Paul - An Apostle?

[nPeace]

I think you just grasped an important lesson in life. You are not X because you claim you are. Isaac Newton was a scientist (of sort, at the time sciences were still in their infancy) because he produced scientific work, was part of a scientific society and was recognized as such by his peers and the population in general. You are not X simply because you claim you are it. It's a bit more complicated than that. You reasonably cannot claim to be the king of Assyria for instance. Even if Assyria still existed as a polity; you would not be its king, you would be just an insane man.

For Paul, that's a bit more complicated than Peter. Peter can easily claimed to be an Apostle for he was one of the pupil and followers of Jesus. Paul never met Jesus and never followed him during his lifetime. Paul claim to have had a vision of Jesus' ghost while on the road to Damascus during some sort of epileptic seizure. We all know he could very well lie; that's a very big possibility and, unlike Peter, he doesn't have the means to prove it by showing his knowledge of Jesus' personal life, or the backing of other apostles or people who simply witnessed him with Jesus and are still around. Plus, knowing a person made of flesh and blood vs meeting someone else's ghost in a mystic vision are two very different type of experiences. In the end, I don't think there is much reason to believe Paul was indeed an Apostle of Jesus since, by his own admission and that of other followers of Jesus, he never met him. You have to have great faith and a certain blind trust in that man to believe what he said. Was he am early Christian, an preacher and one of the founder of Christian theology? Absolutely no doubt about that. Was he an apostle? I would say probably not.

Paul is not the writer of Luke.
It was Luke who said that Paul "met" Jesus, and received a commission from him.
In fact, Luke is the one who provided the information on how the apostles were skeptical about Paul's conversion.
He is the same historian that informed us of Peter's - an apostle - activity, after Jesus' ascension,, as well as the formation, and progress of the Christian congregation.

 

[epronovost]

Paul is not the writer of Luke.
It was Luke who said that Paul "met" Jesus, and received a commission from him.
In fact, Luke is the one who provided the information on how the apostles were skeptical about Paul's conversion.
He is the same historian that informed us of Peter's - an apostle - activity, after Jesus' ascension,, as well as the formation, and progress of the Christian congregation.

Interesting point. What does Paul claim about his knowledge of Jesus?

 

[nPeace]

That is also open to debate. There are six or seven epistles that are generally accepted to be authored by Paul, The rest are considered questionable to different degrees.

You seem to favor the side that claim Paul only wrote six or seven.
Others, including early scholars, do not question Paul's writer-ship, of all thirteen.

 

[nPeace]

Interesting point. What does Paul claim about his knowledge of Jesus?

Quite a lot.
You aren't asking me to quote all those text... are you!!!?

 

[Brickjectivity]

• Was Paul really a true Christian

  That is between him and God. Maybe he was not.
  

• and apostle

  The title 'Jesus Christ' suggests someone sublimated into Christ, such that the individual named Jesus does not send apostles. Furthermore a vision is not the same as an in person encounter. The vision and the name 'Jesus Christ' together suggest that Paul feels compelled to be a messenger, but his 'Apostleship' rests solely upon his actions not upon who sends him. It is as if no one has sent him, because he is not one of the twelve. He claims to be a messenger from Jesus Christ, however all Christians are Christ (which means anointed --> which is a claim to be priests). This blurs the lines a little about what it means to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be sent by Jesus Christ. Do not all ministers claim to be sent by Jesus Christ? Yes, but they also have not met Jesus. They only know Christ. It is not the same as saying 'An apostle of Jesus' because of the word 'Christ' at the end. Jesus is an individual. Jesus Christ is not, because he has denied himself. Therefore he does not send people to do things. It is a different kind of send. Paul is fond of writing that the church is one body and calls the church the bride of Christ. This also supports the conclusion that his apostleship can only be sealed by his results, not by whether any individual sends him. If he claimed Jesus (the individual) had sent him, this would be contradictory.
  

• as the scriptures say?

  I believe that Paul's claim to be an apostle is legitimate and that he knows very well he's not claiming that Jesus the individual has sent him but rather that his own conscience has, and he believes in Christ, in the body of Christ. Like the gospels, Paul uses indirect phrases and some mysterious wording; and this is acceptable to him and not considered dishonest just as Jesus usages in the gospels are not considered dishonest. Rather, they are tests.
  

