Maybe we should ask why you think it is important for Paul to be called apostle?
All of those verses, but acts, are from Paul. We already know Paul calls himself and others who were not named by Christ as apostles.
All of those verses, but acts, are from Paul. We already know Paul calls himself and others who were not named by Christ as apostles.
Do you believe that Paul's writings were the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?
Paul didn't write Acts, Luke is believed to be the author of Acts.
the same Luke that wrote the GOSPEL according to Luke....
Acts 14:14 [Which] when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard [of], ...
ppl end up shown the door for saying Paul was a false apostle, okay? (seen it happen)...cuz it junks most of the NT (not to mention all of it cuz it means he deceived all the others).
oldhermit gave you more than enough.
the SENT ONES, inspired and authorized to give us Christ's doctrines; HAD TO BE witnesses of Him in His RESURRECTION....that was the qualification.
He appeared to Paul, later....if you know why it was timed for when it was, then you will know why He appeared to Paul LAST of all.
What exactly do you mean by "were the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?" Do you mean that it is from the mouth of God?
Because the idolatry of equating Paul as God leads to the heresy that what Paul says is what God says.
(I owe one person a reply, be back soon.)
because the BIBLE calls Paul an apostle
and if you start tearing apart parts of the Bible
or taking out the written words of Paul as NOT coming from God,
you create another religion and do as Satan often does: only teach half of the truth in order to twist those scriptures into a message that is NOT from God.
**I noticed the pronoun "we" are you speaking for LovePink as well as yourself?
Apparently, you have far greater problems than just questioning the apostleship of Paul.
That's it? You give up already?
Peter says Paul's writings are scripture on the same pare with all other scripture. This makes his writing the work of the Holy Spirit, not Paul for "all scripture is inspired of God..."
That is not what Peter says. You are adding to scripture, again.
And when Paul said, "all scripture is inspired of God…" in his letter there was no New Testament. Scritpure when Paul said that include the Old Testament, the Deuterocanonicals, and parts of the Psuedepigrapha. The later Two are denied by Protestants as "inspired". We have no indication from Paul's letter that he include the very letter he was writing as scripture or any of his later letters.
If you want to make the claim that "all scripture is inspired of God…" then you will probably need to include many more books into that category if you want that to be a true statement for you. Love to discuss the First book of Enoch with you.
Wrong. The Lord does care about the flesh, otherwise why would he come to earth as God/man? Also, we're not just floating spirits in the New Heaven and New Earth, we'll have new, sinless bodies. Anything else isn't biblical but more akin to Eastern Mysticism.
It would be really helpful to me if you would clearly as possible state your beliefs about Paul's apostolic ministry,
whether you believe it to be of the Lord or not.[/QUOT
Of course I do.
That is not what Peter says. You are adding to scripture, again.
And when Paul said, "all scripture is inspired of God…" in his letter there was no New Testament. Scritpure when Paul said that include the Old Testament, the Deuterocanonicals, and parts of the Psuedepigrapha. The later Two are denied by Protestants as "inspired". We have no indication from Paul's letter that he include the very letter he was writing as scripture or any of his later letters.
If you want to make the claim that "all scripture is inspired of God…" then you will probably need to include many more books into that category if you want that to be a true statement for you. Love to discuss the First book of Enoch with you.