Is Paul a false Apostle?

Is Paul a false Apostle?

Posted in the Christian Forum

First Prev
of 210
Next Last
tahoegirl

Orlando, FL

#1 Sep 14, 2013
If Paul wasn’t guilty as Rev 2:2 alleges, then why does he address those at Ephesus as an "apostle” in Ephesians 1:1?
little lamb

South Yarra, Australia

#2 Sep 14, 2013
Because Paul was chosen as an APOSTLE to the nations.

And those in Ephesus were people of the nation
tahoegirl

Orlando, FL

#3 Sep 14, 2013
Who chose him? He is not listed as one of the 12 Apostles of Christ in any of the Gospels. There are only 12 Apostles, there are not 13. If he is not one of the 12 then what is he. How can Paul be a 13th apostle when Revelation 21:14 says there are only twelve? How can Paul be a 13th apostle when Jesus tells us in Matthew 19:28 there are only twelve? If Paul’s apostleship was not in question, then why does he defend it in 1st Corinthians 9:1-3? Why does he speak in v.3 of those who “try” him unless he was “tried” as Rev 2:2 alleges? If Paul was not one whom the Ephesians found to be a liar in Rev 2:2, then why does Paul say in 2nd Timothy 1:15 that “all they which are in Asia have turned away from me.”? If Paul was not called a liar about his apostleship, then why does he specifically say in 1st Timothy 2:7 he is not lying about his apostleship? If Paul has not told us the truth about the office he holds and who he is how can we believe any thing else he has to say about anything. What you are quoting is what Paul says about Paul, you can not be a witness for yourself. Paul bears witness of himself even though Jesus says he himself could not in John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. Is Paul superior to
Jesus?
Apologetics

Van Nuys, CA

#4 Sep 15, 2013
Luke wrote the "Acts" of the Apostles in which he bears witness of Paul. Luke the Apostle bore witness of Paul the Apostle.
Flygerian

Fort Worth, TX

#5 Sep 15, 2013
Apologetics wrote:
Luke wrote the "Acts" of the Apostles in which he bears witness of Paul. Luke the Apostle bore witness of Paul the Apostle.
Did Luke meet Jesus?
tahoegirl

Orlando, FL

#6 Sep 15, 2013
I don't know were to began with this one, now you have Apostles instead of the 12 that Jesus picked. Luke was not an Apostle nor do we really know if Luke was really the author of Luke and Acts. Luke as the author is merely writing what Paul said or what someone else said Paul said. Never does Luke say he was there with Paul as a witness to Paul's conversion. Paul's conversion story is told in Acts chapters 9,22,26. In Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man", in Acts chapter 22 the author says "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me". It is funny how the witnesses in chapter 9 heard a voice but saw no man, but in chapter 22:9 they did not hear the voice that spoke to him. It is funny that also in chapter 22 they saw the light that blinded Paul but some how this light did not blind them. Also in the Acts chapters 9 and 22 version Paul fell to the ground but in Acts 26 version everyone fell to the ground. It is very interesting to me that no one can get the story straight on Paul's conversion. Now we have 2 possibilities here either 1. Paul told the story wrong and Luke told It how Paul said it, and Luke was showing us the truth about Paul's lies or 2. Luke was either mistaken about what he wrote about Paul or he lied about Paul, either one is bad for Paul because both put into question the reliability of Luke's inspiration by the holy spirit, after all the Holy Spirit wouldn't make such amateur mistake like that. If the men that were on the Damascus road heard the voice that spoke to Paul in Acts 9:7, then why does Paul change his story in Acts 22:9 saying they didn’t hear it? Is it possible these men refuted his earlier story? If Paul could be given all knowledge with a single blinding flash, then why did Jesus spend his entire ministry training apostles? Why didn’t he just zap them? Also Revelation was written some 20 years after Paul's ministry why didn't Jesus at that time say he was affirming Paul and his ministry, instead Jesus tells the Ephesians in Rev.2:2 that he commends the Ephesians for trying those who say they are Apostles and are not. From the evidence in the Bible Paul does say he is an Apostle in Ephesus in Ephesians 1:1. Also He is not one of the 12 Apostles of Jesus as recorded in the Bible, nor does his own historian Luke even give Paul the ability to claim to be the 12th Apostle, because in Acts 1:21-26 Luke state the qualifications for being an Apostle,( Act 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have accompanied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Act 1:22 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.)of which Paul does not qualify. Also the Apostles chose Mathis to be numbered with the 12. Paul could not possibly be an Apostle according to Luke's own word if Luke is truly a inspired writer of the new testament. So if Paul is not an Apostle then he must be someone who is trying to covet an office that does not belong to him. If he is doing this than shall we believe him on any thing else he says, I think not. If Paul’s apostleship was not in question, then why does he defend it in 1st Corinthians 9:1-3? Why does he speak in v.3 of those who “try” him unless he was “tried” as Rev 2:2 alleges? If Paul was not one whom the Ephesians found to be a liar in Rev 2:2, then why does Paul say in 2nd Timothy 1:15 that “all they which are in Asia have turned away from me.”? After all Ephesus was the capital of the Roman influenced part of Asia in Paul's time. In Acts 19:8,9,23 there is more problems for Paul in Ephesus. If Paul was not called a liar about his apostleship, then why does he specifically say in 1st Timothy 2:7 he is not lying about his apostleship? Jesus says in Rev 2:2 Rev 2:2 and hast found them liars: Was Paul a liar?
tahoegirl

