Jesus did not chose Paul as an apostle.
Jesus chose Paul; he called him to go and make his name known among the Gentiles. An apostle is one who is sent. The word is used about all believers and about Jesus himself. Whether you like it or not, that is a fact.
Inspired by the Holy Spirit.
and the Holy Spirit will have nothing to do with objects of books being given recognition by men.
He inspired those books to be written, he speaks through the Bible, interprets it to us and has been doing so for hundreds of years.
If it wasn't for the NT and the words that Jesus and Paul wrote, we wouldn't even know about the Holy Spirit and his work.
Jesus also chose a betrayer in Judas.
I knew you'd say that.
But they're not the same at all. Judas saw Jesus' miracles for 3 years, heard his teaching, eventually decided to betray him and then was so remorseful when he realised he had killed an innocent man that he threw the money back at the priests and went and killed himself. He didn't write a book or teach people about Jesus.
You have been saying that Jesus chose Paul, Paul referred to himself as an apostle, and that - even though Jesus knew this was wrong and false - he allowed Paul to continue his ministry. I'm asking why? Judas betrayed Jesus but he didn't teach anything about him. You're claiming that Paul was a false prophet - even though you agree that Jesus chose him.
Paul taught about Jesus, taught in the name of Jesus and did miracles in the name of Jesus; which of that was false?
Jesus sent the Holy Spirit and warned of false prophets.
Yes, and there were many false prophets around. Paul was not one of them.
You are questioning Jesus for choosing twelve based on the number of tribes to judge them. Jesus cannot have more than twelve as apostles.
No I'm not. Jesus chose 12 disciples to be with him in his earthly ministry. Yes, it is possible - even likely - that he chose 12 because he was a Jew. The nation of Israel, who were God's people, had 12 tribes. In the same way, the church, God's people, would have 12 men as it's "pillars" - people who had been with Jesus, seen his miracles etc etc. Jesus told the 12 that he was sending his Spirit to remind them of everything that he had said, he spent 40 days teaching them after the resurrection and told them to make disciples and teach people what he had taught them. After Judas committed suicide, they wanted to find someone else who met these criteria and could replace him. So God's people, the church that Jesus himself is building, is founded on Jesus and was overseen originally by 12 people who had heard the words of Jesus and taught as he did.
Paul was not one of them; I know that. But he never claimed that he had been. He was very clear that he had once hated the followers of Jesus and persecuted them. That changed when Jesus himself appeared to Paul and told him that he had chosen him to make his name known to the Gentiles. The 12 were wary of accepting Paul at first, but they heard that he was preaching Jesus as the Messiah and that God was blessing people through him, and so they accepted him. Paul was not greater than the 12 and didn't claim to be.
The teaching that Jesus could only choose 12 apostles because of the 12 tribes of Israel is not Scriptural. If you insist that there always had to be only 12, then James was beheaded shortly after Paul was chosen.
That is serious because you are believing a man over the Son of God.
No.
The Son of God chose Paul. I accept that and Paul's testimony. It seems that you don't - you seem to be refusing to believe someone chosen by the Son of God. Jesus chose Paul and your response is "no, he is false" - even though you have acknowledged him to be a saint and accept some of his words.
If Paul had gone around saying "you don't need Jesus; listen to me. Jesus only taught a little but I have all the truth." I would not hesitate to denounce him as false - someone who was promoting himself, a different Gospel and his own teaching at the expense of Jesus. Such a man would have been condemned, by the 12 and the Lord, for leading his people astray. And after his death they would have destroyed everything he ever wrote so that he could not lead others astray. This never happened. The 12 welcomed Paul and affirmed him. They believed that his meeting with Jesus, the Son of God, was true and authentic.
It is our responsibility to judge based on the preaching of the Lord. It is between Paul and God, he should have kept it for himself without publicizing falsely.
But he didn't, and the Lord never rebuked him for his teachings. Neither, as I said, were his words destroyed and he condemned as being a false prophet.
Rank outsiders Paul and Luke went according to the secular definition of the word apostle ignoring the spiritual significance in calling twelve. That is a serious blunder in their ministry.
You said that no one, apart from the 12, was called an apostle, and that Paul is false because he called himself one. Yet when I showed you that Luke called Barnabas an apostle, your response is to discredit Luke; judging him to be capable of "a serious blunder". When someone else said that Peter called Paul a dear brother, your response was to discredit the author of 2 Peter. Can't you see that you are dismissing/rejecting everyone who disagrees with your theory?
There are many in Christendom who think Sermon on the Mount was not for them.
That doesn't answer my point. You said that Jesus taught in parables rather then directly, with plain teaching; I said that the Sermon on the Mount is not a parable but is an example of plain teaching.
Yes, Revelation is not a parable. It does teach that how seven churches, as an example, are judged by Lord and gives warning of additional apostles. The only man who claimed to be an apostle on his own happens to be Paul. What other understanding one can make out of that? It is crystal clear. Only those who believe Paul over Jesus don't get the warning.
No, that's your interpretation.
Even Paul didn't believe himself over Jesus.
But why he left out Jewish people subsequently. That is against the call, and choosing a path of his own.
No it's not. His call was to make the name of the Lord Jesus known to the Gentiles, which is what he did. Paul didn't stop being a Jew after he believed that Jesus was the Messiah - his nationality and heritage were not cancelled or wiped out. He talks of the Jews as his own people and even said that he would lose his own salvation if it mean that they would turn to the Lord Jesus. I seem to remember you dismissing that as an exaggeration or over reaction, but he said it, and it shows how much he thought of the Jews. Yet his main calling was to make the name of the Lord known to Gentiles.
A church, orthodox Christianity and canonization are conveniently made by men for easy and compromise life stuffed with traditions.
So now the church and 2000 years of Christianity are wrong and dismissed because they do not fit with/question your theory.
Can't you see a pattern emerging here? Don't you think it possible that if one person is saying one thing, and Scripture, (God's word) and the church (God's people) are saying something different, it could just be that it is the lone person who is wrong?
I know a lot of orthodox Jews rejected Jesus - but you are not the Son of God.
