Did Paul Invent Christianity?

a reply to: pthena



Your claim that I am applying a magic principle to the number 12 is dubious.

I didn't decide that 12 Apostles were chosen to match the number of tribes in the Old Testament, Jesus did.

Apply your magic argument to the people who actually decided on 12, Jesus and his Father. Magic is not absent from the Bible but this was symbolic not having anything to do with magic.

Your flawed concept that there can be more than 12 Apostles has no basis in scripture and is refuted by it.

You are obviously believing the magic encounters with Jesus and Paul that nobody witnessed in scripture to corroborate and disbelieving an earthly organizational decision that was made by Jesus himself, that there are 12 Apostles.

Nothing magical about it, it's to honor the 12 tribes and 13 is not allowed, Paul is a lone wolf with a false message.

a reply to: Malocchio

Bummer! I really did miss that. On the foundation stones of the city. The 'sacred' 12.

Okay, I will withdraw in defeat. You can follow the Lamb however he commands you, and love Jesus and obey Jesus.

I'm going to research some Heathen gods now.

a reply to: pthena

It is actually not the 12 because Judas Iscariot was one of those original 12.

It is the 12 tribes of Israel.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Malocchio

Bummer! I really did miss that. On the foundation stones of the city. The 'sacred' 12.

Okay, I will withdraw in defeat. You can follow the Lamb however he commands you, and love Jesus and obey Jesus.

I'm going to research some Heathen gods now.

For the record I am not anti polytheism or anti paganism or anything that brings true joy to the soul and harms no one.

If you want to research an interesting heathen deity I recommend Molech and Saturn. It's all about the cube. Even New Jerusalem is a cube. Heathen is a rather distasteful term imo.

I am a fan of Ahura Mazda and Brahman/ParaBrahman also as I may favor my local flavor and not in the mainstream a acceptable fashion but that obviously doesn't make me an intolerant d+%sh who thinks only my way is right but someone willing to go up against mainstream theology and kick its ugly ass.

So why would you choose battle with me in support of Paul over Jesus in the first place? Paul wasn't a nice guy. His legacy isn't heroic and the Church that adopted his teachings is one of the most vile in history, because of his insane teachings that justified slavery and female subservience?

Over the mild and respectable church of the Apostle's teachings of good works and living on earth like it was heaven.


If you're not even a follower of Paul or Jesus?

Either way, admitting you were wrong was a solid thing to do. Most just vanish without admission.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: pthena

It is actually not the 12 because Judas Iscariot was one of those original 12.

It is the 12 tribes of Israel.

What?

Matthias replacing Judas doesn't make 13 or violate 12 it fulfills the need to be at 12, Judas was dead so he was no longer an Apostle and he needed to be replaced because the number needs to be 12.

Did that sound more logical before you hit send because it is a rather pointless remark and attempt to deny the correct # of Apostles being 12 that in reality reinforced my argument as Matthias replacing Judas was done for the specific purpose of keeping it at 12.

Heh. You make me laugh I'm sorry but your arguments are just so off point and you have accused me of not understanding which I get the biggest kick out of.

a reply to: Malocchio

Originally posted by Joecroft
Not sure why you are focusing on the word “Apostle”; apostle is just a person who supposedly follows Christ, but cannot be compared to the original twelve who Jesus first called…

Originally posted by Malocchio
There are 12 Apostles with the replacement of Judas as Matthias. After that no one is an Apostle.

I’ve always thought that the words “Apostle” and “Disciple” were interchangeable…

Like for example there’s the “12 Disciples” who are also the “12 Apostles”…

Although in some definitions an “Apostle” is used in a broader sense to mean not the just the 12, but someone else who has actually witnessed Christ himself in some way; so in that sense Paul is claiming to be an “Apostle”…

And if you check out the definition of a “Disciple” it states “a personal follower of Christ during his life, especially one of the twelve Apostles”

So yeah it’s all a little confusing…


- JC

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Text Hey ti was you claiming paul said he was the 13th or 14th apostle I merely showed that Jesus called none of them Apostles. That was done by the writers of the NT gospel books.

Point well said.
As Judas the disciple of Jesus died and was replaced i have another question to ask.

