Was Paul a legitimate apostle?

[Twilight Hue]

I am sorry, that wasn't Paul but Jesus - I was confusing it with another text (2 Corinthians 11:4). But still, it is the same exhortation - beware of false christs and messiahs. So how you feel that Paul defied this warning from Christ is absolutely beyond me, for Jesus himself spoke to Paul, he did not claim it be from anyone else but Jesus of Nazareth seated at God's right-hand side.?

You have absolutely taken such a radical leap from one premise to another, for one, and that from a misconstrued text. Why are you being so reckless? I have absolutely no idea from where you are drawing your conclusions from?

I dunno but Matthew is pretty straightforward and quite clear.


"Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not".


Paul completely ignored and violated that warning. He claimed to people that Christ had talked to him. He wasn't to believe it, and he did so anyways in violation of the warning not to believe.

The directive then is to not believe Paul's claims to have met Christ making him a false apostle in his own right. A man not to be believed.

A lot of people think Pauline Christianity is an imposter religion that effectively destroyed early Christianity due to the violation of the directive in Matthew by Paul.

 

[DNB]

I dunno but Matthew is pretty straightforward and quite clear.


"Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not".


Paul completely ignored and violated that warning. He claimed to people that Christ had talked to him. He wasn't to believe it, and he did so anyways in violation of the warning not to believe.

The directive then is to not believe Paul's claims to have met Christ making him a false apostle in his own right. A man not to be believed.

A lot of people think Pauline Christianity is an imposter religion that effectively destroyed early Christianity due to the violation of the directive in Matthew by Paul.

You're entirely off your rocker. Did you ever bother to read the complete passage? Again, Christ is warning about false prophets, he is NOT talking about himself!?!?!?

Matthew 24:23-27
24:23. "Then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ,' or 'There He is,' do not believe him. 24. "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 25. "Behold, I have told you in advance. 26. "So if they say to you, 'Behold, He is in the wilderness,' do not go out, or, 'Behold, He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe them. 27. "For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You're entirely off your rocker. Did you ever bother to read the complete passage? Again, Christ is warning about false prophets, he is NOT talking about himself!?!?!?

Matthew 24:23-27
24:23. "Then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ,' or 'There He is,' do not believe him. 24. "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 25. "Behold, I have told you in advance. 26. "So if they say to you, 'Behold, He is in the wilderness,' do not go out, or, 'Behold, He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe them. 27. "For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

And what did Paul do instead?

He violated it by saying he met Christ and told others where Christ was when he met him. Not to mention he decieved a lot of people who believed Paul, that gave rise to Pauline Christianity.

There's only two outcomes.

Christs return was at Damascus, thereby fulfilling the second coming right then and there.

Or..

Paul is actually one of the false prophets warned about in Matthew, claiming he saw Christ at a location and deceiving the very elect.

Either way it puts Matthew out of place, or the book of Paul is.

It's pretty damming stuff.

 

[DNB]

And what did Paul do instead?

He violated it by saying he met Christ and told others where Christ was when he met him. Not to mention he decieved a lot of people who believed Paul, that gave rise to Pauline Christianity.

There's only two outcomes.

Christs return was at Damascus, thereby fulfilling the second coming right then and there.

Or..

Paul is actually one of the false prophets warned about in Matthew, claiming he saw Christ at a location and deceiving the very elect.

Either way it puts Matthew out of place, or the book of Paul is.

It's pretty damming stuff.

'damming' does not have two 'm's, plus you're missing an 'n'.

 

[Twilight Hue]

'damming' does not have two 'm's, plus you're missing an 'n'.

When did that happen?

My dictionary is out of date?


Definition of DAMNING

Oh ...

Your right.

Stupid typing finger.

 

[DNB]

When did that happen?

My dictionary is out of date?


Definition of DAMNING

Oh ...

Your right.

Stupid typing finger.

plus, your exegesis is horrible and inept.

 

[paarsurrey]

If I was still a Christian, I would have regarded Paul as a counterfeit Apostle and Pauline theology a fraudulent form of original Christianity.

There was a distinct warning not to believe Jesus was 'here or there' and Paul just ignored it and claimed he met Jesus anyways.

