Was Paul a legitimate apostle?

[tstep182]

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?

 

[74x12]

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?

You say "somehow" his was taken seriously. Well there was a pretty good reason. He left for Damascus on assignment to persecute the Christians there; but instead ended up joining the Christians.

As for his apostleship that was confirmed because of the miracles. He claims to the churches he founded that he is an apostle at least to them if no one else and this was proven by the miracles. (2 Corinthians 12:12)
Finally, as for his strife with the original apostles it's in my opinion exaggerated. Peter for example takes Paul seriously calling him "beloved brother". Peter's only criticism if you call it that was that Paul's writings were hard to understand.

According to the book of Acts; Paul was completely accepted by the apostles and leadership of the church at Jerusalem. However, it is Paul himself in the book of Galatians which indicates he had some disagreement with a certain sect at the Jerusalem church which believed Pharisaic Judaism was essential for a Christian to practice in order to be saved. However, according to him and the book of Acts; Peter agreed with Paul and so did the other apostles. The only thing was they did not openly argue against this doctrine. At least not like Paul did. So he was more vocal about the whole grace of God vs. works of the law debate that was going on.

 

[Rival]

As a Christian I was always suspicious of Paul.

Still don't like him now.

 

[Kooky]

As a Christian I was always suspicious of Paul.

Still don't like him now.

If it makes you feel better - he's been dead for a while.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

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?

could it be, that the things he wrote were helpful in establishing religion, so the religious leaders who decided what books were to be used, chose his?

plus, he wrote many judgmental phrases and apparent commands, and some people like these kinds of things (to use against others) imo

don’t get me wrong, I truly like a lot of what Paul says (at least that which I seem to understand)

but I also like much of what other people have written, who have not been made part of the Bible

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

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 am curious why you used the word “clearly” ?

if the Bible was clear, or even a little bit clear, there wouldn’t be a million different religions that use the Bible

nor an endless number of arguments people have had over which one allegedly sees the Bible more clearly

if anything was truly clear, wouldn’t there be agreement?

just wondering

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

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

 

[tstep182]

i am curious why you used the word “clearly” ?

if the Bible was clear, or even a little bit clear, there wouldn’t be a million different religions that use the Bible

nor an endless number of arguments people have had over which one allegedly sees the Bible more clearly

if anything was truly clear, wouldn’t there be agreement?

just wondering

Sorry for any confusion -- I wasn't saying the Bible itself is clear (clearly it isn't). I was only trying to say the qualifications for the new apostle seemed pretty straightforward to me in Acts 1:21-22.

 

[Jainarayan]

As a Christian I was always suspicious of Paul.

Still don't like him now.

Agree with you I do. He usurped Peter’s primacy and made things up Jesus never said, or I dare say never intended.

 

[VoidCat]

As a Christian I was always suspicious of Paul.

Still don't like him now.

Agree with you I do. He usurped Peter’s primacy and made things up Jesus never said, or I dare say never intended.

When I was a Christian oddly enough he was my favorite person in the bible. Now I am older and no longer one I find him a very...puzzling.

 

[InChrist]

Agree with you I do. He usurped Peter’s primacy and made things up Jesus never said, or I dare say never intended.

Interesting though, that Peter acknowledged Paul’s Apostleship and agreed with his teachings.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Sorry for any confusion -- I wasn't saying the Bible itself is clear (clearly it isn't). I was only trying to say the qualifications for the new apostle seemed pretty straightforward to me in Acts 1:21-22.

Just because it was necessary for someone to be chosen to replace Judas doesn't mean there wouldn't be any other apostles.

 

[Deeje]

Acts 1 clearly states the simple qualifications for apostleship, which would have permanently excluded Paul.

The 12 were the chosen ones to be the foundation of God's Kingdom (Revelation 21:14).....but Paul was a unique choice, also chosen by the resurrected Jesus and educated by him; Paul was not educated by the other apostles. By the time he met the other apostles, he was accepted as their "brother". His apostleship was unique.

Peter had been chosen to baptize Cornelius and his household as the first Gentiles to become Christians without the need to convert to Judaism first. But the Gentiles were just starting to come to Christ. Paul was the only one of the apostles who was educated at the Jewish Rabbinical schools at the feet of Gamaliel, a member of the Sanhedrin. (Acts 22:3) He was chosen as "an apostle to the nations"....one who would be hailed before kings and governors and also one who stood before the philosophers of the Ar·e·opʹa·gus. (Acts 17:22-31) His education would be used in a way that the uneducated 12 would have been ill equipped to handle.

We have to remember too that the apostles had the holy spirit and if Paul had been a fake apostle, God would have told them so and he would have been rejected.

Countless people throughout the years have claimed to have similar visions and divine appointments, but somehow his was taken seriously.

It was prophesied that many would come claiming to be of divine appointment, but Paul was not your average Joe. He had spent quite some time rounding up the Christians in order to persecute them, proud of his efforts. Saul of Tarsus was one who stood by condoning the murder of Stephen.

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 did not have much strife with the other apostles....he had the occasional issue but certainly nothing serious or lasting. On one occasion he corrected Peter for exhibiting favoritism towards his fellow Jews at the expense of his Gentile brothers.....Paul set him straight in front of everyone present. Peter took it on the chin because he was clearly in the wrong.