You think this is a good point? Jesus chose the 12 Apostles and called them Apostles and all 12 are named from Peter to Judas' replacement Matthias (to keep the # at 12).

Revelation has the 12 Apostles of the Lamb in New Jerusalem, a Revelation from Jesus to John.

So NOT ONLY is it not a point well said it is not accurate and shows that both of you need to brush up on your Biblical knowledge. You are saying the equivalent of saying that Jesus didn't choose 12 Apostles when the New Testament says that he does.

Do you realize that you're just agreeing with someone who likes Paul enough to doubt the authenticity of the Gospels which are more important than any books of the New Testament, and doubt the tradition of 12 Apostles just to make excuses for Paul who is nobody?

And you think you are on point, and actually think that this guys comment was a good point when it was a terrible point that questions the legitimacy of a well known tradition that proves you are in error following Paul and the accuracy of the Gospels and Revelation that prove his point wrong with ease?

Historians agree with the death of King Herod [Agrippa] as being 44CE. The disciple James [the son of Zebedee] is known as one of the twelve just as Judas Iscariot was also known as one of the twelve. Most all scholars believe that this disciple James was beheaded by King Agrippa in the last year of Agrippa's life [44CE]. That left ten of the original of the twelve and the replacement Matthias which adds to eleven. Now if it is so important to have twelve Apostles why then was not James replaced? Or was he replaced?

James was not an Apostle guy, he was the brother of Jesus and his replacement as leader. He was never an Apostle, just a pillar of the church and leader of Jerusalem.

All of the eleven NT Apostles were alive at this time of James' death and we are also looking at the disciple Paul as being converted seven years before James was killed. Now according to my above post in which the disciples were sent out two by two, you can note that James and Matthew were sent out as a team and Paul and Peter were also sent out as a team. By this we can realize that this event was before King Agrippa died in 44CE. Saul was converted about 37 CE and was well accepted and was teaching and preaching a good seven years before James died. He had the hand of fellowship by the entire congregation of the Jerusalem church.

My contention is that Paul replaced James and called his authority as the thirteenth Apostle in due respect and honor to James. Why should I assume all of this? Because of the gifts of the Holy Spirit that were given to the Nazarene movement in that upper room of the first synagogue of Christ Jesus.

Are you serious? I don't need to touch this as it's you guessing, poorly.

The Gifts of the Holy Spirit were given to the Nazarene's to advance and protect the movement [1st Corinthians 12:7-12.
One of the gifts was that of discernment.

1Corinthians 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

All of these gifts were given to the congregation of James and were not suppressed as they are today. Paul had met the congregation of James and was greeted as a brother [Acts 21:17-20].

My point is that the Holy Spirit [The Most High] gave the gift of discernment to His congregation as protection against evil entering and destroying the movement. Paul could not have been a false Apostle and not have been discovered by the congregation. Therefore Malocchio claims he is wiser than The Most High EL in that the Most High who gave the gifts could not discern a false prophet. Shake the dust from your feet Chester John. It is fruitless.

Here it is, the typical insult.

I am "Smarter than God" sarcastically says the defeated Pauline Christian who is resorting to theories and guesses about Apostolic history with no basis for said guesses.

No Apostle was replaced after Judas for the record. Matthias was the last Apostle as nobody was qualified to replace the Apostles by the time they started dying.

Men like Clement and Ignatius and Papias, Barnabas of course, were called apostolic men but never Apostles. You really need to learn the history of your religion because you don't know much and just guess and insult people who know more than you.

I feel sorry that you're so defeated you must insult me but when you don't educate yourself and engage in a debate with someone who does you are going to get frustrated unless you are willing to learn. And you are not willing to learn anything that doesn't fit what you WANT to be true.

Insulting people who look for the truth at all costs is revealing much about your character. Not Christ-like at all.

a reply to: Joecroft

Read the Vision of New Jerusalem in Revelation and it will tell you exactly how many Apostles of the Lamb there are.

It's 12 so I have to disagree, Apostles are 12 in number and chosen by Jesus and Matthias by the Spirit, they are people who were taught personally by Christ and the definition is given for the needs of determining who is qualified to replace Judas in Acts.