That would be a huge red flag as I see it.


Matthew 24:23

I agree with one on what I have colored in magenta.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Was Paul a legitimate apostle?

Further to post @ #27 ^:
Jesus and or Mary both of them did never read from the 4-Gosples in vogue in the Pauline-Christianity and did never own them as their scripture, to me, please. Right?
Paul was, I understand, not a legitimate apostle of Jesus rather Paul and the Church he founded, I perceive, worked Anti-Jesus against the truthful teachings of Jesus, please. Right?

Regards

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

As a Christian I was always suspicious of Paul.

Still don't like him now.

I consider him a Trojan horse. Stoning them wasn’t working so he infiltrated and corrupted.

 

[Bree]

Acts 1 clearly states the simple qualifications for apostleship, which would have permanently excluded Paul. In spite of that, he later became the 13th (or 14th, depending on semantics) apostle based on the Damascus Road story. Countless people throughout the years have claimed to have similar visions and divine appointments, but somehow his was taken seriously. Was that because it was legitimate, or did he just have lucky timing? If it was legitimate, why did he later have so much strife with the original apostles?

He was legitimately selected by Jesus himself as the road to Damascus account shows. And the Apostles in Jerusalem did accept him as apostle which is seen by the letters they wrote to the congregations. They confirmed Paul was an apostle.

 

[Muffled]

Acts 1 clearly states the simple qualifications for apostleship, which would have permanently excluded Paul. In spite of that, he later became the 13th (or 14th, depending on semantics) apostle based on the Damascus Road story. Countless people throughout the years have claimed to have similar visions and divine appointments, but somehow his was taken seriously. Was that because it was legitimate, or did he just have lucky timing? If it was legitimate, why did he later have so much strife with the original apostles?

I suppose one could ask who makes the rules for apostleship. I think the church leaders would like to say that the original twelve were Apostles but then there is Judas so maybe they would make an exception for Matthias. Paul is an apostle by definition of the term and so is Barnabas.

 

[Muffled]

If I was still a Christian, I would have regarded Paul as a counterfeit Apostle and Pauline theology a fraudulent form of original Christianity.

There was a distinct warning not to believe Jesus was 'here or there' and Paul just ignored it and claimed he met Jesus anyways.

That would be a huge red flag as I see it.


Matthew 24:23

I believe it would be if he actually saw a physical Jesus. However it never states that. The Jesus he met was in a light so that means it was visionary.

 

[Hawkins]

If God is not true, whether Paul being faked is not important. If on the other hand God is true, He won't allow half of His NT crafted by a faked Paul.

That said. The rank apostle has multi-fold meanings. First it's not limited to prophet type humans as long as they are deemed eyewitnesses of Jesus. The twelve were actually usual humans. They are not in the category of the prophets which are supernaturally called. Paul on the other hand is a "prophet type" character given the rank of apostle. Paul was called supernaturally as any other OT prophets (i.e., eyewitnesses of God). Second, apostle is a rank higher than the prophets. Apostles are ranked first in God's earthly Church followed by prophets. Apostles are basically eyewitnesses of Jesus including those direct disciples such as the twelve and one summoned supernaturally who is Paul. They are all eyewitnesses of Jesus in one way or another for the crafting of the NT Bible.

Moreover, Paul to Jesus more or less resembles Moses to God, with Moses receiving a "face to face" revelation from God. Paul as a famous Pharisee expertized in the Jewish laws and theologies, was chosen to lay the theological foundation of Christianity.

 

[Triumph]

Acts 1 clearly states the simple qualifications for apostleship, which would have permanently excluded Paul. In spite of that, he later became the 13th (or 14th, depending on semantics) apostle based on the Damascus Road story. Countless people throughout the years have claimed to have similar visions and divine appointments, but somehow his was taken seriously. Was that because it was legitimate, or did he just have lucky timing? If it was legitimate, why did he later have so much strife with the original apostles?

