Paul is not an Apostle

Muffled · Mar 30, 2017

Brickjectivity said:
Paul does not support the existence of your Islam. This gives a motivation for you to imagine ways to debunk him. 'Proofs' are your tools and hardened, inflexible views of scriptures you reject already. Its not a problem to call him an apostle, but anyway whatever someone says has to be tested no matter who they are. It doesn't matter if they are an apostle.

This is a law about convicting people of crimes and resolving unfairness. Paul states his claim to apostleship is based upon all the lives he has touched which is in line with Jesus teaching that you can only tell good prophets by their fruit. Jesus statement is in accordance with Deuteronomy which says you cannot believe prophets based upon their miracles. There's no 'Two witnesses' requirement for apostles.

I believe that would be impossible since Islam did not exist in his time but certainly Paul would agree with the concept of Islam which is to hear and obey God.

I believe the motivation comes from a fuzzy understanding of the Qu'ran that runs in opposition to what Paul says.

I don't believe Paul was referring to his fruit but to his experience encountering Jesus on the road to Damascus and the operation of the Holy Spirit in the congregation at Antioch. Whether he actually is sent by God may be evaluated by his words and actions.

Douglas J. · Jul 6, 2017

I have been reading much of what has been said so far, and it distresses me to see so much argument, and so little discussion. Some try to reason, but others seem intent on asserting their superiority. I seek to study The Way, which is what it was called in the common language, ancient Aramaic. I have no prejudicial beliefs about different religions. I try to accept all with due respect. I don't argue. It's a waste of time.

In the ancient languages of the time He was not called Jesus. In the common tongue He was known a Eashoa. In the high tongue of the priests of Israel He was called Yeshua. I prefer Eashoa.

Let's review facts:
Matthew 23 - Eashoa speaks out against the teachers of the law (scribes), and the pharisees in an incredibly stern manner. There is no way to deny this.
Matthew 24 - Eashoa warns against false messiahs and false prophets. In verses 22 - 28 Eashoa states that He is warning us ahead of time that some will come saying they saw Him in the wilderness, or in an upper room, and that we should not believe them. He also states "For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even to the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." Which means everyone will know it.

In Acts 23:6, Acts 26:5, and Philippians 3:5, Paul boasts of being a pharisee, and says he's descended from a line of pharisees.
Soon after Eashoa's resurrection Paul claims to have seen Him on the road to Damascus.
There is no reference that Paul ever met Eashoa. Of course then Paul was Saul of Tarsus.
There are 3 stories given by Paul about his conversion. They aren't consistent.
The only places the the name Paul, and the word apostle are found together are in books written by Paul.
Luke, credited for being the writer of the gospel, and the book of Acts was a friend and traveling companion of Paul's.
Paul's influence can be seen in both of Luke's books, especially Acts, which is basically all about Paul.
The books of Peter are doubted by many scholars to be of Petrine origin due to the time frame and word design. So it's doubtful that Peter ever acknowledged Paul.
None of the other apostles ever acknowledged Paul.
The twelve that were chosen all spent time with Eashoa learning The Way. Matthias was chosen to replace Judas, but was among their number during that time.
All were present at the crucifixion.
All were anointed by the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, and spoke in tongues at that time. The anointing was paramount.
Paul was present for none of this.
Revelations 21:14 - there were only twelve apostles.

Remember the words of Solomon: Eccl. 7:29 - "This only have I found: God created mankind upright, but they have gone in search of many schemes."

According to these words, and those of Eashoa, warning against the scribes (those who write), I cannot believe that anything touched by the hand of man remains untainted, but I believe the truth can be found if you look for it.

Draw your own conclusion.

Ben Avraham · Jul 8, 2017

Paul is Not an Apostle.

Paul was not an apostle for two reasons. First, because he has been dead for over 2,000 years. And
second, he could not have been an apostle because the Apostles were to be 12 as if they could not be 11 or 13. But then again, we all know that Judas got lost and for a short time an apostle was missing to fill-up the traditional twelve. Being aware of that fact, Paul left Damascus and went up to Jerusalem to try to join the Apostles and fill-up the missing place. Of course, the Apostles rejected his appeal to join the sacred group based on the fact that Paul was a dangerous persecutor of the Sect of the Nazarenes. (Acts 9:1,2, 26) Then, the Apostles had already anointed Matthias to replace Judas. (Acts 1:26) That's when Paul decided to anoint himself as an apostle to the Gentiles although most the time, he would work among the Jews.

omega2xx · Jul 9, 2017

Ben Avraham said:
Paul was not an apostle for two reasons. First, because he has been dead for over 2,000 years.

All of the apostles have been dead for over 2000 years.

