Paul is not an Apostle

[Brickjectivity]

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.

As I said before, you come with preconceived requirements. You must comply with the Q'uran, so you cannot logically proceed.

 

[SethZaddik]

To simplify my point even further (as if it was necessary) Paul has as much legitimacy as an "Apostle OF CHRIST" (Apostle means, literally, "Emmisary" and in English Apostle becomes a word associated with Christianity. It can also mean "Messenger" as in "Mohammed (s) is God's Messenger" which is sometimes rendered in the Qur'an "Apostle" but not "Apostle of Christ")...

Let me start over to keep it simple, Paul has as much legitimacy as an Apostle of Christ as Puerto Rico would if it claimed it was the legitimate 51'st of the USA, a "United State" when in fact it is a minor territory and not equal to the 50 states or a state at all.

Likewise Paul is NOT an Apostle of Christ. Apostle of Paul maybe. Not Jesus (p) who he never met.

The Mormon "Apostles" are as much Apostles of Christ as Paul, that is, not at all.

 

[SethZaddik]

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.

Defends what doctrine as do Jude and James, you made a statement with no evidence to support it.?

Jude rebuked Paul without naming him for speaking I'll of angels, because Paul said that it was ordained by angels and thus inferior, dead. Jude rebuked this idea.

James rebuked Paul, "senseless person" and his theology, using Abraham who Paul used to attempt to make his case for faith without works justification, as I have shown already, saying, "Faith without works is DEAD."

So you need to do your homework and pay attention.

I can use whatever evidence I want, but what "liberal scholars" did I quote? None.

All my arguments are from the Bible and supported by it because they are from it, and correct.

(Scholars, Christian Biblical scholars, know about the pseudepigraphal epistles under Paul's name, it's mainstream not liberal scholars who acknowledge this (too).)


You have yet to show otherwise and can't, facts are facts, the Bible saying what it says being the facts I am using.

 

[Rival]

Defends what doctrine as do Jude and James, you made a statement with no evidence to support it.?

Jude rebuked Paul without naming him for speaking I'll of angels, because Paul said that it was ordained by angels and thus inferior, dead. Jude rebuked this idea.

James rebuked Paul, "senseless person" and his theology, using Abraham who Paul used to attempt to make his case for faith without works justification, as I have shown already, saying, "Faith without works is DEAD."

So you need to do your homework and pay attention.

I can use whatever evidence I want, but what "liberal scholars" did I quote? None.

All my arguments are from the Bible and supported by it because they are from it, and correct.

(Scholars, Christian Biblical scholars, know about the pseudepigraphal epistles under Paul's name, it's mainstream not liberal scholars who acknowledge this (too).)


You have yet to show otherwise and can't, facts are facts, the Bible saying what it says being the facts I am using.

He was responding to me.

 

[SethZaddik]

He was responding to me.

I didn't know that, I did answer it though, but I didn't know it was to you. Although I still would have responded to the erroneous statement made, whoever they said it to.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

I know who Matthias was.

Where does Acts 1 use the word "apostle"?

The idea that Luke was making a pitch that Paul is the true 12th inheritor has support in sermons and logic. If it was in the Bible, neither you would attack the idea nor would I need to defend it.

I'll show you where the Bible denies Matthias is an apostle, but first:

Show me where Acts 1 defines the word "apostle" and where the amazing deeds and acts of Matthias are recorded in the 66 books of the Bible apart from Luke 1.

 

[SethZaddik]

He was responding to me.

Although thanks, that clarifies why liberal scholars didn't make sense to me, I thought they meant my comment about the "genuine" vs pseudepigraphal epistles of Paul as if only liberals acknowledge it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Defends what doctrine as do Jude and James, you made a statement with no evidence to support it.?

Jude rebuked Paul without naming him for speaking I'll of angels, because Paul said that it was ordained by angels and thus inferior, dead. Jude rebuked this idea.

James rebuked Paul, "senseless person" and his theology, using Abraham who Paul used to attempt to make his case for faith without works justification, as I have shown already, saying, "Faith without works is DEAD."

So you need to do your homework and pay attention.

I can use whatever evidence I want, but what "liberal scholars" did I quote? None.

All my arguments are from the Bible and supported by it because they are from it, and correct.

(Scholars, Christian Biblical scholars, know about the pseudepigraphal epistles under Paul's name, it's mainstream not liberal scholars who acknowledge this (too).)


You have yet to show otherwise and can't, facts are facts, the Bible saying what it says being the facts I am using.

Huh?

I was making the point that multiple writers in the NT espoused and defended sound doctrine. Jude urges believers to contend for sound doctrine and faith. Paul by defending his beliefs was obeying Jude and not defending his false doctrines (your conclusive leap).

