on the reaction of the law-observing Jewish believers whom James and the elders wanted placate. How they may have reacted is drowned out in Acts by the reaction of the rest of the Jews.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Well, I don't believe Paul went for Paul's glory. That motive was absent. Nor was he being disobedient if Paul believed God was laying it on his heart to go. I believe Paul's motives were pure, and he thought that's what God wanted him to do at the time.

.. and maybe that IS what God wanted him to do at the time, in which case our wondering about why Paul went to Jerusalem is an exercise in futility.

It's a different subject to whether or not what Paul did in the temple was hypocritical - because the Jews all knew perfectly well what Paul's teaching was regarding that very Mosaic law and temple worship - because Paul had been teaching that all the Mosaic law viz temple worship with its entire temple-worship and system surrounding it had become obsolete.

And Paul's actions never worked to placate the Jews. The record is silent on the reaction of the law-observing Jewish believers whom James and the elders wanted placate. How they may have reacted is drowned out in Acts by the reaction of the rest of the Jews.

I get you are saying the main topic or issue is Paul’s observation of the law which he taught as obsolete. Yet for some it was yet to become obsolete. As some remain in darkness still.. when Moses is read where the vail that is done away with in Christ, still remains. At the urging of James and I forget who else. i don’t know the answer as to why Paul appeased them. But I do think Paul had not been persuaded performing that thing they pressed him to perform, could make one perfect or complete. I think he was way past that. Knowing those things held no power to make one perfect or complete. To me his heart was unchanged on the matter, in this regard of doing the thing they asked of him. To me for Paul to return to the spirit fear unto bondage again—he’d have to be persuaded those thing could make one complete which I don’t believe Paul thought it would do what only Christ can do. But God knows the heart. Just my opinion. In this I don’t think Paul returned to the spirit of fear unto bondage. Paul would have had to disregard all of the Revelation of Christ and the perfect law of Liberty and return, turn back to those things which are weak and beggarly. Why did he beg others to not return to those things that are weak and beggarly and then appeased them urging him to just that?

 

[Zao is life]

I don’t know the answer as to why Paul appeased them.

Neither do I, except to say I agree with what you say below:

But I do think Paul had not been persuaded performing that thing they pressed him to perform, could make one perfect or complete. I think he was way past that.

I could speculate on why Paul agreed to do that (it was not his own idea to do that), but none of my speculation would involve a bad motive on Paul's part, or me believing for one minute that Paul was "a hypocritical person" who was "usually" given to teach one thing and do another.

In my speculation in my own mind Paul at worst felt pressured because James and the elders were the leaders of the church in Jerusalem. How would it look if Paul refused them in what they asked him to do? And why did they ask him to do it?

The reason they asked Paul to do it is inherent in what they said - it was to placate the Jewish believers in Jesus who had a prejudice against Paul (along with all the Jews) because of what they had heard about Paul's teaching regarding the law of Moses, which they ardently kept.

The only question that remains for me with regard to what Paul did after arriving in Jerusalem is "Was it an act of hypocrisy?"

Acts does not give us the answer. Typical of many historical accounts in the Bible, we are given the history "as is" without any sugar-coating, without giving us any indication of whether what was done by this or that biblical personality at any particular point in time was right or wrong, wise or unwise.

So we are left to make up our own minds about it, right or wrong, wise or unwise, hypocritical or not hypocritical.

So to me it was indeed hypocritical, but also for me it's not an issue about what kind of man Paul was, because none of it diminishes Paul's integrity in my mind, because I understand that Paul was not God but had suddenly found himself in the midst of enemy territory without having realised before his arrival in Jerusalem just how much hatred had been stirred up against him, and because James and the elders for this reason asked Paul to do what he did, Paul was under enormous pressure. He may as well have been an Israeli soldier who got dropped in Teheran, Iran in 2024.

Knowing the above also makes it clearer to me as to why James and the elders asked Paul to do what he did in the first place - to placate the religious sensitivities of his enemies.

Poor Paul.