Orlando, FL

#7 Sep 15, 2013
Sorry I meant to say 14 Apostles instead of 12 in the first sentence.
lol

Welch, WV

#8 Sep 15, 2013
Paul is a true Apostle and given credentials by Peter. If he was not an Apostle, Peter would not have written of him.

2Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

2Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

So, when the unlearned and unstable in understanding of scripture wrest with the things the Apostle Paul wrote, they are doing so unto their own destruction.

What? Do you think God Almighty would let a man who was used of Christ be a fake? I do not understand the Paul bashers at all.
tahoegirl

Orlando, FL

#9 Sep 15, 2013
lol wrote:
Paul is a true Apostle and given credentials by Peter. If he was not an Apostle, Peter would not have written of him.
2Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
So, when the unlearned and unstable in understanding of scripture wrest with the things the Apostle Paul wrote, they are doing so unto their own destruction.
What? Do you think God Almighty would let a man who was used of Christ be a fake? I do not understand the Paul bashers at all.
This verse still does not say Paul is a Apostle, he is called a beloved brother not an Apostle. The question is still, IS PAUL A APOSTLE OR A FALSE APOSTLE? 2nd Peter says by the wisdom given to him, not the inspiration given him by the Holy Spirit. All most everybody has some wisdom given to them but do we want to follow the wisdom of a man or the inspiration of God.. Then 2nd Peter says Paul is hard to understand, and this can lead to destruction. If the writings of Paul are confusing as 2nd Peter 3:15-16 affirms, then why did the Holy Ghost write confusing things thru Paul and not the others. To sum up a) Paul is difficult to understand and those ambiguities have led many to fall from their steadfastness in Christ into "lawless" doctrine; b) Paul is a brother -- not an apostle; and c) Paul spoke with the wisdom God gave him, and not by inspiration. Peter has basically given Paul a big slap in the face here not a complement.

As far as the question, What Do you think God Almighty would let a man who was used of Christ be a fake? I will answer that question with a question. Deuteronomy 13:1-3 says God will test us with false prophets to see if we love him with all our heart. Could this be true? Here is 1 example of how following Paul's teachings can lead to destruction. Three times Jesus in the Book of Revelation condemns eating meat sacrificed to idols, even saying this is the doctrine of a false prophet.(Rev. 2:6, Rev. 2:14-15 Revelation 2:20 ) This absolute prescription also was set forth in James' ruling at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:20. Then it is repeated when it was put in a letter Acts 15:29. Finally, James reiterates this for a third and final time in Acts chapter 21:25 James tells Paul that previously "we wrote giving judgment that they [i.e., the Gentiles] should keep themselves from things sacrificed to idols. But, Paul clearly teaches three times that there is nothing wrong in itself eating meat sacrificed to idols.(Romans 14:21; 1 Corinthians 8:4-13, and 1 Corinthians 10:19-29.) Remember that Revelation was written after Paul and Jesus says eating Idol meat is wrong period no ifs ands or buts. Does Jesus think Paul is a false prophet? Who has more authority Jesus or Paul?

As for the comment about being a Paul basher, I am not bashing Paul; I am just not giving Paul a free pass to say what he wants to say without proof and witnesses. In Romans 1:9 Paul says, for God is my witness, that is because he has no witnesses, than why didn’t God provide those witnesses for Paul?
Apologetics

Van Nuys, CA

#10 Sep 16, 2013
Paul bashing isn't to hard to explain. Paul shared with us many things that make it hard for us to cheat our way around of admitting and repenting if our sins. Unbelievers are slaves to their sin. Denying the teachings of Paul allows them to justify themselves.