I'm aware of the pseudepigraphal epistles and hope you will remember Paul warning people of such and signing his epistles.

My concern here is similar--I know good doctrine--and often find myself defending the writings of Paul against the Ebionites et al here. You're not one of those?

 

[SethZaddik]

I know who Matthias was.

Where does Acts 1 use the word "apostle"?

The idea that Luke was making a pitch that Paul is the true 12th inheritor has support in sermons and logic. If it was in the Bible, neither you would attack the idea nor would I need to defend it.

I'll show you where the Bible denies Matthias is an apostle, but first:

Show me where Acts 1 defines the word "apostle" and where the amazing deeds and acts of Matthias are recorded in the 66 books of the Bible apart from Luke 1.

Acts, after it tells the story of the Ascension, as I stated in my OP, lays down the requirements for "Apostleship" at 1:12-21.

So that is the answer to "where does Acts one use the word Apostle?"

If the idea you are hypothesising about Luke making a pitch for Paul as the legitimate 12th Apostle was grounded in logic, logic dictates he would state his case and conclusion, he does not do this or hint that he thinks this, he makes Paul contradict himself and Luke in the three accounts of Damascus road conversion myth, allows us to see Paul lied to James at the final meeting in Jerusalem about his anti Law, anti Moses (in the eyes of James zealous for the Law of Moses believers) teachings, submit to a purification ritual and almost get assassinated only to be saved by the enemy of all Judean Jews, Rome, 400 soldiers, a ridiculous amount that says Paul must have been important to Rome and Nero, who he appeals to for deliverance (not Jesus (p)).

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is of no great concern of mine how Muslims define Apostles.

Both Paul and Barnabas are accepted as Apostles by a majority of Christians, and they both certainly acted as an Apostles.
In terms of success in spreading the faith and founding churches. Paul was clearly no 1.

Mary Madelene is also honoured as "the Apostle to the Apostles" and her saints day has recently been raised to that of a full feast, equal to that of the other Apostles.
Unlike Islam, Christianity is always able to correct mistakes, as the truth is revealed.

You mus not forget that the Apostle Matthias was selected as the replacement for Judas.

 

[SethZaddik]

I know who Matthias was.

Where does Acts 1 use the word "apostle"?

The idea that Luke was making a pitch that Paul is the true 12th inheritor has support in sermons and logic. If it was in the Bible, neither you would attack the idea nor would I need to defend it.

I'll show you where the Bible denies Matthias is an apostle, but first:

Show me where Acts 1 defines the word "apostle" and where the amazing deeds and acts of Matthias are recorded in the 66 books of the Bible apart from Luke 1.

And if you "know who Mathias was" you know that Luke has him fill the one vacancy in the Apostleship, that two people on earth alive at the time qualify and that Mathias replaced Judas legitimately according to Luke and thousands of years of tradition based on what Luke says and meant, Matthias was Apostle # 12.

It has always been a source of discomfort for the Churches that 12 Apostles doesn't refer to Paul, that it is not possible according to proper exegesis has been hushed.

Not by me though, I tell everyone.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Acts, after it tells the story of the Ascension, as I stated in my OP, lays down the requirements for "Apostleship" at 1:12-21.

So that is the answer to "where does Acts one use the word Apostle?"

If the idea you are hypothesising about Luke making a pitch for Paul as the legitimate 12th Apostle was grounded in logic, logic dictates he would state his case and conclusion, he does not do this or hint that he thinks this, he makes Paul contradict himself and Luke in the three accounts of Damascus road conversion myth, allows us to see Paul lied to James at the final meeting in Jerusalem about his anti Law, anti Moses (in the eyes of James zealous for the Law of Moses believers) teachings, submit to a purification ritual and almost get assassinated only to be saved by the enemy of all Judean Jews, Rome, 400 soldiers, a ridiculous amount that says Paul must have been important to Rome and Nero, who he appeals to for deliverance (not Jesus (p)).

Paul was a full Roman citizen and it was his right to appeal to Rome for protection.
It is ridiculous to suppose that the Gospels contain every detail of the events of that time, or that they are totally accurate. Just as to day, Accounts of events were filtered by the prejudices and the personal experiences of the narrators. It is interesting that the Christianity of James was largely extinct soon after the fall of the second temple. Whilst that of Peter and Paul grew into the Triune Christianity of today.

As a Christian who has a great deal of sympathy for the Unitarian point of view... I must concede the importance of Paul to the growth and continued existence of Christianity.

 

[SethZaddik]

It is of no great concern of mine how Muslims define Apostles.

