Paul - An Apostle?

[YoursTrue]

Religious texts are like that, they sound oh so mysterious, believers are suckers for that.

Not necessarily.

 

[101G]

Jesus said he has a God. John 20:17 Jesus told Mary Magdalene he has a God. "Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."

again a misunderstanding on your part, his God is HIM, listen to the language of the Verse, Revelation 3:12 "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name."
so who name did he WRITE?. his God, or ...... his Name.... (smile).

also understand that the Lord Jesus is in "DIVERSITY" or in the ECHAD of First and Last in ordinal designation as the "ANOTHER", or the G243 allos of himself in flesh in a G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') state.
understand when the scriptures say, "MY "God", he is simply saying "MY" Spirit, which is God, (John 4:24a), who is in heaven. and when he say in diversity, in flesh, "MY" son? he's simply is saying "MY" body on earth.
because in diversity, or in the EQUAL "SHARE" of himself he is "GOD. is not the same God that is his, is he himself when used with the definite article? read Hebrews 1:8.
and in Hebrews, read 1:10 was it the "Father"/LORD, or was it the Lord/Son who Laid the foundation of the earth?. mind telling us which one it was?
PICJAG, 101G.

 

[101G]

People understand something. the Lord Jesus is the same one person who is LORD/Father, and Son/Lord. only in a G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') states while in Flesh with blood. this is in ordinal designation in the "ECHAD" as in First and Last. please understand this.
PICJAG, 101G.

 

[101G]

Understand, if Jesus who is "GOD" have a "GOD" then that's two "Gods", and by definition, that's polytheism. here is just another example. Titus 2:10 "Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things." here God is Saviour in ... "ALL THINGS", now this, Titus 2:13 "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;". by being SAVIOUR, Jesus is God according to Titus 2:10. if one use the conjunction "AND"as to spereate the Great God... "and" .... Jesus the Christ, as many do in John 17:3, then if separate, and distinct, for many say the Father is not the son, and likewise, then again by definition one has two separate, and distinct GODS. which again means that's polytheism by definition. we suggest one might want to RE-THINK their position on God as Father "and" son.
PICJAG, 101G.

 

[101G]

so based on the writting of the apostle Paul, YES, he is an apostle. and that's a yes, as in a RESOUNDING "YES".

Good night, PICJAG, 101G.

 

[lukethethird]

there is a third account of this same event, in which Pauls tyells of his convirsion. and tjust as he, the apostle declared it before the Jews in Acts chapter 22. now before king Agrippa. scripture, Acts 26:12 "Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests," Acts 26:13 "At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me." Acts 26:14 "And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." Acts 26:15 "And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest." Acts 26:16 "But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;"
here the word “make” is the same word for choose in act 22, when Ananias said, Acts 22:14 "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."
here the word “Chosen” is the same word for Make in Acts 26:16, it is the Greek word, G4400 προχειρίζομαι procheirizomai (pro-chei-riy'-zo-mai) v.
1. to handle for oneself in advance.
2. (figuratively) to purpose.
[middle voice from G4253 and a derivative of G5495]
KJV: choose, make
Root(s): G4253, G5495

my source for this definition is the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments,
the KJV can translate the word as choose, or make. and this word is only found in both of these two scriptures. so the GOD OF OUR FATHERS IS … JESUS.
PICJAG, 101G.

If you want to know what Paul states, read his epistles. Acts was written in the 2nd century, it is church propaganda.

 

[YoursTrue]

again a misunderstanding on your part, his God is HIM, listen to the language of the Verse, Revelation 3:12 "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name."
so who name did he WRITE?. his God, or ...... his Name.... (smile).

also understand that the Lord Jesus is in "DIVERSITY" or in the ECHAD of First and Last in ordinal designation as the "ANOTHER", or the G243 allos of himself in flesh in a G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') state.
understand when the scriptures say, "MY "God", he is simply saying "MY" Spirit, which is God, (John 4:24a), who is in heaven. and when he say in diversity, in flesh, "MY" son? he's simply is saying "MY" body on earth.
because in diversity, or in the EQUAL "SHARE" of himself he is "GOD. is not the same God that is his, is he himself when used with the definite article? read Hebrews 1:8.
and in Hebrews, read 1:10 was it the "Father"/LORD, or was it the Lord/Son who Laid the foundation of the earth?. mind telling us which one it was?
PICJAG, 101G.

