Paul - An Apostle?

[nPeace]

Only 12 Apostles are allowed. People cannot call themselves apostle because they desire the respect of the title. If more than 12 Apostles were allowed by Jesus then not just Matthias would have the title Apostle but also the other man that was worthy of the title, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus would have it. Joseph "Barsabas" Justus is not an Apostle but is a faithful disciple.
Paul gave himself the title Apostle and to make people believe it, lied saying it was given to him by Jesus. Paul is a Pharisee supporting Pharisee beliefs not a disciple of Jesus supporting what Jesus taught. Paul did not even know the sermons of Jesus and had to ask the true Apostles what the opinion of Jesus on doctrine was. Then when told by the real Apostles, Paul taught the opposite because Paul did not accept what Jesus taught. Paul claims conversion but by not following what Jesus taught, proves he did not convert and prefers the concept of a Jewish Christ taught by Pharisees, the son of Abraham Christ. The Christ Jesus, Son of God, is not a son of Abraham and Jesus called the men that believed the Christ has to be a son of Abraham, "vipers".
Sons of Abraham are killers of people that do not believe their doctrine.
John 8:15
"Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man."
Jesus never kills anyone for not believing his doctrine.
"16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. "
People lose their eternal life if they do not believe Jesus, but Jesus does not kill anyone and that is why Jesus said he does not "judge" meaning in the definition of passing a death penalty to cut a person's life short for not believing him. People are allowed by God their entire natural life to find the truth and convert. They receive the same reward of salvation as those that understood and converted early in life. Jesus does judge right from wrong however so that "judgement is true" in that he knows a person that supports false doctrine when he sees one and calls them sinners.
Matthias is the last Apostle approved by Jesus. Anyone else that claims the title are lying to exalt their own ego and desire to sway the beliefs of people into believing what they think, not what Jesus established as truth from God.

Okay. New approach.
Lets take out the 13 books attributed to Paul. We'll throw those away.

Tell me all about the truth subsequent to Jesus' resurrection.
What are followers of Christ to be doing, and what can they expect?
Do you accept the book of Acts?

 

[nPeace]

Yes, all the Bible is inspired by God but a Father (God) teaching His children to learn the difference between right and wrong must also explain and present what is wrong, and the Bible does that. Judas was not left out of the Bible because he lost his Apostleship and should not be followed. God desires people to think about why Judas lost his Apostleship and why what Judas did is evil. The Bible is not just about good people, the Bible also presents evil people and their beliefs and how their actions changed history and how those evil actions will shape the future.
Paul is not an Apostle. People did believe in owning human slaves with the right to kill them if they wanted to and killing a human as a sacrifice to their God long before Jesus and his Apostles and John the Baptist existed to teach those people they have no God given right to believe in that.
God never desired children to be burned alive or people to be stoned to death for adultery. Adultery is a sin but not a death penalty sin as it can be forgiven allowing the people to live. Note David (Paul supports David) demanded to be free of the laws he imposed on his people. By the laws that David claims are from God then David without mercy or forgiveness should have been stoned to death for adultery. But David had an army that would kill anyone that opposed what David did and the people knew it, so David had no death sentence as David did any sin he pleased while his people were treated as slaves serving sin forced to stone people to death and keep David rich with money for blood sacrifices. David murdered his own son, that behaved like David did proving David had no skills to raise a righteous son, to keep his son from having the throne.
Paul robbing churches would have destroyed the written words of disciples of Jesus because those words did not support the laws and doctrine that Paul upheld. Paul broke into homes to accomplish that destruction. Again, the Bible is not the Torah and the tyranny of Abraham with the man-made laws of Moses that claim a Jew has the right to own a slave and blood sacrifice removes sin existed on Earth before Jesus was sent to stop belief in them. The truth that the sons of Abraham obeying Abraham's dictates should never have developed false religious beliefs existed first. Before Abraham existed, the truth against him existed. The doctrine of Jesus was kept alive by conversation passed to disciples.

Wait! So you are saying the Tanakh is wrong, and the Jews are wrong. They never were commanded by God to stone to death anyone???
Which parts of the Bible do you believe?
Would you mind listing those books for me, so I can get an idea on your thinking?

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, you are calling Luke a liar.
Luke said... "I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent Theophilus, - Luke 1:3
Luke is the one who reported on the Acts of the apostles.

So if you don't even believe Luke, I am interested in knowing... why do you still have a Bible... and why do you call yourself a Christian?