So I fully agree with what you say below:​

To me his heart was unchanged on the matter, in this regard of doing the thing they asked of him. To me for Paul to return to the spirit fear unto bondage again—he’d have to be persuaded those thing could make one complete which I don’t believe Paul thought it would do what only Christ can do. But God knows the heart. Just my opinion. In this I don’t think Paul returned to the spirit of fear unto bondage. Paul would have had to disregard all of the Revelation of Christ and the perfect law of Liberty and return, turn back to those things which are weak and beggarly. Why did he beg others to not return to those things that are weak and beggarly and then appeased them urging him to just that?

 

[VictoryinJesus]

The only question that remains for me with regard to what Paul did after arriving in Jerusalem is "Was it an act of hypocrisy?"

I don’t know. Maybe Paul had judged Peter rashly and then Paul’s judgment was taken away..removed.. when Pauls coming face to face with doing the same as his brother, the same that he had judged his brother for? I do think you have good points.

So to me it was indeed hypocritical, but also for me it's not an issue about what kind of man Paul was, because none of it diminishes Paul's integrity in my mind, because I understand that Paul was not God but had suddenly found himself in the midst of enemy territory without having realised before his arrival in Jerusalem just how much hatred had been stirred up against him, and because James and the elders for this reason asked Paul to do what he did, Paul was under enormous pressure. He may as well have been an Israeli soldier who got dropped in Teheran, Iran in 2024.

Knowing the above also makes it clearer to me as to why James and the elders asked Paul to do what he did in the first place - to placate the religious sensitivities of his enemies.

It’s reassuring that (if) it was an hypothetical act on Paul’s part, that the hypothetical act did not change Paul into a hypocrite. How many of us can say an hypocritical act (failure) doesn’t make us an hypocrite l, and as one who Fails? Reminds me

Job 5:11-27
he sets on high those who are lowly, and those who mourn are lifted to safety. [12] He frustrates the devices of the crafty, so that their hands achieve no success. [13] He catches the wise in their own craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are brought to a quick end. [14] They meet with darkness in the daytime and grope at noonday as in the night. [15] But he saves the needy from the sword of their mouth and from the hand of the mighty. [16] So the poor have hope, and injustice shuts her mouth. [17] "Behold, blessed is the one whom God reproves; therefore despise not the discipline of the Almighty. [18] For he wounds, but he binds up; he shatters, but his hands heal. [19] He will deliver you from six troubles; in seven no evil shall touch you. [20] In famine he will redeem you from death, and in war from the power of the sword. [21] You shall be hidden from the lash of the tongue, and shall not fear destruction when it comes. [22] At destruction and famine you shall laugh, and shall not fear the beasts of the earth. [23] For you shall be in league with the stones of the field, and the beasts of the field shall be at peace (lay down) with you. [24] You shall know that your tent is at peace, and you shall inspect your fold and miss nothing. [25] You shall know also that your offspring shall be many, and your descendants as the grass of the earth. [26] You shall come to your grave in ripe old age, like a sheaf gathered up in its season. [27] Behold, this we have searched out; it is true. Hear, and know it for your good."

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Neither do I, except to say I agree with what you say below:

I could speculate on why Paul agreed to do that (it was not his own idea to do that), but none of my speculation would involve a bad motive on Paul's part, or me believing for one minute that Paul was "a hypocritical person" who was "usually" given to teach one thing and do another.

In my speculation in my own mind Paul at worst felt pressured because James and the elders were the leaders of the church in Jerusalem. How would it look if Paul refused them in what they asked him to do? And why did they ask him to do it?

The reason they asked Paul to do it is inherent in what they said - it was to placate the Jewish believers in Jesus who had a prejudice against Paul (along with all the Jews) because of what they had heard about Paul's teaching regarding the law of Moses, which they ardently kept.

The only question that remains for me with regard to what Paul did after arriving in Jerusalem is "Was it an act of hypocrisy?"

Acts does not give us the answer. Typical of many historical accounts in the Bible, we are given the history "as is" without any sugar-coating, without giving us any indication of whether what was done by this or that biblical personality at any particular point in time was right or wrong, wise or unwise.

So we are left to make up our own minds about it, right or wrong, wise or unwise, hypocritical or not hypocritical.