• What do you believe

  I believe all things, hope all things and endure all things...when I am able. Sometimes I fail at this.
  

• and does your belief agree with the scriptures?

  The ten commandments are written by the finger of the L-RD, but Adam has been crafted with the hands of the L-RD, made in the image of God. No matter how good or true the scripture may be, the person must hear the word of God within themselves in order to see it on the page. The word of God is living and dynamic and sharp, dividing. It cannot be held on paper, and this is acknowledged also by the Jews, by Jesus, by the apostles and by Paul. Above all it is acknowledged when Simon is first called Peter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Was Paul really a true Christian, and apostle, as the scriptures say?
What do you believe, and does your belief agree with the scriptures?

Paul was a Christian; arguably, he was the main founder of the Christian religion. IMO, the "true" is redundant.

I have no idea what the criteria are for "apostle."

 

[epronovost]

Quite a lot.
You aren't asking me to quote all those text... are you!!!?

I just want to know what are his claimed sources, not the nature of his claim. He can tell everything he wants about Jesus, I wonder how he knows of him.

 

[nPeace]

The epistle writers predate the gospels and they in no way are aware of a Jesus from Nazareth, nor disciples of Jesus, believe it or not. Only the few post-gospel epistle writers are aware of a Jesus from Nazareth.

Interesting how scholars who make those claims do not see the flaws in their thinking.

 

[fantome profane]

You seem to favor the side that claim Paul only wrote six or seven.
Others, including early scholars, do not question Paul's writer-ship, of all thirteen.

I question everything.

But to a reasonable degree of certainty I do believe that at least six are written by the historical Paul, four that are a are almost certainly not, and the rest who knows.

 

[nPeace]

Paul was a Christian; arguably, he was the main founder of the Christian religion. IMO, the "true" is redundant.

The Christian congregation was attacked by Saul (Paul). For that reason, and others, he could not possibly be its founder, since it existed before him.

I have no idea what the criteria are for "apostle."

Apostle means "sent forth"
It involves one being sent as a student of another.
That's my simple way of explaining, but I will get the exact, and more accurate definition for you, in a moment.

 

[nPeace]

I question everything.

But to a reasonable degree of certainty I do believe that at least six are written by the historical Paul, four that are a are almost certainly not, and the rest who knows.

Do you also question the views of those who claim Paul did not write all thirteen?
If so, would you mind sharing why you accept their views?
It would be useful to this thread.

 

[nPeace]

I just want to know what are his claimed sources, not the nature of his claim. He can tell everything he wants about Jesus, I wonder how he knows of him.

Okay. I need to get something to eat. So I will get that for you later.

 

[nPeace]

I have no idea what the criteria are for "apostle."

Apostle
The basic sense of the word is “one sent forth,” and it is used of Jesus and certain ones who were sent to serve others. Most frequently, it is used with regard to the disciples whom Jesus personally selected as a group of 12 appointed representatives. - Mark 3:14 ; Acts 14:14

 

[fantome profane]

Do you also question the views of those who claim Paul did not write all thirteen?
If so, would you mind sharing why you accept their views?
It would be useful to this thread.

Sure, if you want.

I am thinking mainly of what they call the Pastoral epistles, Timothy 1&2 and Titus. Just reading these books you can see that this author has very different views from the person who wrote the more accepted books. Very different views about family, about the role of women in the church, and very different views about the end times.

Now you could make the argument that Paul just changed his mind about these things, but there is nothing there where he talks about reconsidering or having a new revelation.

Nothing is absolutely certain, but the argument against these books being authentic is much stronger than the assumption that they are.



Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that the third epistle to the Corinthians is false? And if you believe that book is false, is it so impossible to think Timothy could also be false?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Christian congregation was attacked by Saul (Paul). For that reason, and others, he could not possibly be its founder, since it existed before him.

AFAIK, Paul is the person who took Christianity from a Jewish sect to a religion in its own right.

Apostle means "sent forth"
It involves one being sent as a student of another.
That's my simple way of explaining, but I will get the exact, and more accurate definition for you, in a moment.

