Paul is not an Apostle

[omega2xx]

So when has that not ever happened?

Go back and read you own post. I think I pointed out some of them

 

[Brickjectivity]

I am afraid you are mistaken

Keep saying it, but it doesn't make you correct.

otherwise everybody could just say Jesus (p) visited him. No witnesses no evidence, didn't happen.

It doesn't matter what people say. It just matters that he is an apostle who can change lives.

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.

Jesus is the prophet that Paul preaches about. Paul claims to be an apostle to gentiles. He does think people can live like prophets, but this is not like you think of prophets such as Muhammad. It is more individual. There is an account of him trying to persuade Jews, but he is unable to do so. He is therefore not an apostle to Jews. He is an apostle to those who will listen to him: gentiles. Jews listen to the twelve, and they reportedly go all over the world visiting Jewish communities.

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.

I understand that some church franchises do make a big production of the word 'Apostle' and consider an apostle to be something like a president. I feel like this is a mistake, but I understand if this is where you are getting your idea of an apostle from. Consider this that Jesus in the gospels preaches that the greatest must be the servant of all, or they are not the greatest. Paul is an apostle if Paul is the servant of the churches, but not if he's gaining status, money and being served. If its about him and is about his importance and his happiness then, no.

 

[David T]

I

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.

I Don't care Darth you aren't the director!!!
Since we are in the bible as comicon EU.

 

[omega2xx]

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.

I am not a non believer

If you are a Muslim as you say, you are not a believer in Biblical Christianity and that the only one that matters

and am definitely qualified to interpret the Bible,<<

In order to interpret the Bible one must have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Do you have the Holy Spirit?

The Bible says ---But the natural man does not accept they things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand then , because they are spiritually appraised. 1 Cor 2:14.

I will stick with what God says over what you say,

you reveal your ignorance when you spew insults like unbeliever as if Christians only can read and understand the New Testament.

It is only an insult if what I said was not true. The Bible says what I said was true. If you can disprove the verse I just quoted, be my guest.

And don't include one fact, not a single rebuttal, basically you are saying only that you are upset, can't do anything about it but wish to complain nonetheless.

Why should I be upset because you can't interpret the Bible? Stating a fact is not complaining.

Please show me where my interpretation is off?

I dare you.

I don't remember your post specifically. Give me the number and I will go back and show you.

 

[omega2xx]

It's amusing when Christians call other religions, even religions that believe in Jesus, non believers.

Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet like Mohammed . The Bible says He is God. sodon' tell me you understand the Bible.

Because in my experience nobody understands the Bible LESS than your average Christian.

Your experience is not wide enough for that statement to have any validity. Besides you are basing it on what you believe, which may not be right in real Christian theology.

They read everything out of context and when something is put in context they claim it is being taken out of context because that is how they have been taught to study.

That depends on if you understand the what the context is and to date you are not convincing that you really understand the 'Bible.

In context the New Testament falls apart on the subject of Paul being anything important to Jesus (p).

Where is you evidence? IMO that statement is further evidence you can't interpret the"Bible.

Who never mentions him where he should, Revelation, (or at all, Luke is obviously telling a myth not even Paul corroborated) except to congratulate Ephesus for rejecting false apostles, condemning him for teaching the "doctrine of Balaam" (eating meat sacrificed to idols is OK says Paul, Jesus condemns).

More indications you can't properly interpret the Bible. Eating meat sacrifice to idols is OK unless it offends a a weak brother. You don't even know what the "doctrine of Balaam" is.

Jesus said, "It is not what enters the mouth and is eliminated, that defiles a man, it is what proceeds out of the mouth that defiles the man.

 

[omega2xx]

So when has that not ever happened?

It always happens.

 

[omega2xx]

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.

Nothing magic about it. Christians have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who guides them into the truth.

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!

You say you are a Muslim,. Therefore what you say will be influenced by their teachings.

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

Maybe you could post where I have claimed to be an expert. Even a novice can point out the errors of your interpretations.

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.

I have many thing that need explaining to me, but you are not qualified to do that.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet like Mohammed . The Bible says He is God. sodon' tell me you understand the Bible.