And second, he could not have been an apostle because the Apostles were to be 12 as if they could not be 11 or 13.

God started with 12 but He never set a limit. Apostleship is a spiritual gift(Eph 4:11). We have apostles today and there is many more than 12. At one time Israel had 13 tribes.

But then again, we all know that Judas got lost and for a short time an apostle was missing to fill-up the traditional twelve. Being aware of that fact, Paul left Damascus and went up to Jerusalem to try to join the Apostles and fill-up the missing place.

There is no indication Paul knew Judas killed himself, and the his place needed to be fulfilled. At that time he could not care less about the Christians, Also He did not go to Jerusalem to join the apostles, he went to confront them about the false teachings about needing to be circumcised
to be saved(Acts 15:1-2)

Of course, the Apostles rejected his appeal to join the sacred group based on the fact that Paul was a dangerous persecutor of the Sect of the Nazarenes. (Acts 9:1,2, 26)

He did not ask to join them and he and Barnabas were accepted as fellow Christians

Then, the Apostles had already anointed Matthias to replace Judas. (Acts 1:26) That's when Paul decided to anoint himself as an apostle to the Gentiles although most the time, he would work among the Jews.

It is amusing you think someone who God used for a great influence of Christian theology anointed himself.

What ever source you are using, you need a better one. It didn't get one thing right.

Douglas J. · Jul 9, 2017

omega2xx said:
All of the apostles have been dead for over 2000 years.

God started with 12 but He never set a limit. Apostleship is a spiritual gift(Eph 4:11). We have apostles today and there is many more than 12. At one time Israel had 13 tribes.

There is no indication Paul knew Judas killed himself, and the his place needed to be fulfilled. At that time he could not care less about the Christians, Also He did not go to Jerusalem to join the apostles, he went to confront them about the false teachings about needing to be circumcised
to be saved(Acts 15:1-2)

He did not ask to join them and he and Barnabas were accepted as fellow Christians

It is amusing you think someone who God used for a great influence of Christian theology anointed himself.

What ever source you are using, you need a better one. It didn't get one thing right.

First of all the you have quoted the man in question, Paul. Secondly, you have quoted the man, Luke, in Acts, who was Paul's follower and companion, and obviously influenced by Paul. You need to reach beyond these to prove your point. Thirdly, Paul is the only one who claims his apostleship. No one else.

A great many people have influenced Christian theology. It doesn't mean they're right. Much of what has been said and done is of no benefit. You might take a closer look at what I wrote on this subject. It's right above Ben's statement.

Revelations 21:14 - there were only twelve apostles. This statement was written in full knowledge of Paul's claims, but does not say 13 apostles. Also, there were never anymore apostle than the original twelve. None were anointed by the Holy Spirit in this fashion after their time.

You believe what you were taught, without question. This is not the way to learn to the truth. Ask. Seek. Knock. This is the way to the truth.

Douglas J. · Jul 9, 2017

Ben Avraham said:
Paul was not an apostle for two reasons. First, because he has been dead for over 2,000 years. And
second, he could not have been an apostle because the Apostles were to be 12 as if they could not be 11 or 13. But then again, we all know that Judas got lost and for a short time an apostle was missing to fill-up the traditional twelve. Being aware of that fact, Paul left Damascus and went up to Jerusalem to try to join the Apostles and fill-up the missing place. Of course, the Apostles rejected his appeal to join the sacred group based on the fact that Paul was a dangerous persecutor of the Sect of the Nazarenes. (Acts 9:1,2, 26) Then, the Apostles had already anointed Matthias to replace Judas. (Acts 1:26) That's when Paul decided to anoint himself as an apostle to the Gentiles although most the time, he would work among the Jews.

syncretic said:
I think that Paul was an Apostle.

An interesting aspect to this, is thar anti-Paulinism, is really linked to anti-semitism. The reason being, Paul /Saul, is considered a Pharisee, and //somehow people the think the other apostles werent jewish, or something,,
Anyways, the same ideas used against Paul are really just the ideas that are used against Jesus, when the 'anti semite'or whatever, crosses into "odinism",or occult quasi paganism.
They cant be real satanists, because that is still m. Eastern anyways, thats the real story here

Wake up

I don't believe it has anything to do with your assumption. I think people are trying to find the truth of the matter. What each one believes is their right. That I don't believe that Paul was an apostle, as I have written, is by preponderance of the evidence, and the weight of Eashoa's words, but even though these things are pointed out, I still ask people to make their own conclusion base on evidence.

One day will come that all things hidden will be made clear. Then, everyone will know.

