Originally Posted by Captain Adverse
Well, in the first place I do not consider Paul of Tarsus an "apostle."
I agree with the good Captain: if you've never conversed with someone in their earthly body, it's hard to count you as an apostle.
I agree with the good Captain: if you've never conversed with someone in their earthly body, it's hard to count you as an apostle.
I agree. Paul the usurper was no apostle.
Without providing any explanation as to how you came to that conclusion - I cannot accept that as an argument.
I'm not interested to hear any opinion that are not supported by anything!
I'm here to engage in a discussion - serious discussion/debate.
This thread was inspired by this statement:
I don't think I'd ever encountered anyone who'd expressed that opinion, thus I'm very much interested to engage you on this. I have quite a few questions, but to start.....
Captain Adverse, why do you consider the others as Apostles of Christ, and yet not Paul?
First I want to correct myself by stating that I misspoke when I listed "Luke" as one of the 12 Apostles. I meant to state that the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, and John provide the direct Word of God. That Luke, who has been ascribed as the author of the two books of Luke and Acts, was Luke the Evangelist. He was a disciple of Paul, and wrote what he had been told of Jesus by those who knew him, and what he observed while traveling with Paul. He never actually met Jesus.
Paul put himself forward as an Apostle, claiming that his encounter with the Light and Voice of Christ while traveling the road to Damascus entitled him to that privilege. He was in constant conflict with the surviving original Apostles, both for this claim and his efforts to convert gentiles without requiring they adhere to Jewish law, especially as it applied to the covenant which required circumcision.
It took the support of Peter to overcome the circumcision requirement; as Peter allowed that Jesus wanted his message spread to all, not just the Jews.
Recall, Paul's claim to have encountered Jesus is first described in Acts 9:3-9;
3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
5 "Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.
"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. 6 "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."
7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.
Then Jesus uses Ananias of Damascus to heal Paul and "instruct him." (Act 9:11-19).
HOWEVER, in Acts 26:9-18 Paul himself tells a somewhat different story:
12 Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,
13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; 17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Notice the underlined portions in each description? That in the first description Paul is merely told the light is Jesus, that he would be told later what his instructions would be, and is then struck blind for three days. Jesus then uses Ananias to instruct Paul on his duties.
Not so in the second description that Paul gives to King Agrippa per Acts 26.
Why would the incident have two different descriptions? Surely a direct encounter with the Lord would be seared into the mind of Paul such that only one description, the CORRECT one, would appear in Acts?
This is one reason I doubt.
The historical figure named Jesus lived and died without encountering Paul.Please review your statement. It doesn't sound right - at least, not in the biblical sense.
Perhaps you need to expand on it?
Acts chapter 9...
And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought [him] into Damascus.
And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.
And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I [am here], Lord.
And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for [one] called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,
And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting [his] hand on him, that he might receive his sight.
Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:
And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.
But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.
And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, [even] Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God....
Frankly, I think that if you are at all inclined to believe in the Bible, the above is pretty clear: Paul was called upon by God to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. Ignoring his writings as non-scriptural is pretty thin ice.
The historical figure named Jesus lived and died without encountering Paul.
...We Gentiles would have been screwed without him.
I never said I discarded Paul entirely. Without his good works in expanding the Church I don't think organized Christianity would be what it is today. That said, I still think he was merely a man and some of his words were based, as with many fellow Christians today, on what he thought best reflected his understanding of the teachings of Christ.
What more can one ask of a fellow Christian?
Do you believe Jesus arose from the dead? Straight up question. yes or no.
First of all, meeting GOD would not be the same as meeting some random person.
Second of all, you missed the intro. Read it again and you will see I corrected my errors and "threw out Luke and Acts" in the original reply you just quoted.
I do not.Do you believe Jesus arose from the dead? Straight up question. yes or no.
I never said I discarded Paul entirely. Without his good works in expanding the Church I don't think organized Christianity would be what it is today. That said, I still think he was merely a man and some of his words were based, as with many fellow Christians today, on what he thought best reflected his understanding of the teachings of Christ.
What more can one ask of a fellow Christian?
Pretty much what I said in the thread that caused Tosca to start this one:
I do not.
Okay, let me back up and re-start from here:
Ok, that's sort of a more reasonable position that tossing Paul out entirely.
In an above post though, you seem to cast doubt on whether Saul/Paul actually encountered Jesus (in his post-incarnate spiritual form) on the road to Damascus at all, due to a second description of the encounter being somewhat different from the first.
Erm... so what exactly DO you think of Paul? Was he a liar? Was he a sincere and genuine but flawed preacher of the Word? The two seem incompatible...
I say that hoping that I won't be viewed as simply "trolling" for having a different perspective.Thank you. Just wondered where you stand.
Now we know where you're coming from.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?