Jesus said he was going to HIS Father and God as well as Mary Magdalene's father and God. That means that Jesus was not God since he said he was going to HIS God. AND Mary Magdalene's God. One God. Mary's God and Jesus' God. Jesus has a God. It's the same God he spoke to Mary about.
John 20:17. Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

 

[YoursTrue]

Understand, if Jesus who is "GOD" have a "GOD" then that's two "Gods", and by definition, that's polytheism. here is just another example. Titus 2:10 "Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things." here God is Saviour in ... "ALL THINGS", now this, Titus 2:13 "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;". by being SAVIOUR, Jesus is God according to Titus 2:10. if one use the conjunction "AND"as to spereate the Great God... "and" .... Jesus the Christ, as many do in John 17:3, then if separate, and distinct, for many say the Father is not the son, and likewise, then again by definition one has two separate, and distinct GODS. which again means that's polytheism by definition. we suggest one might want to RE-THINK their position on God as Father "and" son.
PICJAG, 101G.

Again, you're mixing up the terms. It's kind of a long-er story, so I won't go into it now -- while Jesus has been given a great deal of power BY God his Father, He is not the God that some say he is. He said he HAS a God AND Father. That means that Jesus has a God.

 

[Sedim Haba]

Was Paul really a true Christian, and apostle, as the scriptures say?
What do you believe, and does your belief agree with the scriptures?

Absolutely not an apostle.

A true 'Xian'? Yes, but that does NOT necessarily mean a true disciple of Yeshua.
'Agree with the scriptures'? What scriptures? I simply don't think anything authored
or even inspired by Paul IS 'scriptures'. I'm strictly Mathew-Only with Others per review,

But then, the 'victors' write the 'history', right?

 

[101G]

If you want to know what Paul states, read his epistles. Acts was written in the 2nd century, it is church propaganda.

GINOLJC, to all.
First thanks for the reply, second that no excuse.
PICJAG, 101G.

 

[101G]

Jesus said he was going to HIS Father and God as well as Mary Magdalene's father and God. That means that Jesus was not God since he said he was going to HIS God. AND Mary Magdalene's God. One God. Mary's God and Jesus' God. Jesus has a God. It's the same God he spoke to Mary about.
John 20:17. Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

again, another misunderstanding what the Lord is saying. in the ECHAD, he is the ARM of God, (per Isaiah 63:5), and in that capacity he's returning to his, and I says "HIS" own Spirit. meaning his ownself.

let's prove this out that he Jesus is God himself in Flesh. listen, Acts 2:32 "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses." so God raised up Jesus body correct? now this, John 2:18 "Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?" John 2:19 "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." John 2:20 "Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?" John 2:21 "But he spake of the temple of his body." John 2:22 "When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said."

so it was the Lord Jesus himself/GOD who raised up his own body. are you following? for the scriptures states, John 2:22 "When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said."

now if the disciples remembered, and believed what the Lord Jesus said, (in raising his own body), then did the apostle Peter LIE when he said "GOD" Raised up the body? of course not. the scriptures are clear, JESUS is God "SHARED" in Flesh. meaning he is the ECHAD the ordinal Last. it's just that simple to understand.


now as for John 20:17 "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." you still haven't LEARNED yet... have you, listen carefully, remember he's ascending right, John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." do you now understand? while on earth , he was in HEAVEN at the same time. I must drill it in your head, when he said, "MY" Father, he is saying "MY" Soirit which is in HEAVEN. and when he in heaven say "MY" Son, he's saying "MY" Body on earth.


once again, the teaching scripture to this FACT: Revelation 3:12 "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name."

my God, how hard is it to understand.... the "MY" is "ME" the "I" ONCE AGAIN<Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me." God is Jesus in the Flesh.
PICJAG, 101G.

 

[nPeace]

I just want to know what are his claimed sources, not the nature of his claim. He can tell everything he wants about Jesus, I wonder how he knows of him.

