Paul is not an Apostle

[SethZaddik]

I also find it amusing when people think increasing font size makes a point more important.

Even a valid point, not like the ones attempted here, doesn't need giant letters to get it across.

An invalid point might need the flair, since it is invalid.

 

[BSM1]

I also find it amusing when people think increasing font size makes a point more important.

Even a valid point, not like the ones attempted here, doesn't need giant letters to get it across.

Hey! Go big or go home they say.


An invalid point might need the flair, since it is invalid.

 

[SethZaddik]

So when has that not ever happened?

Which is not just skeptics.

Christian scholars admit 4-7 of Paul's epistles are genuine and the rest pseudepigraphal, falsley attributed to Paul.

The Bible SAYS things that aren't true, you don't need to be a skeptic to know that!

 

[SethZaddik]

Home might be the better option if you can't make a point in regular font, good one though!

 

[BSM1]

Which is not just skeptics.

Christian scholars admit 4-7 of Paul's epistles are genuine and the rest pseudepigraphal, falsley attributed to Paul.

The Bible SAYS things that aren't true, you don't need to be a skeptic to know that!

I know. Many can be attributed to Titus, if I am not mistaken.

 

[SethZaddik]

[QUOTE="SethZaddik, post: 5125158, member: 61326"]This may sound quite shocking to the average Christian who has never really thought twice about it, but did you know that Paul is NOT an Apostle according to anyone but himself and himself through Luke, who was not a disciple of Christ (p) in the flesh and not an Apostle either so has no say.

But Luke actually gives us proof that Paul can not be a legitimate Apostle. Acts 1:21 sets the rules for being an Apostle in (metaphorical) stone, confirming that 12 is a necessary number and not arbitrary but symbolic, obviously of the 12 tribes of Israel (or 11+ 2/2, 12).

"So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that lord Jesus (p) went in and went out among us---one of these must become a witness with us to his ressurection."

1:24 " Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these TWO YOU HAVE CHOSEN."

Matthias was chosen, by God, through prayer and lot, to replace Judas as one of TWO men ON EARTH even eligible to fill Judas' "place in this ministry and Apostleship."

Mathew 18:16 and Paul himself declare in 2 Corinthians 9:19

(Paul): "Any charge must be sustained by the evidence of two or three witnesses."

Of the 22 times Paul is called "apostle" in the New Testament 20 times are by himself and 2 by Luke, who was not an authority or witness to Paul's alleged secret revelations from Jesus (p), and the three reports of Damascus road contradict each other irreconcilably, I wonder if Luke even believed Paul as he had to have been aware his account contradicted Paul's account that contradicts Paul's later account making him look like a liar, which is no issue as Paul boasts his lies "abound to God's glory."

So according to the law of witnesses according to Dt. 19:15 and in Mt. and in Paul's own words, Paul is not an Apostle.

No witness needed what What Paul said was inspired by God.



That verse does not say there were only 12 apostles. It refers to THE apostles, the 12 originals. Barnabus was an apostle(Acts 14:14), Matthais was an apostle(Acts 1:26). James was an apostle(Gal 1:19). Since apostleship is a spiritual gift(Eph 4:11) ther are apostles today.

Actually it refers to 12 of many things, tribes, gates (3×4), angels, names of the TWELVE tribes of the Israelites, foundations and last but not least, "12 Apostles of the Lamb."

I guess it is a fallacy of your making to think that because you are a Christian you magically know the Bible better than me.

You clearly don't have any idea how to accurately read and interpret the Bible, I never mentioned Islam but someone, possibly you, thought that Muslims don't or can't understand the Bible, that I made this thread because of Islam yet it has nothing to do WITH Islam!

How about chapter and verse.

The expert Christian needs chapter and verse...Acts 1.

Paul met Jesus on the Road to Damascus. Igt is really irrelevant. God's told Paul to tell others he wa an apostle.



Present you evidence that is not right.

That has been done, in the first comment called the OP.

Just the opposite---Gal 2:9.



That was a one time occurance for a purpose. God want him to go to Macedonia. Paul did got to Asia several times later



Whatg's your point? No missionary is eve 100% successful.