I do not agree, nor do I think it profitable to try and insist Jesus is God without a full explanation.

A subset of Christian ministers say that Jesus is both God and man, but they do not always explain that it refers to the logos dwelling in the church which is the body of Christ. I think its a crime not to at least mention that, but you know maybe they have their reasons. $$

 

[SethZaddik]

2 Corinthians 11:5 (Paul)

"I think that I am not the least bit inferior to these super-apostles."

Obviously Paul's status was in doubt and he felt the need to claim he was not inferior to the super-apostles, I guess that would be Peter and John, all 12 and James, really, those "who SEEMED to be pillars" according to Paul, "What they really are means nothing to me..."

No friend of the Apostles, never mind one of them. Let's examine theology.

Romans 4:5

"But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned righteousness."

After using Abraham to argue his dubious faith not works justification scheme Paul gives us this beaut!

James has a response. Likewise using Abraham to show the opposite of what Paul teaches in an obvious polemic:

James 2:20

"Do you want to be shown, senseless man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered Isaac...?

Paul goes on and on trying to show how Abraham was justified only by faith which like his "The Law was ordained by angels" is total nonsense.

 

[Deeje]

2 Corinthians 11:5 (Paul)

"I think that I am not the least bit inferior to these super-apostles."

Obviously Paul's status was in doubt and he felt the need to claim he was not inferior to the super-apostles, I guess that would be Peter and John, all 12 and James, really, those "who SEEMED to be pillars" according to Paul, "What they really are means nothing to me..."

No friend of the Apostles, never mind one of them. Let's examine theology.

This is all so twisted.

First of all we need to define what an "apostle" actually is....

"The Greek word a·poʹsto·los is derived from the common verb a·po·stelʹlo, meaning simply “send forth (or off).” (Matthew 10:5; Mark 11:3) Its basic sense is clearly illustrated in Jesus’ statement: “A slave is not greater than his master, nor is one that is sent forth [a·poʹsto·los] greater than the one that sent him.” (John 13:16) In this sense the word also applies to Christ Jesus as “the apostle and high priest whom we confess.” (Hebrews 3:1; compare Matthew 10:40; 15:24; Luke 4:18, 43; 9:48; 10:16; John 3:17; 5:36, 38; 6:29, 57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36; 11:42; 17:3, 8, 18, 21-25; 20:21.) Jesus was "sent forth" by God as his appointed and commissioned representative."

Jesus is called an "apostle", so the meaning of the word is misunderstood by the OP to begin with.

The "superfine apostles" to which Paul referred were not the 12.
"Paul, who did much traveling and who received hospitality from many of his Christian brothers, nevertheless, did not make himself a financial burden on any of them. Much of the time he worked at a secular occupation, and he set forth the law: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3:7-12; 1 Thessalonians 2:6) By reason of this, Paul had an answer to the charges of the so-called superfine apostles in Corinth, who accused Paul of taking advantage of the Christians in the congregation there. (2Corinthians 11:5, 7-10) He could boast in the fact that he provided the good news to them absolutely without cost, not even taking the things he had the right to as an apostle and a minister of God. (1 Corinthians 9:11-18)"

(Excerpts Insight Volume 1)

Romans 4:5

"But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned righteousness."

After using Abraham to argue his dubious faith not works justification scheme Paul gives us this beaut!

James has a response. Likewise using Abraham to show the opposite of what Paul teaches in an obvious polemic:

James 2:20

"Do you want to be shown, senseless man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered Isaac...?

Paul goes on and on trying to show how Abraham was justified only by faith which like his "The Law was ordained by angels" is total nonsense.

Paul, by his own works demonstrated that they were a necessary part of being a disciple of Christ. He was a traveling missionary. There is no contradiction between what James wrote and what Paul said. "Faith without works is dead". You can't have one without the other.....but it has to begin with faith, then that faith is backed up by works. You cannot earn salvation, but that doesn't mean you can sit on your couch and read your holy book and consider yourself a righteous person.

How does a Muslim become an expert on Christianity? More homework is needed methinks.....