Quite a few here call themselves Christian but don't really believe or know what's in the Bible. I'm finding that out.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am saying the word Zion never came from Jesus in his NT gospel, he never taught it nor does he believe in it. Jesus does not represent it. I explained the NT Rev prophecy that uses the word Zion has nothing to do with Jesus Christ our savior. Revelation reveals the end of days war and reveals the prince Jesus warns is coming that has nothing in him. Jesus is no longer speaking to people when that prince that claims to be the Christ arrives in Revelation. The John in Revelation is neither John the Baptist or Apostle John. There are many men with similar names in the Bible. Jesus even tells us that men would come using his name and so there are more than one false Jesus Christ in Revelation. You either believe in the virgin birth of Jesus as the Son of God or you believe in the root of David Jesus because those 2 men are completely different men with different beliefs.
Our Savior, the true Christ Jesus, is NOT the root of David and spent a lot of effort explaining the Christ isn't to the temple. Jews denied Jesus is the Christ if Jesus denies he is a son of Abraham/ root of David and they want Jesus to DIE for saying the Christ they preach is not the true Christ. They wanted Jesus to die for blasphemy for saying the Christ is a son of God but not a son of David/Abraham.
So, understand, Revelation describes the final war fought by nations that support their own description of their Christ based on support of Abraham bloodline.
Rev. 22 :16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."
Churches=Assemblies= Nations of people with common beliefs. The angels a false Jesus sends are fallen angels supporting fallen doctrine. The false Christs lead people into war, the true Christ leads people away from war.
The last 2 verses of Revelation are speaking of our savior.
"He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
21The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."
Even though the final war on Earth comes quickly by the demands of false religions that claim they have a Christ that will cause them to prevail, prayer is that Lord Jesus our savior will come, even so, to Save us. The grace of Jesus is mercy and the men that support an Abrahamic bloodline war and killer Christ lack the mercy to even save themselves.
Jesus came to fulfill the laws of GOD not the religious laws of the Jews. Jews constantly threatened to stone Jesus to death for NOT obeying their laws. They wanted Jesus to die for teaching against the Abrahamic covenant. Jesus tells us that he is a prophet and also calls John the Baptist a prophet. The commands/laws of God are fulfilled in both of those men. The one that stands with John the Baptist is the Son of God that is both prophet because he knows what will happen in the future as he supports John and is more than a prophet because Jesus can heal the sick, raise the dead and hears the voice of God that he teaches so people can be saved.
Jesus denies being a king or a prince.
Matthew 11:8 But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.
9 But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.
10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist:
So understand Luke 16:16, “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.” The laws of Moses (many laws that Jesus refused to obey including inequality of race and gender and blood sacrifice) and Prophets that said Israel is the only people selected by God to rule WERE believed until the gospel of Jesus; equality of all races, equality of gender, and God given right to life with merciful water baptism for sin removal were preached. When people heard the truth from God then they pressed into the true religion forsaking the religion Abraham had created.

Jesus was resurrected by God. He first died, then was brought back to life. Do you agree?

 

[Triumph]

Actually, you are calling Luke a liar.
Luke said... "I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent Theophilus, - Luke 1:3
Luke is the one who reported on the Acts of the apostles.

So if you don't even believe Luke, I am interested in knowing... why do you still have a Bible... and why do you call yourself a Christian?

Luke is not an Apostle. He is just a man seeking knowledge of Jesus like we are. He is an honest, kind and sincere man but relies on what he is told from other people and Luke listens to Paul often. Luke is a mild mannered doctor so can put up with the emotional outbursts of Paul better than some others. Some of the true disciples are afraid of Paul and do not want to travel with him, because they know Paul curses those that disagree with him and Paul is a known killer of Christians. They do not trust Paul not to kill them during the journey for disagreeing with him.
So Luke represents a person that must decide between following the true Apostles or Paul that claims to be an Apostle. Luke always writes what he is told truthfully like a newspaper reporter or scribe, but Luke did not speak with Jesus as did the true Apostles (and probably disciple Mark) so Luke does not from first-hand experience know what Jesus taught and that is why Luke does not dispute Paul.
Luke seeks Jesus and shares exactly with accuracy what he experiences with people that say they are selected by Jesus. Some of what Luke writes is from Jesus through the gospel of the 12 Apostles but Luke also writes what Paul tells him to write and Paul admits Paul lies to "glorify" God. Don't forget Jesus said, "woe to scribes".

 

[Triumph]

Jesus was resurrected by God. He first died, then was brought back to life. Do you agree?