Those 7 churches represent 7 types of churches throughout church history.


>>It seems apparent that Paul had little choice in the matter and his only option was to convert the Roman pagans to "his gospel" of justification by faith alone.

Paul did not convert anyone. He preached the Gospel and if anyone wad converted it was by the hand of God/



It is amusing when non-believers try to interpret the Bible. They only reveal their ignorance or the ignorance of the website from which they got their info.[/QUOTE]

Amusing is a Muslim (me) who knows the Bible better than a Christian (you).

You have needed several things explained to you already.

 

[SethZaddik]

I know. Many can be attributed to Titus, if I am not mistaken.

Titus....?

There were a LOT of Titus's then, all related to the Flavians or adopted into their circle. Clement of Rome and Clement of Alexandria were both named Titus Flavius as was Constantine.

Paul is friends with a suspicious amount of Herodian kinsman and Roman Aristocrats.

 

[SethZaddik]

Actually it refers to 12 of many things, tribes, gates (3×4), angels, names of the TWELVE tribes of the Israelites, foundations and last but not least, "12 Apostles of the Lamb."

I guess it is a fallacy of your making to think that because you are a Christian you magically know the Bible better than me.

You clearly don't have any idea how to accurately read and interpret the Bible, I never mentioned Islam but someone, possibly you, thought that Muslims don't or can't understand the Bible, that I made this thread because of Islam yet it has nothing to do WITH Islam!

The expert Christian needs chapter and verse...Acts 1.
That has been done, in the first comment called the OP.

Paul did not convert anyone. He preached the Gospel and if anyone wad converted it was by the hand of God/



It is amusing when non-believers try to interpret the Bible. They only reveal their ignorance or the ignorance of the website from which they got their info.

Amusing is a Muslim (me) who knows the Bible better than a Christian (you).

You have needed several things explained to you already.[/QUOTE]

I didn't increase the font, it just did it itself.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This may sound quite shocking to the average Christian who has never really thought twice about it, but did you know that Paul is NOT an Apostle according to anyone but himself and himself through Luke, who was not a disciple of Christ (p) in the flesh and not an Apostle either so has no say.

But Luke actually gives us proof that Paul can not be a legitimate Apostle. Acts 1:21 sets the rules for being an Apostle in (metaphorical) stone, confirming that 12 is a necessary number and not arbitrary but symbolic, obviously of the 12 tribes of Israel (or 11+ 2/2, 12).

"So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that lord Jesus (p) went in and went out among us---one of these must become a witness with us to his ressurection."

1:24 " Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these TWO YOU HAVE CHOSEN."

Matthias was chosen, by God, through prayer and lot, to replace Judas as one of TWO men ON EARTH even eligible to fill Judas' "place in this ministry and Apostleship."

Mathew 18:16 and Paul himself declare in 2 Corinthians 9:19

(Paul): "Any charge must be sustained by the evidence of two or three witnesses."

Of the 22 times Paul is called "apostle" in the New Testament 20 times are by himself and 2 by Luke, who was not an authority or witness to Paul's alleged secret revelations from Jesus (p), and the three reports of Damascus road contradict each other irreconcilably, I wonder if Luke even believed Paul as he had to have been aware his account contradicted Paul's account that contradicts Paul's later account making him look like a liar, which is no issue as Paul boasts his lies "abound to God's glory."

So according to the law of witnesses according to Dt. 19:15 and in Mt. and in Paul's own words, Paul is not an Apostle.

According to Revelation "Vision of New Jerusalem" there are ONLY 12 Apostles of the Lamb.

According to Acts there can be no 13th "Apostle" which contradicts itself by calling Paul one, but it doesn't serve as eye witness testimony.

Paul never met Jesus (p). He was never called "Apostle" by a real Apostle.

He claims his theology was from "no man", that he was chosen by God and Jesus (p) to represent the gentiles, everything was revealed to him and nobody taught it to him.

Yet Jesus (p) told his disciples to make disciples of all nations, nations meaning gentiles or goyim, Acts records Peter was the leader of the Apostles mission to the gentiles.

Acts also reveals Paul and those with him were, "Forbidden by the Holy Spirit from preaching in Asia."