Both Paul and Barnabas are accepted as Apostles by a majority of Christians, and they both certainly acted as an Apostles.
In terms of success in spreading the faith and founding churches. Paul was clearly no 1.

Mary Madelene is also honoured as "the Apostle to the Apostles" and her saints day has recently been raised to that of a full feast, equal to that of the other Apostles.
Unlike Islam, Christianity is always able to correct mistakes, as the truth is revealed.

You mus not forget that the Apostle Matthias was selected as the replacement for Judas.

It is of no great concern to me that you don't realize Muslims believe that Jesus had 12 Apostles and don't "define

It is of no great concern of mine how Muslims define Apostles.

Both Paul and Barnabas are accepted as Apostles by a majority of Christians, and they both certainly acted as an Apostles.
In terms of success in spreading the faith and founding churches. Paul was clearly no 1.

Mary Madelene is also honoured as "the Apostle to the Apostles" and her saints day has recently been raised to that of a full feast, equal to that of the other Apostles.
Unlike Islam, Christianity is always able to correct mistakes, as the truth is revealed.

You mus not forget that the Apostle Matthias was selected as the replacement for Judas.

I mentioned Mathias replacing Judas in the OP so how could I forget that?

Muslims don't have a different definition for Apostle, it still means Emissary or Messenger like it did in Greek.

The point is not definition but legitimacy, Paul was not one of the 12, like you said Matthias was #12, but you forgot that there are ONLY 12 Apostles of Christ.

That same passage in Acts has two people living who meet the qualifications set forth by Acts itself for eligibility to be an Apostle, one of 12 total and one is chosen leaving Barsabbas aka Justus the only man living who qualifies but he is not recorded as ever assuming that position and nobody is.

Revelation, Vision of New Jerusalem, confirms that there are exactly 12 Apostles, 12 of many things, 12 is a theme.

Revelation was written to Asia, "All those who are in Asia have turned from me" Laments Paul to Timothy, stating it is known also so no secret, Acts records that Paul was forbidden from preaching in Asia by the Holy Spirit.

And he is condemned for teaching the doctrine of Balaam by Jesus, eating meat sacrificed to idols is forbidden by God, agreed upon by Paul in Jerusalem, then mocked and ignored by Paul.

Jesus doesn't ignore Paul and calls it the doctrine of Balaam.

The the Ephesians are congratulated for rejecting false apostles.

Anyone besides the 12 who claims to be an Apostle of Christ is a false apostle.

 

[SethZaddik]

Paul was a full Roman citizen and it was his right to appeal to Rome for protection.
It is ridiculous to suppose that the Gospels contain every detail of the events of that time, or that they are totally accurate. Just as to day, Accounts of events were filtered by the prejudices and the personal experiences of the narrators. It is interesting that the Christianity of James was largely extinct soon after the fall of the second temple. Whilst that of Peter and Paul grew into the Triune Christianity of today.

As a Christian who has a great deal of sympathy for the Unitarian point of view... I must concede the importance of Paul to the growth and continued existence of Christianity.

This is a great example of rationalization of uncomfortable facts, but it is relevant that Paul relies on Nero to save him and displays no faith in Christ or willingness to die for him as he promised in his epistles he was willing to do.

He also dissappears in Rome and lives among Aristocrats on faux house arrest.

Paul is friends with Herodian kinsman, relatives and friends of Herod and many Roman Aristocrats, not someone simply invoking a Roman law.

 

[SethZaddik]

It is of no great concern of mine how Muslims define Apostles.

Both Paul and Barnabas are accepted as Apostles by a majority of Christians, and they both certainly acted as an Apostles.
In terms of success in spreading the faith and founding churches. Paul was clearly no 1.

Mary Madelene is also honoured as "the Apostle to the Apostles" and her saints day has recently been raised to that of a full feast, equal to that of the other Apostles.
Unlike Islam, Christianity is always able to correct mistakes, as the truth is revealed.

You mus not forget that the Apostle Matthias was selected as the replacement for Judas.

Mary Magdalene, love her as much as I do, was not recorded to be called Apostle to the Apostles or whatever you said or anything like that.

She doesn't need titles of honor, she was the first witness to Jesus (p) post crucifixion.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

And if you "know who Mathias was" you know that Luke has him fill the one vacancy in the Apostleship, that two people on earth alive at the time qualify and that Mathias replaced Judas legitimately according to Luke and thousands of years of tradition based on what Luke says and meant, Matthias was Apostle # 12.

It has always been a source of discomfort for the Churches that 12 Apostles doesn't refer to Paul, that it is not possible according to proper exegesis has been hushed.