So to me it was indeed hypocritical, but also for me it's not an issue about what kind of man Paul was, because none of it diminishes Paul's integrity in my mind, because I understand that Paul was not God but had suddenly found himself in the midst of enemy territory without having realised before his arrival in Jerusalem just how much hatred had been stirred up against him, and because James and the elders for this reason asked Paul to do what he did, Paul was under enormous pressure. He may as well have been an Israeli soldier who got dropped in Teheran, Iran in 2024.

Knowing the above also makes it clearer to me as to why James and the elders asked Paul to do what he did in the first place - to placate the religious sensitivities of his enemies.

Poor Paul.

So I fully agree with what you say below:​

Separated this. I’ve been thinking a lot about
Hebrews 10:5-6 Wherefore when he comes into the world, he said, Sacrifice and offering you would not, but a body have you prepared me: [6] In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you have had no pleasure.

When I mentioned the change of tones …I’ve always heard the tone of God in having no pleasure in animal sacrifices, or burnt offerings or even way back in the angst between Cain and Abel …the tone I’ve heard is that God is displeased like someone you take a gift to and they wanted something brand name or expensive…so they sneer at your offering having expected more. That is the tone I heard in God’s having had no pleasure in animals blood or burnt sacrifices that …are not able to change or transform anyone. To me animals sacrifices and burnt offerings are not able to reveal the truth.

the tone has changed to me. I hear the best physiological healer, the best physician..whose tone is the reason none of those things are pleasurable to God is (for our profit) because the one offering them never is allowed to enter into any truth…or self examination. For example …if I feel down or bad about things I’ve done and seeing a homeless person on the street corner up town, I give them a gracious amount of money so I go away relieved and patting my soreness …but that whole “sacrifice of giving” was really to allow me to remain in denial of my high mindedness. Never addressing the real problem. Instead it’s deceiving myself by something that hid the truth, instead of exposing it.

There are all kinds of mental illnesses in the world. All kinds of fantasy’s we tell ourselves, all kinds of facades and falsehoods we put on …maybe none of that makes sense but now the tone is different…I no longer hear God saying He has displeasure in those things …but that He has no pleasure in animal blood and burnt offerings that have no ability to make one whole or reconciles nothing or makes none complete. Consider narcissistic actions and how lies we tell ourselves can create a whole fantasy to live in …to avoid coming face to face with the truth. Even these things …if you watch people …even me I know when it nearly kills a person to come face to face with what they do not want to see. The Pharisees and religious leaders were known for living in their own denial and bathing in it to the point they were fully persuaded what they claimed was true. Maybe that is a lot of nonsense…but I do think Paul knew none of those things performed could make one wise. I personally don’t think Paul would fault you for asking if he performed a hypothetical act. Something about Paul reminded him constantly to not lift himself up higher than he ought to be lifted. I do believe …God has not given unto you the spirit that the world gives unto you, but God has given you the Spirit of power, of Love and of a sound mind”.

We speak of few…few will own the truth. I don’t know if I own (embrace) the truth. But I do see there is truth in God’s word that by our not approaching the truth, God has no pleasure in our falsehoods. Why would we…

 

[Zao is life]

Separated this. I’ve been thinking a lot about
Hebrews 10:5-6 Wherefore when he comes into the world, he said, Sacrifice and offering you would not, but a body have you prepared me: [6] In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you have had no pleasure.

I agree. These verses are what the above statement in Hebrews is appealing to:

Isaiah 1:11-17
"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me? says the LORD; I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of he-goats.

When you come to appear before Me, who has required this at your hand, to trample My courts?

Bring no more vain sacrifice; incense is an abomination to Me; the new moon and sabbath, the going to meeting; I cannot endure evil and the assembly! Your new moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; they are a trouble to Me; I am weary to bear them.

And when you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; yea, when you make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood.

Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do good; seek judgment, reprove the oppressor. Judge the orphan, plead for the widow."

God did not want sacrifices for sin to be brought by those who carelessly remained in sin and then thought, "I will bring the sacrifice".

