How can you be sure Paul was an apostle ?

[Pastek]

He wrote almost half of the New Testament. How is that possible he wrote more that those who actually really met Jesus ?

Is he present in all the Bibles ? For exemple the Syriac, Ethiopian, Armenian's canon ?

 

[Estro Felino]

Was St. Paul a Psychopath?

 

[leov]

Was St. Paul a Psychopath?

Rather bodhisattva.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Because Jesus appointed Peter (Matthew 16:18) and Peter affirmed Paul (2 Peter 3:14-16). Both died a martyr's death in service to the Cause of Christ. Both Peter and Paul championed the Cause of Christ. The teachings of both men affirm the Teachings of Christ as recorded in the Gospels.

 

[exchemist]

He wrote almost half of the New Testament. How is that possible he wrote more that those who actually really met Jesus ?

Is he present in all the Bibles ? For exemple the Syriac, Ethiopian, Armenian's canon ?

Apostle simply means envoy or messenger. St. Paul was not one of the original twelve apostles but described himself as the apostle to the Gentiles - which he certainly was, to judge by his extensive writings to them. He was clearly an educated man, a Roman citizen as well as a Jew, and well-travelled. So he wrote a lot, to the groups he visited and probably set up. That makes him an apostle.

 

[leov]

Apostle simply means envoy or messenger. St. Paul was not one of the original twelve apostles but described himself as the apostle to the Gentiles - which he certainly was, to judge by his extensive writings to them. He was clearly an educated man, a Roman citizen as well as a Jew, and well-travelled. So he wrote a lot, to the groups he visited and probably set up. That makes him an apostle.

Abraham met God in a vision that accepted as reality, Paul met Jesus in a vision too.

 

[exchemist]

Abraham met God in a vision that accepted as reality, Paul met Jesus in a vision too.

That was his claim to authority, certainly.

 

[leov]

That was his claim to authority, certainly.

It looks like Christianity spread by Paul carrying Gospel. From book of Acts it appears that some sort of basic infrastructure already existed.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Abraham met God in a vision that accepted as reality, Paul met Jesus in a vision too.

From time to time, a person may encounter remarkable beings in dreams, which most folks think of as mental activity during sleep.
From time to time, a person may encounter remarkable beings in visions, which many think of as mental activity while not asleep and while under the influence of drugs, mental disorders, or under some, as yet, unknown influence.
When we have never, personally, encountered a remarkable being ourselves and decline to believe in such encounters outside of dreams or visions, we are inclined to consider every reported encounter with a remarkable being as the result of a dream or a vision. That is a common, purportedly-rational and -reasonable reaction to hearing of or reading about such encounters 2nd or 3rd-hand or more.
However, unless we are firmly committed to skepticism regarding such reports of encounters with remarkable beings, does it necessarily follow that all such reports are the result of dreams or visions to be accepted as reality? Most say "yes". A couple of us oddballs, however, say "No."
Being one of the oddballs myself, I take the encounters between Abraham and Paul and the remarkable beings they are said to have encountered as realities to be accepted as realities, thereby increasing the probability that folks will view me not as an oddball, but completely zonkers. I can live with that: I am old, harmless, convinced that the cosmos is very large, has no beginning or end, and that one or more remarkable beings exist in it.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

 

[leov]

From time to time, a person may encounter remarkable beings in dreams, which most folks think of as mental activity during sleep.
From time to time, a person may encounter remarkable beings in visions, which many think of as mental activity while not asleep and while under the influence of drugs, mental disorders, or under some, as yet, unknown influence.
When we have never, personally, encountered a remarkable being ourselves and decline to believe in such encounters outside of dreams or visions, we are inclined to consider every reported encounter with a remarkable being as the result of a dream or a vision. That is a common, purportedly-rational and -reasonable reaction to hearing of or reading about such encounters 2nd or 3rd-hand or more.
However, unless we are firmly committed to skepticism regarding such reports of encounters with remarkable beings, does it necessarily follow that all such reports are the result of dreams or visions to be accepted as reality? Most say "yes". A couple of us oddballs, however, say "No."
Being one of the oddballs myself, I take the encounters between Abraham and Paul and the remarkable beings they are said to have encountered as realities to be accepted as realities, thereby increasing the probability that folks will view me not as an oddball, but completely zonkers. I can live with that: I am old, harmless, convinced that the cosmos is very large, has no beginning or end, and that one or more remarkable beings exist in it.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

People used to be different. Their perception was much more acute than in modern time. God chose Noah and Abraham from that line because their pure pedigree (pure genetically). And Abraham's clairvoyance was yo be preserved in Sons of Israel.