Disciple is any other follower of Christ that is not an Apostle. There really is no reason to think that the special title Apostle is interchangeable with the basic term disciple.

There were 12 Apostles, Matthias replacing Judas ended the appointment of Apostle and no, the terms are not at all interchangeable an Apostle is one of the 12.

Even James the Just is not an Apostle even though he is the Nasi of the Jerusalem faction so it's not a word to describe every disciple but the 12 chosen by Christ.

a reply to: Malocchio

However there is no record of Jesus Calling the 12 Apostles.

All we have are the witness writings of the four gospels that say they were apostles. Three Books of which Paul read as they were written before his death.

Luke is the only one who says he named 12 apostles but there again it is a witness not any proof Jesus called any of them Apostles.

It is upon that you err and your claim begins to fall apart.

a reply to: Malocchio


Here are the dictionary definitions…just for clarity

Disciple
noun
noun: disciple; plural noun: disciples
A personal follower of Christ during his life, especially one of the twelve Apostles.

A follower or pupil of a teacher, leader, or philosopher.
"a disciple of Rousseau"

And…

Apostle
noun
noun: Apostle; plural noun: Apostles
Each of the twelve chief disciples of Jesus Christ.

An important early Christian teacher or pioneering missionary.

Originally posted by Malocchio
Read the Vision of New Jerusalem in Revelation and it will tell you exactly how many Apostles of the Lamb there are.

It's 12 so I have to disagree, Apostles are 12 in number and chosen by Jesus and Matthias by the Spirit, they are people who were taught personally by Christ and the definition is given for the needs of determining who is qualified to replace Judas in Acts.

Disciple is any other follower of Christ that is not an Apostle. There really is no reason to think that the special title Apostle is interchangeable with the basic term disciple.

There were 12 Apostles, Matthias replacing Judas ended the appointment of Apostle and no, the terms are not at all interchangeable an Apostle is one of the 12.

Even James the Just is not an Apostle even though he is the Nasi of the Jerusalem faction so it's not a word to describe every disciple but the 12 chosen by Christ.

The “12 Apostles” can also be termed or called “Disciples” as well, based on the dictionary definition…so in one sense the phrases are interchangeable…of course I’m just thinking in grammatical terms here…

Although when you talk about the chosen “12 Apostles”, I know exactly what you mean, in that they are the bonafide believers in Jesus, were specifically chosen according to the texts and were taught first hand by Jesus etc...that part I totally accept….

But in todays modern vernacular an “Apostle” can also mean someone outside of the twelve who has witnessed Jesus personally in some other way, like witnessing the resurrection etc…

And you’re probably not going to like this lol but it would appear that it is exclusively Paul (with the possible exception of Luke writing Acts independently) who ascribes the term “Apostles” onto others outside of the 12…

Luke was a friend or companion of Paul. So perhaps Paul influenced Luke in his writing of Acts, either way Barnabas is termed an “Apostle” in chapter 14…

Acts 14:14
14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting:

These are probably the reasons why the dictionary definition includes “Apostles” as also being “Christian teachers or pioneering missionaries”, who are outside of the twelve…

Now I know you totally dispute Paul calling himself an “Apostle”, and you no doubt disagree with him calling others “Apostles” outside of the twelve, but all that I’m trying to point out, is that the dictionary definitions are deriving there meaning from “Standard Christianity”, whether rightly or wrongly…


- JC

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I was hoping you would not miss the significance of the Deut. 4 reference.
Link back to previous post
This would explain Paul's view of his own mission. It is a penance he is doing to get back to the god.

1 Cor. 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

The Deuteronomy passage implies a return to the land as a part of a return to the LORD. Paul, instead of desiring a return to the land, sought another way:

Philippians 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

7But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: 10That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; 11If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

12Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. 13Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, 14I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Notice that Paul's desire was not to regain Law righteousness and return to the land he was driven from, but rather, to gain righteousness through faith in Christ and by conforming to his death, attain resurrection. He is not looking back to Deuteronomy and "Israel land".

So Paul was throwing his lot in with the Gentiles to be saved through resurrection by means of the same faith that he had been preaching to the Gentiles. As in Galatians, "we who are Jews who live not as Jews but as Gentiles", is not speaking only of day to day living but also of ultimate life.