I absolutely do agree that Jesus was resurrected by God! He left Earth in a physical body to go to the kingdom of God, leaving no corpse behind. It was not a vaporous body; it was flesh and blood that was resurrected proven by Thomas.
Seeing this resurrection of the body of Christ was a requirement by Jesus for the selection of the replacement of Judas. The man must have been with the group of disciples & Apostles that witnessed Jesus leave Earth so could verify it as truth.
Paul was not there and saw nothing which explains Paul's attitude about it. Paul's gospel is a lie.
First he makes the statement that Jesus was corrupt when he died. Sown is generate.

1 Corinthians 15:42
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:"
Paul tells us Jesus generated corruption/sin (and that is why Paul agreed Jesus should die as a sinner against Paul's religious beliefs). But Paul's concept of incorruption is following Paul's ideas of religion and life after death.
Paul curses people that do not agree with him.

1 Corinthians 15:50
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

Jesus was never corrupt although Paul claimed he was, and Jesus DID rise to inherit the kingdom of God in literal flesh and blood. When Jesus returns people that have died will be resurrected in flesh and blood bodies to go to the kingdom of God with Jesus. People are not going to be vaporous ghosts when resurrected as apparently Paul believes.
Paul did not see the resurrection of Jesus and was not included with the Apostles that Jesus greeted after he was gifted with life, so Paul does not believe Jesus was resurrected in a flesh and blood body. This is a major point of disqualification of Paul as an Apostle.
ACTS 1:21 explains," Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us," (the man must have walked and talked with Jesus and the Apostles learning his sermons while Jesus was alive, Paul did not)
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection."
If Paul was at the Baptism of Jesus, then he was one of the men that Jesus said was not going to escape the damnation of Hell because Paul was preaching blood sacrifice removes sin and demanding Jesus should die for his sins of opposing the Temple with the concept of water baptism.
Paul did not see the resurrection of Jesus. Jesus never approved of Paul claiming he saw Jesus and that is why Paul was blind, unable to see the truth Jesus taught while Paul lies saying he does.

 

[YoursTrue]

Luke is not an Apostle. He is just a man seeking knowledge of Jesus like we are. He is an honest, kind and sincere man but relies on what he is told from other people and Luke listens to Paul often. Luke is a mild mannered doctor so can put up with the emotional outbursts of Paul better than some others. Some of the true disciples are afraid of Paul and do not want to travel with him, because they know Paul curses those that disagree with him and Paul is a known killer of Christians. They do not trust Paul not to kill them during the journey for disagreeing with him.
So Luke represents a person that must decide between following the true Apostles or Paul that claims to be an Apostle. Luke always writes what he is told truthfully like a newspaper reporter or scribe, but Luke did not speak with Jesus as did the true Apostles (and probably disciple Mark) so Luke does not from first-hand experience know what Jesus taught and that is why Luke does not dispute Paul.
Luke seeks Jesus and shares exactly with accuracy what he experiences with people that say they are selected by Jesus. Some of what Luke writes is from Jesus through the gospel of the 12 Apostles but Luke also writes what Paul tells him to write and Paul admits Paul lies to "glorify" God. Don't forget Jesus said, "woe to scribes".

Unfortunately you are completely distorting what's written.

 

[nPeace]

Luke is not an Apostle. He is just a man seeking knowledge of Jesus like we are. He is an honest, kind and sincere man but relies on what he is told from other people and Luke listens to Paul often. Luke is a mild mannered doctor so can put up with the emotional outbursts of Paul better than some others. Some of the true disciples are afraid of Paul and do not want to travel with him, because they know Paul curses those that disagree with him and Paul is a known killer of Christians. They do not trust Paul not to kill them during the journey for disagreeing with him.
So Luke represents a person that must decide between following the true Apostles or Paul that claims to be an Apostle. Luke always writes what he is told truthfully like a newspaper reporter or scribe, but Luke did not speak with Jesus as did the true Apostles (and probably disciple Mark) so Luke does not from first-hand experience know what Jesus taught and that is why Luke does not dispute Paul.
Luke seeks Jesus and shares exactly with accuracy what he experiences with people that say they are selected by Jesus. Some of what Luke writes is from Jesus through the gospel of the 12 Apostles but Luke also writes what Paul tells him to write and Paul admits Paul lies to "glorify" God. Don't forget Jesus said, "woe to scribes".

You are referencing what book(s)? Or is everything just out of your mind?