Desert Snake · Jul 9, 2017

Douglas J. said:
I don't believe it has anything to do with your assumption. I think people are trying to find the truth of the matter. What each one believes is their right. That I don't believe that Paul was an apostle, as I have written, is by preponderance of the evidence, and the weight of Eashoa's words, but even though these things are pointed out, I still ask people to make their own conclusion base on evidence.

One day will come that all things hidden will be made clear. Then, everyone will know.

Regardless of Paulinism, it does have that to do with it. It is aside from the fact that you may not adhere to the epistles, or whatnot.

Desert Snake · Jul 9, 2017

Paul is consideted the "Judaizer", by most standard argument.

Ie pharisee so forth

The concept of anti-Paulinism pro-torah, is another argument, that seeks to make the nt generally either not scripture, or scripture in the sense of perhaps a few books in the nt.

Desert Snake · Jul 9, 2017

Paul advocated limited and modified Torah,/rules/ which is my religious background. This is still using the Torah for some rules, so forth.

Desert Snake · Jul 9, 2017

The churches most likely used their own estimations as to what Paul meant, however at least, there doesnt seem to be contradiction, there.

They did add epistles, remember. They added epistles that are more liberal

Douglas J. · Jul 9, 2017

syncretic said:
Regardless of Paulinism, it does have that to do with it. It is aside from the fact that you may not adhere to the epistles, or whatnot; I'm stating facts, not assumptions.

I stated facts in my original statement. With scriptural statements and other information derived from study and searching. If you don't want to accept it, that's fine. It still doesn't change the evidence. You're using the basis of Paul's, and possibly Luke's, writings to affirm his status, whereas, he, and his companions, are the ones in question.

What you have been taught, you believe without question. I question everything, in order to ascertain the truth. This is the only way we can find our way. Ask. Seek. Knock. Everything is in the effort taken to discern it's veracity. If I were simply willing to believe everything I have been told, or that has been written, by man, I would be failing in my duty. I would be completely, and utterly confused. Man has said and written far to much to be trusted. The truth must be gleaned from the garbage, and, frankly, it seems that there's a great deal of trash to sift through. I wish it could be easier.

At any rate, one day we will all know the truth. Then, all of this will be a moot point.

Douglas J. · Jul 9, 2017

syncretic said:
The churches most likely used their own estimations as to what Paul meant, however at least, there doesnt seem to be contradiction, there.

They did add epistles, remember. They added epistles that are more liberal

Yes, men added epistles. You have told the truth in that, but Paul was far from liberal.

Desert Snake · Jul 9, 2017

Douglas J. said:
I stated facts in my original statement. With scriptural statements and other information derived from study and searching. If you don't want to accept it, that's fine. It still doesn't change the evidence. You're using the basis of Paul's, and possibly Luke's, writings to affirm his status, whereas, he, and his companions, are the ones in question.

What you have been taught, you believe without question. I question everything, in order to ascertain the truth. This is the only way we can find our way. Ask. Seek. Knock. Everything is in the effort taken to discern it's veracity. If I were simply willing to believe everything I have been told, or that has been written, by man, I would be failing in my duty. I would be completely, and utterly confused. Man has said and written far to much to be trusted. The truth must be gleaned from the garbage, and, frankly, it seems that there's a great deal of trash to sift through. I wish it could be easier.

At any rate, one day we will all know the truth. Then, all of this will be a moot point.

*shrugs*

Doesn't bother me.

I'm not sure why it's such big deal, frankly. The Bible doesnt change from John to the epistles.

Desert Snake · Jul 9, 2017

It might change, a bit, however, that is personal interpretation

Desert Snake · Jul 9, 2017

Douglas J. said:
Yes, men added epistles. You have told the truth in that, but Paul was far from liberal.

I dont worship at the altar of over liberalism.

Douglas J. · Jul 9, 2017

Eashoa was liberal, tolerant, and acceptant of all people, except for the scribes, pharisees, sadducees, and money lenders in the temple. With these He was stern. Yet, with Samaritans, gentiles, women, children, and the common people He displayed incredible compassion, and understanding.

I don't worship at any altar. There have been too many sacrifices made upon them. I try to walk with God, the Father. Dodging the obstacles is the hard part.

Desert Snake · Jul 9, 2017

'God', is a name, in the Bible. Not merely a title. It is not interchangeable with any /specified deity, unless contextually noted, //usually literary

omega2xx · Jul 9, 2017

Douglas J. said:
First of all the you have quoted the man in question, Paul. Secondly, you have quoted the man, Luke, in Acts, who was Paul's follower and companion, and obviously influenced by Paul. You need to reach beyond these to prove your point. Thirdly, Paul is the only one who claims his apostleship. No one else.