Jesus chose 12 Apostles because each Apostle has a throne in heaven to judge the 12 tribes of Israel in the end of days. Only 12 are allowed because there are only 12 thrones of judgement. Judas was removed as an Apostle because he helped to cause the death of Jesus by betrayal all the while professing love for Jesus when he loved money more than the life of Jesus. Jesus gave the remaining 11 Apostles instructions as to how to select the replacement of Judas with very specific requirements. Matthais replaced Judas as the final Apostle.
Saul/Paul the Pharisee (that agreed Jesus should die agreeing with the Hebrew/Jewish High Priest) had killed disciples of Jesus and broke into Christian homes having the occupants thrown in prison. Acts 8:1-3. Later Paul lied saying he did not apprehend them, he just forgets about his victims showing no remorse, regret or repentance. Paul only thinks about himself and his future with no regard for the lives he destroyed or intention of helping the families.
Philippians 3:13
Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,"
Paul's prayer is pretense as he wants the homes of widows taken away from them and given to the nearest male relative. If the widow is young with orphans Paul does not want them in his church. Do you believe Jesus would bar a woman from his church for being a young widow with children in need? There could have been young widows that had no family to help her but Paul shows no interest in helping even if the widow has to become a street beggar to survive. NOTE: Jesus was against Paul that took the woman's house away from her. Jesus was for equal rights for women including inheritance rights, as Jesus said,
Matthew 23:14
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."
Remember that even after Paul gave himself the title of Apostle that he still considered himself a Pharisee?
Acts 23:6
But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee:"
Did Paul tell the Jewish temple that he is a converted Christian and an Apostle? No, Paul said he is a Pharisee.
Jesus said no Pharisee is in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 23:13
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Is Paul an Apostle, NO. Paul does say that his lies glorify God. Do you believe Jesus would select a man that boldly says he lies, expecting him to tell people only the truth when Jesus knows he will not?
Romans 3:7
For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" However, Paul often said that he does not lie but that is just another of his lies. He does tell other people not to lie that makes him sound righteous but that is part of his pretense plan to sound righteous when he is not.
The true Apostles never called Paul an Apostle because they know he is not one. Peter called Paul, "beloved brother" because Jesus taught him to love your enemies.

Lies never glorify the God that commands not to lie. Paul is a self-professed, unrepentant liar found in the house of Judas after lying and being blind to truth because of it. There are 12 true Apostles and 2 false Apostles in the Bible.

 

[Triumph]

If God is not true, whether Paul being faked is not important. If on the other hand God is true, He won't allow half of His NT crafted by a faked Paul.

That said. The rank apostle has multi-fold meanings. First it's not limited to prophet type humans as long as they are deemed eyewitnesses of Jesus. The twelve were actually usual humans. They are not in the category of the prophets which are supernaturally called. Paul on the other hand is a "prophet type" character given the rank of apostle. Paul was called supernaturally as any other OT prophets (i.e., eyewitnesses of God). Second, apostle is a rank higher than the prophets. Apostles are ranked first in God's earthly Church followed by prophets. Apostles are basically eyewitnesses of Jesus including those direct disciples such as the twelve and one summoned supernaturally who is Paul. They are all eyewitnesses of Jesus in one way or another for the crafting of the NT Bible.

Moreover, Paul to Jesus more or less resembles Moses to God, with Moses receiving a "face to face" revelation from God. Paul as a famous Pharisee expertized in the Jewish laws and theologies, was chosen to lay the theological foundation of Christianity.

Moses destroyed the10 commandments rather than show them to the people GOD wanted Moses to show them to as God already knew what they were doing. Moses showed absolutely no respect for the Commands of God and chose to do what Moses wanted to do which is to kill people that would not follow him. Moses could not show the Command, "Thou shalt not kill" to people Moses wanted to kill.
It was the desire of God for Moses to teach the commandments with love and kindness not wrath and murder.
Moses died, rejected by God, never receiving the promised land proving there is no unconditional covenant promise.

 

[Triumph]

Was Paul a legitimate apostle?

Further to post @ #27 ^:
Jesus and or Mary both of them did never read from the 4-Gosples in vogue in the Pauline-Christianity and did never own them as their scripture, to me, please. Right?
Paul was, I understand, not a legitimate apostle of Jesus rather Paul and the Church he founded, I perceive, worked Anti-Jesus against the truthful teachings of Jesus, please. Right?