See Hebrews 11:

8By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. 9By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: 10For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
...
13These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 15And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

So I would conclude that Christianity is not a matter of hankering after some particular piece of real estate or after some visible conformity to some Torah, but something else altogether different.

I don't care to get in the middle of this be debate because as someone said earlier we all have the right to worship as we want to. When I see debates such as this all I can think of is "Oh how I would love to be turned loose in the Vatican archives." Can you imagine what could be found there? I have always thought the Bible covers a lot of things, but I also think huge amounts of it was not included. After all there was no Bible for the first 350 years of those that believed in Christianity.

According to aboutcatholics.com "The Bible was given to us by the Holy Spirit as discerned by the early bishops of the Catholic Church. There was no Bible for the first 350 years of Christianity. The first official list of Scriptures was done in 393 at the Council of Hippo, then again in Carthage in 397 and 419. The Church did not infallibly define these books until the Council of Trent, when it was called into question by the Reformers, in 1556."

So, basically the Catholic Church created the Bible as we know today. We also know that if everything Jesus did was written down, there would not be a book big enough to hold it all. I think that in those Vatican archives there are things we will never see and maybe could not ever imagine. In other words, I think the Catholic Church has hidden many, many things concerning the life of Jesus. Some things we will never know about unless we die and go to heaven and see for
ourselves. I also think there are those who do indeed research, pray, and listen for the Holy Spirit to speak to them and they hear. I also think some of the things these people tell us - or I should say, try to tell us are truth, but they are branded as conspiracy nuts, false prophets, etc. I guess I'm kind of one of those conspiracy nuts. I definitely believe what Jesus and taught, but also believe He said and taught a whole lot more than we have been allowed access to.

a reply to: Malocchio

If you want to research an interesting heathen deity I recommend Molech and Saturn. It's all about the cube. Even New Jerusalem is a cube. Heathen is a rather distasteful term imo.

Heathen is a self chosen title used by people of Barbarian descent who want to slap back at Latin term Pagan, as a matter of pride. Not a really big deal, not like heathens are better than pagans or anything.

Moloch would be the Phoenician Baal, I've read about him somewhere but can't think of a connection right off hand. As for Saturn, one Greek poster pretty much stated he's a dead end, that Jupiter has the sideways turned square, looks like a diamond, for a shield, related to angel's shields in iconography. I've got a few other leads though too related to squares.

Whoops! Probably off topic

ETA

I better fix this off topicness:
So Saul got kicked out of "Israel land" because he persecuted Jesus by persecuting the followers. To do proper penance he was supposed to serve idols. Instead, he got so wrapped up in Jesus idolizing that he neglected all the Greek and Roman idols and didn't consider them worth anything at all. So I guess his god must judge the matter.

Any way, I'll eventually get to looking at Uppsala temple and a certain rune that some people believe was revealed to Wodin(Odin) when he was hanging upside down from the tree for 9 days.

a reply to: Malocchio

James was not an Apostle guy, he was the brother of Jesus and his replacement as leader. He was never an Apostle, just a pillar of the church and leader of Jerusalem.

You have much to learn. If you reevaluate your own ignorance you will find that i specifically noted James the son of Zebedee and not James the brother of Jesus who was the Nasi of the Nazarene movement and also was known as James the Just. James the son of Zebedee was the brother of John and not the brother of Jesus.

You make these statements which are so numerous that it would take most of our time trying to educate you. In all honesty you do need a qualified teacher, which I am, but I do not have the time and seemingly it would be impossible. When you make a statement such as you have in the above quote you do show your ignorance of basic Christianity. LOL -

In case anyone was wondering who the 12 Apostles are Matthew 10:2

These are the names of the twelve Apostles: first, Simon also known as Peter and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee and his brother John; 3. Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4. Simon the Canaanaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him.

Neither James mentioned is the son of Joseph and Mary, the brother of Jesus although I am aware many people automatically consider James the Just to be one of the 12 Apostles but the fact is that James wasn't a disciple until after the crucifixion.