Ah... well, as I see it, the only thing that ever "sent forth" Paul was Paul's own imagination (or mental illness), so I guess no: I don't think Paul was an apostle.

 

[Redemptionsong]

AFAIK, Paul is the person who took Christianity from a Jewish sect to a religion in its own right.


Ah... well, as I see it, the only thing that ever "sent forth" Paul was Paul's own imagination (or mental illness), so I guess no: I don't think Paul was an apostle.

It amazes me that Paul's teaching is not better understood! All you have to do is pick up a NT, preferably a good translation, and read it!

If you discredit Paul, you must then discredit all the apostles who gave their blessing to Paul's ministry. If you dismiss the authority of the apostles, you bring into question the baptism that Jesus bestowed on the Church at Pentecost. This, in turn, makes the Jesus of the Gospels a fraud, and undermines the testimony of John the Baptist. By rejecting Jesus as Saviour, you also bring in to question the authority of the Tanakh, and its prophets, and its God!

The Bible is a single prophecy, with a complete plan of redemption. Without the Tanakh, you don't know the Father, above. Without the Gospels, you don't know the Son, amongst. Without the rest of the NT, you don't know the Holy Spirit, within.

 

[YoursTrue]

• That is between him and God. Maybe he was not.
  
• The title 'Jesus Christ' suggests someone sublimated into Christ, such that the individual named Jesus does not send apostles. Furthermore a vision is not the same as an in person encounter. The vision and the name 'Jesus Christ' together suggest that Paul feels compelled to be a messenger, but his 'Apostleship' rests solely upon his actions not upon who sends him. It is as if no one has sent him, because he is not one of the twelve. He claims to be a messenger from Jesus Christ, however all Christians are Christ (which means anointed --> which is a claim to be priests). This blurs the lines a little about what it means to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be sent by Jesus Christ. Do not all ministers claim to be sent by Jesus Christ? Yes, but they also have not met Jesus. They only know Christ. It is not the same as saying 'An apostle of Jesus' because of the word 'Christ' at the end. Jesus is an individual. Jesus Christ is not, because he has denied himself. Therefore he does not send people to do things. It is a different kind of send. Paul is fond of writing that the church is one body and calls the church the bride of Christ. This also supports the conclusion that his apostleship can only be sealed by his results, not by whether any individual sends him. If he claimed Jesus (the individual) had sent him, this would be contradictory.
  
• I believe that Paul's claim to be an apostle is legitimate and that he knows very well he's not claiming that Jesus the individual has sent him but rather that his own conscience has, and he believes in Christ, in the body of Christ. Like the gospels, Paul uses indirect phrases and some mysterious wording; and this is acceptable to him and not considered dishonest just as Jesus usages in the gospels are not considered dishonest. Rather, they are tests.
  
• I believe all things, hope all things and endure all things...when I am able. Sometimes I fail at this.
  
• The ten commandments are written by the finger of the L-RD, but Adam has been crafted with the hands of the L-RD, made in the image of God. No matter how good or true the scripture may be, the person must hear the word of God within themselves in order to see it on the page. The word of God is living and dynamic and sharp, dividing. It cannot be held on paper, and this is acknowledged also by the Jews, by Jesus, by the apostles and by Paul. Above all it is acknowledged when Simon is first called Peter.

Well, you bring up an interesting question. Since you say maybe Paul is a true Christian, maybe he's not -- how would you define a true Christian? (or would you...)

 

[Twilight Hue]

Was Paul really a true Christian, and apostle, as the scriptures say?
What do you believe, and does your belief agree with the scriptures?

No. He's a Bible contradiction via Mark 13:21.

If I was still a Christian I would say he's clearly a false apostle that gave rise to Pauline Christianity that contaminated orginal Christianity to a point its unrecognizable.

 

[Psalm23]

Was Paul really a true Christian, and apostle, as the scriptures say?
What do you believe, and does your belief agree with the scriptures?

Yes, I believe Paul was Christian and a apostle.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Well, you bring up an interesting question. Since you say maybe Paul is a true Christian, maybe he's not -- how would you define a true Christian? (or would you...)

A true Christian has succeeded in continuously producing the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, long suffering, meekly forgiving, faithfulness etc. They have obtained a crown of righteousness worth more than all other things. They are a transformed being, once dead, now alive.