 

[Triumph]

You are referencing what book(s)? Or is everything just out of your mind?

The Bible carefully read reveals I am speaking truth about Luke. He is not an Apostle, there are only 12 listed and Luke is not on the list.
I am wondering what you believe is wrong in what I have said, and can you prove by scripture otherwise?

 

[Sedim Haba]

Right. So you pick and choose what you like, yes?
Why Matthew, and not Luke, or any other of the Christian Greek scriptures? I am interested in knowing.

I choose what was originally written in Aramaic, the language of Yeshua and his disciples.
Specifically the Sermon. That's Mathew and probably nothing else in the so-called NT.

I don't even like the term 'apostle' since it's Greek, but it's commonly understood to
refer to his original twelve disciples. Anyone can be a disciple, I consider myself such.

Are you unaware of the Hellenization that the Greeks perverted Israel with? The Idols?
Ever hear of the Maccabean Revolt? The miracle of the oil afterwards?

Anything from Greek and later Roman influence is not from the G-d of Abraham.

 

[lukethethird]

I choose what was originally written in Aramaic, the language of Yeshua and his disciples.
Specifically the Sermon. That's Mathew and probably nothing else in the so-called NT.

I don't even like the term 'apostle' since it's Greek, but it's commonly understood to
refer to his original twelve disciples. Anyone can be a disciple, I consider myself such.

Are you unaware of the Hellenization that the Greeks perverted Israel with? The Idols?
Ever hear of the Maccabean Revolt? The miracle of the oil afterwards?

Anything from Greek and later Roman influence is not from the G-d of Abraham.

The entire New Testament was originally written in Greek. Christianity is a hybrid of Greek mythology and Hebrew scripture.

 

[Sedim Haba]

The entire New Testament was originally written in Greek. Christianity is a hybrid of Greek mythology and Hebrew scripture.

The so-called NT was not written until later, sometimes much later, from sources we no longer have access to.
Much of which scholars think was in Aramaic, the language of the region.
Also, not just Greek mythology but also Roman Mystery Cult theology.

 

[nPeace]

The Bible carefully read reveals I am speaking truth about Luke. He is not an Apostle, there are only 12 listed and Luke is not on the list.

Are you saying I have not read the Bible carefully?
I think we can establish that. Let's analyze.

How many times have you read the Bible?
Would you say Luke was lying when he wrote this...
(Acts 14:14) . . .when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it. . .
Was he forced to write it? Did he not understand what he wrote? What do you think?

I am wondering what you believe is wrong in what I have said, and can you prove by scripture otherwise?

I'm glad you asked.
I believe this was a response to you. It has some questions as well as proof of what a true Christian is.
You never responded.
If you do, you might see where you are wrong.

There is more.
I'll start from your more recent post.
You said, Luke "is just a man seeking knowledge of Jesus like we are".
Where can I find that in scripture?
What I see in scripture, is that Luke is a disciple of Jesus - a follower of Christ, and a minister of the Good News - a fellow worker of the apostle and elders in Jerusalem. He accompanied Paul on his missionary journeys... In fact, he was Paul's traveling companion, which make him a very mature Christian, recommended by the brothers.

Tell me though, how does one do a careful reading of the Bible, if they don't believe Paul's letters were part of the inspired writings - 2 Timothy 3:16.?
That seems impossible.

You said, "Luke listens to Paul often".
Where in scripture do I find that? I never read it.

You said, "Some of the true disciples are afraid of Paul and do not want to travel with him, because they know Paul curses those that disagree with him and Paul is a known killer of Christians."
Where do I find that in scripture? Which book, Chapter, or verse?
Don't forget to show me where Paul is a killer of Christians.

"They do not trust Paul not to kill them during the journey for disagreeing with him."
I almost missed that. What?
Please show me where you got that from. I am 100% certain these are coming from your mind. Not scripture.

Remember, the scriptures say.... .“Do not go beyond the things that are written,” so that you may not be puffed up with pride, favoring one against the other. (1 Corinthians 4:6)
...but if you reject what Paul says, you will always break that rule. So you would be saying what is not written, and believe it.

There is more you said, which is not scripture... like "Luke does not from first-hand experience know what Jesus taught and that is why Luke does not dispute Paul."
Let's be honest. This is your opinion, and not scripture, right?
If you told a child this, and that child asks you to show them, you would have to say something like... "Well it's not actually written, but I believe that's the way it was."
Correct?