Hymenaues and Alexander were the false apostles at Ephesus.

Paul's teachings do not fit well with the Joseph Prince or radical grace crowd. I can see how the truth would upset them.
little lamb

South Yarra, Australia

#11 Sep 16, 2013
lol wrote:
Paul is a true Apostle and given credentials by Peter. If he was not an Apostle, Peter would not have written of him.
2Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
So, when the unlearned and unstable in understanding of scripture wrest with the things the Apostle Paul wrote, they are doing so unto their own destruction.
What? Do you think God Almighty would let a man who was used of Christ be a fake? I do not understand the Paul bashers at all.
Good post.. Peter endorses Pauls writings as wisdom given to him from God...and calls him a beloved brother...so if he is beloved to Peter he is certainly beloved to us.
little lamb

South Yarra, Australia

#12 Sep 16, 2013
PS..I like the fact that Peter warns about the unsteady and untaught twisting Pauls words to their own destruction...that should be a warning to them.
Flygerian

Fort Worth, TX

#13 Sep 16, 2013
Ephesians 2
14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

Matthew 5
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

This is part of the reason people call Paul out. On onehand he says Jesus abolished the law etc... On the otherhand Jesus says he did NOT come to do that. So to you Paul supporters, which one should I believe?
lol

Welch, WV

#14 Sep 16, 2013
little lamb wrote:
PS..I like the fact that Peter warns about the unsteady and untaught twisting Pauls words to their own destruction...that should be a warning to them.
They even twist the Words of Christ Himself. No wonder they gleefully dismiss everything Paul has written.
lol

Welch, WV

#15 Sep 16, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
Ephesians 2
14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
Matthew 5
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
This is part of the reason people call Paul out. On onehand he says Jesus abolished the law etc... On the otherhand Jesus says he did NOT come to do that. So to you Paul supporters, which one should I believe?
Ephesians say the law of ORDINANCES. What does that mean?

Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

That means the CEREMONIAL Laws, the rites and the sacrifices and the whole mumbo jumbo of what had to be done to be forgiven of your sins. When Christ died on the cross, the CEREMONIAL Laws died with Him because HE is the one time sacrifice needed to atone for our sins.

So tell me, which laws are we to follow to be saved?

Punisher

Yonkers, NY

#16 Sep 16, 2013
Apologetics wrote:
Paul bashing isn't to hard to explain. Paul shared with us many things that make it hard for us to cheat our way around of admitting and repenting if our sins. Unbelievers are slaves to their sin. Denying the teachings of Paul allows them to justify themselves.
Hymenaues and Alexander were the false apostles at Ephesus.
Paul's teachings do not fit well with the Joseph Prince or radical grace crowd. I can see how the truth would upset them.
Breezing thru this cluster-f of a tail-chasing thread and lo and behold there's this..."Unbelievers are slaves to their sin."

Care to explain that? Because from my view its Believers who enslaved by their sins. As they need an alleged divine intervention to beat them back...not conquer them, only beat them back...as they cower and pray to God that they dont slide backwards. Which again from my view most do.!

I'm no slave...sorry that you are..!
Flygerian

Fort Worth, TX

#17 Sep 16, 2013
lol wrote:
<quoted text>
Ephesians say the law of ORDINANCES. What does that mean?
Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
That means the CEREMONIAL Laws, the rites and the sacrifices and the whole mumbo jumbo of what had to be done to be forgiven of your sins. When Christ died on the cross, the CEREMONIAL Laws died with Him because HE is the one time sacrifice needed to atone for our sins.
So tell me, which laws are we to follow to be saved?
If the sacrifices were abolished, why did Ezekiel prophesy about a temple where Israel offered sacrifices unto their God? Was he lying? Was he a false prophet?
tahoegirl

Orlando, FL

#18 Sep 16, 2013
Apologetics wrote:
Paul bashing isn't to hard to explain. Paul shared with us many things that make it hard for us to cheat our way around of admitting and repenting if our sins. Unbelievers are slaves to their sin. Denying the teachings of Paul allows them to justify themselves.
Hymenaues and Alexander were the false apostles at Ephesus.
Paul's teachings do not fit well with the Joseph Prince or radical grace crowd. I can see how the truth would upset them.
Hymenaues and Alexander never claimed to be Apostles, Paul did, so they can not be false Apostles, be careful whom ye judge Mathew 7:1,2.
Well I can see once again that there is no proof of Paul’s Apostleship that can be found by you or by anybody for that mater, because there is on proof. So you who put your trust in the hands of a known liar, who is the only person in the whole Bible that says the things that he says, also put your souls in his hands. This really is very simple, you have a man that claims to be something that he can not be, and he has no proof of, yet you choose to put your life in his hands anyway, knowing that what he says some 20 plus times in his letters he is, he is not. So just because he says it is so does not make it so even if he says it a hundred times, and no matter how many names you want to call me for telling you so is not going to make him an Apostle either no matter how many times you say its so. Just to show a few differences between Jesus and Paul hear are a few:

