Paul Said He Has Wronged No One. Did He Really Do No Wrong?

[Neogaia777]

2 Corinthians 7:2

"Receive us; we have wronged no man, we have corrupted no man, we have defrauded no man."​

Paul said he has wronged no man? Seems that he did, like Stephen. And persecuting Christians, so, how is it he says he wronged no man, or did no wrong?



John 3:19-21: “And this is the condemnation (judgment), that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20- "For everyone practicing (continuing in practicing) evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed."

21- "But he who does the truth (loves the light) comes to the light, that his (former evil) deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in (harmony and in the will of) God.”



Paul, after his Damascus road encounter, repented, changed, became born-again, and moved into the process of sanctification...

He came to the light and exposed his former evil deeds in the light (presence of all) as part of his testimony to show that they were done in the will of God, that they were part of God's plan and will for him to bring him to his encounter with Christ on the Damascus road and to bring him to where he was now, currently...

He told all about his past and his conversion experience to testify to God's goodness. Paul did not continue in those former things (deeds) though, but was acknowledging that they were necessary to bring and draw him to God, in the end, and that his former deeds were done in the harmony and will of God to bring him to where he was now...

Therefore, he could say, that he had wronged no man, or did no wrong, because he will not be judged for them, cause they were done in the harmony and will of God, that all depended on the choice he made about his Damascus road experience...

Since he is and is now proving faithful, he will not be judged for those former deeds. And, really, they were not really "wrong" persay... because of his choice with his experience on the Damascus road; his former deeds were actually justified in God's eyes... "if" he proved faithful to his experience with his encounter with Christ (successfully repented) and did not continue on in them (former wicked deeds) any longer and from that point onward...

Our former deeds are justified in God's eyes, in a similar fashion, if we repent and change them, and no longer walk or continue in them, when we are brought to a point that is an encounter with God... However, if we don't, when that happens, well, then...?

God Bless!

 

[St_Worm2]

Paul said he has wronged no one...? Did no wrong...?

St. Paul "did no wrong" in the sense that he did not do what the Jews were falsely accusing him of before Governor Festus .. see Acts 25:7-12. Did he say something like that elsewhere in the Bible If he did, IOW, if he said that he, "did no wrong", in a more general sense, that would seem to contradict several other statements of his in his Epistles. For instance:

1 Timothy 1:15
It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.
​

Yours in Christ,
David

Paul said in his own defense, “I have committed no
offense either against the Law of the Jews or
against the temple or against Caesar.”
Acts 25:8​

 

[Neogaia777]

St. Paul "did no wrong" in the sense that he did not do what the Jews were falsely accusing him of before Governor Festus .. see Acts 25:7-12. Did he say something like that elsewhere in the Bible If he did, IOW, if he said that he, "did no wrong", in a more general sense, that would seem to contradict several other statements of his in his Epistles. For instance:

1 Timothy 1:15
It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.
​

Yours in Christ,
David

Paul said in his own defense, “I have committed no
offense either against the Law of the Jews or
against the temple or against Caesar.”
Acts 25:8​

Is wrong that leads you to right, wrong?

Even if I kinda misquoted that, (I heard a pastor talk about this and made the mistake of not looking it up for myself, sorry) Even if I misquoted that, I still have that question?

And what about the part of bringing your prior wicked acts into the light before all, or bringing your darkness into the light in general (John 3:19-21) (above)...

What about openly confessing your sins when right about to be baptized, like they did, in at least John's baptism, back then? Or confessing and even using confessing and being honest about your prior ways, to evangelize or as part of your testimony to the good news or in combination with the gospel message to others?

Is that doing what your supposed to do according to John 3:19-21?

God Bless!

 

[John Hyperspace]

Paul said he has wronged no man? Seems that he did, like Stephen. And persecuting Christians, so, how is it he says he wronged no man, or did no wrong?

John 3:19-21: “And this is the condemnation (judgment), that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20- "For everyone practicing (continuing in practicing) evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed."

21- "But he who does the truth (loves the light) comes to the light, that his (former evil) deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in (harmony and in the will of) God.”

Paul, after his Damascus road encounter, repented, changed, became born-again, and moved into the process of sanctification...

He came to the light and exposed his former evil deeds in the light (presence of all) as part of his testimony to show that they were done in the will of God, that they were part of God's plan and will for him to bring him to his encounter with Christ on the Damascus road and to bring him to where he was now, currently...

He told all about his past and his conversion experience to testify to God's goodness. Paul did not continue in those former things (deeds) though, but was acknowledging that they were necessary to bring and draw him to God, in the end, and that his former deeds were done in the harmony and will of God to bring him to where he was now...

Therefore, he could say, that he had wronged no man, or did no wrong, because he will not be judged for them, cause they were done in the harmony and will of God, that all depended on the choice he made about his Damascus road experience...

Since he is and is now proving faithful, he will not be judged for those former deeds. And, really, they were not really "wrong" persay... because of his choice with his experience on the Damascus road; his former deeds were actually justified in God's eyes... "if" he proved faithful to his experience with his encounter with Christ (successfully repented) and did not continue on in them (former wicked deeds) any longer and from that point onward...

