How should we read Paul?

[jimmyjimmy]

 

[nomadictheist]

OK, did not Lord identify Paul as His 'chosen instrument'? On what authority you want to change that identification?

Nobody here is changing that definition. An apostle is a chosen instrument....

Don't you verify from other sources for validity?

What other sources do you verify from? So far as I know, other than the Bible, the only sources that identify the apostles are the early church fathers, who also agree on Paul's apostleship.

No, it is this:

Acts 15:37 Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also.
38 But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work.
39 And there occurred such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus.

That is a personal dispute, not a church, nor a denominational division.

However, Peter split the entire church along circumcised and uncircumcised lines. That's the first recorded church division we have in the Bible.

"Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy."

Incidentally, you may note that this took place in Antioch, when Paul was with Barnabas, which means it predates their split over John Mark...

No, I don't hate Paul. I admire some of his verses. But tagging on to him for everything ignoring the Gospel has led to highly disputable theological concepts unsupported by the preaching of Jesus.

I know 0 Christians who ignore the gospel. And all Christians I know are familiar with the writings of Paul

Why do we require another source when Jesus identified Paul with designation applied exclusively for him. Strong is not the Bible.

Strong's is a Greek/Hebrew Concordance of the Bible, which helps us because the New Testament was written in Greek.

Also Jesus did not identify Paul with a designation applied exclusively for him. Are you saying Paul can be the only chosen instrument or chosen vessel of Jesus? That's just ludicrous.

Did Jesus also identify Peter as a rock? Why do we call him an apostle then, when Jesus gave a designation applied exclusively for him?

Additionally, He identified several of His disciples as "fishers of men." Why do we call them apostles and ignore the specific designation He gave them?

Saying that Paul was not an apostle because Jesus called him a "chosen instrument" is as ludicrous as saying that Peter is not an apostle because Jesus called him "Rock (Cephas)."

Have I used logic? I am quoting black and white..............

Do you even know what logic is? You've attempted to use it many times. The problem is that, because you don't seem familiar with it, you use bad logic.

I am sorry if I sound harsh and blunt. But I am only making it plain.

Personal attacks on character and false characterizations of beliefs is not "sounding harsh and blunt." You are making your opinion plain, and in doing so have attempted to push onto me the following:

1. belief in other gods (paganism)
2. being ignorant of the gospels
3. holding Paul above Jesus (multiple times)
4. being an "armchair debater" and not a servant of Christ.

These are personal (and false) attacks on character, also known as slander. They are not in accordance with the Bible, Christian Forums rules, or the sayings of Jesus. I have, thus far, refrained from applying labels to you and attacking your character.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

I see your problem so you think Paul was just one self-righteous man. Don't worry being a Christian would make everyone a miss-goody-two shoes. You have to be imitators of Christ... when somebody asks you for your coat you also give them your cloak.

Also, what did you want Paul to call himself and being a disciple was the simplest form of serving the Lord. In fact, Paul was 100% Holy Spirit guided if you read the letters from the LORD'S Perspective.

 

[Righttruth]

Who is an Apostle/ Disciple?

Matthew 28:19, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Do you know what it took for Paul to be accepted by the 12 disciples? Read Acts 9:26-28

Do you know how Hard it was to be Paul? Everything you posted here REJECTION.

All these are not related to Paul's self-claim of apostleship.

 

[Righttruth]

Sounds like theology. Not very simple.

No dispute with that.

 

[jerry kelso]

When Jesus identified 12 as His disciples, other disciples did not join Him all the time as apostles did. There are only 12 seats in the heaven identified for apostles. You cannot crowd them with all sundry people with your definition of apostleship! John calls all those who claim themselves as apostles are liars!



That is extrapolated and unauthorized thinking!



Very correct.




That is Paul's claim. Peter treated him as his beloved brother. It doesn't mean he admitted his apostleship!



That would be wrong because Jesus came to save the lost sheep of Israel. Many Jews got saved.(Ex: Zacchaeus)



Jesus revealed all things pertaining to our salvation during His earthly ministry. Paul ventured on speculations and claims unsupported by the Gospel leading to cozy theological concepts leading to wrong convenient interpretations that can only bring about destruction as Peter warned.



This ministry to Gentiles only did not entail Paul as an apostle of uncircumcised as Paul claimed. He brought forth division with that which was unwarranted.



John made it clear that there cannot be more than 12 apostles that includes the replacement.



It is indeed one can be seen in the Great Commission spelled out in Matthew 28.



The new covenant began with the Last Supper:
Luke 22
20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

righttruth,

1. Luke 22 was before the actual fact happened in real time. Upon your basis of thought you would still be wrong because the bible says the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.

