John finally exposed the extra assumption of people who claimed themselves as apostles, including the claim of Paul.
That's your interpretation.
I'm asking; when Paul was converted, went round on his journeys and said, and wrote, that he was an apostle, why didn't the 12 in Jerusalem send others to contradict or discredit him? Why didn't they tear up his letters, which would make sure that no one else ever read them? They didn't do this, in fact the church passed them around amongst themselves and must have preserved them somehow, or Nero would have burned them all. Why didn't John name Paul as a false prophet? He named Jezebel and condemned all who followed the teachings of the Nicolatians - why not Paul? Peter condemned Simon the sorcerer for his actions, and Paul himself named people who had turned away and left the faith, but no one ever named Paul, told people to have nothing to do with him or tore up his writings.
The chosen apostles were humble and semi-literate and did not have the arrogant attitude and persecuting trait of Paul to do that. It was not that simple in those days to follow what was happening elsewhere. NT was not the work of the chosen apostles. It was evolved later.
But they all knew, and had met, Paul. They specifically chose him and Barnabas to take a letter from them to the Gentile churches. If they had thought he was in any way false, why did they do that?
Earlier, Ananais and Sapphira had claimed that something was true when it wasn't, Acts 5; Peter told them they had lied to the Holy Spirit and both died on the spot. Nothing like that happened to Paul - even though he was, according to you, a false teacher, with his own agenda. And even though he spent many years proclaiming these teachings - some of which you even agree with.
If you saw the early church history, we see people opposing Paul.
I'm talking VERY early church history - like the 12 apostles.
And it started with Mark in the very first journey.
A difference of opinion is not opposition, Paul later referred to Mark as his son, and anyway, the quarrel was with Barnabas, not Mark.
Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to remind of His teachings, not to interpret writings of outsiders with their personal visions that oppose the preaching of Jesus.
Paul doesn't oppose Jesus he teaches about him - even you agree with him sometimes.
Why did John point out the problems of the seven churches? They were baptizing for the dead which Paul endorsed.
Well firstly, Revelation was written much later, long after Paul had died. Secondly, of those 7 churches, Paul had visited only Ephesus, and maybe Laodocea as well - Philippi, Corinth, Thessalonica etc which Paul had founded aren't mentioned at all. Thirdly, Paul didn't endorse baptising for the dead he just said that it happened - see 1 Corinthians 15:29. He is talking about resurrection and basically says, "if the dead aren't raised, why do some people baptise them? What is the point if there is no resurrection?" Paul doesn't teach this practice or even say he agrees with it.
And fourthly, John could have mentioned Paul by name and listed all his teachings that were supposedly false - yet he didn't.
Sorry, that argument doesn't hold water at all.
Don't expect Satan to remain a spectator with all the things happening in all kinds of churches with their in fighting and blind enforcement. People have been burnt on stakes. Paul was troubled by Satan.
Jesus was troubled by Satan too - that doesn't mean he was false.
If Paul was teaching against the words of Jesus, Satan would have left him alone - that's what Satan wants; people to turn against Jesus. Jesus himself said that Satan cannot oppose Satan. If Paul had gone around saying "Jesus said this but I say this" and people had followed him; Satan would have been delighted. He would have rewarded Paul, not persecuted, troubled and tempted him. Paul himself would be now be in hell for misleading people - yet you say that he was chosen by the Son of God and sometimes agree with his words.
It's also interesting that you recently took the opposite stance concerning these, "knowledge factories", when it suited your purposes to do so, claiming that the one valid credential your book's author had for writing the book he did was the fact the he was a seminary student.
