The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to the first Christians

[1robin]

No it is not. Your parroting apologist not scholars.

That's ridiculous but if you want look up N.T Wright, Dr. White, Simon Greenleaf, Lord Lyndhurst, William Lecky, C.S. Lewis, etc.... I am hesitant to even begin quoting additional scholars because there is no end to the scholarly works that fully defend Paul's apostolic commission. Since your not even bothering to supply anything beyond declarations devoid of even an attempt at a justification there is no point.

Not even a coherent proposition.

What? That was perfectly coherent. It may or may not be true but it's coherence is a fact.

No one is trying to say it is false.

I can't find where you give any evidence anything I said is false. I have no idea what your doing. I need not defend anything so feebly attacked.

But you obviously ignore the unknown author had to plagiarize gmark because he knew so little about the real mans life.

When you supply justifications for these declarations and stop ignoring my claims then I might be justified in providing more evidence.

Your entire argument so far has been the equivalent of "Nu-uh".

 

[Nada]

That is why it is dangerous for one to watch videos such as this one,spiritually, if they want to know truth.It confuses people and puts doubt in those who are seeking God.It is all based on assumptions, on the part of those who have not yet come to have an accurate knowledge of the truth.Pure speculation.

 

[sojourner]

That is why it is dangerous for one to watch videos such as this one,spiritually, if they want to know truth.It confuses people and puts doubt in those who are seeking God.It is all based on assumptions, on the part of those who have not yet come to have an accurate knowledge of the truth.Pure speculation.

A lot of biblical issues are speculation at best. To adopt a "too sure" stance is to be disingenuous about the bible and what it is.