 

[Pastek]

Because Jesus appointed Peter (Matthew 16:18) and Peter affirmed Paul (2 Peter 3:14-16).

But Peter denied Jesus.

The teachings of both men affirm the Teachings of Christ as recorded in the Gospels.

But only the teachings of Paul are often seen as problematic even for some christians .

 

[leov]

But Peter denied Jesus.



But only the teachings of Paul are often seen as problematic even for some christians .

Paul was a Gnostic, his message was different than one of James/Peter.

 

[Pastek]

Paul was a Gnostic, his message was different than one of James/Peter.

Can you explain more please ?

 

[exchemist]

But Peter denied Jesus.



But only the teachings of Paul are often seen as problematic even for some christians .

Well yes. St. Paul added a lot, a lot of it about sex being bad for example , which has led the church into all sorts of trouble over the centuries.

As for Peter's denial, that was a lie he told when he was afraid of being seized and put to death along with Jesus. One assumes he was forgiven. And in the end, he was put to death for his belief in Christ - or so it is said.

 

[leov]

Paul was a Gnostic, his message was different than one of James/Peter.

1 Cor 2:14-15 , as Gnostic typical, explains that there two types of soul natures in relation to understanding of Spirit (God). Soul nature and Spirit nature. So, soul nature see true god in demiurge since are not capable to appraise spirit of the True God. So, natural soul nature is only initial phase that like seeing God through dark, dim glass (1Cor 13).
If you look into prodigal son story you can clearly see this.

 

[Dawnofhope]

But Peter denied Jesus.

Peter went from being fearful to fearless through the power of the Holy Spirit.

But only the teachings of Paul are often seen as problematic even for some christians .

Christians have all sorts of doubts and struggles for many reasons, not just Paul. In many Christian communities they are free to voice and discuss their concerns. That’s just part of the lifetime journey of striving each day to become a better person and Christian. Such doubts are as human as Peter’s denial out of fear for his life.

 

[74x12]

He wrote almost half of the New Testament. How is that possible he wrote more that those who actually really met Jesus ?

Is he present in all the Bibles ? For exemple the Syriac, Ethiopian, Armenian's canon ?

He did meet Jesus. But even Peter and the others accepted Paul and sent him to the gentiles with their blessing.

 

[Deeje]

It is also noteworthy that Paul was educated by Jesus through Holy Spirit after his resurrection. He was a “chosen vessel” because of his zeal for God (though misdirected at the time of his choosing) his education in the scriptures as a Pharisee, and his Roman citizenship which was used effectively at times. He was not educated by the other apostles.

Paul wrote at 1 Timothy 1:12-16....
“ I am grateful to Christ Jesus our Lord, who delegated power to me, because he considered me trustworthy by assigning me to a ministry, although formerly I was a blasphemer and a persecutor and an insolent man. Nevertheless, I was shown mercy, because I was ignorant and acted with a lack of faith. But the undeserved kindness of our Lord abounded exceedingly along with faith and love that is in connection with Christ Jesus. Trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance is the saying that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. Of these I am foremost. Nevertheless, the reason why I was shown mercy was that by means of me as the foremost case Christ Jesus might demonstrate all his long-suffering for a sample of those who are going to rest their faith on him for everlasting life.”

Paul went from being a proud Pharisee, to a humble servant of his God through faith in his Messiah, Jesus Christ.

As God is the author of his word, he is also in control of who contributes to it. The Bible is God’s word, not man’s. It proves to be true and gives evidence of its divine authorship in many ways.
By following its guidance and principles, we can save ourselves from a lot of heartache and trouble. Paul’s writings form a good part of that Godly advice.

 

[Firemorphic]

Paul was a Gnostic, his message was different than one of James/Peter.

You share my view, I also see a very very strong parallel between Paul's epistles and Valentinianism (almost down to the very sentence), not just through association but through the actual teachings themselves that Paul portrays. In actuality, the whole New Testament itself is Gnosticism, even though the early Church tried to supplant it's own doctrinal interpretations over the actual text of the New Testament. The Johannine texts are another 'case-in-point' there.
Of course, this is without even mentioning Marcion's proto-Luke and his canon

 

[Pastek]

He did meet Jesus.

When, where ?