The most powerful being in the Universe, under whose inspiration the Bible was written, can see to it that his own word is not tampered with. If Paul was not a true disciple of Jesus Christ, "an apostle to the nations", then he would not have been able to contribute as much as he did to Christian scripture. I'll take Paul's word over the OP's any day.

 

[omega2xx]

I do not agree, nor do I think it profitable to try and insist Jesus is God without a full explanation.

It is not necessary to explain. The Bible teaches both. All we have to do is believe what it says. John 1:1 says in plain English Jesus is the Word. Logos is better if you understand what a logos is. Itg say in plain English this Logos was sGod.

Then Jn 1:14 says this Logos became flesh---became a man.

A subset of Christian ministers say that Jesus is both God and man, but they do not always explain that it refers to the logos dwelling in the church which is the body of Christ. I think its a crime not to at least mention that, but you know maybe they have their reasons. $$

Conservative ministers will explain it the same way I just did. Maybe the problem is you can't understand it. Why are you attributing an evil motive to those you do not know?

 

[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.

If I didn't know Mathias's name, a question you just asked me, why did I mention him AND Barsabbas aka Justus in my OP?

Acts 1, after the Ascension, read it.

It sets the qualifications for Apostleship and Paul meets none of the criteria.

The idea that Luke is making a pitch that Paul will replace "this one" (Matthias) has no support in or outside of the Bible, Matthias is one of the 12 Apostles and has been since Luke wrote he was.

There is not a word in the Bible, only in your imagination, that supports the idea Luke was making a plan to pitch something that he never planned to do or did, make Paul replace Matthias.

Of course if you can show me where ANYONE in the Bible denies Matthias IS an Apostle....

You can't.

 

[SethZaddik]

This is all so twisted.

First of all we need to define what an "apostle" actually is....

"The Greek word a·poʹsto·los is derived from the common verb a·po·stelʹlo, meaning simply “send forth (or off).” (Matthew 10:5; Mark 11:3) Its basic sense is clearly illustrated in Jesus’ statement: “A slave is not greater than his master, nor is one that is sent forth [a·poʹsto·los] greater than the one that sent him.” (John 13:16) In this sense the word also applies to Christ Jesus as “the apostle and high priest whom we confess.” (Hebrews 3:1; compare Matthew 10:40; 15:24; Luke 4:18, 43; 9:48; 10:16; John 3:17; 5:36, 38; 6:29, 57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36; 11:42; 17:3, 8, 18, 21-25; 20:21.) Jesus was "sent forth" by God as his appointed and commissioned representative."

Jesus is called an "apostle", so the meaning of the word is misunderstood by the OP to begin with.

The "superfine apostles" to which Paul referred were not the 12.
"Paul, who did much traveling and who received hospitality from many of his Christian brothers, nevertheless, did not make himself a financial burden on any of them. Much of the time he worked at a secular occupation, and he set forth the law: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3:7-12; 1 Thessalonians 2:6) By reason of this, Paul had an answer to the charges of the so-called superfine apostles in Corinth, who accused Paul of taking advantage of the Christians in the congregation there. (2Corinthians 11:5, 7-10) He could boast in the fact that he provided the good news to them absolutely without cost, not even taking the things he had the right to as an apostle and a minister of God. (1 Corinthians 9:11-18)"

(Excerpts Insight Volume 1)




Paul, by his own works demonstrated that they were a necessary part of being a disciple of Christ. He was a traveling missionary. There is no contradiction between what James wrote and what Paul said. "Faith without works is dead". You can't have one without the other.....but it has to begin with faith, then that faith is backed up by works. You cannot earn salvation, but that doesn't mean you can sit on your couch and read your holy book and consider yourself a righteous person.

How does a Muslim become an expert on Christianity? More homework is needed methinks.....

The most powerful being in the Universe, under whose inspiration the Bible was written, can see to it that his own word is not tampered with. If Paul was not a true disciple of Jesus Christ, "an apostle to the nations", then he would not have been able to contribute as much as he did to Christian scripture. I'll take Paul's word over the OP's any day.

