Yes, believers are filled with the Holy Spirit, yet the measure of filling depends on a person. How much one is submissive or egoistic. Paul was hindered by his scholarly egoism.
He wasn't hindered.
He was filled with the Spirit 3 days after he met with Jesus on the road to Damascus, Acts 9:17.
The church were praying at Antioch when the Holy Spirit said, "set aside for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them" Acts 13:1. In verse 4 we read that they were sent on their way by the Holy Spirit. Later in that chapter we read that Saul (also called Paul) who was filled with the Spirit laid hands on Elymas, who was a sorcerer, and cause him to go blind. (Jesus said that if someone is from Satan, they cannot cast out Satan - a house divided against itself cannot stand.)
In Acts 14 we are told that Paul preached boldly for the Lord, whom confirmed Paul's message by enabling them to perform miracles, Acts 14:3.
In Acts 19 Paul met believers who had not heard of the Holy Spirit, so he taught them, laid hands on them and they were baptised them in the Spirit. Later in that chapter we are told that God did many miracles through Paul.
In Acts 20 he raised someone from the dead, and then told the believers that the Holy Spirit had told him that he should go to Jerusalem, even though he would face persecution there.
Romans 8 is a chapter teaching on life in the Spirit and how the Spirit assures us that we are God's children, and heirs with Christ.
Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12and Ephesians 4 teach about the gifts that the Holy Spirit gives, and in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul spends some time talking about the gift of tongues.
2 Corinthians 1:22 says that God's Spirit in our hearts is his mark of ownership on us, and a guarantee of our future inheritance.
In other letters he tells people not to quench or grieve the Spirit, but to prophesy and speak in tongues. And there are many more verses when he says how the Spirit spoke to him.
If Paul was hindered from receiving the Spirit, I do not believe he could have taught all this, and more, performed the miracles he did, and lead the life he did - preaching Jesus.
That was his big mistake of not seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
That was A mistake that he made on that occasion; that doesn't negate everything he ever said, did or wrote.
There are bound to be divisions between sheep and goats, believers and non-believers and so on.
Granted - but when they happened as a result of Paul's teaching, you seem to be saying that it was Paul who caused them.
Paul's ministry before he was introduced to the Jerusalem church had come to naught.
Paul's ministry before being converted was to persecute the church, because he was so zealous for Judaism.
The support from the chosen apostles was not that overwhelming.
They were wary of him until Barnabas stood up and told them of Paul's conversion experience. Until then, all they knew about Saul of Tarsus was that he was a zealous Jew who was against the followers of Jesus, had put some in jail and may have even killed some.
But once he got their support, he sensed gain and authority, and he went beyond limits to propagate his ideas unsupported by the preaching of Jesus on many counts.
Which is your idea but is not found in Scripture.
They are the goodies people want to grab. It no way elaborates the preaching of Jesus; for example: Sermon on the Mount.
They are the heart of the Gospel!
Paul's ministry and mission was not to preach the Sermon on the mount - Jesus had already done that. His calling was to preach Jesus as Lord and Christ; tell the Jews that the person they crucified for blasphemy was their long awaited Messiah, and to tell the Gentiles that Jesus had won salvation, forgiveness and reconciliation to God for them.
There is no Gospel without the cross. The Gospel is not "take the cosy, nice bits of Jesus' teaching and his words of kindness, and do good deeds". The Gospel is that Jesus died for our sins, has saved us, reconciled us to God and given us eternal life - as Jesus, Peter, John and Paul said. The Gospel is that only Jesus is the way to the Father and the name that saves people - as Jesus and Peter said.
IF, (and I'm not sure and not accusing) you are trying to put forward a gospel that does not include the cross and teach that the doctrines I have just mentioned are "goodies that people want to grab", then I'm afraid that your words are NOT prompted by the Holy Spirit, as you claimed in an earlier post.
Tendency to dilute and deviate from the preaching of a leader in any religion--for that matter--begins right from the day he departs. Ignorant Gentiles gladly grabbed the compromises offered by Paul.
Such as?
Scripture in the NT refers to the OT only. Disputed 2nd Peter cannot offer any support to the biased interpretation.
I don't agree, and you seem to be disputing Peter's words now - did the Spirit make another mistake in allowing his book into the Bible.
But say for a minute that Scripture is only the OT, what does that mean for you? Jesus and the Spirit were present at creation; the Spirit spoke through the prophets, who prophesied about Jesus and the cross. Jeremiah said that one day God would make a NEW covenant, which he did at the cross, and Ezekiel said that God would one day put his Spirit IN people, which happened at Pentecost. Jesus and Paul taught these things; Jesus and Paul believed in, affirmed and quoted the OT.
One cannot call manipulated, mistranslated, misinterpreted records as God's words.
It's your idea that they were manipulated; any mistranslations are minor - the authors all agree, and always have agreed, on the Gospel. And if they are misinterpreted, then they are misinterpreted by US; human beings. Some of whom have hidden agendas, or their own ideas, or who belong to a cult which may have financial reason for misinterpreting them and imposing their own ideas on people.
Because they were not arrogant like Paul.
So all 12 apostles, chosen by Jesus himself, were all arrogant?
No chosen apostle called him another apostle.
As far as we know. But no-one shouted at, or opposed, him for calling himself an apostle either.
In fact, Paul even did not have the qualifications set out for choosing the replacement for Judas Iscariot.
They only chose 1 person to replace Judas Iscariot, and Paul hadn't been converted then. Afterwards, the Lord added someone else to the apostles. The word "apostle" means "sent", and Paul and Barnabas were certainly sent out by God.
Look at the Protestantism that has replaced Jesus by a pot bellied Santa Claus, suffering cross by glittering tree and great resurrection with Easter eggs fun! Is Bible a comic book to amuse the children?
I think you'll find it was mostly retailers and chocolate manufacturers who promoted, and changed, the story of Saint Nicholas giving presents to the children into a man coming down the chimney - not the church. The church is keen to put Christ back into Christmas. Chocolate eggs also have nothing to do with Protestantism.
