For Those Who Reject Paul, What Comprises N.T.? A Few Quotes In Response
Following, is a question regarding Paul posted on line, and a few responsive quotes. In the part 1 blog, a challenge was given to supporters of Paul to do some ‘opposition research.’ Part 2 & 3 here are exactly that. The ‘opposition research’, as I mention here, starts with the premise that the Christian Scriptures are not inerrant and divinely inspired, allowing dissenters to reject Paul’s own defense, and twist the Biblical narrative to support their position. Many of the arguments against Paul are clearly twisting Paul’s own words, content regarding Paul, and some inserting conspiratorial tho’ts, in support of a pagan christianity, 1st developed by Paul and fully established by the time of Constantine. _________________________________________________
Here is the question posed on line, with some following responses.
“I’ve been familiar with the fact that many people reject Paul as a Christian, and think of him as an apostate who mislead the congregations. Thus, many who hold this belief don’t adhere to his writings as canon. My question is:”
“If you reject Paul and subsequently his writings, what comprises the N.T. in your view?“
“After doing some thinking on the matter, it would seem that rejecting Paul would rule out Luke’s gospel account. Why? Luke wrote his gospel and Acts as a single work. Luke wrote about Paul extensively and correlated Jesus’ established congregation with Paul’s later work. Thus that would seem to leave Luke’s gospel and Acts as apostate. Similarly, the letters of Peter would have been corrupted by Paul’s thinking (Peter considered Paul a brother in Christ and considered him inspired)”
(2 Peter 3:15, 16) . . .our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, speaking **about these **things [the things Peter had just been writing about] as he does in all his letters. . .
“Does this mean you read only Mark’s gospel? Or possibly Mark and Matthew? John’s gospel was written after his revelation which contained messages to congregations that Paul had helped to establish, which would rule out John’s later gospel and letters.”
_________________________________
A second response: (The twisting of Biblical content is blatantly obvious)
“No, I have just read all of his epistles, and it is not the same Gospel. In Paul’s gospel, he specifically says that God wanted everyone to be guilty before him so no one could be justified, and that he made the law for that purpose. That is not what the law was made for. The prophets clearly explain what the law was for. To set apart Israel, to make them prosperous, and other things.
Paul starts from a position that God wanted all to fail. He accuses God of setting up a massive mind-fake for Israel and everyone who ever reads the Torah in the future. He also says he wishes he had never heard the law so he could do bad things. That’s like saying “I wish I didn’t know it was illegal to do coke”, because then I’d be doing it. He has no intrinsic moral values on the acts themselves. Actions have consequences in the world.
So his ideas about people doing whatever they want because of strong conscience allow the negative external effects. So by making it okay to eat idol meats, it kept the idol meat vendors open, and so forth. He disconnected morality from law, and created this legal fiction, and people who like Torah are smeared with the term legalistic, while they are fawning and relying on a Lawyer and his legal fiction.
The first 8 chapters of Romans tell you all you need to know. He essentially says he would be doing married women if it wasn’t illegal, not a single concept about morality or maybe the husbands feeling bad. That bad things are more desirable to do when outlawed. And people call the Torah lovers “legalistic”. He makes sure to point out numerous times when those widows become available for men again too. So, naturally, in churches that love Paul to the most, the men are expected to eat lots of pork, work Saturday, have no sabbath rests, and die earlier so the women can have a new man after he’s dead. They don’t really follow the rest of his rules, because he gave them the theology that none of the rules matter, so all his admonishments and advice get chucked out the window. In debates, they focus on bacon and the specifics of baptism requirements.
Society wouldn’t be so bad if so many Christians didn’t love Paul with his carte-blanche “whatever you feel to do is fine, now that you love Jesus”. That threw all the standards out the window and is why Preachers are hanging out with hookers, and Methodists are supporting abortion, and Episcopalians are introducing Transgender priests, many baptists don’t leave things to their children or grandchildren. Because they think Paul said that once you love Jesus, morality doesn’t mean anything and the negative effects of your behavior are irrelevant if your conscience is strong enough.“
___________________________
A third response:
“There aren’t really any serious Christians who reject Paul, AFAIK. Most of the Paul-bashing I’ve seen comes from “New Age” hippie types who are only vaguely Christian and who mistakenly blame Paul for the puritanical moralism of the American Religious Right, portraying his as a dogmatic preachy moralist in contrast to their idealized “Hippie Jesus”‘.