Hebrews 10:8-10 - about Jesus:
"Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."​

When I mentioned the change of tones …I’ve always heard the tone of God in having no pleasure in animal sacrifices, or burnt offerings or even way back in the angst between Cain and Abel …the tone I’ve heard is that God is displeased like someone you take a gift to and they wanted something brand name or expensive…so they sneer at your offering having expected more. That is the tone I heard in God’s having had no pleasure in animals blood or burnt sacrifices that …are not able to change or transform anyone. To me animals sacrifices and burnt offerings are not able to reveal the truth.​

Yes. That's exactly why God is not interested in sacrifices and burned offerings, I agree. Your last sentence is especially important, I think.

the tone has changed to me. I hear the best physiological healer, the best physician..whose tone is the reason none of those things are pleasurable to God is (for our profit) because the one offering them never is allowed to enter into any truth…or self examination. For example …if I feel down or bad about things I’ve done and seeing a homeless person on the street corner up town, I give them a gracious amount of money so I go away relieved and patting my soreness …but that whole “sacrifice of giving” was really to allow me to remain in denial of my high mindedness. Never addressing the real problem. Instead it’s deceiving myself by something that hid the truth, instead of exposing it.

There are all kinds of mental illnesses in the world. All kinds of fantasy’s we tell ourselves, all kinds of facades and falsehoods we put on …maybe none of that makes sense but now the tone is different…I no longer hear God saying He has displeasure in those things …but that He has no pleasure in animal blood and burnt offerings that have no ability to make one whole or reconciles nothing or makes none complete. Consider narcissistic actions and how lies we tell ourselves can create a whole fantasy to live in …to avoid coming face to face with the truth. Even these things …if you watch people …even me I know when it nearly kills a person to come face to face with what they do not want to see. The Pharisees and religious leaders were known for living in their own denial and bathing in it to the point they were fully persuaded what they claimed was true. Maybe that is a lot of nonsense

Well, what you are saying about this is not a load of nonsense. God knows my heart (anyone's heart) so I should ask God to examine my heart and reveal to me where there is sin in my heart, and be thankful for Jesus. It's a scary thought - and it does scare me to ask God to reveal the sin in my heart to me, but praise Jesus "If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness". Something the blood of animals sacrificed for sin could not, and cannot ever do.

…but I do think Paul knew none of those things performed could make one wise. I personally don’t think Paul would fault you for asking if he performed a hypothetical act.

I agree. Paul considered himself among the "all" when he said "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

He was capable of making an error in judgment also, and IMO he was not puffed up with pride so as to consider himself to be incapable of making such an error. I do believe his motive was pure, but his choice of what would be the wisest thing to do under the circumstances did not turn out so well for his testimony to the Jews or for himself, personally.

Something about Paul reminded him constantly to not lift himself up higher than he ought to be lifted. I do believe …God has not given unto you the spirit that the world gives unto you, but God has given you the Spirit of power, of Love and of a sound mind”.

We speak of few…few will own the truth. I don’t know if I own (embrace) the truth. But I do see there is truth in God’s word that by our not approaching the truth, God has no pleasure in our falsehoods. Why would we…

True.

Thank you for being the only person to have asked me questions about what I was saying, and why. It meant a lot to me to have this (sane, rational, i.e of a sound mind) conversation with at least one person in this thread. So if you see this part of Acts from an angle that you never saw it before then it's all been worth it for me!

God bless :)​

 

[Davy]

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.

The false point you... tried to make was that Paul was being punished for choosing to go up to Jerusalem by being sent to Rome, whether in chains or not no matter.

 

[Davy]

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)

I've already proven that what you say is not to be relied upon. Your twist of the Greek word 'naos' to try prove your false doctrine is obvious.

 

[RedFan]

The false point you... tried to make was that Paul was being punished for choosing to go up to Jerusalem by being sent to Rome, whether in chains or not no matter.

"Punished?" No. I don't think that. I never said that. I never implied that. (Are you reading the right post?)

 

[Davy]

"Punished?" No. I don't think that. I never said that. I never implied that. (Are you reading the right post?)

You are right, that was Zao who implied that in his OP. Sorry.