2. Your account of John saying that there is no replacement of the 12 apostles is not said in that scripture and there is no scripture that you can produce to back that up. This is why it is your opinion and conjecture.
Revelation 2:2; John was praising the church of Ephesus for their works, labor, patience and how they could not bear them which are evil: and those that they (the believers) had tried those who said they were apostles and were not and found them to be liars. The context and the grammatical structure backs up that John was praising them for trying those who said they were apostles and were not. This goes along with trying the spirits and recognizing the antichrists who were mere professors of the truth and not real believers.
1 Corinthians 9, Paul defends his apostleship who God called him alone to be and the Corinthians that were saved were proof of his apostleship being of God.
Paul said in 1 Corinthians 12 Paul says that the body of Christ has apostles that God had set in the church for the edification of the body.This had nothing to do with the role of the 12 apostles in the early church or even replacing them in that role. He also had teachers in their and are you going to say there are no such things as teachers in the church? The Holy Spirit is to lead us into truth but it doesn't do away with the fact of teachers in the church.
Ephesians 4 shows that Christ gave the church apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists and some, pastors and teachers. If you eliminate apostles you would have to eliminate the rest.
The gospels of Matthew and Luke both recorded the law and the prophets were until John. This is a different context but if you take prophets until John then you would have to believe there are no such thing as prophets in the church. The law of Moses was abolished at Calvary but at the time this scripture was given was talking about prophesying about the Messiah. Matthew 11:13: For all the prophets and the law "PROPHESIED" until John. John was the last prophet of the old testament and was the forerunner of Christ. When Christ started in his ministry there was no need for prophesying because the reality was really there himself.
Luke 16:16: The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. The Kingdom of God was the spiritual aspect that they were to seek so all things would be added unto them Matthew 6:33 and it was through the Messiah the reality that they were to believe in to be saved for he forgave sins in his ministry and demonstrated it throughout his ministry.
This context of Luke 16 was about the Pharisees who were covetous and wanted to derided him. Jesus exposed their hypocrisy in verse 15 because Jesus said one cannot serve 2 masters in verse 13. The scribes and Pharisees were trying to stop the plan of redemption by keeping Jesus from preaching the spiritual aspect of God and were trying to keep him from proclaiming him equal with God because only God could forgive sins.

3. Paul was born a jew and lived the law better than his peers and so much more to even killing christians that didn't believe the law keeping way which was against the gospel of the law of Christ. He later said he was ignorant thinking he was a God pleaser and was wrong.
When Paul got saved he learned because of his understanding of the jewish law and the revelation Christ gave him of the old testament and what was to transpire in the church age specifically in the body of Christ of jews and gentiles on the same level he brought up division from the jewish leader law keepers who were not new testament believers. The bible says that the gospel is the offence to those who don't want to believe.

4. There is no scriptural basis to prove Jesus stated every jot and tittle about the church age in his earthly ministry or even post resurrection. So you are just bringing up opinionated straw men but no scriptural basis. Peter never went against Paul or reprimanded him for anything but Paul did Peter when he was being a respect of persons. Peter said there were things Paul said that was hard to understand for some but he never said they were wrong.

5. Jesus taught only the jews and that is true and he did come to save the lost sheep of Israel but he also came to seek and save that which was lost which was the KOH and the KOG which was lost in the garden of Eden.
The jews covenants were based in Abraham and David concerning the earthly land and the physical KOH reign on earth and the restitution of all things. Isaiah 2:2-4, Isaiah 9:6-7, Acts 3:19.
John said, For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life. This goes along with the old testament and in Isaiah 53 gives the account of the suffering Savior of which the jews missed. The new covenant being instituted with Israel in connection with their covenants of their earthly calling was conditioned by obedience. 1 Chronicles 28.
Jesus pronounced judgement of their obedience in Matthew 23:37-39 and prophesied their demise which happened in 70 A.D.
Paul said in Romans 9-11 God had not forgotten Israel or his promise to them according to the covenants and they would repent and those covenants would be fulfilled when the time of the gentiles will be fulfilled which is still future.
If Peter had authority over Paul at the time of the early church he would have rebuked Paul to begin with when Paul reprimanded him for being a respector of persons. Peter recognized his ministry to the gentiles just as Paul recognized his ministry to the jews and vice versa so they both understood they were both apostles.

6. Apostle does mean one sent and they had to be sent with the true message. There were at least 24 apostles mentioned in Paul's ministry and Peter recognized that with like him and Barnabas and this is why Paul and Barnabas both had hands laid upon them and was sent with the message as a apostles Acts 13:1-5. So is the scripture become extrapolation and unauthorized thinking? I think not.

7. Jesus picked the disciples in his earthly ministry and they became the apostles in the early church. They were also given the message of the death, burial and resurrection and pass it on to other faithfuls. In that sense we could all be considered apostles. However, the authority of the office of the apostle is given by God and they basically settled churches and handled doctrine etc. Ephesians and Corinthians talk about the giving of apostles, prophets, teachers etc. and the setting of apostles, prophets, teachers, etc. They are different in nature.
The main point is that you are trying to make everything you believe in your one context and not understanding the separate context and the time factor and the whys of the difference.

Where you go wrong is that you are stating opinion, conjectures and setting up straw men that are not scripture in the total context and cannot harmonize with each other. You are trying to prove Paul was not true to the gospel and was trying to create chaos and you bring the scripture out of harmony with the law of Christ which was different than the law of Moses in Jesus day that he taught and lived under. Jesus had a specific message and mission that pointed to salvation of the cross but was not the full revelation until after he died and rose again. Without the cross there would have been no resurrection and no one would have been saved from the old testament or the new testament. Hebrews 11:40 talks about the old testament saints and the new testament saints being perfected together.
Basically they were saved by grace through faith in their revelation revealed to them in all ages. The revelation of salvation was gradual and did not come to full fruition until the cross. Redemption could not be realized in anyone or finalized in any way until Christ said it was finished and he died and then the resurrection was guaranteed and salvation was complete.

8. Context is the key to understanding plain statements and how to connect the dots by reconciling the scriptures together to harmonize together properly. Jerry Kelso

 

[jerry kelso]

When Jesus identified 12 as His disciples, other disciples did not join Him all the time as apostles did. There are only 12 seats in the heaven identified for apostles. You cannot crowd them with all sundry people with your definition of apostleship! John calls all those who claim themselves as apostles are liars!