 

[2ndpillar]

Well, you just pointed out clear evidence which should convince you of the truthfulness of the writers. They were honest... including Paul.
How do you plead?

According to Jeremiah 8:8, the "scribes" turned the law into a lie. According to Yeshua, a self-witness is not true, which would pertain to Paul (John 5:31).

 

[2ndpillar]

Actually, you are calling Luke a liar.
Luke said... "I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent Theophilus, - Luke 1:3
Luke is the one who reported on the Acts of the apostles.

So if you don't even believe Luke, I am interested in knowing... why do you still have a Bible... and why do you call yourself a Christian?

If Luke was an associate of Paul, and Luke received some of his secondhand (Luke 1:1-3) information from Paul, and Paul is the false prophet, what would that say about the stories passed on by this unknown character called Luke? I think it is a presumption to say Luke wrote Acts, but it may be a good guess, which is to say, Luke was probably not a first person witness to what he wrote about, which makes it unverifiable (Matthew 18:16).

 

[2ndpillar]

According to Matthew. Actually, according to to Jesus' sheep... which includes Paul.
However, you said you don't believe them... not in those exact words.
So, I won't quote them, but that doesn't mean they didn't tell us.

(Matthew 6:14, 15) 14 “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; 15 whereas if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Depending on the source, Paul would be in the category self-proclaimed "shepherd"/apostle (Ezekiel 34:2) who will be fed "judgment" (Ezekiel 34:16), or with respect to Zechariah 11, will be "annihilated" in one generation (Zechariah 11:8), and used to "pasture the flock (Gentile church) doomed for slaughter" (Zechariah 11:7).

 

[2ndpillar]

God brings light into the world (that was in the darkness created by false religions) by giving us Jesus Christ. I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, Son of God, that believes the words of Jesus and learned "what I desire mercy and not sacrifice means".

1 Peter 2:10
Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
Matthew 12:7
But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless."
Believe Jesus should die for sins he did not commit because he is guiltless then the words of God are not in you.
Matthew 9:13
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
Water baptized disciples are righteous before God, sins forgiven but people that believe in animal or human sacrifice to attain righteousness have not obtained mercy and will die in their sins unless they repent and believe in water baptism removes sin. People are not disciples of Jesus unless they are able to see the truth, human sacrifice to a God is not only murder of the guiltless, but also demonic.

When Yeshua healed the sick man, he said your sins are forgiven. Are you healed, or do your sins remain? If you are healed, why do you need a doctor? What you say, and what you do seem not to be in step.

 

[Triumph]

I choose what was originally written in Aramaic, the language of Yeshua and his disciples.
Specifically the Sermon. That's Mathew and probably nothing else in the so-called NT.

I don't even like the term 'apostle' since it's Greek, but it's commonly understood to
refer to his original twelve disciples. Anyone can be a disciple, I consider myself such.

Are you unaware of the Hellenization that the Greeks perverted Israel with? The Idols?
Ever hear of the Maccabean Revolt? The miracle of the oil afterwards?

Anything from Greek and later Roman influence is not from the G-d of Abraham.

It is probable that Jesus and Matthew spoke Greek, Latin, Hebrew and other languages. Rome expected Matthew to do business collecting taxes from all the residents in their district that were a racially diverse people. That required a highly educated man to converse with everyone to discern what taxes are owed from each. Jesus spoke directly with Romans so certainly he understood and spoke Latin. Jesus spoke directly with a Greek woman converting her, so it is evident Jesus spoke Greek. Jesus taught against the concept of separate races as Jesus taught all people are equal and denied God chose only Hebrew/Jews to be His people. God did not select a specific race as superior to all others. Jesus came to save the world not just people that claim Abraham spoke with God. There is only one God but Abraham never worshipped him as Abraham invented his definition of a God and then told people he is selected by that God and they are his people if they believe Abraham. Jesus said Abraham never heard the voice of God. Woe to the scribes that wrote he did.

 

[Triumph]

Are you saying I have not read the Bible carefully?
I think we can establish that. Let's analyze.

How many times have you read the Bible?
Would you say Luke was lying when he wrote this...
(Acts 14:14) . . .when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it. . .
Was he forced to write it? Did he not understand what he wrote? What do you think?


I'm glad you asked.
I believe this was a response to you. It has some questions as well as proof of what a true Christian is.
You never responded.
If you do, you might see where you are wrong.