1. Simon Cephas (Peter) is the Chief Apostle
2. Andrew his brother
3. James son of Zebedee
4. John, James ben Zebedee's brother
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew
7. Thomas
8. Matthew
9. James son of Alphaeus
10. Thaddaeus
11. Simon the Canaanaean
12. Judas Iscariot

I hope this helps anyone who was wondering where it was that the 12 Apostles were named in the Gospels or what their names were. After the death of Judas it was decided that he needed to be replaced and the rules for eligibility are laid out in Acts where Matthias is chosen to replace Judas.

I have already proven that Revelation makes it clear that there are no more than 12 Apostles of the Lamb making it a mathematical impossibility for Paul to be an Apostle. So him calling himself the ''apostle to the Gentiles" is arrogant and presumptuous and without merit.

Christianity doesn't often use logic to defend its inconsistencies as that would only hurt their mission. The biggest inconsistency in Christianity is the doctrine of Paul, who never met Jesus (which explains the truthfully incompatible teachings of the Messiah and false prophet Paul, he never knew what Christ taught).

This is something that fundies have trouble explaining, how can Paul be an Apostle when it's written that there are only 12?

If you want to see the ridiculous ways this is ''explained" this thread is a gold mine.

Matthew was ''not Jesus, so Jesus didn't say there were 12 Apostles" is my favorite so far. Revelation 21:9-14 says otherwise so it's not only incorrect but Matthew WAS an Apostle, chosen and taught by Christ.

If he isn't a trustworthy source of information and can be doubted, so can Mark, Luke and John be doubted and it can be questioned if Jesus even existed if you doubt the accuracy of Matthew.

This was done by someone who also says ''to reject on part of scripture is to reject it all." If that doesn't represent Pauline Christian hypocrisy perfectly I don't know what does. Doubting that there were only 12 Apostles and that Matthew was correct IS REJECTING a part of scripture, so as this persons logic is concerned he is convicting himself of rejecting scripture at the same time as making the accusation that other people are guilty of this for rejecting the truthfulness of Saul/Paul.

How interesting the mind of the convinced Pauline works finding ways to accuse others of their own mistakes.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Malocchio

James was not an Apostle guy, he was the brother of Jesus and his replacement as leader. He was never an Apostle, just a pillar of the church and leader of Jerusalem.

You have much to learn. If you reevaluate your own ignorance you will find that i specifically noted James the son of Zebedee and not James the brother of Jesus who was the Nasi of the Nazarene movement and also was known as James the Just. James the son of Zebedee was the brother of John and not the brother of Jesus.

You make these statements which are so numerous that it would take most of our time trying to educate you. In all honesty you do need a qualified teacher, which I am, but I do not have the time and seemingly it would be impossible. When you make a statement such as you have in the above quote you do show your ignorance of basic Christianity. LOL -

I am sure you are over reacting a bit.

All I said was that James the Just was not an Apostle, and he wasn't. You asked why he wasn't replaced upon death and if I missed you distinguishing the different James' then my human mind missed it.

However telling me that I am ignorant because of a simple oversight still is you betraying your frustration at the inability to refute me and I have never insulted you while you have insulted me about 4 times now at least.

As far as my numerous statements and your implications that I need a good teacher to reeducate me and you being qualified, I laugh hysterically as I type this thinking of such an arrogant lesser educated person such as yourself being ''qualified" to teach me or anyone.

Since I have provided numerous statements and you have not provided numerous rebuttals to said factual statements for which I have provided references and links that are reliable, mostly the Bible itself, you aren't even qualified to debate me.

You use the excuse that my numerous statements would take too much time to (re)"educate."

What a poor excuse. You don't have the answers to my numerous statements because they are answers not questions.

I have essentially proven that Paul is a false apostle and you can't prove me wrong. The Bible can't even give you the answers and I have used it all along to back up my perspective.

You have not once done anything but ramble about how sinister and ignorant I am and other insults. You must be angry.

But not at me because this isn't personal and I have never made it personal. I thought you were talking about a different James and politely explained that James the Just wasn't an Apostle. Maybe if you weren't so hateful and full of insults I would pay more attention to detail with your comments but you have insulted me so many times (over my knowledge of the Bible) that you don't deserve the attention.

But the people who were alive at the time of Matthias selection as Apostle that qualified were 2 in number. There were rules and qualifications for who could be an Apostle that you as a ''qualified teacher''(lol) should know off the top of your head.