That is extrapolated and unauthorized thinking!



Very correct.




That is Paul's claim. Peter treated him as his beloved brother. It doesn't mean he admitted his apostleship!



That would be wrong because Jesus came to save the lost sheep of Israel. Many Jews got saved.(Ex: Zacchaeus)



Jesus revealed all things pertaining to our salvation during His earthly ministry. Paul ventured on speculations and claims unsupported by the Gospel leading to cozy theological concepts leading to wrong convenient interpretations that can only bring about destruction as Peter warned.



This ministry to Gentiles only did not entail Paul as an apostle of uncircumcised as Paul claimed. He brought forth division with that which was unwarranted.



John made it clear that there cannot be more than 12 apostles that includes the replacement.



It is indeed one can be seen in the Great Commission spelled out in Matthew 28.



The new covenant began with the Last Supper:
Luke 22
20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

righttruth,

1. Luke 22 was before the actual fact happened in real time. Upon your basis of thought you would still be wrong because the bible says the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.

2. Your account of John saying that there is no replacement of the 12 apostles is not said in that scripture and there is no scripture that you can produce to back that up. This is why it is your opinion and conjecture.
Revelation 2:2; John was praising the church of Ephesus for their works, labor, patience and how they could not bear them which are evil: and those that they (the believers) had tried those who said they were apostles and were not and found them to be liars. The context and the grammatical structure backs up that John was praising them for trying those who said they were apostles and were not. This goes along with trying the spirits and recognizing the antichrists who were mere professors of the truth and not real believers.
1 Corinthians 9, Paul defends his apostleship who God called him alone to be and the Corinthians that were saved were proof of his apostleship being of God.
Paul said in 1 Corinthians 12 Paul says that the body of Christ has apostles that God had set in the church for the edification of the body.This had nothing to do with the role of the 12 apostles in the early church or even replacing them in that role. He also had teachers in their and are you going to say there are no such things as teachers in the church? The Holy Spirit is to lead us into truth but it doesn't do away with the fact of teachers in the church.
Ephesians 4 shows that Christ gave the church apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists and some, pastors and teachers. If you eliminate apostles you would have to eliminate the rest.
The gospels of Matthew and Luke both recorded the law and the prophets were until John. This is a different context but if you take prophets until John then you would have to believe there are no such thing as prophets in the church. The law of Moses was abolished at Calvary but at the time this scripture was given was talking about prophesying about the Messiah. Matthew 11:13: For all the prophets and the law "PROPHESIED" until John. John was the last prophet of the old testament and was the forerunner of Christ. When Christ started in his ministry there was no need for prophesying because the reality was really there himself.
Luke 16:16: The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. The Kingdom of God was the spiritual aspect that they were to seek so all things would be added unto them Matthew 6:33 and it was through the Messiah the reality that they were to believe in to be saved for he forgave sins in his ministry and demonstrated it throughout his ministry.
This context of Luke 16 was about the Pharisees who were covetous and wanted to derided him. Jesus exposed their hypocrisy in verse 15 because Jesus said one cannot serve 2 masters in verse 13. The scribes and Pharisees were trying to stop the plan of redemption by keeping Jesus from preaching the spiritual aspect of God and were trying to keep him from proclaiming him equal with God because only God could forgive sins.

3. Paul was born a jew and lived the law better than his peers and so much more to even killing christians that didn't believe the law keeping way which was against the gospel of the law of Christ. He later said he was ignorant thinking he was a God pleaser and was wrong.
When Paul got saved he learned because of his understanding of the jewish law and the revelation Christ gave him of the old testament and what was to transpire in the church age specifically in the body of Christ of jews and gentiles on the same level he brought up division from the jewish leader law keepers who were not new testament believers. The bible says that the gospel is the offence to those who don't want to believe.

4. There is no scriptural basis to prove Jesus stated every jot and tittle about the church age in his earthly ministry or even post resurrection. So you are just bringing up opinionated straw men but no scriptural basis. Peter never went against Paul or reprimanded him for anything but Paul did Peter when he was being a respect of persons. Peter said there were things Paul said that was hard to understand for some but he never said they were wrong.

5. Jesus taught only the jews and that is true and he did come to save the lost sheep of Israel but he also came to seek and save that which was lost which was the KOH and the KOG which was lost in the garden of Eden.
The jews covenants were based in Abraham and David concerning the earthly land and the physical KOH reign on earth and the restitution of all things. Isaiah 2:2-4, Isaiah 9:6-7, Acts 3:19.
John said, For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life. This goes along with the old testament and in Isaiah 53 gives the account of the suffering Savior of which the jews missed. The new covenant being instituted with Israel in connection with their covenants of their earthly calling was conditioned by obedience. 1 Chronicles 28.
Jesus pronounced judgement of their obedience in Matthew 23:37-39 and prophesied their demise which happened in 70 A.D.
Paul said in Romans 9-11 God had not forgotten Israel or his promise to them according to the covenants and they would repent and those covenants would be fulfilled when the time of the gentiles will be fulfilled which is still future.
If Peter had authority over Paul at the time of the early church he would have rebuked Paul to begin with when Paul reprimanded him for being a respector of persons. Peter recognized his ministry to the gentiles just as Paul recognized his ministry to the jews and vice versa so they both understood they were both apostles.

6. Apostle does mean one sent and they had to be sent with the true message. There were at least 24 apostles mentioned in Paul's ministry and Peter recognized that with like him and Barnabas and this is why Paul and Barnabas both had hands laid upon them and was sent with the message as a apostles Acts 13:1-5. So is the scripture become extrapolation and unauthorized thinking? I think not.