Paul’s Rebuke Of Red Letter Christians
a https://www.dennyburk.com/pauls-rebuke-of-red-letter-christians/
“Paul really had the Corinthian church’s number. He knew all about their issues, and he never shrank back from getting in their face when they needed it. In 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, he chastises the Corinthians for dividing themselves into factions based on their devotion to different teachers. He writes:
11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” (1 Cor. 1:11-12 )
A party spirit had taken hold in Corinth, and it manifest itself in these slogans declaring loyalty to different teachers. Some followed Paul, some Apollos, some Peter, and some Christ. We are only hearing one side of this conversation, so we really know very little about what each of these factions actually believed. They may not have believed very different things at all. It may be that they were simply marked by their deference to different leaders who basically taught the same thing.
Paul corrects the misguided loyalties of the Corinthians by informing them that the body of Christ cannot be divided like that. He reminds them that there was only one Person who was crucified for them and whose name they were baptized in. That singular Person is Jesus—the only proper focus of their devotion and worship.
If this is the case, then why does Paul list the “I am of Christ” faction alongside all the others? It seems like he would want everyone to join the “I am of Christ” faction, but that doesn’t appear to be the case here. Why?
If the “I am of Christ” faction is like the other factions, they were likely playing off one teacher against the others. Some people only acknowledged the authority of Paul and would only listen to him. Others only Apollos. Others only Peter. And still others only Christ. In the latter case, however, that meant that these people were resistant to submitting to Christ’s apostles but would only listen to Christ as he spoke to them directly through the Spirit. I think Richard Hays has it right when he argues,
In context, it would seem that some of the Corinthians must have been claiming Christ as their leader in an exclusivistic way (“We are the ones who really belong to Christ, but we’re not so sure about you”). Such a claim might be coupled with a boastful pretension to have direct spiritual access to Christ apart from any humanly mediated tradition (p. 23).
In other words, the “I am of Christ” faction may have felt that they could sidestep the authority of Christ’s apostles by claiming that they heard directly from Jesus himself. In this sense they were the original red-letter Christians. Because Jesus spoke to them directly, they could sideline the apostles and other teachers in authority over them.
Is this not the same approach that modern day red-letter Christians take when they elevate the words of Jesus as if they had some special priority over the other words from scripture? This approach lends itself to the suppression of black letter texts that seem to differ from the emphases of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.
So the “I am of Christ” faction has much in common with the modern day red-letter faction. They play the authority of Christ against the authority of Christ’s apostles. But neither Christ nor Paul would ever have accepted such a disjunction. It is after all the red letters of Jesus that say, “[Paul] is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles” (Acts 9:15). Who are we to gainsay Jesus’ choice of a spokesman?
It seems that Paul’s words against the factionalism at Corinth would apply to the present case as well. At the end of the day, we do not have access to an unmediated Jesus. Jesus didn’t write a single New Testament book. We know Jesus because of the apostolic word handed down to us in the scriptures. Thus, to play Jesus off against his appointed spokesmen is a contest that neither Jesus nor the apostles would ever have accepted. And neither should we.”
The Fruit & Proof Of Paul’s Apostleship
a https://bible.org/seriespage/16-when-right-may-be-wrong-1-cor-91-23
If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?
Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? 14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing these things to secure any such provision. For I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of my ground for boasting. For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but if not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship
1 Cor. 9:11-17
“To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure.”
(1 Corinthians 4:11-12)
Paul’s decision to set aside his right to support is costly. It is a cost he purposes to endure, and this for the sake of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Paul is a man who not only refuses to exercise his right to be supported by the Corinthians, but often labors so that he can support the needy. In doing this, Paul sets himself apart from many of the religious charlatans of his day and causes people to look upon him and his message with a measure of respect…
Paul’s spirituality is evidenced by his willingness to sacrifice his rights for the sake of the gospel. One such right is that of having a full-time ministry. Let us beware of false standards of spirituality. Let those who think they will be more effective by ministering “full-time” pause to reflect on Paul’s “part-time” ministry, for the sake of the gospel.“
Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. Jn.15:13
________________________________________________
There was absolutely no advantage for Paul to preach the gospel the way he did, yet his detractors today say he was building his own church, drawing people away from the true church founded by Peter and the Lord’s apostles.
Paul clearly laid down his life for the gospel, yet then & now he’s discredited.
And in the laying down of his life –
“when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure, when we are slandered, we answer gently. Up to this moment we have become the scum of the earth, the refuse of the world.“
1 Cor. 4:12-13
In all of the horrific Scripture twisting done in an attempt to discredit Paul, and then in referencing Mat. 7:15-23, implore others to ‘judge’ Paul based upon fabricated reversed intent of Scripture, is so egregious, as we will see, in further examining discrediting and defense for the legitimacy of Paul’s life, ministry, and writings.