A Muslim becomes an expert in anything like anyone, buy studying.

Also I was (or thought I was) a Christian, but upon learning that Paul is illegitimate followed by America's Islamaphobes inspired me to convert, but I learned that Paul is ALSO not legitimate (of all Biblical prophets alone) in Islam, icing on the cake!

It has nothing to do with what religion you are, anyone can learn anything and Muslim scholars know the Bible as well as any.

I am no scholar, just read a lot.

But I agree it is sad that a Muslim knows the Bible better than most Christians, so do atheists who hate Christians, and anyone who reads the Bible and doesn't have a bias like BEING a Christian.

An impediment to Christianity is it if Christians understand the Bible vs just know what it says literally.

The rest of the world knows the Bible better than Christianity, Christians hardly ever know the Bible well.

 

[SethZaddik]

Keep saying it, but it doesn't make you correct.

It doesn't matter what people say. It just matters that he is an apostle who can change lives.

Jesus is the prophet that Paul preaches about. Paul claims to be an apostle to gentiles. He does think people can live like prophets, but this is not like you think of prophets such as Muhammad. It is more individual. There is an account of him trying to persuade Jews, but he is unable to do so. He is therefore not an apostle to Jews. He is an apostle to those who will listen to him: gentiles. Jews listen to the twelve, and they reportedly go all over the world visiting Jewish communities.

I understand that some church franchises do make a big production of the word 'Apostle' and consider an apostle to be something like a president. I feel like this is a mistake, but I understand if this is where you are getting your idea of an apostle from. Consider this that Jesus in the gospels preaches that the greatest must be the servant of all, or they are not the greatest. Paul is an apostle if Paul is the servant of the churches, but not if he's gaining status, money and being served. If its about him and is about his importance and his happiness then, no.

It is not that I say it that makes it correct, it is that it is correct.

Also don't pretend to know what I think about Mohammed (p) or anything.

 

[SethZaddik]

Keep saying it, but it doesn't make you correct.

It doesn't matter what people say. It just matters that he is an apostle who can change lives.

Jesus is the prophet that Paul preaches about. Paul claims to be an apostle to gentiles. He does think people can live like prophets, but this is not like you think of prophets such as Muhammad. It is more individual. There is an account of him trying to persuade Jews, but he is unable to do so. He is therefore not an apostle to Jews. He is an apostle to those who will listen to him: gentiles. Jews listen to the twelve, and they reportedly go all over the world visiting Jewish communities.

I understand that some church franchises do make a big production of the word 'Apostle' and consider an apostle to be something like a president. I feel like this is a mistake, but I understand if this is where you are getting your idea of an apostle from. Consider this that Jesus in the gospels preaches that the greatest must be the servant of all, or they are not the greatest. Paul is an apostle if Paul is the servant of the churches, but not if he's gaining status, money and being served. If its about him and is about his importance and his happiness then, no.

I always have facts in my comments, this is rhetoric and opinion and doesn't address anything other than your thoughts on things, no facts or rebuttals.

Because you don't have any relevant facts to counter mine and CAN'T refute anything I say without looking foolish.

 

[SethZaddik]

This is all so twisted.

First of all we need to define what an "apostle" actually is....

"The Greek word a·poʹsto·los is derived from the common verb a·po·stelʹlo, meaning simply “send forth (or off).” (Matthew 10:5; Mark 11:3) Its basic sense is clearly illustrated in Jesus’ statement: “A slave is not greater than his master, nor is one that is sent forth [a·poʹsto·los] greater than the one that sent him.” (John 13:16) In this sense the word also applies to Christ Jesus as “the apostle and high priest whom we confess.” (Hebrews 3:1; compare Matthew 10:40; 15:24; Luke 4:18, 43; 9:48; 10:16; John 3:17; 5:36, 38; 6:29, 57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36; 11:42; 17:3, 8, 18, 21-25; 20:21.) Jesus was "sent forth" by God as his appointed and commissioned representative."

Jesus is called an "apostle", so the meaning of the word is misunderstood by the OP to begin with.