7. Jesus picked the disciples in his earthly ministry and they became the apostles in the early church. They were also given the message of the death, burial and resurrection and pass it on to other faithfuls. In that sense we could all be considered apostles. However, the authority of the office of the apostle is given by God and they basically settled churches and handled doctrine etc. Ephesians and Corinthians talk about the giving of apostles, prophets, teachers etc. and the setting of apostles, prophets, teachers, etc. They are different in nature.
The main point is that you are trying to make everything you believe in your one context and not understanding the separate context and the time factor and the whys of the difference.

Where you go wrong is that you are stating opinion, conjectures and setting up straw men that are not scripture in the total context and cannot harmonize with each other. You are trying to prove Paul was not true to the gospel and was trying to create chaos and you bring the scripture out of harmony with the law of Christ which was different than the law of Moses in Jesus day that he taught and lived under. Jesus had a specific message and mission that pointed to salvation of the cross but was not the full revelation until after he died and rose again. Without the cross there would have been no resurrection and no one would have been saved from the old testament or the new testament. Hebrews 11:40 talks about the old testament saints and the new testament saints being perfected together.
Basically they were saved by grace through faith in their revelation revealed to them in all ages. The revelation of salvation was gradual and did not come to full fruition until the cross. Redemption could not be realized in anyone or finalized in any way until Christ said it was finished and he died and then the resurrection was guaranteed and salvation was complete.

8. Context is the key to understanding plain statements and how to connect the dots by reconciling the scriptures together to harmonize together properly. Jerry Kelso

 

[Righttruth]

Nobody here is changing that definition. An apostle is a chosen instrument....

Very poor inference! A disciple is a believer in Jesus, but a believer need not be a disciple. An apostle is a chosen instrument, but chosen instrument need not be an apostle! A believer may be a husband, but a husband need not be a believer!

What other sources do you verify from? So far as I know, other than the Bible, the only sources that identify the apostles are the early church fathers, who also agree on Paul's apostleship.

So your validity is based on what is not found in the Bible. Again a poor reference!

That is a personal dispute, not a church, nor a denominational division.

That is how personal dispute led to divisions. A small disturbance is sufficient to cause major damage later!

However, Peter split the entire church along circumcised and uncircumcised lines. That's the first recorded church division we have in the Bible.

More than that Paul self-proclaimed split in apostleship: Circumcised & uncircumcised to justify his easy short cut to reach the gullible Gentiles with his theories!

"Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy."

Incidentally, you may note that this took place in Antioch, when Paul was with Barnabas, which means it predates their split over John Mark...

This incident was not before the split. The split came before the beginning of the second journey.

I know 0 Christians who ignore the gospel. And all Christians I know are familiar with the writings of Paul

Yes, all probably familiar with the abridged version of Paul's gospel. All Protestants are unduly familiar with Pauline letters because it is they that help in weaving convenient concepts!

Strong's is a Greek/Hebrew Concordance of the Bible, which helps us because the New Testament was written in Greek.

That is OK, but, unfortunately, it will not help in understanding spiritual insights. It won't supply the Holy Spirit.

Also Jesus did not identify Paul with a designation applied exclusively for him. Are you saying Paul can be the only chosen instrument or chosen vessel of Jesus? That's just ludicrous.

There were many disciples who never bothered about the status and titles to witness for Him.

Did Jesus also identify Peter as a rock? Why do we call him an apostle then, when Jesus gave a designation applied exclusively for him?

How many titles you have for God and Jesus Christ? You are not happy with that? One can be a wife and cook too!

Additionally, He identified several of His disciples as "fishers of men." Why do we call them apostles and ignore the specific designation He gave them?

Saying that Paul was not an apostle because Jesus called him a "chosen instrument" is as ludicrous as saying that Peter is not an apostle because Jesus called him "Rock (Cephas)."Do you even know what logic is? You've attempted to use it many times. The problem is that, because you don't seem familiar with it, you use bad logic.

You call this a rational logic?

Personal attacks on character and false characterizations of beliefs is not "sounding harsh and blunt." You are making your opinion plain, and in doing so have attempted to push onto me the following:

1. belief in other gods (paganism)
2. being ignorant of the gospels
3. holding Paul above Jesus (multiple times)
4. being an "armchair debater" and not a servant of Christ.

These are personal (and false) attacks on character, also known as slander. They are not in accordance with the Bible, Christian Forums rules, or the sayings of Jesus. I have, thus far, refrained from applying labels to you and attacking your character.

I don't think I am contributing for that. It is not meant on a personal level even though it may appear so with my limited style of writing.

 

[nomadictheist]

Very poor inference! A disciple is a believer in Jesus, but a believer need not be a disciple. An apostle is a chosen instrument, but chosen instrument need not be an apostle! A believer may be a husband, but a husband need not be a believer!

But there is no reason for you to deny that Paul was an apostle other than your own opinion. You have again and again used the words "chosen instrument" as your basis for denying Paul's apostleship.

So your validity is based on what is not found in the Bible. Again a poor reference!

No. The Bible says Paul is an apostle. Your validity is based on what is not found in the Bible.

That is how personal dispute led to divisions. A small disturbance is sufficient to cause major damage later!

More than that Paul self-proclaimed split in apostleship: Circumcised & uncircumcised to justify his easy short cut to reach the gullible Gentiles with his theories!