Re-quoting Discussion From Part 1 Summarizes Numerous Points Discrediting Paul
Comments discrediting Paul: (some twisted perpsectives)
“And after researching why there’s so much divisions among Christians using the same Bible I decided to research WHY – so I read all of Paul’s Epistles in one day and it was shocking to see what he actually said- and to know he did, become all things to all people and lied to some and suffered in his own sins– all we can respond to is the NT because the OT was already established – Your response about Paul calling out Peter is often misleading because of how its represented in Galatians.
Lets consider: #1– Paul claims to be given his gospel privately (without witnesses) as he brags about not getting anything from the Lords Apostles too. #2- Paul mocks Peter outside of Peters presence and shows no love or respect as the Lords chosen Apostle (read John 13:34–35) Paul was in competition with Peter – like it is among the Protestants – #3- Very few want to talk about Paul being a witness to Acts 15:7 where Apostle Peter declares he was the one chosen for Gentiles (not Paul) and keep in mind they sent Barnabas with Paul in Acts 15 to add support to Paul and by the end of Acts 15 they separate in great contention and we never hear from Apostle Peter again from Acts 16 forward because Luke traveled with Paula and tha’ts all.
BTW: No one seems to care Paul had Timothy circumcised in the opening of Acts 16 knowing it wasn’t necessary and turned Timothy into his student of obedience. Following Paul is optional and divisive. Apostle Peter offered us more of a warning in the closing of 2 Peter than he did an endorsement to follow Paul. The 4 Gospels, Book of Revelation and 1 John were all written after Apostle Peter & Paul died- There’s no connection whatsoever that Paul was told to rebuild the Church or redesign a new Church format, other than the Church, Jesus stopped him from persecuting – WAKE UP from man made religious opinions misleading many from what Jesus actually Said” – Matthew 7:21-27
Daryl Giffin Scripture itself opposes this view that Paul’s words were not the Word of God. “And because of this, we also give thanks to God unceasingly that, having received the word of God by your hearing from us, you accepted not the word of men, but even as truly it is, the word of God, which also works in you who believe.” 1 Thess. 2:13.
Irenaeus quoted from almost every book of the New Test. in his writings ‘Against Heresies’ to refute the heresies of his day, recognizing them as inspired Scripture. Paul’s writings were clearly recognized by numerous early church fathers as the inspired Word of God. http://www.ntcanon.org/Irenaeus.shtml
Paul detractor comment: “It’s easy to use what one says about Paul to support your view because there’s another comment about Paul from the early Church fathers who speaks against Paul
I’ve heard both sides of the great debate and that’s why Apostle Peter warns us about people misunderstanding Paul’s words and twisting his words to their own destruction- like many already have, however Apostle Peter never says follow Paul’s gospel or acknowledges Paul is the Gentiles apostle- Acts 15:7
The truth hiding in plain sight within the NT is the fact that Paul has no witnesses to his revelation and he threatens whoever disagrees with him and shows no love or respect for the Lords Apostle especially Peter of whom he competes with.”
Clear Harmony, Agreement, Communication Between Paul & Apostles
*>Daryl here: These are some of the issues detractors of Paul perceive. It has to start with discrediting the Scriptures as the inspired Word of God. Then debating what is true and not true, twisting the content of Scripture to imply different ideas than what is actually communicated.
When 1 Thess. 2:13 is referenced, “having received the word of God by your hearing from us, you accepted not the word of men, but even as truly it is, the word of God, which also works in you who believe.,”- the defense against it is Peter’s comment in 2 Peter 3:15-16, focusing on part of v.16 “hard to understand…twisting to their own destruction.”
“15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
Yet even in these verses Peter calls Paul ‘beloved brother’, referring to Paul’s writings, along with “the other Scriptures.”
The very use of the text disproves the antagonism, & falsity Paul is accused of.
The contention that Paul had no witnesses to his apostolic calling, and that it violated the 12 apostles witness to Christ’s death and resurrection, thereby invalidating his claim to apostleship, is dismantled with the commissioning of Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13:1-5
13 Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a lifelong friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.
4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit,
Paul and Barnabas were commissioned by the church in Antioch, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, being sent out as apostles, (sent ones, messengers).
The suggestion that Paul mocked Peter and was unloving by correcting him, as recorded in Gal. 2:11-14, is absurd, and only defended by Torah observant protesters to Paul’s revelation of freedom from the Law, which is another issue bro’t forth, that Paul was preaching another gospel, disparaging the Law, which he was not.
These two points alone, Peter calling Paul beloved brother, his reference to “the other Scriptures”, when mentioning Paul’s writings, and Paul’s commissioning by the church in Antioch, thro’ the direction of the Holy Spirit,would address the many other questions and detractions against Paul.