Paul writes to Timothy, "This YOU KNOW ALL, those who are in Asia have turned from me."

And Revelation was written specifically to the "7 Churches of Asia."

It seems apparent that Paul had little choice in the matter and his only option was to convert the Roman pagans to "his gospel" of justification by faith alone.

Very popular in heathen Rome I imagine, compared to the Mosaic Law. Except the Mosaic Law was never imposed on gentile converts so it was really moot, he had little success in his lifetime and if not for Marcion we wouldn't even know who "Paul" was, nobody cared until his cult, about Paul at all.

It is a tragedy that the Bible sets rules and then doesn't expect anyone to notice that Paul not only is not an Apostle but that he never was eligible in the first place.

Where do you get this stuff from?

1. The 12th disciple chosen by lot after Judah killed himself, do you even recall his name? Luke is making a pitch that Paul will replace this one, and this movement is clear in the Acts, where Paul becomes the central figure.

2. Paul is received and respected by the apostles at the Jerusalem council. He reproves Peter for his refusal to eat with the Gentiles and etc. He explains he was going to go to the Gentiles. How can he not be an apostle when over 99% of the world is Gentile and James, Peter and others let him minister to the Gentiles?

3. Paul wrote 2/3 of the NT and Peter writes that Paul's writings are SCRIPTURAL.

I mean, c'mon! You write things like, "This may sound quite shocking to the average Christian who has never really thought twice about it," as if none of the 14,000 Christian sects of the past 2,000 years, with all their theologians, noticed what was going on.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

This may sound quite shocking to the average Christian who has never really thought twice about it, but did you know that Paul is NOT an Apostle according to anyone but himself and himself through Luke, who was not a disciple of Christ (p) in the flesh and not an Apostle either so has no say.

But Luke actually gives us proof that Paul can not be a legitimate Apostle. Acts 1:21 sets the rules for being an Apostle in (metaphorical) stone, confirming that 12 is a necessary number and not arbitrary but symbolic, obviously of the 12 tribes of Israel (or 11+ 2/2, 12).

"So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that lord Jesus (p) went in and went out among us---one of these must become a witness with us to his ressurection."

1:24 " Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these TWO YOU HAVE CHOSEN."

Matthias was chosen, by God, through prayer and lot, to replace Judas as one of TWO men ON EARTH even eligible to fill Judas' "place in this ministry and Apostleship."

Mathew 18:16 and Paul himself declare in 2 Corinthians 9:19

(Paul): "Any charge must be sustained by the evidence of two or three witnesses."

Of the 22 times Paul is called "apostle" in the New Testament 20 times are by himself and 2 by Luke, who was not an authority or witness to Paul's alleged secret revelations from Jesus (p), and the three reports of Damascus road contradict each other irreconcilably, I wonder if Luke even believed Paul as he had to have been aware his account contradicted Paul's account that contradicts Paul's later account making him look like a liar, which is no issue as Paul boasts his lies "abound to God's glory."

So according to the law of witnesses according to Dt. 19:15 and in Mt. and in Paul's own words, Paul is not an Apostle.

According to Revelation "Vision of New Jerusalem" there are ONLY 12 Apostles of the Lamb.

According to Acts there can be no 13th "Apostle" which contradicts itself by calling Paul one, but it doesn't serve as eye witness testimony.

Paul never met Jesus (p). He was never called "Apostle" by a real Apostle.

He claims his theology was from "no man", that he was chosen by God and Jesus (p) to represent the gentiles, everything was revealed to him and nobody taught it to him.

Yet Jesus (p) told his disciples to make disciples of all nations, nations meaning gentiles or goyim, Acts records Peter was the leader of the Apostles mission to the gentiles.

Acts also reveals Paul and those with him were, "Forbidden by the Holy Spirit from preaching in Asia."

Paul writes to Timothy, "This YOU KNOW ALL, those who are in Asia have turned from me."

And Revelation was written specifically to the "7 Churches of Asia."

It seems apparent that Paul had little choice in the matter and his only option was to convert the Roman pagans to "his gospel" of justification by faith alone.