Paul says it’s ok to eat idol meat. 1Corth.8:4-13, 1Corth.10:19-28
Jesus says eating Idol meat is wrong. Rev.2:14.20

Paul says the law is abolished. Eph.2:15, Col.1:14, 1Corth.3:11-17, Romans7:1-3,
Jesus says the law remains. Mathew5:17-19

Paul says the Pharisees followed the law rigorously. Phip.3:5-6, Acts 26:5
Jesus says the Pharisees were lax about the law. Mathew 23:23, Mathew 15:6,9.

Paul says he is the Corinthians only spiritual father. 1Corth. 4:15,16
Jesus says call no man your father for only one is God. Mathew 23:9

Paul says, one is not born again by repentance. Romans3:2
Jesus says that the one whom repents is justified Luke 18:10-14

Paul says not to teach Jesus commands prior to ascension. 2Corth.5:16
Jesus say teach everything I have commanded you. Mathew 28:20

Paul says preachers should be paid for preaching 1Corth.9:14
Jesus says no. Mathew10:8

Paul says there are many pastors and teachers. Ephesians 4:11
Jesus says there is only, himself. Mathew 23:8, 10

Paul says God is the Lord of the dead. Romans 14:9
Jesus says God is not the God of the dead. Luke 20:38

Paul says you can call people fools and it is good to be a fool. 1Corth. 3:18, Gal.3:1
Jesus says not so. Mathew 5:22

Paul says he was not sent to baptize. 1Corth.1:17
Jesus sends his true Apostles to baptize in Mathew 28:19

There Paul in his own words admits and says he is not an Apostle because he wasn’t sent to baptize. By all means this is only a small selection of differences between Paul and Jesus, the last one I would like to bring up is this one.

Paul says there are more that 12 Apostles. Everywhere he can say it he does
Jesus says there are only 12. Revelation 21:12-14

So who do you all want to follow, Jesus, or Paul?
lol

Welch, WV

#19 Sep 16, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>
Breezing thru this cluster-f of a tail-chasing thread and lo and behold there's this..."Unbelievers are slaves to their sin."
Care to explain that? Because from my view its Believers who enslaved by their sins. As they need an alleged divine intervention to beat them back...not conquer them, only beat them back...as they cower and pray to God that they dont slide backwards. Which again from my view most do.!
I'm no slave...sorry that you are..!
You are slaves to your sin and your master, satan. You are owned punk, owned by forces you refuse to admit exist.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#20 Sep 17, 2013
Paul never heard Jesus speak a word as the original apostles did. He only claimed to have seen and heard Jesus in a vision. Paul did not have any contact with any of the original apostles until 3 years after his claimed vision when he “went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter”. However, when Peter came to Antioch several years later Paul “opposed him to his face” because he was “afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group” and Paul knew very well that it would be very difficult to convert Gentiles if they were required to be circumcised.

Paul eventually won the debate about circumcision not being necessary for Gentiles and effectively changed Christianity from a Jewish sect to a new completely Gentile religious faction. By the 2nd century there were no Jewish Christian writers and Jewish Christians were derogatorily referred to as “Judaisers”.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 210
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
ASK THE LORD of THE SPIRIT REALM 10 min TheLordsAnointed 29
NEW King James Bile to restore Gods name, Jehov... (Jan '14) 59 min Jahrules 18
Design, Nowhere Evident 1 hr Atheistgirl 265
Jesus did not claim to be God 1 hr Jesus is 321
Dead Sea Scrolls Fail To Mention Jesus 2 hr Barnsweb 53
Do you believe in tolerance for Gay Christians? 2 hr Atheistgirl 267
Scientific Proof Of GOD(for dummies) 3 hr 15th Dalai Lama 1,897
Jesus admitted he isn't God, so why do Christia... (Oct '11) 4 hr Jesus is 68
News Religion, higher education and critical thinking (Aug '15) 5 hr KAB 9,322
More from around the web