Prove that Paul changed the gospel or stop claiming that he did. Prove that Paul wasn't an apostle or stop claiming that he wasn't. The Bible calls Paul an apostle. Peter calls Paul a beloved brother and puts Paul's epistles on a level with scripture. Paul was personally chosen and commissioned by Jesus Christ. The evidence for Paul's apostleship is overwhelming. You have shown not one iota of evidence against it.

This incident was not before the split. The split came before the beginning of the second journey.

If you read about the incident with Peter, the incident was when Paul and Barnabas remained a long time in Antioch teaching. That was before the split. Denying it doesn't make it not true.

Yes, all probably familiar with the abridged version of Paul's gospel. All Protestants are unduly familiar with Pauline letters because it is they that help in weaving convenient concepts!

There is no such thing as Paul's gospel. There is the gospel of Jesus Christ, which Paul preached. I am no more familiar with Paul than I am with the gospels, though I'm technically not a "Protestant" by the actual definition. I know today "Protestant" is used to refer to everything except Catholic, but that's not really its original meaning.

That is OK, but, unfortunately, it will not help in understanding spiritual insights. It won't supply the Holy Spirit.

No, but it helps with defending the truth against ignorance.

There were many disciples who never bothered about the status and titles to witness for Him.

What status? You seem to have this notion that Paul was claiming some high status in the early church. A calling is not a status, and that you would even think of it this way is evidence that you do not understand the way the apostles thought of themselves.

How many titles you have for God and Jesus Christ? You are not happy with that? One can be a wife and cook too!

Just like one can be a chosen instrument and an apostle too.

You call this a rational logic?

No. The whole point, which you seem to miss, is to show that your claim that Jesus calling Paul a "chosen instrument" means he's not an apostle is irrational.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

No dispute with that.

Didn't you say that Jesus wanted a "simple religion"?

 

[Strong in Him]

So Jesus was found with hundreds of people all the time around because that many disciples were there. You are not recognizing the reality here.

No, I think you aren't.
Jesus chose 12 to be his closest followers; no argument with that. His called them his disciples. Not because disciple was some great title; the word means, "learner". Pharisees and Rabbis also had disciples.
Many people followed Jesus. They were not included in the 12; they may have learnt from him but Jesus explained the parables to the 12, not to everyone as a whole. Within the 12, Peter, James and John seemed to be a lot closer than the others and saw things - eg the transfiguration - that the other nine didn't, but even so Jesus had 12 close friends who he taught, showed signs to, gave power to heal and so on. Later on Jesus sent 72 other followers out to the towns that he was about to visit, to proclaim the message. My interlinear Greek NT says that the word used for sent is a past tense from the word apostello - to send away, send out. The word apostle means sent, and when Jesus sent people out he apostled them.

Yes, when we hear the word Apostle we usually think of the 12 disciples of Jesus; minus Judas, + Mathias. But others in the NT are called apostles also, because they were sent. Jesus himself said that God apostled the OT prophets. As I said, James, Barnabas, Junia etc were called apostles, yet you focus exclusively on Paul; claiming that he chose some important title for himself that he was not given. He was an apostle. Not one of the 12, but they accepted him into their number, laid hands on him and sent him out and did not rebuke him or say he had no right to call himself what he wasn't.

Where have I refused to admit that Paul was a chosen instrument?

You haven't.
I'm trying to emphasise that Jesus chose Paul. You seem to be dismissing Paul as self appointed, self important, false, not to be trusted etc etc. He was not self appointed - like I said, he hated Jesus, he met him, Jesus told Ananais he had chosen Paul and he was sent out - apostled - to preach.

If you accept that Jesus chose Paul but reject some of Paul's words and teachings, then you are rejecting someone chosen by the Lord, the Son of God. Jesus chose Paul; Paul preached Jesus.

As a chosen vessel. Manipulation is not allowed.

That doesn't answer my question. Jesus chose Paul and you are disrespecting one of the Lord's chosen.

That is hook and crook method of trying to please people bending backwards!

No. I think you have made up your mind that Paul was false. So everything you read is through the lens of "Paul cannot be trusted". So you're telling the Lord Jesus that you don't trust, or accept, one of his chosen - or at least, only sometimes.

 

[Berean777]

He caused division and took his path on his own right in the beginning.

He was a Jewish man very zealous for his Jewish kindred and wanted them to all be saved, how on earth can you say that he caused division, after all he was chosen by the Pharisees as the Pharisee of Pharisees.

and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. (Romans 11:26)

Paul's only guilt was if you want to label it as guilt, was to incite jealousy amongst his Jewish compatriots, by saying look at these Gentiles who don't even have the law, but they by virtue of their belief in Christ do the things that are in the law, as compared to you guys who pretend to do them outwardly, yet inwardly are far from obeying them. This is where Paul talked about the circumcision of the heart.

13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. (Romans 2:13-16)

Paul was spelling it out before the Romans that righteousness is solely tied to Christ and his gospel and that Jews without Christ have no circumcision of the heart. By doing this Paul would be inciting jealousy amongst his Jewish compatriots who had spies in the midst, who ended up delivering the messages to the rabbinical authorities and at the same time indirectly rallied behind the Gentiles to convey this message to the Jews without Christ. In other words Paul was using the Gentiles to indirectly deliver the gospel message to the Jews.