Back with you. That was a long meal. Lol

So you want to know what source shows that Paul knew Christ.
We can start with historian Luke.
(Acts 9:15-20) 15 But the Lord said to [Ananias]: “Go! because this man is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel. 16 For I will show him plainly how many things he must suffer for my name.” 17 So Ananias went and entered the house, and he laid his hands on him and said: “Saul, brother, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road along which you were coming, has sent me so that you may recover sight and be filled with holy spirit.” 18 And immediately, what looked like scales fell from his eyes, and he recovered his sight. He then got up and was baptized, 19 and he ate some food and gained strength. He stayed for some days with the disciples in Damascus, 20 and immediately in the synagogues he began to preach about Jesus, that this one is the Son of God.

Paul knew Jesus, I would say, better than anyone else.
He was personally chosen, and his experience was real.

Peter himself had personal experiences. In fact, they all had an experience with Jesus, on more occasions than one. See Acts 1, 2, 10 etc.

Some people may believe that to know someone, they must see them face to face, but it is not reasonable to have that view, since persons who have never met each other face to face, because good friends through connections online.
Friendships have been made here on RF, between people who never met face to face.

Also, persons do not need to see God, or Jesus, in order to know them, or be known by them.

 

[nPeace]

AFAIK, Paul is the person who took Christianity from a Jewish sect to a religion in its own right.

(Matthew 22:29) . . .You are mistaken, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. . .

Did Paul "change up things"?
(Acts 11:1-4) 1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were in Judea heard that people of the nations had also accepted the word of God. 2 So when Peter came up to Jerusalem, the supporters of circumcision began to criticize him, 3 saying: “You went into the house of men who were not circumcised and ate with them.” 4 At this Peter went on to explain the matter in detail to them, saying:

According to the scriptures, Jewish elders were contending with the apostles regarding matters which were considered "a different message".
It was because they were like you... mistaken, because they lacked accurate knowledge of the scriptures.

Ah... well, as I see it, the only thing that ever "sent forth" Paul was Paul's own imagination (or mental illness), so I guess no: I don't think Paul was an apostle.

Okay. That's fine. That's the way you see it. Thanks.
I think all Atheists do though. Aren't you an Atheist?

 

[nPeace]

Sure, if you want.

I am thinking mainly of what they call the Pastoral epistles, Timothy 1&2 and Titus. Just reading these books you can see that this author has very different views from the person who wrote the more accepted books. Very different views about family, about the role of women in the church, and very different views about the end times.

Since you are seeing it clearly, and I am not, you need to point out those difference... one at a time, please... if you don't mind, so that I can look at them in that way.

Now you could make the argument that Paul just changed his mind about these things, but there is nothing there where he talks about reconsidering or having a new revelation.

If a Christian said Paul changed his mind, that Christian might as well go home, collect all his Bibles, and Bible based literature, and burn them, because that would make Paul like the ordinary man who can't decide if God exists, or not.

Nothing is absolutely certain, but the argument against these books being authentic is much stronger than the assumption that they are.

I think the assumptions against these books cannot be called authentic, since there is nothing authentic about opinion.
On the other hand, the evidence that these writings are authentic, is far more believable, than people whose opinions are backed up only by assumptions.

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that the third epistle to the Corinthians is false? And if you believe that book is false, is it so impossible to think Timothy could also be false?

Good question. I am glad you asked.
I believe a real house, is built from the bottom up, and the strongest houses are laid on solid foundation.

So my approach goes like this...
Find the foundation. Build on that.
Is there solid evidence God is? Yes. Foundation laid.
Does the Bible give evidence of divine authorship? Yes. Ground-sill laid.

Now I build on that. Consider that these are just a few blocks... by no means, all.
The writings of the Bible - though writen on highly perishable material - survived from its initial writing. Evidence God preserved his word.
The writings, which contain practical value, are made available to everyone - every tribe, nation, race. , God's word is a message to everyone. There is no partiality.
Therefore, what God wants people to know, is preserved, and made available to everyone.

As far as I know, there are book which were left out of the Bible canon. They can't be that important, if God did not make them available to all, and more importantly, to those who fit the description Jesus identified.
(John 13:35) . . .By this all will know that you are my disciples - if you have love among yourselves. . .

(John 15:8) . . .My Father is glorified in this, that you keep bearing much fruit and prove yourselves my disciples. . .