Our former deeds are justified in God's eyes, in a similar fashion, if we repent and change them, and no longer walk or continue in them, when we are brought to a point that is an encounter with God... However, if we don't, when that happens, well, then...?

God Bless!

What was it that Paul did wrong? By what standard of measure? It wasn't in the law, since Paul states according to the rules, he was "perfect" and "blameless":

Philppians 3:3-6 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

So what deeds of Paul were "darkness" and by what standard? What was it in which Paul no longer continued?

Philippians 3:7-9 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

So what changed in Paul on the road to Damascus? And, I would really have to ask: did Paul have a choice? Did he choose to encounter Christ? Who was it that did the choosing?

Acts 9:15 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:
Acts 22:13-15 Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. 14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. 15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

If Paul was faultless in the law; where was the darkness in Paul? What light did he come to?

 

[John Hyperspace]

Why was Paul made blind by Jesus? What was blinding Paul?

 

[timewerx]

20- "For everyone practicing (continuing in practicing) evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed."

21- "But he who does the truth (loves the light) comes to the light, that his (former evil) deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in (harmony and in the will of) God.”

Doesn't sound right to be honest. The words you put inside those parenthesis are misleading.

I looked it up in the Bible and those two verses seem much more likely to be comparing two different groups people, NOT the same person who was formerly evil and then got saved.

Requoting NIV John 3:20-21 from Biblegateway:

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

Therefore, he could say, that he had wronged no man, or did no wrong, because he will not be judged for them, cause they were done in the harmony and will of God, that all depended on the choice he made about his Damascus road experience...

That would make a bad testimony to unbelievers especially if they very well know your past.

Frankly, I couldn't say thing even among Christians if I were to be honest.

The disciples weren't perfect when they were with Christ. They made mistakes and Christ pointed it out well enough. When Christ left for Heaven can we assume they all stopped making mistakes, including Paul?

It's either that or Paul did not mean it literally.

 

[Neogaia777]

What was it that Paul did wrong? By what standard of measure? It wasn't in the law, since Paul states according to the rules, he was "perfect" and "blameless":

Philppians 3:3-6 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

So what deeds of Paul were "darkness" and by what standard? What was it in which Paul no longer continued?

Philippians 3:7-9 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

So what changed in Paul on the road to Damascus? And, I would really have to ask: did Paul have a choice? Did he choose to encounter Christ? Who was it that did the choosing?

Acts 9:15 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:
Acts 22:13-15 Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. 14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. 15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

If Paul was faultless in the law; where was the darkness in Paul? What light did he come to?

You might want to see this: Omniscience and "Choice"...? Predestination and "Free will"...? Questions...?

I understand the light to be open exposure before all, akin to being spiritually naked yet unashamed cause it was shown out to be in God's will leading you to him... And the darkness to be your former wicked deeds and acts...

God Bless!

 

[John Hyperspace]

You might want to see this: Omniscience and "Choice"...? Predestination and "Free will"...? Questions...?

I understand the light to be open exposure before all, akin to being spiritually naked yet unashamed cause it was shown out to be in God's will leading you to him... And the darkness to be your former wicked deeds and acts...

God Bless!

Yes, but what are these? John is pretty clear: 1 John 1:5: God is light, without darkness: 1 John 4:7-8: God is love without hatred: 1 John 2:9-11. So what was Paul's darkness? He was "perfect" according to the law: Philippians 3:6: so where was Paul's darkness? Why did Jesus make Paul blind? What was blinding Paul? 1 John 2:11.

What did Paul cease to "continue in"? Philippians 3:7-9 It seems to be a matter of "Where (in Whom) is your faith to be counted "righteous"

 

[Neogaia777]

Doesn't sound right to be honest. The words you put inside those parenthesis are misleading.

I looked it up in the Bible and those two verses seem much more likely to be comparing two different groups people, NOT the same person who was formerly evil and then got saved.

Requoting NIV John 3:20-21 from Biblegateway:

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

For fear that their deeds would be exposed, means they do not want to openly before all, or in the light, their wickedness to be known about, cause of shame... The light is open exposure... Matthew 10:27 and Luke 12:3... When the come to the light, they are willing to be openly exposed which is the truth in order that all may know and see that what they have done has been done in the sight of God, or God's approval, or his will for them...

That would make a bad testimony to unbelievers especially if they very well know your past.

Frankly, I couldn't say thing even among Christians if I were to be honest.

The disciples weren't perfect when they were with Christ. They made mistakes and Christ pointed it out well enough. When Christ left for Heaven can we assume they all stopped making mistakes, including Paul?

It's either that or Paul did not mean it literally.

Unbeliever's perhaps, maybe, maybe and only maybe... But, not most fellow struggling Christians, who think there is something wrong with them and that they are not like other Christians because of it and want leader's who can relate and sympathize with their weaknesses, like it says Christ could, having experienced and struggled with all our weaknesses as well...