So we see Paul doing all he can under his obligations to the Jewish people's, while being consigned to be the apostle to the Gentiles. There is absolutely no evidence that Paul was at all spiteful to the Jews or that he loathed them. Evidence points to a man who loved his Jewish people, so much that he would make himself their enemy, in order to incite them to jealousy, in order to jolt them into action, by moving their faith over to Christ. Paul was an excellent apologist that the Christian world has seen and his actions he regarded was to be a servant unto all, even though he made himself an enemy to the rabbinical authority of his days, even to this day it seems, "Khe friend! Shalom"

19For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 20And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you (1 Corinthians 919-23)

 

[Berean777]

"If you are saying that Paul forgot the commandments of Jesus to reach out to the Jews also, you are mistaken. This man was so zealous for his fellow Jews, that the head of the church prevented him from being an apostle to the Jews.Just read how he is conveying that he is assigned to be an apostle to the Gentiles, though he wished that he could also directly preach to the Jews."

Verse please for this.

Let me give you versus that not only highlight that he was prevented from preaching to the Jews by the church in Jerusalem, by Paul's own confession, but the Lord himself prevented him from doing so, by giving him a direct assignment to the Gentiles and instruction to leave Jerusalem immediately.

17“When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance 18and saw the Lord speaking to me. ‘Quick!’ he said. ‘Leave Jerusalem immediately, because the people here will not accept your testimony about me.’

19“ ‘Lord,’ I replied, ‘these people know that I went from one synagogue to another to imprison and beat those who believe in you. 20And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.’

21“Then the Lord said to me, ‘Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’ ” (Acts 22:17-21)

Paul's presence amongst the apostleship in Jerusalem was an uncomfortable one, especially owing to his own admission. At the same time, Paul was not in a position to preach to the Jews who wanted to tear him to bits, after he was seen by the Jews to have defected his post as a Pharisee.

22The crowd listened to Paul until he said this. Then they raised their voices and shouted, “Rid the earth of him! He’s not fit to live!” (acts 22:22)

 

[Righttruth]

righttruth,

1. Luke 22 was before the actual fact happened in real time. Upon your basis of thought you would still be wrong because the bible says the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world.

2. Your account of John saying that there is no replacement of the 12 apostles is not said in that scripture and there is no scripture that you can produce to back that up. This is why it is your opinion and conjecture.
Revelation 2:2; John was praising the church of Ephesus for their works, labor, patience and how they could not bear them which are evil: and those that they (the believers) had tried those who said they were apostles and were not and found them to be liars. The context and the grammatical structure backs up that John was praising them for trying those who said they were apostles and were not. This goes along with trying the spirits and recognizing the antichrists who were mere professors of the truth and not real believers.
1 Corinthians 9, Paul defends his apostleship who God called him alone to be and the Corinthians that were saved were proof of his apostleship being of God.
Paul said in 1 Corinthians 12 Paul says that the body of Christ has apostles that God had set in the church for the edification of the body.This had nothing to do with the role of the 12 apostles in the early church or even replacing them in that role. He also had teachers in their and are you going to say there are no such things as teachers in the church? The Holy Spirit is to lead us into truth but it doesn't do away with the fact of teachers in the church.
Ephesians 4 shows that Christ gave the church apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists and some, pastors and teachers. If you eliminate apostles you would have to eliminate the rest.
The gospels of Matthew and Luke both recorded the law and the prophets were until John. This is a different context but if you take prophets until John then you would have to believe there are no such thing as prophets in the church. The law of Moses was abolished at Calvary but at the time this scripture was given was talking about prophesying about the Messiah. Matthew 11:13: For all the prophets and the law "PROPHESIED" until John. John was the last prophet of the old testament and was the forerunner of Christ. When Christ started in his ministry there was no need for prophesying because the reality was really there himself.
Luke 16:16: The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. The Kingdom of God was the spiritual aspect that they were to seek so all things would be added unto them Matthew 6:33 and it was through the Messiah the reality that they were to believe in to be saved for he forgave sins in his ministry and demonstrated it throughout his ministry.
This context of Luke 16 was about the Pharisees who were covetous and wanted to derided him. Jesus exposed their hypocrisy in verse 15 because Jesus said one cannot serve 2 masters in verse 13. The scribes and Pharisees were trying to stop the plan of redemption by keeping Jesus from preaching the spiritual aspect of God and were trying to keep him from proclaiming him equal with God because only God could forgive sins.

3. Paul was born a jew and lived the law better than his peers and so much more to even killing christians that didn't believe the law keeping way which was against the gospel of the law of Christ. He later said he was ignorant thinking he was a God pleaser and was wrong.
When Paul got saved he learned because of his understanding of the jewish law and the revelation Christ gave him of the old testament and what was to transpire in the church age specifically in the body of Christ of jews and gentiles on the same level he brought up division from the jewish leader law keepers who were not new testament believers. The bible says that the gospel is the offence to those who don't want to believe.

4. There is no scriptural basis to prove Jesus stated every jot and tittle about the church age in his earthly ministry or even post resurrection. So you are just bringing up opinionated straw men but no scriptural basis. Peter never went against Paul or reprimanded him for anything but Paul did Peter when he was being a respect of persons. Peter said there were things Paul said that was hard to understand for some but he never said they were wrong.