Regards

I agree. Paul taught against the major messages that Jesus taught in an attempt to destroy the gospel of Jesus which are the Words of God. Paul believes Jesus is the "seed of Abraham".
Hebrews 2: 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." The only way a Pharisee will accept Jesus as Christ is if Joseph is the biological father of Jesus so Jesus can be the promised bloodline of Abraham/David of Jewish covenant beliefs they are circumcised to uphold. In John 7 a Jew proclaims, “Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David,". Luke 2:4 explains that Joseph is of the bloodline linage of David. Luke 18:38 another Jew calls Jesus the son of David because Jews including Paul, do not believe in a virgin birth of Jesus. They believe Jesus was conceived in sin by fornication before Joseph married Mary. Jesus speaking with sons of Abraham in the temple told them he is the Christ but they threaten to kill him for saying the Christ is not a son of Abraham but is a Son of God. They even try to act morally superior by saying they were not born of fornication because they think Jesus is also a son of Abraham only by fornication. Jesus tells them they do not love Jesus, their Christ, or God if they want to kill him and they are not God's people for their beliefs. Jesus explains he is not of the linage of David in Matthew 22.
Matthew 22:42
Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David."
Jesus denies being the son of David, seed of Abraham. Jesus even broke the tradition that Jews had of being called from their place of birth. David was born in Bethlehem so was called "David of Bethlehem". Jesus was born there also but asked his followers to call him, "Jesus of Nazareth" instead, wanting no connection at all with David. Matthew chapter 1 shows how the Jews perceive Jesus as Christ but note that God would not allow it to be written that Joseph begat Jesus making Jesus of David's actual bloodline because he did not. God is the father of Jesus the Christ not Joseph, David or Abraham. Joseph knows he did not conceive Jesus.
Note it is true that only males can pass male genetics to a child making a son. Females only carry female DNA and cannot produce a son from her genetics, only daughters. Mary, if of the family tree of David/Abraham could have birthed a daughter in David's bloodline but never a son.
2 Timothy 2:8
Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:"
That is the gospel of a lying, viper son of Abraham, Pharisee that calls himself Apostle Paul.

 

[Triumph]

And what did Paul do instead?

He violated it by saying he met Christ and told others where Christ was when he met him. Not to mention he decieved a lot of people who believed Paul, that gave rise to Pauline Christianity.

There's only two outcomes.

Christs return was at Damascus, thereby fulfilling the second coming right then and there.

Or..

Paul is actually one of the false prophets warned about in Matthew, claiming he saw Christ at a location and deceiving the very elect.

Either way it puts Matthew out of place, or the book of Paul is.

It's pretty damming stuff.

The road to Damascus is now and always has been in the desert and Jesus did say if anyone says they find him in the desert not to follow them because Jesus is not there. Also, Paul claims Jesus is a High Priest walking in the footsteps of other High Priests giving sacrifices in honor of Abraham. A High Priest is the only one allowed in the secret chamber of the Jewish temple to make blood sacrifices for sin. Jesus said he will never be found in a secret chamber. Paul is a liar.
Jesus never taught his followers to believe in blood sacrifice for sin removal, Jesus never made one nor did his followers. The temple was outraged because they were losing so much blood sacrifice for sin money, because people were leaving and joining the new religion that Jesus and John the Baptist established, that the Jewish Priests were going broke.
Jesus did send a healed alive man to the temple as his offering to God proving that Jesus has the power of God given to him by God to heal and save but all the temple priests could do is kill life, not heal or save it. The blood of Jesus is the word of God and Jesus sheds meaning teaches those words that save. The command of God is believe in water baptism for removal of sin. Baptism is not optional.
Jesus said, "go and learn I desire mercy and not sacrifice". Do not forget that Jesus said that the people that want him to die do not love him or God and are not the people of God. The Living God does not accept human or animal sacrifices.
Jesus laid down his life to prevent a bloody war the Jews were threatening unless Jesus was killed even though the Roman secular court judged correctly that Jesus was innocent of any crime worthy of death. The Jewish High Priest demanded Jesus die for opposing their religious doctrine and falsely claimed Jesus was trying to take over their government as their king. Jesus did not come to run a government; he came to lead people into the correct religion with righteousness to worship the correct God obeying correct religious laws. Jesus wanted separation of church and government. Give to Caesar what belongs to him which is taxes for things like roads and waterways. Give to God your faith and love. The Jews have no separation between their religion and their government.