Most people want someone who can personally relate with their struggles and weaknesses, not someone who can't... Cause most of those one's really can't, and quite honestly, aren't much help if they can't...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Yes, but what are these? John is pretty clear: 1 John 1:5: God is light, without darkness: 1 John 4:7-8: God is love without hatred: 1 John 2:9-11. So what was Paul's darkness? He was "perfect" according to the law: Philippians 3:6: so where was Paul's darkness? Why did Jesus make Paul blind? What was blinding Paul? 1 John 2:11.

What did Paul cease to "continue in"? Philippians 3:7-9 It seems to be a matter of "Where (in Whom) is your faith to be counted "righteous"

Perfection or righteousness attained by or through or touched if only temporarily, through the law, is ones own righteousness, or self-righteousness and is not righteousness by faith or love or attained through another, a mediator, Jesus Christ or our God... (Referring to the former) Which is not true perfection in the God the Father's eyes, but might have been at one time, in God, the Son's eyes, before being born to us as a man... The righteousness attained by the law is not perfection in God, the Father's eyes, cause you can still be walking in darkness because of hatred and a lack of faith and lack of real true Love, like God, the Father's Love...

Now, This may be blasphemy is some people's eyes, But... God, the Son, God in the OT, was not at that time yet perfect in God, the Father's eyes... That didn't happen till he became a man for us with us, till he became one of us and learned it... According to the Law, he was perfect, but not according to faith or love (yet, at that time) and perfect in himself, but not perfect through another, namely, God the Father...

This may also sound like blasphemy, but, God the Son, God in the OT, and still our God from the beginning who had been with the Father from before the beginning, and who made everything, and through whom the Father chose to express himself to us, to Show us the heart of God, and also, at the same time, the heart of righteous man, through God the Son, who is our God, but was like the Father's scapegoat in a way...

Anyways, All was put on God, the Son... And the Father did not take over till God, the Son died, and experienced and tasted death (both kinds) and went to sit at his (the Father's) right hand until the Father would make his enemies a footstool (the earth and all in it or confined to it) A footstool for his feet, at the point of his returning, when the world would be on it's knees and would be ready to receive him (Jesus as their king)...

Their is no darkness in God, the Father, or God the Son, even, but God, the Son had to experience being affected and touched and moved by darkness, though/cause it was around him, but not, "in" him... But he was affected by it around him... God, the Father would have been the same way God, the Son was, and perhaps, was, once, at one time, way before... Anyhow, God, the Father, if he had been, and perhaps when he was once, in God, the Son's shoes, he would have done the same as the Son, with us...

God Bless!

 

[John Hyperspace]

Perfection or righteousness attained by or through or touched if only temporarily, through the law, is ones own righteousness, or self-righteousness and is not righteousness by faith or love or attained through another, a mediator, Jesus Christ or our God... (Referring to the former) Which is not true perfection in the God the Father's eyes, but might have been at one time, in God, the Son's eyes, before being born to us as a man... The righteousness attained by the law is not perfection in God, the Father's eyes, cause you can still be walking in darkness because of hatred and a lack of faith and lack of real true Love, like God, the Father's Love...

Now, This may be blasphemy is some people's eyes, But... God, the Son, God in the OT, was not at that time yet perfect in God, the Father's eyes... That didn't happen till he became a man for us with us, till he became one of us and learned it... According to the Law, he was perfect, but not according to faith or love (yet, at that time) and perfect in himself, but not perfect through another, namely, God the Father...

This may also sound like blasphemy, but, God the Son, God in the OT, and still our God from the beginning who had been with the Father from before the beginning, and who made everything, and through whom the Father chose to express himself to us, to Show us the heart of God, and also, at the same time, the heart of righteous man, through God the Son, who is our God, but was like the Father's scapegoat in a way...

Anyways, All was put on God, the Son... And the Father did not take over till God, the Son died, and experienced and tasted death (both kinds) and went to sit at his (the Father's) right hand until the Father would make his enemies a footstool (the earth and all in it or confined to it) A footstool for his feet, at the point of his returning, when the world would be on it's knees and would be ready to receive him (Jesus as their king)...

God Bless!

Okay so what is light and what is darkness? What is it that Paul gave up on "counted as loss"? Why was Paul blinded?

 

[Neogaia777]

Okay so what is light and what is darkness? What is it that Paul gave up on "counted as loss"? Why was Paul blinded?

Light is good, dark is evil... Light is complete openness, Dark is completely closed off... Light is being open to being vulnerable and having a heart, Dark is having a hard heart, or being heartless... Light is open honesty or being true, Dark is lying deceit to cover over, or lying... Light is being true, Dark is being false...

Counted all worldly gains or pursuits he could have easily had, as a loss for heavenly, spiritual, better ones...

Paul may have been blinded simply by the extreme brightness of the light he looked at directly, it may have had the purpose, and I'm sure it did have a purpose in teaching him something valuable that he would need as well... I don't know exactly what that something was, but I'm sure their was something to it though... Could have to do with his faith, or something?

God Bless!