5. Jesus taught only the jews and that is true and he did come to save the lost sheep of Israel but he also came to seek and save that which was lost which was the KOH and the KOG which was lost in the garden of Eden.
The jews covenants were based in Abraham and David concerning the earthly land and the physical KOH reign on earth and the restitution of all things. Isaiah 2:2-4, Isaiah 9:6-7, Acts 3:19.
John said, For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life. This goes along with the old testament and in Isaiah 53 gives the account of the suffering Savior of which the jews missed. The new covenant being instituted with Israel in connection with their covenants of their earthly calling was conditioned by obedience. 1 Chronicles 28.
Jesus pronounced judgement of their obedience in Matthew 23:37-39 and prophesied their demise which happened in 70 A.D.
Paul said in Romans 9-11 God had not forgotten Israel or his promise to them according to the covenants and they would repent and those covenants would be fulfilled when the time of the gentiles will be fulfilled which is still future.
If Peter had authority over Paul at the time of the early church he would have rebuked Paul to begin with when Paul reprimanded him for being a respector of persons. Peter recognized his ministry to the gentiles just as Paul recognized his ministry to the jews and vice versa so they both understood they were both apostles.

6. Apostle does mean one sent and they had to be sent with the true message. There were at least 24 apostles mentioned in Paul's ministry and Peter recognized that with like him and Barnabas and this is why Paul and Barnabas both had hands laid upon them and was sent with the message as a apostles Acts 13:1-5. So is the scripture become extrapolation and unauthorized thinking? I think not.

7. Jesus picked the disciples in his earthly ministry and they became the apostles in the early church. They were also given the message of the death, burial and resurrection and pass it on to other faithfuls. In that sense we could all be considered apostles. However, the authority of the office of the apostle is given by God and they basically settled churches and handled doctrine etc. Ephesians and Corinthians talk about the giving of apostles, prophets, teachers etc. and the setting of apostles, prophets, teachers, etc. They are different in nature.
The main point is that you are trying to make everything you believe in your one context and not understanding the separate context and the time factor and the whys of the difference.

Where you go wrong is that you are stating opinion, conjectures and setting up straw men that are not scripture in the total context and cannot harmonize with each other. You are trying to prove Paul was not true to the gospel and was trying to create chaos and you bring the scripture out of harmony with the law of Christ which was different than the law of Moses in Jesus day that he taught and lived under. Jesus had a specific message and mission that pointed to salvation of the cross but was not the full revelation until after he died and rose again. Without the cross there would have been no resurrection and no one would have been saved from the old testament or the new testament. Hebrews 11:40 talks about the old testament saints and the new testament saints being perfected together.
Basically they were saved by grace through faith in their revelation revealed to them in all ages. The revelation of salvation was gradual and did not come to full fruition until the cross. Redemption could not be realized in anyone or finalized in any way until Christ said it was finished and he died and then the resurrection was guaranteed and salvation was complete.

8. Context is the key to understanding plain statements and how to connect the dots by reconciling the scriptures together to harmonize together properly. Jerry Kelso

I am sorry to state that the worst delusion started with Pentecostal movement in USA about one hundred years back which was a relapse of notorious Corinthian church! So I may not be interested in debating with you because you rely on Oneness Doctrine which, I believe, is absurd.

 

[Righttruth]

But there is no reason for you to deny that Paul was an apostle other than your own opinion. You have again and again used the words "chosen instrument" as your basis for denying Paul's apostleship.

Obviously, Paul rules over Jesus in your thinking!

No. The Bible says Paul is an apostle. Your validity is based on what is not found in the Bible.

I didn't know that a book has a mouth to speak out!

Prove that Paul changed the gospel or stop claiming that he did. Prove that Paul wasn't an apostle or stop claiming that he wasn't. The Bible calls Paul an apostle. Peter calls Paul a beloved brother and puts Paul's epistles on a level with scripture. Paul was personally chosen and commissioned by Jesus Christ. The evidence for Paul's apostleship is overwhelming. You have shown not one iota of evidence against it.

How much of preaching of Jesus has Paul quoted: big NIL!

If you read about the incident with Peter, the incident was when Paul and Barnabas remained a long time in Antioch teaching. That was before the split. Denying it doesn't make it not true.

The split came before the second journey. Nevertheless, Peter, Barnabas, et al continued the interaction since Paul was not communicated! So the Antioch scene is many years after the split.
Galatians 2:
1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

There is no such thing as Paul's gospel. There is the gospel of Jesus Christ, which Paul preached. I am no more familiar with Paul than I am with the gospels, though I'm technically not a "Protestant" by the actual definition. I know today "Protestant" is used to refer to everything except Catholic, but that's not really its original meaning.

What do say for this:

Romans 2
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Romans 16
25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

2 Timothy 2
8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

A humble teacher will share our Gospel!

No. The whole point, which you seem to miss, is to show that your claim that Jesus calling Paul a "chosen instrument" means he's not an apostle is irrational.

Yes, because only 12 for twelve tribes!

 

[Righttruth]

Didn't you say that Jesus wanted a "simple religion"?

Could please quote reply no. please. I don't remember to have said that.

 

[jerry kelso]

I am sorry to state that the worst delusion started with Pentecostal movement in USA about one hundred years back which was a relapse of notorious Corinthian church! So I may not be interested in debating with you because you rely on Oneness Doctrine which, I believe, is absurd.

righttruth,

The reason you don't want to debate me is because you don't have scriptural backing.
I was raised Assemblies of God and my father was an Assembly of God preacher so I did not and don't believe in the oneness doctrine.
My father told me to be like the bereans and see whether or not what one preaches is the truth or not. I believe in correct hermeneutics and correct jewish history and correct hebraic perspective.
I believe denominations are not scriptural but we have them and some great christian people in them and we also have professors in them.
You say you may not be interested in debating which is understandable because you your post show no knowledge how to give a proper rebuttal.
If you think you understand about hermeneutics then I challenge you to tell me what you think Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 15:31 when he said, I die daily and provide scripture to harmonize with it.
Trying to interpret the bible without proper and sound hermeneutics and proper knowledge of history and the hows and whys of God's redemption plan and how it unfolded is absurd. So if you are going to claim to be right or more knowledgable then here is your chance. good luck. Jerry Kelso

 

[Righttruth]

No, I think you aren't.
Jesus chose 12 to be his closest followers; no argument with that. His called them his disciples.