Not by me though, I tell everyone.

The choice fell between Joseph and Mathias, and by the casting of lots Mathias was chosen....
that is he last we hear of either of them in the Bible.
Paul was neither there, nor a candidate.

From the events that followed....
It would seem that God favoured Paul to do his work.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

This is a great example of rationalization of uncomfortable facts, but it is relevant that Paul relies on Nero to save him and displays no faith in Christ or willingness to die for him as he promised in his epistles he was willing to do.

He also dissappears in Rome and lives among Aristocrats on faux house arrest.

Paul is friends with Herodian kinsman, relatives and friends of Herod and many Roman Aristocrats, not someone simply invoking a Roman law.

Your Prejudice against Paul is showing.
As a Christian Paul was in great danger from roman laws, and was eventually condemned to death by decapitation in Rome by Nero.
From his epistles and from acts we know that he had an extremely active and successful life as an Apostle and missionary. and not at all the life of protected luxury you suggest.
His life amongst the Christians in Rome is not recorded, but is likely to have been as secretive and dangerous as it was for other Christians.

 

[SethZaddik]

It is of no great concern of mine how Muslims define Apostles.

I repeat, Muslims have the same definition for Apostle as everyone else, its actual definition, emmisary or messenger are both accurate.

Your mistake was to think this is about Islam when I have not been discussing Islam unless by request or in response to someone else making it an issue, as if it makes a difference to what the Bible actually says that I am a Muslim.

If anything the realization and subsequent confirmation that Paul was an imposter and enemy didn't make me lose faith, it made my faith, Faith, stronger.

It was another 9 months and before I knew the stance of Islam towards Paul that I chose to convert, and as I told them, because I am pissed off that everyone is demonizing Islam, not sure if this was an appropriate reason. But it is and as the will of God would have it I have always believed what Islam does regarding Christ, not God, the Messiah and a Prophet (p) but not equal to God, mostly because Jesus says he is not equal with God, I never bought the Trinity or vicarious atonement and finally I figured out most of that comes from Paul and Islam is closer to the Nazarene and Ebionite believers who rejected Paul than modern Xtianity.

But you made Islam a supposed issue and assumed we have a different definition of the word Apostle.

Apostle does not mean "Apostle of Christ" as in "the 12 Apostles" only, but THERE ARE ONLY 12 Apostles of the Lamb, Christ.

Both Paul and Barnabas are accepted as Apostles by a majority of Christians, and they both certainly acted as an Apostles.
In terms of success in spreading the faith and founding churches. Paul was clearly no 1.

Mary Madelene is also honoured as "the Apostle to the Apostles" and her saints day has recently been raised to that of a full feast, equal to that of the other Apostles.
Unlike Islam, Christianity is always able to correct mistakes, as the truth is revealed.

You mus not forget that the Apostle Matthias was selected as the replacement for Judas.

Already addressed everything else.

 

[SethZaddik]

Your Prejudice against Paul is showing.
As a Christian Paul was in great danger from roman laws, and was eventually condemned to death by decapitation in Rome by Nero.
From his epistles and from acts we know that he had an extremely active and successful life as an Apostle and missionary. and not at all the life of protected luxury you suggest.
His life amongst the Christians in Rome is not recorded, but is likely to have been as secretive and dangerous as it was for other Christians.

It is not prejudice to point out discrepancies in Paul's story and tell people why he is not and can't be an Apostle of Christ.

It is fact sharing.

I don't like the epistles of Paul or Paul, if he was alive at least today I would not like the guy who wrote those epistles, even if he was cool in person he admits he is a liar and thinks it "abounds to God's glory."

He talks trash about the real Apostles and often, go through his epistles or some of my messages and see for yourself, and is pro slavery, actually says slaves should treat "Masters as God, not as men and women" because it is what he says God wants!!!

So forgive me if I dislike a man who is corrupt and dishonest, self serving and mischievous, who says absurd things as I have shown and been showing including that women should remain silent in church and ask their husbands, their "Christs" if they have a question.

But I don't like terrible ideologies from characters with no sense of morality, traitors, Roman collaborators and false prophets.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Mary Magdalene, love her as much as I do, was not recorded to be called Apostle to the Apostles or whatever you said or anything like that.

She doesn't need titles of honor, she was the first witness to Jesus (p) post crucifixion.

She is perhaps better recorded in the Gnostic gospels. where here role is more clearly depicted.
However Most of the traditional Christian Churches do regard her as the Apostle to the Apostles, as has been recognised by Pope Francis's recent elevation of her status.

As you say, she was chosen by God as the first to see the risen Christ, and to take that message to the other Apostles.