Was Paul out of line when he answered back to the high priest?

[SkyWriting]

I give up. . .how many?

Only one is needed. . .the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:13).

One of the aspects of the Holy Spirit is that it is completely silent.
You can hear it when the winds stops blowing.

 

[Clare73]

One of the aspects of the Holy Spirit is that it is completely silent.
You can hear it when the winds stops blowing.

You're just a wealth of misinformation.

The Holy Spirit is like the wind. . .it blows.
It's not the Holy Spirit you're hearing when the wind stops blowing. . .which explains a lot.

So again, how many times does God have to say it in his word written before it is true?

 

[Torah Keeper]

Acts 23:1 – 5 report Paul’s encounter with Ananias, the high priest, after Paul was converted. The high priest ordered Paul to be struck on the mouth. Paul responded, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall!” Then, in a moment, Paul says that he didn’t know Ananias was high priest, “…for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” Are we to believe that Paul did not know that Ananias was high priest? Did Paul speak out of line when he answered back to the high priest?

I wrote a thread about this in the Messianic Forum. I think it is "John the Baptist the True High Priest".

Check it out.

 

[Petros2015]

I was wrong about it being expressed sarcastically though; it's not sarcasm.
Paul very much respects the law, he just knows it's there to serve Christ
When he says and quotes "you shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people"
I don't think that's him back tracking to apologize to Ananias
That's him getting ready for a setup for them to see what they had been speaking of Christ

 

[Clare73]

I was wrong about it being expressed sarcastically though; it's not sarcasm.
Paul very much respects the law, he just knows it's there to serve Christ
When he says and quotes "you shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people"
I don't think that's him back tracking to apologize to Ananias
That's him getting ready for a setup for them to see what they had been speaking of Christ

That's eisegesis, not exegesis.

 

[SkyWriting]

You're just a wealth of misinformation.

The Holy Spirit is like the wind. . .it blows.
It's not the Holy Spirit you're hearing when the wind stops blowing. . .which explains a lot.

Ya gotta read more Bible stuff.


1 Kings 19:11-13
New International Version

11 The Lord said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the Lord, for the Lord is about to pass by.”

Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. 12 After the earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. 13 When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave. Then a voice said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”

So again, how many times does God have to say it in his word written before it is true?

Anything important is covered many times from different viewpoints so that there is no dispute what is being said. The less a passage is backed by multiple authors, the less relevant to God.

10 vThe brothers2 immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they wwent into the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

 

[SkyWriting]

I give up. . .how many?

Only one is needed. . .the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:13).

Let me guess. The same person again?

 

[Clare73]

Ya gotta read more Bible stuff.

Like John 3:8. . .been there, done that.

 

[Clare73]

Let me guess. The same person again?

I give up. . .is it?

 

[The Liturgist]

Acts 23:1 – 5 report Paul’s encounter with Ananias, the high priest, after Paul was converted. The high priest ordered Paul to be struck on the mouth. Paul responded, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall!” Then, in a moment, Paul says that he didn’t know Ananias was high priest, “…for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” Are we to believe that Paul did not know that Ananias was high priest? Did Paul speak out of line when he answered back to the high priest?

No, and Ananias and Caiphas forfeited their legitimacy as a result of having successfully conspired to have our Lord, God and Savior killed.

 

[Dora Smith]

Acts 23:1 – 5 report Paul’s encounter with Ananias, the high priest, after Paul was converted. The high priest ordered Paul to be struck on the mouth. Paul responded, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall!” Then, in a moment, Paul says that he didn’t know Ananias was high priest, “…for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” Are we to believe that Paul did not know that Ananias was high priest? Did Paul speak out of line when he answered back to the high priest?

Paul was manipulative enough to say exactly what he felt to the High Priest, and then take it back, but, who knows.

For that matter, this is in Acts, it is unlikely that the author of Luke/ Acts witnessed it. It came from stories about the event passed down, which are probably distorted to some degree, with drama added on.

I saw since posting this, where NT Wright noted Paul telling off the high priest as an example of Paul's expertise on getting along and asserting himself in the ancient world. So, Paul knew exactly what he was doing. His skills at rhetoric were excellent.

 

[The Liturgist]

Paul was manipulative enough to say exactly what he felt to the High Priest, and then take it back, but, who knows.

For that matter, this is in Acts, it is unlikely that the author of Luke/ Acts witnessed it. It came from stories about the event passed down, which are probably distorted to some degree, with drama added on.

I saw since posting this, where NT Wright noted Paul telling off the high priest as an example of Paul's expertise on getting along and asserting himself in the ancient world. So, Paul knew exactly what he was doing. His skills at rhetoric were excellent.

I would agree, except I reject at this point that Ananias was the high priesr; it seems not unreasonable to consider that by virtue of his apostolate St. Paul was a high priest in addition to the other Apostles, and by that time Ananias was totally deposed and bereft from the high priesthood and all ministries of grace hitherto attached to him either the moment Christ died on the Cross, or the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Either way, it seems to me that Ananias had no right to hieratic dignity; the nominal respect St. Paul paid to him while telling him off would not have been within the realm of propriety had Ananias still been a legitimate high priest, but the legitimacy of the Second Temple Priesthood had been abrogated by deicide. I could be in error on this point; I have read some who say they had legitimacy until the Second Temple was destroyed, but this legitimacy is not required for there to be some kind of sacrificial-sacramental transitional period.