Very popular in heathen Rome I imagine, compared to the Mosaic Law. Except the Mosaic Law was never imposed on gentile converts so it was really moot, he had little success in his lifetime and if not for Marcion we wouldn't even know who "Paul" was, nobody cared until his cult, about Paul at all.

It is a tragedy that the Bible sets rules and then doesn't expect anyone to notice that Paul not only is not an Apostle but that he never was eligible in the first place.

How exactly does this affect Christianity? And why would it matter?

 

[Rival]

How exactly does this affect Christianity? And why would it matter?

Because Paul is responsible for like 99% of Christian theology and dogma.

 

[Brickjectivity]

"Any claim" requires 2 witnesses ACCORDING TO PAUL.

Pay attention, I know what I am doing, you are obviously new to this topic and ignoring the fact that Paul himself said two or three witnesses for any charge/claim.

And since he has ZERO.

Wrong again. Paul says only two witnesses may make charges against elders.

Witnesses are unacceptable for determining who is a prophet. So are miracles. Totally unacceptable.

 

[Rival]

1. The 12th disciple chosen by lot after Judah killed himself, do you even recall his name? Luke is making a pitch that Paul will replace this one, and this movement is clear in the Acts, where Paul becomes the central figure.

It's Matthias, and the only person who calls Paul an apostle is Paul. He constantly has to defend himself in his letters against people who disbelieve him. This goes on for years.

2. Paul is received and respected by the apostles at the Jerusalem council. He reproves Peter for his refusal to eat with the Gentiles and etc. He explains he was going to go to the Gentiles. How can he not be an apostle when over 99% of the world is Gentile and James, Peter and others let him minister to the Gentiles?

Except he isn't. He argues with Peter and for some reason everyone believes Paul is in the right. We never hear Peter's case and one would think that Peter, being designated so highly and having met Jesus in person, would rank way above Paul in knowledge and doctrine. Later, Paul claims that everyone has deserted him by the time of his trial and we never know what becomes of him. All Paul ever did was argue with people - that's all his letters are. He writes to Churches to convince them to believe his gospel (his own phrasing) and not other gospels. The Apostles take him to task for teaching against Torah and ask him to prove himself by bringing a sacrifice to the Temple. Paul was vehemently anti-Torah; the 12 were pro-Torah just as Jesus was.

3. Paul wrote 2/3 of the NT and Peter writes that Paul's writings are SCRIPTURAL.

You can't use Paul to prove Paul and Peter probably did not author the letters attributed to him, so that goes out of the window too.

 

[SethZaddik]

Wrong again. Paul says only two witnesses may make charges against elders.

Witnesses are unacceptable for determining who is a prophet. So are miracles. Totally unacceptable.

I am afraid you are mistaken, otherwise everybody could just say Jesus (p) visited him. No witnesses no evidence, didn't happen.

Paul never met Jesus (p) alive or dead and someone absolutely needs to corroborate prophecy, the parousia came and went 100 times so he is a failure as a prophet.

But this is about the office of Apostle, a position Paul appointed himself to without permission of the Church lead by James and never acknowledged by the 12 Apostles because as Acts states two people on earth qualified at the time of Mathias selection by God and by lot, prayer, the other was Barabbas aka Justus.

Paul was not an Apostle and DEFINITELY not a prophet, I was not even considering that as even possible given his penchant for lying.

 

[SethZaddik]

Where do you get this stuff from?

1. The 12th disciple chosen by lot after Judah killed himself, do you even recall his name? Luke is making a pitch that Paul will replace this one, and this movement is clear in the Acts, where Paul becomes the central figure.

2. Paul is received and respected by the apostles at the Jerusalem council. He reproves Peter for his refusal to eat with the Gentiles and etc. He explains he was going to go to the Gentiles. How can he not be an apostle when over 99% of the world is Gentile and James, Peter and others let him minister to the Gentiles?

3. Paul wrote 2/3 of the NT and Peter writes that Paul's writings are SCRIPTURAL.

I mean, c'mon! You write things like, "This may sound quite shocking to the average Christian who has never really thought twice about it," as if none of the 14,000 Christian sects of the past 2,000 years, with all their theologians, noticed what was going on.