Are you writing a Bible of your own? Out of many disciples, He chose 12 categorizing them apostles who will judge 12 tribes of Jews.

Yes, when we hear the word Apostle we usually think of the 12 disciples of Jesus; minus Judas, + Mathias. But others in the NT are called apostles also, because they were sent. Jesus himself said that God apostled the OT prophets. As I said, James, Barnabas, Junia etc were called apostles, yet you focus exclusively on Paul; claiming that he chose some important title for himself that he was not given. He was an apostle. Not one of the 12, but they accepted him into their number, laid hands on him and sent him out and did not rebuke him or say he had no right to call himself what he wasn't.

That is your commentary. How many apostles were reading all the letters of Paul that were written to congregations away from Jerusalem?

I'm trying to emphasise that Jesus chose Paul. You seem to be dismissing Paul as self appointed, self important, false, not to be trusted etc etc. He was not self appointed - like I said, he hated Jesus, he met him, Jesus told Ananais he had chosen Paul and he was sent out - apostled - to preach.

Jesus chose Paul not as an apostle.

If you accept that Jesus chose Paul but reject some of Paul's words and teachings, then you are rejecting someone chosen by the Lord, the Son of God. Jesus chose Paul; Paul preached Jesus.

I only reject all his self-claims and theory that go against Jesus' words and that of the letters of others.

That doesn't answer my question. Jesus chose Paul and you are disrespecting one of the Lord's chosen.

An employer issues appointment letters to different persons for different status and responsibilities. The status and responsibility to Paul were different.

No. I think you have made up your mind that Paul was false. So everything you read is through the lens of "Paul cannot be trusted". So you're telling the Lord Jesus that you don't trust, or accept, one of his chosen - or at least, only sometimes.[/QUOTE]

He was crafty and did not hesitate to tell white lies. His visions hence are questionable.

 

[nomadictheist]

Obviously, Paul rules over Jesus in your thinking!

No, obviously he doesn't. If that were true I would consider Jesus the apostle and Paul the master. Clearly Jesus - the Lord - rules over Paul - the apostle - in my thinking. Stop trying to tell me how I think.

I didn't know that a book has a mouth to speak out!

Really? We're going to quibble over the word "says" now? Fine, if you insist I will rephrase it. It is written in the scriptures - that is the Bible - that Paul is an apostle.

How much of preaching of Jesus has Paul quoted: big NIL!

Here's one off the top of my head:
"35 I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”"

So that was another blatant lie. Next?

The split came before the second journey. Nevertheless, Peter, Barnabas, et al continued the interaction since Paul was not communicated! So the Antioch scene is many years after the split.
Galatians 2:
1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

You must put your quotes in context. When you use a verse out of place like this it can be put to any use you desire.

Let's put the context there, referencing the missionary journeys and the timeline in Acts, and everything will be plain:

Galatians 1:
[Saul's Conversion]
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

[First Visit to Jerusalem (see Acts 9:26-30)]
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter,[a] and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.)
[First Missionary Journey]
21 Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. 23 But they were hearing only, “He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they glorified God in me.

Chapter 2:

[Second visit to Jerusalem (Acts Chapter 15:1-29)]
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.

[Second missionary Journey, at Antioch with Barnabas (Acts Chapter 15:30-34)]
11 Now when Peter[a] had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

And finally, now that you can see the timeline in the book of Acts, following this:

[Dispute over John Mark as they are getting ready to leave Antioch (Acts Chapter 15:36-end)]
Then after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us now go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they are doing.” 37 Now Barnabas was determined to take with them John called Mark. 38 But Paul insisted that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. 39 Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus; 40 but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of God. 41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

So putting events in line with the account in Acts, we can plainly see that Peter's hypocrisy that split the church came before Barnabas and Saul's split over John Mark.

What do say for this:

Romans 2
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Romans 16
25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

2 Timothy 2
8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

A humble teacher will share our Gospel!

Paul calls this the gospel of Jesus Christ far more frequently than the few instances you can point to of "my gospel." It is clear that he is speaking of the gospel he is preaching to them, which is the gospel of Jesus Christ:

Romans 1:1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God

Romans 1:9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers,

Romans 1:15 So, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

And these are just a few. Paul clearly preached the gospel of Christ.

Yes, because only 12 for twelve tribes!

As I have already demonstrated, there are actually 14 tribes in the Bible. Here is a link that lays them out nicely, showing which tribes are mentioned and excluded in various passages, if you would like to see for yourself you can look up each passage in the Bible individually, as I did. I'm not posting the individual passages here because that would make this post far too long.

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/History-12Tribes.htm

One could say that one tribe (Joseph) "fell" from the reckoning and two tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh) took its place. Though in Revelation it is the tribe of Dan that is excluded, and the tribe of Ephraim is also not there.

Jesus did not limit His apostles to 12, so why should you?

 

[Linet Kihonge]

Why are you reading his works from a human perspective? The Holy Spirit is the ultimate Judge and those ARE HIS WORDS. 2 Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"

You "cooked" your own logic, feasted on it, and then gave it out for reasons only God knows."