I am not trying to prove my point. I post what I believe then everyone get to determine who is telling the truth. FYI God inspired every word in the Bible, It is not Paul who appointed himself to be an apostle, it was God. Another statement that everyone gets to accept or reject.

A great many people have influenced Christian theology.

Of course.

It doesn't mean they're right.

It also doesn't mean they are not. One purpose of the Bible is so we can check what men say and see if it corresponds with what God said.

Much of what has been said and done is of no benefit. You might take a closer look at what I wrote on this subject. It's right above Ben's statement.

As sooe as I finish here I will see if I can find it.

Revelations 21:14 - there were only twelve apostles. This statement was written in full knowledge of Paul's claims, but does not say 13 apostles. Also, there were never anymore apostle than the original twelve. None were anointed by the Holy Spirit in this fashion after their time.

Sure there was. According to God's inspired and inerrant word, Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Barnabas was also an apostle(Acts 14:14). Apostle is a spiritual gift(Eph 4:11). So there are thousands of apostles today.

You believe what you were taught, without question. This is not the way to learn to the truth. Ask. Seek. Knock. This is the way to the truth.

I believe no such thing. I am a Berean(Acts 17:11)foo Missouri. I do not accept all of reformed(Presbyterian) theology. I reject "Limited Atonement;" and a few other Presbyterian doctrines.

Because of my aged(85) And because I have seriously studied and taught the Bible for 40 years, I am going to suggest I know the way of truth better than you do.

FYI, Mt 7:7 was the first verse I memorized as a Christian. The verb tenses in that verse imply to continue asking, seeking and knocking. That is what I do, even after 40 years.

I KNOW I have been led into the truth but God's Holy Spirit. That does not mean my theology is perfect. No one can make that claim,

Douglas J. · Jul 9, 2017

syncretic said:
'God', is a name, in the Bible. Not merely a title. It is not interchangeable with any /specified deity, unless contextually noted, //usually literary

You argue semantecs, even when the meaning is apparent. It's a waste of effort. If I were to call Him by any other name you would argue that as well. It seems to be your nature.

omega2xx · Jul 9, 2017

Douglas J. said:
I have been reading much of what has been said so far, and it distresses me to see so much argument, and so little discussion. Some try to reason, but others seem intent on asserting their superiority. I seek to study The Way, which is what it was called in the common language, ancient Aramaic. I have no prejudicial beliefs about different religions. I try to accept all with due respect. I don't argue. It's a waste of time.

In the ancient languages of the time He was not called Jesus. In the common tongue He was known a Eashoa. In the high tongue of the priests of Israel He was called Yeshua. I prefer Eashoa.

Let's review facts:
Matthew 23 - Eashoa speaks out against the teachers of the law (scribes), and the pharisees in an incredibly stern manner. There is no way to deny this.
Matthew 24 - Eashoa warns against false messiahs and false prophets. In verses 22 - 28 Eashoa states that He is warning us ahead of time that some will come saying they saw Him in the wilderness, or in an upper room, and that we should not believe them. He also states "For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even to the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." Which means everyone will know it.

In Acts 23:6, Acts 26:5, and Philippians 3:5, Paul boasts of being a pharisee, and says he's descended from a line of pharisees.
Soon after Eashoa's resurrection Paul claims to have seen Him on the road to Damascus.
There is no reference that Paul ever met Eashoa. Of course then Paul was Saul of Tarsus.
There are 3 stories given by Paul about his conversion. They aren't consistent.
The only places the the name Paul, and the word apostle are found together are in books written by Paul.
Luke, credited for being the writer of the gospel, and the book of Acts was a friend and traveling companion of Paul's.
Paul's influence can be seen in both of Luke's books, especially Acts, which is basically all about Paul.
The books of Peter are doubted by many scholars to be of Petrine origin due to the time frame and word design. So it's doubtful that Peter ever acknowledged Paul.
None of the other apostles ever acknowledged Paul.
The twelve that were chosen all spent time with Eashoa learning The Way. Matthias was chosen to replace Judas, but was among their number during that time.
All were present at the crucifixion.
All were anointed by the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, and spoke in tongues at that time. The anointing was paramount.
Paul was present for none of this.
Revelations 21:14 - there were only twelve apostles.

Remember the words of Solomon: Eccl. 7:29 - "This only have I found: God created mankind upright, but they have gone in search of many schemes."

According to these words, and those of Eashoa, warning against the scribes (those who write), I cannot believe that anything touched by the hand of man remains untainted, but I believe the truth can be found if you look for it.

Draw your own conclusion.

My conclusion is that is that if you believe God can't control the words He inspired, including the jots and tittles, your God is to small.

Paul is not an Apostle

Jesus in me

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

New Member

New Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

New Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member