According to Matthew 24:14 the message Jesus started to preach is being preached as a witness to all the nations before the end comes.
Since evidence shows that we are in the time of the end, as Jesus foretold, the canon used to declare that good news, must be complete. There is no room for confusion there.

For these reasons, and more, there is no 3rd Corinthians which God approves.
Letters to the Corinthians
That Paul did indeed write First and Second Corinthians cannot be seriously questioned. In addition to the apostle’s own testimony, the authenticity and general acceptance of both letters are attested by external testimony. The two letters are ascribed to Paul and quoted by writers of the first to the third centuries.

I have a question for you. When was the third epistle to the Corinthians writen, according to scholars, and when was first and second Corinthians writen?
Do you think the third was written by Paul or anyone living during the first century?

 

[nPeace]

No. He's a Bible contradiction via Mark 13:21.

If I was still a Christian I would say he's clearly a false apostle that gave rise to Pauline Christianity that contaminated orginal Christianity to a point its unrecognizable.

if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not
Sounds like Paul though... (Galatians 1:8) However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed.

From what I read, Paul agreed with Mark, and went even further.
So, I'm not sure where you arrive at Paul contradicting Mark.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, I believe Paul was Christian and a apostle.

Thanks for participating.
Feel free to share what scriptures support your belief, if you like.

 

[nPeace]

There are can only be 12 apostles just like the signs of the zodiac. If Paul was an apostle, you need to kick one of the original ones out. There can not be 13 apostles.

Interesting perspective.
Yes. Jesus called the twelve apostles, according to scripture.
(Mark 3:14) And he formed a group of 12, whom he also named apostles, those who were to accompany him and whom he would send out to preach

Jesus also mentioned God's wisdom in sending apostles.
(Luke 11:49) That is why the wisdom of God also said: ‘I will send prophets and apostles to them, and they will kill and persecute some of them,
Whom would you say are the apostles God would send?

What is you opinion... Why did Luke refer to Barnabas as an apostle?
(Acts 14:14) However, when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they ripped their garments and leaped out into the crowd and cried out. . .

It's evident from scripture, there were many apostles
(Galatians 1:17-20) 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now regarding the things I am writing you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.

Seem the word usage was applied to those sent forth to preach the message of the Christ.

 

[nPeace]

Sorry to digress, but no reputable scholar believes that Paul wrote Hebrews.

Apology accepted.
Would you say that a scholar is reputable when they believe certain things?
I ask because some of those scholars who object to what other reputable scholars agree on, are considered reputable.
What makes a scholar reputable, and why is his opinion more important than the other fellow?
In other words, why does that matter, or why is it valid?

How is it that two people of apparently equal intelligence, education, and academic acumen can come to radically different interpretations of the same evidence? Put differently, why does Richard Dawkins−a renowned biologist−interpret modern science as evidence against God, whereas Francis Collins−the former head of the Human Genome Project−interprets the same knowledge as evidence for God?

The same question applies to the way in which New Testament scholars interpret the evidence for the historical reliability of the Gospels−most notably the question of the resurrection of Jesus. Consider these two polar opposite quotes, both by scholars distinguished in their field:

 

[rational experiences]

A man is just a human as a man. Never owned a name. Civilization forced us to be registered so we used names.

So we thesis a man only. For reference correct thinking no names.

A man theoried science which originally also hadn't owned names.

As the sun applied the conversion first not named.

So a man's name first does not represent science.

Was the teaching.

If men said I will call a pillar separated earth mass an apostle. As men had and did. Then today's inference would claim once men of science lost earths mass into an apostle.

As a scientific teaching. Claiming so don't do it again as we are notified and taught not to. Removing mass was first naturally caused without man's presence.

Did it itself in the beginning. Does it itself in the end. A God earth teaching to men of science.

 

[Twilight Hue]

if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not
Sounds like Paul though... (Galatians 1:8) However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed.

From what I read, Paul agreed with Mark, and went even further.
So, I'm not sure where you arrive at Paul contradicting Mark.

The verse speaks volumes.

I can't picture Mark willy nilly saying," Sure Paul I believe you, even when I know I'm told not to believe anyone who says they came across Christ. So in complete disregard of that warning your now an apostle, so welcome to our club because it was so convincing in spite of being told not to believe you"!