The "superfine apostles" to which Paul referred were not the 12.
"Paul, who did much traveling and who received hospitality from many of his Christian brothers, nevertheless, did not make himself a financial burden on any of them. Much of the time he worked at a secular occupation, and he set forth the law: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3:7-12; 1 Thessalonians 2:6) By reason of this, Paul had an answer to the charges of the so-called superfine apostles in Corinth, who accused Paul of taking advantage of the Christians in the congregation there. (2Corinthians 11:5, 7-10) He could boast in the fact that he provided the good news to them absolutely without cost, not even taking the things he had the right to as an apostle and a minister of God. (1 Corinthians 9:11-18)"

(Excerpts Insight Volume 1)




Paul, by his own works demonstrated that they were a necessary part of being a disciple of Christ. He was a traveling missionary. There is no contradiction between what James wrote and what Paul said. "Faith without works is dead". You can't have one without the other.....but it has to begin with faith, then that faith is backed up by works. You cannot earn salvation, but that doesn't mean you can sit on your couch and read your holy book and consider yourself a righteous person.

How does a Muslim become an expert on Christianity? More homework is needed methinks.....

The most powerful being in the Universe, under whose inspiration the Bible was written, can see to it that his own word is not tampered with. If Paul was not a true disciple of Jesus Christ, "an apostle to the nations", then he would not have been able to contribute as much as he did to Christian scripture. I'll take Paul's word over the OP's any day.

Who says Paul DID contribute anything outside of Christianity?

He doesn't exist in history, just the New Testament and in the imagination of the authors of his epistles.

He is a fraud, Constantine was the one who made Catholicism which is Christianity, what it is today.

Paul wrote 4-7 letters, the sum total of his contribution to and in history.

Not only that but the Ebionites and Nazarenes, "Jewish Christians" of the first five centuries, rejected Paul and his epistles.

Romans liked him because he was pro slavery, pro government authorities, pro Roman and anti Judaic, and was paganised/Hellenistic if even a real Jew.

Which is unlikely, no Jew believes or believed that "angels ordained the Law" because it is in Torah that God gave the Law to Moses, the Law of God, not of the angels.

He could not have been too bright.

James and Peter both refute him and his theology as "dead" and "nonsensical ("hard to understand").

It is just Christianity that can't figure out they have been following a false prophet who didn't even write more than 7 epistles, scholars admit the rest are forgeries.

 

[SethZaddik]

Let me address the fellow who thinks that defining the Greek word for apostle, which translates to emmisary, will solve any issues.

There are 50 states in America, it has 50 states unless a new state is introduced.

If Puerto Rico claims to be a state, the definition of state doesn't make them one or the existence of other non American states, they would be at best illegitimate.

Now Apostle/Emmisary has a definition not exclusive to Christianity.

But the New Testament has 12 Apostles maximum, 13 if you count replaced, dead Judas, always 12 at a time "Apostles of Christ" never 13.

So no, we don't need to define Apostle/Emmisary because its definition doesn't make a difference to the amount chosen by Jesus (p).

That number is 12, independent of the definition or in conjunction with it, Christ (p) had TWELVE APOSTLES ONLY.

It is why they say the "12 Apostles."

Where is logic people?

 

[Prestor John]

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.

I don't believe that Paul taught anything contrary to what the Lord Himself taught or any of His other Apostles.

I contend that Paul was called to be an Apostle to the Gentiles by the Lord and that the Twelve were called to preach to and eventually judge the House of Israel.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

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.

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.

Paul constantly defends doctrine as do Jude (contend for the faith) and James (you want to know why faith without works is dead?) et al. Most of how we know what an apostle is as distinct from a disciple is from Paul.

You cannot use an argument quoting liberal scholars that we don't know who wrote Peter, because the same (mistaken) scholars say Paul didn't write Paul's letters, either. You are thus invalidating your case.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

None of the pillars mention another dozen apostles or the disciples of Christ mentioned in the gospels. Moot point.

Paul wrote two thirds of the NT and is "mentioned" outside of Acts as the author of SCRIPTURE per Peter despite your rendering from the New Reversed Standard Version.