 

[Triumph]

You're entirely off your rocker. Did you ever bother to read the complete passage? Again, Christ is warning about false prophets, he is NOT talking about himself!?!?!?

Matthew 24:23-27
24:23. "Then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ,' or 'There He is,' do not believe him. 24. "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 25. "Behold, I have told you in advance. 26. "So if they say to you, 'Behold, He is in the wilderness,' do not go out, or, 'Behold, He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe them. 27. "For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Paul even told his light in the desert story twice but they were not described the same way. Truth never varies so at least one version has to be a lie. Plus, Paul claims to have witnesses, but he never produced anyone to verify his story was true. A witness must testify to others what happened or there is no proof they even exist. Since no one testified for Paul then Paul has no witnesses even though he lies saying he did.
John 8:17
It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true." Jesus agrees with this law and said even he has to have a witness that he is telling the truth citing John the Baptist is his witness.
Paul, an educated man, plagiarized what he said that Jesus said to him. Kick against the pricks” is a phrase used multiple times in Greek plays, including in Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus, and The Bacchae by Euripides. In both cases it has to do with a mortal’s stubborn defiance. In The Bacchae, the mortal Pentheus has the god Dionysus bound, refusing to believe that he’s a god.

 

[Triumph]

And what did Paul do instead?

He violated it by saying he met Christ and told others where Christ was when he met him. Not to mention he decieved a lot of people who believed Paul, that gave rise to Pauline Christianity.

There's only two outcomes.

Christs return was at Damascus, thereby fulfilling the second coming right then and there.

Or..

Paul is actually one of the false prophets warned about in Matthew, claiming he saw Christ at a location and deceiving the very elect.

Either way it puts Matthew out of place, or the book of Paul is.

It's pretty damming stuff.

On the topic of false prophets, Jesus did consider himself a prophet because many of his messages warn what will happen in the future, but he is also as Savior much more than just a prophet.
Matthew 11:9
But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet."
Matthew 21:11
And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.
However, the Jews refused to believe what Jesus told them and considered him a false prophet.
Luke 4:24
And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country." Also see John 4:44.
John 7:52
They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet."
Luke 13:33
Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem."

I believe the point Jesus is making is that religious people have no right to kill people that disagree with their religious ideology.
As a prophetic message, there are 3 religions today that consider Jerusalem holy land, based on belief in Abraham as blessed, that have killed each other over their religious beliefs. Jesus considers it of prime importance that people believe what he taught and to love their enemies, those that disagree, so that conflict can be resolved with respectful conversation not on a battlefield.
And Paul? Paul believes Jesus is a prophet only if Jesus agrees with Paul's gospel which opposes the gospel of Jesus. Paul believes Jesus should perish.
1 Corinthians 14:37
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

 

[DNB]

Paul even told his light in the desert story twice but they were not described the same way. Truth never varies so at least one version has to be a lie. Plus, Paul claims to have witnesses, but he never produced anyone to verify his story was true. A witness must testify to others what happened or there is no proof they even exist. Since no one testified for Paul then Paul has no witnesses even though he lies saying he did.
John 8:17
It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true." Jesus agrees with this law and said even he has to have a witness that he is telling the truth citing John the Baptist is his witness.
Paul, an educated man, plagiarized what he said that Jesus said to him. Kick against the pricks” is a phrase used multiple times in Greek plays, including in Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus, and The Bacchae by Euripides. In both cases it has to do with a mortal’s stubborn defiance. In The Bacchae, the mortal Pentheus has the god Dionysus bound, refusing to believe that he’s a god.

Paul does not lie, nor does he ever need to. He was arguably the greatest Apostle of them all.
If he recounts a story with conflicting details in one version, as opposed to another, then he is referring to two different contexts, or it's a scribal error of some sort. Paul met Jesus and it changed his life - once an assassin of the believers, to becoming the most zealous, steadfast, selfless, loving and powerful Apostle of them all.