Now ask yourself why an avowed hater, murderer and persecutor of Christians would put his own life in jeopardy in order to become what he once abhorred? As a Pharisee, who became a follower of Jesus the Christ, he was hated by the Jews as a traitor...a defector. (Acts 14:19)

He suffered much for his new found faith. (2 Corinthians 11:24-28) Do you think he would have chosen that over his life as a powerful and proud Pharisee?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

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?

once the catholic church declared which books would constitute the Bible, any other input was shut off

i’m wondering what opinion we would have today, if his letters were not included

but they had to be included, they are much more convenient for those who lead religion, than the rest of scripture

 

[DNB]

As a Christian I was always suspicious of Paul.

Still don't like him now.

Paul was brilliant, I don't know how in the world that you can see otherwise?
Between his love for the church despite incessant persecution and even while in jail, and his wisdom and profundity in explicating the relationships between the Old & New Covenants, and the faith and power that he exuded while evangelizing, and the profuse amount of epistles that are ascribed to him, Paul is justifiably considered the greatest Apostle of them all.

 

[DNB]

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'm sorry, but that was an extremely weak argument?
Outside of not being familiar as to where it states that one was not to regard Jesus as being 'here or there' (but I'll concede this for now), Paul's extraordinary and exclusive experience was for a specific purpose and intent, and you clearly saw the amazing results that followed from it.
Many exceptions occurred throughout the Bible that are not to be regarded as common place, nor even explicable, and that may appear as theologically contradictory or implausible. Moses and Elijah 'seeing' God, the elders on Mount Sinai seeing God while eating in His presence. Moses speaking to God 'face to face', or the account of the burning bush. All these imply that God can be circumscribed in one location - impossible. ...but, that's in regard to God, as for Jesus, who obviously is not God, why is it extraordinary to believe that he appeared in one location at a certain point in time. Did not his post-resurrection appearances substantiate the plausibility of this fact?

I believe that, just as Paul stated on several occasions about himself, the other Apostles also received revelation and visions from Jesus in order to strengthen and aid their ministries, but that these phenomena just weren't recorded as such, nor are necessarily to be regarded as prescriptive, but merely descriptive.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm sorry, but that was an extremely weak argument?
Outside of not being familiar as to where it states that one was not to regard Jesus as being 'here or there' (but I'll concede this for now), Paul's extraordinary and exclusive experience was for a specific purpose and intent, and you clearly saw the amazing results that followed from it.
Many exceptions occurred throughout the Bible that are not to be regarded as common place, nor even explicable, and that may appear as theologically contradictory or implausible. Moses and Elijah 'seeing' God, the elders on Mount Sinai seeing God while eating in His presence. Moses speaking to God 'face to face', or the account of the burning bush. All these imply that God can be circumscribed in one location - impossible. ...but, that's in regard to God, as for Jesus, who obviously is not God, why is it extraordinary to believe that he appeared in one location at a certain point in time. Did not his post-resurrection appearances substantiate the plausibility of this fact?

I believe that, just as Paul stated on several occasions about himself, the other Apostles also received revelation and visions from Jesus in order to strengthen and aid their ministries, but that these phenomena just weren't recorded as such, nor are necessarily to be regarded as prescriptive, but merely descriptive.

It's not weak at all. In fact it's ironclad.

Paul ignored not to believe and he did anyways.

The warning is here...

Religious Forums.


What is the apologetics for this?

 

[DNB]

It's not weak at all. In fact it's ironclad.

Paul ignored not to believe and he did anyways.

The warning is here...

Religious Forums.


What is the apologetics for this?

But, that was entirely out of context? Paul was speaking about charlatans claiming that another Messiah has a arrived, someone besides Christ. These we are not to follow, as true believers understand that Jesus is in heaven seated at God's right-hand. Again, your argument is extremely unfounded, based on improperly exegeted texts. Had you read the whole context of the pericope, you would not have made such a naive mistake. Excuse the harsh words, but that interpretation was entirely inept and unacceptable .

 

[Twilight Hue]

But, that was entirely out of context? Paul was speaking about charlatans claiming that another Messiah has a arrived, someone besides Christ. These we are not to follow, as true believers understand that Jesus is in heaven seated at God's right-hand. Again, your argument is extremely unfounded, based on improperly exegeted texts. Had you read the whole context of the pericope, you would not have made such a naive mistake. Excuse the harsh words, but that interpretation was entirely inept and unacceptable .

I don't think its out of context. Not at all, as far as I can tell.

Paul isn't even attributed to saying those words found written in Matthew.

It's well prior to Paul's encounter with 'Christ ' in Damascus if context is considered here. I'm not under the impression the book of Paul preceeded the Book of Matthew. Did it?

Paul turned out to be the one who had defied that particular warning not to believe by his own volition.

I would say it's a colossal critical failure for traditional Christianity altogether. Essentially making Pauline doctrines an imposter religion, replacing early Christianity altogether with a new version of its own. Hence the exclusive birth of Pauline Christianity arose giving the death knell to the orginal altogether.

The Catholic Church among Constantine cemented Pauline-ism into its doctrines and the rest is literary history among its associated mythologies.

 

[DNB]

I don't think its out of context. Not at all, as far as I can tell.

Paul isn't even attributed to saying those words found written in Matthew.

It's well prior to Paul's encounter with 'Christ ' in Damascus if context is considered here. I'm not under the impression the book of Paul preceeded the Book of Matthew. Did it?

Paul turned out to be the one who had defied that particular warning not to believe by his own volition.

I would say it's a colossal critical failure for traditional Christianity altogether. Essentially making Pauline doctrines an imposter religion, replacing early Christianity altogether with a new version of its own. Hence the exclusive birth of Pauline Christianity arose giving the death knell to the orginal altogether.

The Catholic Church among Constantine cemented it into its doctrines and the rest is literary history among its associated mythologies.

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?