There is more.
I'll start from your more recent post.
You said, Luke "is just a man seeking knowledge of Jesus like we are".
Where can I find that in scripture?
What I see in scripture, is that Luke is a disciple of Jesus - a follower of Christ, and a minister of the Good News - a fellow worker of the apostle and elders in Jerusalem. He accompanied Paul on his missionary journeys... In fact, he was Paul's traveling companion, which make him a very mature Christian, recommended by the brothers.

Tell me though, how does one do a careful reading of the Bible, if they don't believe Paul's letters were part of the inspired writings - 2 Timothy 3:16.?
That seems impossible.

You said, "Luke listens to Paul often".
Where in scripture do I find that? I never read it.

You said, "Some of the true disciples are afraid of Paul and do not want to travel with him, because they know Paul curses those that disagree with him and Paul is a known killer of Christians."
Where do I find that in scripture? Which book, Chapter, or verse?
Don't forget to show me where Paul is a killer of Christians.

"They do not trust Paul not to kill them during the journey for disagreeing with him."
I almost missed that. What?
Please show me where you got that from. I am 100% certain these are coming from your mind. Not scripture.

Remember, the scriptures say.... .“Do not go beyond the things that are written,” so that you may not be puffed up with pride, favoring one against the other. (1 Corinthians 4:6)
...but if you reject what Paul says, you will always break that rule. So you would be saying what is not written, and believe it.

There is more you said, which is not scripture... like "Luke does not from first-hand experience know what Jesus taught and that is why Luke does not dispute Paul."
Let's be honest. This is your opinion, and not scripture, right?
If you told a child this, and that child asks you to show them, you would have to say something like... "Well it's not actually written, but I believe that's the way it was."
Correct?

A true Christian is one that listens to Jesus and believes what he said. Paul admits he does not know what Jesus said and has to ask the true Apostles for answers. Paul preached in the desert for 3 years without Holy Spirit or any knowledge of the sermons of Jesus, as Paul refused to go to Jerusalem first, as required by Jesus, to receive Holy Spirit with knowledge. Note that Paul rejects the answers the Apostles give him and does exactly what Paul is told not to do, circumcise a person, a Greek.
Galatians 5:11
And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased."
Understand this! Paul does preach circumcision which is agreement to the Jewish blood sacrifice laws and professing the Christ comes from the seed of Abraham, a bloodline son of David. Saul/Paul said Jesus was an "offence" that needed to be killed because Jesus denied the Christ is of the bloodline of Abraham. Jews demanded Jesus die for opposing their bloodline beliefs. There would be no reason to kill Jesus if Jesus would just say he is a son of Abraham, supporting circumcision so the offence of the cross would cease, and they would stop threatening to kill him.
To believe in circumcision as a religious ritual is a denial of a virgin birth of Christ, son of God.
The true church persecuted Paul for telling people Jesus was a son of Abraham because Jesus denied he was. They called Paul a sinner for lying. Joseph did not beget Jesus and Matthew chapter 1 states that fact. Jews only perceive Jesus as Christ if Jesus will say he is the begotten son of Joseph/David /Abraham. Joseph knows he did not beget Jesus, Jesus knows it, Mary knows it, the Angel that told Mary she will have a virgin birth knows it, but Paul refuses to believe it as Paul preaches circumcision.

Acts 14:14, Luke was not there to witness anything. Does scripture state Luke was there? No. The person that was there is Saul= Paul, the murderer of Christians, so it was Paul that told Luke what occurred. Luke just wrote what Paul told him to write as a scribe. Paul is a proven by scripture liar.
Paul tells people not to curse but Paul curses everyone even angels that disagree with Paul. (Galatians 1:9)
Paul is a proven murderer of Christians (Stephen is named but there were many others) and Paul even brags that no one was more violent against Christians than Paul letting people know how treacherous he is and what Paul is capable of doing to people. Paul does not state he regrets killing people only that Paul is a proven, vicious killer.
Jesus taught not to curse but Paul curses, threatening anyone that disagrees with Paul. It is logical that a murderer of innocent people that threatens people for not agreeing with him would cause people to fear for their own life around Paul especially in a foreign land where their presence would not be missed because no one would know them to realize they are missing. And that is the reason disciples in the true church did not to want to travel with Paul preaching with him because they knew his gospel opposed the gospel of Jesus taught by the true Apostles. Paul said "woe to me if I do not preach the gospel". Jesus said woe to that Pharisee hypocrite that does not enter heaven and prevents those that want to learn the gospel of Jesus from entering.

 

[Bree]

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

I believe the scriptures.

Yes he was an apostle and the other apostles accepted him as such.