Since you don't I have no option but to assume you think highly of yourself more so than is truly appropriate for someone of your limited knowledge of facts and tendency towards name calling and insults.

The last Apostle to be replaced was Judas, by Matthias. Once everyone of the 12 died they weren't replaced and the title of Apostle was reserved for the 12 Apostles and nobody was appointed to replace them because none were qualified to.

I feel legitimately sorry for you that you are so defeated that you don't realize how sad your insults make you look or ridiculous the thought of you as a ''qualified teacher'' is, I don't laugh so hard this early so I thank you for that.

a reply to: Joecroft



An Apostle was a disciple.

A disciple was not an Apostle unless he was one of the 12.

There were disciples who were Apostles, 12 of them. Other than that there is no synonymity between Apostles and disciples.

Don't take someone correcting you personally and quote in oversized letters the dictionary definition of Apostle and disciple as it doesn't prove anything, words have definitions, I know this.

Missing my point entirely has led you to counter with what I have previously described as the go to distraction technique for evangelists when questioned about the "13 apostle" Paul.

It doesn't work because the definition of a word doesn't explain how more than the maximum amount of something can exist.

And the FACT remains that 12 is the maximum number of Apostles as I have plastered the pages of this thread with evidence of. I am sorry you obviously can't tolerate being disagreed with but despite having similar definitions in the dictionary:

In a Christian context 12 is the number of Apostles and they are honored above regular disciples, not synonyms and you will have to accept (or don't) that you were incorrect assuming that they were synonyms and should take my polite correction as help and not as hostility.

a reply to: pthena

Molech was a Phoenician Baal, certainly.

He was also a Semitic deity whom children were sacrificed to. Where am I going with this?

Melek is King in Hebrew. Malak is messenger or angel. Abraham was likely sacrificing Isaac to Molech and not El Elyon as El was not the god infants were sacrificed to.

A Malak tells him no to do it and later he tithes Melchizedek (righteous Molech?) the High Priest of El Elyon and they share ''bread and wine" which if symbolize blood and flesh today probably did so more literally then and the missing vowels of the Hebrew Torah were taken advantage of to change meaning and create new words to replace the Molech and Baal worship of ancient Israelites and make the words have different meanings than originally intended.

Back to topic, I see your back in full fledged defend Paul mode although I know you have no dog in this fight. You must see what I see but fancy yourself defender of the (accurately) defeated-in-debate.

An odd cause to take up considering the rude insult that have been hurled by the Paulininists that I have not deserved as my analysis is more scholarly than emotional and I don't insult people just because of their opinions and don't return insults unless they are just true and need to be said, I have not insulted anyone but everytime I correct someone they take it personally. People have side conversations about me as if I am the topic rather than honestly engage in debate (can't say I blame them, my knowledge of the topic is considerable).

Yet, as enlightened a person you appear, you side with the factually deficient, willing to personally insult others faction of the debate on a topic you have no personal interest in?

Do you just pity them or are you just doing it because you think, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that Paul was the good guy and James and the Apostles were the bad guys?

You really don't need to respond, I can piece this one together without an answer.

The requirements to even BE an apostle are in Acts Chp. 1 (just as Malocchio pointed out). The men had to have been witnesses to Jesus' resurrection, as well as been with Jesus during His WHOLE ministry....something Paul was not a part of.
So, yea...Paul was a "self proclaimed" apostle who high jacked the message Jesus came to give.







Acts 1:12-26New American Standard Bible (NASB)

The Upper Room

12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the [a]mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a [c]Sabbath day’s journey away. 13 When they had entered the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and [d]James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, [e]James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the [f]son of [g]James. 14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

15 [h]At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said, 16 “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry.” 18 (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. 19 And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms,


‘Let his homestead be made desolate,
And let no one dwell in it’;

and,


‘Let another man take his [j]office.’

21 Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out [k]among us— 22 beginning [l]with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” 23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen 25 to [m]occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they [n]drew lots for them, and the lot fell

This post was part of a special Halloween Homage to Orson Wells.
Jumping out from behind the server and shouting BOO!

to Matthias; and he was [p]added to the eleven apostles.