Everything I got was from the New Testament, everything I said is in there.

Paul is accepted his first trip to Jerusalem and set up to be killed on his last, made to take a vow to prove he was not teaching JEWS to forsake Moses, but he was and lied to James about it as he claims the Law of Moses was even ordained by angels, it is dead, a curse and the ultimate cause of sin.

And yes, that is in Paul's epistles too, all of it. except for the oath and the 400 ROMAN soldiers who rescue him ultimately appealing to his patron Nero in the end to save him.

Not Jesus (p), Caesar Nero.

Your attitude of assuming you are right, know best only betrays otherwise btw.

 

[SethZaddik]

Where do you get this stuff from?

1. The 12th disciple chosen by lot after Judah killed himself, do you even recall his name? Luke is making a pitch that Paul will replace this one, and this movement is clear in the Acts, where Paul becomes the central figure.

2. Paul is received and respected by the apostles at the Jerusalem council. He reproves Peter for his refusal to eat with the Gentiles and etc. He explains he was going to go to the Gentiles. How can he not be an apostle when over 99% of the world is Gentile and James, Peter and others let him minister to the Gentiles?

3. Paul wrote 2/3 of the NT and Peter writes that Paul's writings are SCRIPTURAL.

I mean, c'mon! You write things like, "This may sound quite shocking to the average Christian who has never really thought twice about it," as if none of the 14,000 Christian sects of the past 2,000 years, with all their theologians, noticed what was going on.

More importantly is the fact that no actual Apostle or James the leader of Jerusalem and one of 3 pillars (Zaddik or Righteous One in Hebrew idiom) with Simon Cepha and John, none of who EVER acknowledge Paul as an "apostle" Peter even calls him "brother" as though to say not Apostle, immediately before warning his readers about his nonsensical (or "hard to understand", less accurate, the Greek word here is used by Christian author Lucian and translated as nonsensical regarding a false prophet) writings that lead men to destruction through Lawlessness, more or less, and in a short epistle about false prophets.

Also "scripture" in first century Greek translates to writings as the NRSV has it, so 2 Peter is used as evidence to show support for Paul but was written to do the opposite and it shows.

Paul is never mentioned again outside of Acts.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Because Paul is responsible for like 99% of Christian theology and dogma.

99% seems like a bit much. He is at least responsible for the idea that Christians don't need to be jews. Assuming he or Jesus even existed

 

[Rival]

99% seems like a bit much. He is at least responsible for the idea that Christians don't need to be jews. Assuming he or Jesus even existed

He pretty much singlehandedly created Christian theology. If there were no Paul, Christianity as we know it wouldn't exist today.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So this throws out Jesus then? I mean you're right that miracles are not proof, but many Christians will use Jesus' miracles to try to prove his messiahship.

It throws out any Jesus who is supposedly supported by miraculous claims, arguments or logical deductions; but it does not throw out Jesus commands.

I think most arguments and empty religious actions people do to avoid doing what Jesus says. He is quite selfless walking about as a homeless person, never certain about how precisely he will eat with no walls of his own. In his head Jesus seems to live in a different, advanced age, where money is useless and peace and love always make sense. He does not say anything against the Torah, but he lives in a special Jesus-world where life is very different. Its not a way of life that most people want, and most people consider his commands to be impractical. Jesus is obviously right, but its easier to deal with a Jesus who is a mythical figure proven by miracles and arguments and deductions who doesn't demand that we live like hippies and work like slaves to live like hippies.

Consider John Lennon, the singer who in the 60's starts telling everybody to get rid of weapons. Our country is in the middle of the Cold War. The USSR is literally talking about destroying our way of life, and along comes John Lennon singing about getting rid of our weapons. Similarly Jesus preaches during the Roman occupation of Israel to start giving, forgiving and living. This Jesus does not rely upon miracles and arguments and deductions. He just needs people to do what he says. Its just that people do not want to do it.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

He pretty much singlehandedly created Christian theology. If there were no Paul, Christianity as we know it wouldn't exist today.

I'm just gona agree to disagree here. I don't have the energy for an actual discussion.