A Sure Sign of Weak and Yapping Christians, They Like "apostle" Paul.

If you've seen the Son, you've seen the father.

The Father and the Son are One.

You are a very deceived individual. Not sure if it's even possible to unravel that mess between your ears.

Paul (not talking about Saul) was not an egomaniac and was very humble and modest.

You? You're an egomaniac and in gross error.

Please provide examples.

The anti-Paul posters on this thread all share the same commonalities of a foul and loathsome spirit.

We all know who is their inspiration.

People who belittle, are constantly sarcastic, and who always try to one up others, are of their father, the devil.

You are of your father, the devil.

You certainly don't know Christ.

Affirmative.

Christians bickering over whose belief is the right one, as usual.

Jesus taught love and forgiveness but you people here call hell and damnation over those that do not agree with you.

God and Jesus probably held an emergency meeting when they saw the direction Christianity took to analyze what went wrong....

All through out the book of Acts we see Paul identified as a true Apostle. And so we could quote numerous passages affirming this from Acts. However, one striking feature is that in the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council Paul played a leading role with the other Apostles such as James and Peter in answering the question about Gentiles being under the law. As the council was in session we see the following:

“And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.” (Acts 15:12)

Paul and Barnabas spoke after Peter (vv. 7-11) and right before James (vv. 13-21) who concluded the council and gave the final decision that Gentiles are not under the law. This demonstrates that there was 1st century recognition of Paul’s acceptance by the early church and by the Apostles themselves as an authoritative voice.

The book 2 Peter is rejected by many liberal scholars but there is a strong case for its authority and for Petrine authorship. This text is another 1st century source that not only affirms that Paul was a true Apostle, but it also identifies Paul’s writings as Scripture:

"15And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Paul recorded his rebuke of Peter

One thing you would not want to do if all you were was a false Apostle pretending to be a true Apostle is invent a story where you rebuke a major influential Apostle in front of others for not handling the Gospel accurately. However, this actually happened. Paul did just that to the Apostle Peter demonstrating that Paul genuinely cared about the Gospel and would not compromise it for anyone, including major Apostles he worked with who stepped out of line:

“11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?" 15We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” (Galatians 2:11-16)

Although Peter learned from this mistake and would go on to grow in grace, remain close with Paul, and eventually die as a martyr in Rome where Paul was also martyred, proving that Peter was a genuine appointed leader of the early church(7), this information tells us a lot about the integrity and reliability of Paul. One would not expect Paul to report that he publically rebuked a fellow worker and major Apostle if in fact he was some usurper trying fit in. You would expect him to want to avoid any unnecessary controversies or quarrels. This meets the principle of embarrassment.

The Original Apostles confirmed Paul’s Gospel and Apostleship

The 1st century historical documentation on this issue also shows that fourteen years after the Jerusalem affair with Peter and James in Galatians 1:15-19 Paul then went back to Jerusalem again with Barnabas and Titus. According to the 1st century data Paul says the pillars of the church (James, Peter and John) “added nothing to me” (Gal. 2:6). This means that the original Apostles of Jesus added no correction to Paul’s Gospel message which he was preaching after the Jerusalem affair in A.D. 35. Hence, the original Apostles affirmed what Paul was preaching – namely Jesus’ crucifixion as a sacrifice for sins and His resurrection as orthodox theology. Moreover, James, Peter and John all extended their right hand of fellowship to Paul after seeing Paul’s grace (Gal. 2:9). This extremely early data (A.D. 49-54) is a severe blow to the anti-Pauline crowd since it adds one more attestation to the conclusive 1st century case for Paul’s reliability and apostleship. It must be stressed over and over, because it is important, that there is no clear 1st century documentation to the contrary asserting that Paul was not a true Apostle who was close to the original Apostles or that he had a false message.

Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-110)

Ignatius of Antioch was a 1st century pupil of the original Apostles.

(In the early document known as The Martyrdom of Ignatius Ch. 1 we read: “… Ignatius, the disciple of John the apostle, a man in all respects of an apostolic character, governed the Church of the Antiochians with great care…” The 3rd/4th century church historian Eusebius states that Ignatius was the second Bishop of Antioch after the Apostle Peter, Evodius preceding him, which shows that Ignatius was in very close proximity to the Apostles. Eusebius states: “At this time Ignatius was known as the second Bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the first. Symeon likewise was at that time the second ruler of the church of Jerusalem, the brother of our Saviour having been the first.”(Eusebius, Church History, Book 3, Ch. 22) And: “…Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter…” (Eusebius, Church History, Book 3, Ch. 36). The 4th/5th century Christian Theodoret also states: “You have no doubt heard of the illustrious Ignatius, who received episcopal grace by the hand of the great Peter, and after ruling the church of Antioch, wore the crown of Martyrdom.” (Theodoret, Dialogues, 1)


This is important because if Paul was a false teacher and usurper, Ignatius, being a follower of the Apostles and their Gospel (he often quoted the Gospels of Matthew and John as well), would have pointed out Paul’s supposed theological errors or commented on Paul being a supposed false Apostle. However, this 1st century martyr Bishop offers early data in support of Paul’s association with the other Apostles as well as Paul’s rightful authority in the church. Ignatius wrote the following in A.D. 110 to the Christians in Rome:

“I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did.”

Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, Ch. 4



This extremely early material is affirming that Paul worked alongside Peter in leading and commanding the Christian church in Rome. Ignatius has other valuable remarks affirming the reliability of the Apostle Paul. For example, in writing to the Christians in Ephesus Ignatius relays that Paul accurately gave the Gospel to the Ephesians, that Paul was martyred for his faith (which also shows Paul’s reliability) as well as his deep respect and honor for Paul:

“You are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy, at whose feet may I be found, when I shall attain to God; who in all his Epistles makes mention of you in Christ Jesus.”

Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, Ch. 12

Last Edited by No Dhimmi on 12/10/2015 07:57 AM

There's not two different events, you need a King James Bible you judaizer.

If Paul was in fact genuine, we would expect to find extremely early church writers affirming the apostleship of Paul as well as quoting his epistles as being authoritative, on same level as Scripture, or directly as Scripture. This is precisely what we find as the evidence is examined. If Paul was not a true Apostle then we would not expect to find numerous instances of the earliest extra-biblical writers (who were often students of the original Apostles) affirming Paul’s apostleship and viewing his writings as Scripture. If Paul was not a true Apostle, but was instead a false usurper, we would expect at least some evidence from the 1st century followers of Jesus and the Apostles to state their case in opposition Paul relegating him to the status of imposter. However, the earliest evidence is conclusive in affirming Paul’s reliability as provided above.

No, these Paul haters are Antichrist.
They are like you not Christians, so it's not Christians bickering, it's Christians versus Heretics and Antichrists.

They usually want to drag people to Rome or back into trying to keep the law which they already broke.

These people are vile creatures, yet here you are defending these vile creatures? Maybe you should check your salvation?

Also would not God do something about it?
Would he not inspire the Apostles to write something about this Paul that he was a fake just to stop this from being an issue in the first place, like he did with Simon that tried to buy the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

All of a sudden God is powerless? Well if we listen to OP and the many Bible haters in the thread God is a weakling that is willing to let people perish.

But God is not like these false teachers claim.

And as always it's them wanting to bewitch people to snare them into the bondage of the law or the false Roman Catholic church again. Nothing new.

Anathema Maranatha to the OP.

Last Edited by -GLP-Christian- on 12/10/2015 08:07 AM

ROTF. Let me guess. You forgot college because you think you are too smart for book learning. You want to be respected as self taught theologian because you are good at insulting others.

True Detective Rust Cohle reacting to unsolicited metaphysical speculation, "Nietche, shut the fuck up!"

Did you not know Jesus belittled the Pharisees and His own hometown fellow Jews in their own Synagogue in Luke 4? All of the people Christ belittled were religious idiots. I follow Jesus. Do you?

I suggest you speak from knowledge, rather than from your chit-chat feelings. Lol.

That is exactly what Jesus did. Assert Himself, attack the Pharisees and Synagogue worshippers in Luke 4.

Afraid to follow Him ... ? Lol.

Step up with knowledge and tell us how you personally have "come out of her." Otherwise, your words above are nothing.

You have not seen Jesus. Lol.

If Paul was not an egomaniac, why then did he speak of himself do much more in his writing than speaking of The Divinity? Count up the times he wrote "I/Me/My" and compare that number to how many times he says "God/Jesus/Christ/The Spirit/The Lord."

I suspect you have not the kiskets nor the intelligence to do so. Lol.

Compare Ephesians 2:4-6 and Matthew 6:14-15. But, I doubt you will.

Fat Fuzzy Boy says "We see."

Now isn't that spec-ialll. You do not know what other people see. Go look at a pork sandwich. Eat it, fat boy.

Peter did not name Paul an apostle


"Petrine." Lol. Kind of like Latrine?

I'll break this down for you since spiritually you are on milk.

Paul's books are the meat of the New Testament... You're not suppose to start off with them as 99% of churches do today. His letters were meant for Elders, who were already familiar with the Law. Paul does not contradict himself, he does not go against Christ, he probably knew Christ better than some of the disciples and he never met him.

An apostle means a Christian teacher or follower or Christ.. It does not have to denote the "12" disciples.

Bottom line is, if you cannot understand Paul, you need to study more. It means spiritually, you are immature. Paul practiced the law, but separated it from death, which was Christ's goal. You still need to follow God's law.. (Sabbath worship, no pork etc) but you are not held accountable to death now. There is room for grace. That is what Christ fulfilled, you from being bound to the law until death.

I believe Peter even warns of people misusing Pauls words to benefit them.
2 Peter 3:15-17 if you are unlearned, do not try to quote Paul, as you will create your own destruction. Funny Peter wrote that.. He's the only one mentioned for this happening.

Paul wrote the Letter to Ephesus, wherein he does all he can to qualify and justify his reputation and position as some kind of church authority, unlike 8n any of his other letters. Why? Because The Church at Ephesus had identified him as false, and had rejected him. John the Revelator narrates Jesus' commendation to the Ephesians for doing so.

Do you now see how Scripture interprets itself? Fat Boy? "We See" that in Revelations and Ephesians.

Lol.

It’s better to let someone think you’re stupid than open your mouth and prove it.

It has been proven with Peter's statement provided above he considered Paul's teaching inspired. We see your an idiot without any ability to reason and understand what is presented. You have a spirit of the pharisee ever reading but never understanding. You dismiss any scripture that destroys your opinion falling back on calling names in your sophomoric and simple minded arguments. The cults all use your method of argument and its plain for thinking people to see your errors. Good bye little one - your mind is made up so we let you stew in your little distorted imagination of error.

You have the right to remain silent because whatever you say will probably be stupid anyway.

Guess what, Munchie? Martyrdom, early material, and aspirations of kissing the feet of Paul do not indicate Pauline apostleship. Especially as Paul had rejected worship of himself by recent faith adherents.

Go have a snack. Keep your blood sugar and A1c up.

"We."

A common little rhetoric device of Religious Church Babblers is to use The Imperial Pronouns to frame their presumptions. Lol. They are unable to let facts and data stand alone, but must personify their comments for others to "feel" more comfortable with.

"We" is also used as a little psychological trick to cause listeners to think the "We" speaker somehow represents an authoritative consensus, regardless of how presumptuous are his notions.

Lol. Big Talking Academic Fat.