Another telling confirmation of the apostles acceptance of Paul is seen in Acts 15:17 at the Jerusalem council, were the Judaizer problem was discussed. Paul was allowed to speak, and sent by the apostles with the council decision for the Gentile churches. There is no way Paul could have been a false apostle, according to the New Test. narrative.
Altho’ spoken by Paul, he states in Gal. that;
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer & make acquaintance with Cephas, and I remained with him fifteen days.
Gal.1:18
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.
Gal. 2:1-2
When James, Cephas, and John, who had a reputation as pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we would go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
Galatians 2:9.
Paul clearly had extensive communication with the apostles in Jerusalem, making sure they were in agreement with the gospel he was preaching. Three of Jesus apostles, recognized the grace given to Paul, and extended the right hand of fellowship to him.
Ananias bore evidence to Paul’s conversion and calling, altho’ the three accounts are subject to criticism by those discrediting Paul, because of slight differences in the content of each account, which are simply, reasonably, explainable. The argument from person above, says Paul was only warned not to persecute the church, and was only a ‘witness,’ not being called as a messenger. These are silly, erroneous arguments. The point is, he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles.
“Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.”
But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.””
Acts 9:10-12, 15-16
__________________________________________________
The epitome of accusations is seen here:
“Interesting perspective from someone pertaining to Paul’s gospel” –
*”Paul Curses Women
“1 Corinthians 14:34-35: “Women should remain silent in the churches . They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
And 1 Timothy 2:11-12:“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”
These 2 verses have done more harm and pain and damage than probably any others in the Bible. It is so sad that Paul’s confusing opinions EXCEED the authority of Jesus.
These verses have no witnessing verses in the Bible, and therefore can not be considered scripture.
Many Bible teachers that I have read simply deny that Paul actually wrote those words. They say that wicked men must have added to the text afterwards in a cold and calculated way of placing their puny selves above women for the rest of the age. Or, the parrots in fine plumage utter some confusachrome about it being meant only for the people of that time, or age, or custom, or geography or era or epoch or some invented hog wash…
They will say anything to keep their power over women intact.
Paul was the Anti-Christ that the epistle writing Apostles warned were walking in their midst at that time, and he will return as either the Anti-Christ or the false prophet. It would not surprise me if Paul the Confused did in fact write these demented verses. He is the main enemy on earth against Jesus and His followers, and He wants only to confuse us and keep us from the narrow path that Jesus leads us to.
It also would not surprise me if Paul did not write it, but rather, it was inserted by his own followers, inspired by him. Paul freely admits to being “crafty” and willing to lie “for the gospel”. What a snake!! Paul can NEVER be trusted nor used to correctly comprehend spiritual truth”.
___________________________________________
*>Daryl here: To reiterate, disparaging Paul as a minister of the gospel, has to start with rejecting the Scriptures as the inerrant, inspired Word of God. Either what we have are the Scriptures given to us by God, or they are not, and anything having to do with Paul can be questioned, re-interpreted, twisted, to suite one’s perspectives and intent.
Hundreds of objections have been put forth, dismissing Paul as less than a God ordained minister of the gospel, all having to assume that Scripture is not reliable, in it’s reporting and content, permitting alternative narratives to be put forth. The accuser of Paul as anti-christ, has a web site dedicated to dismissing Paul, with hundreds of narratives and suggestions, twisting Biblical content.
Another undeniable proof that the apostles accepted Paul is seen in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem council, when the problem with Judaizers was discussed. Paul and Barnabus were present and allowed to speak (v.17), and even sent to the Gentile churches with the decision from the council. There is no way Paul could have been a false apostle, according to the New Test. narrative.
Even Muslim Gnostics are attempting to dismiss Paul as a minister of the gospel. a https://www.black-banners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=915
Paul’s ‘Turning A Phrase’ Misunderstood, Misapplied
More unique, arguments here, demonstratively revealing misapplication of Paul’s use of ‘turning a phrase’.
a https://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/07/s-paul-a-false-christ/
Paul met Jesus as a disembodied voice on Damascus Road. Nevertheless, he says: “It pleased God, to reveal his Son in me.” (Galatians 1:15-16). This indicates he is determined to present himself as something of a reincarnation of Christ. He then commends the Galatians: “Though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 4:14). But Paul is not Jesus, so why in heavens name should he want to be received as Jesus?
Paul says: “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.” (Galatians 2:20). He even says he has Jesus’ crucifixion marks in his body. (Galatians 6:17). However, Jesus never says anyone would be crucified with him; not even figuratively. Instead, he says his disciples must carry their own crosses: “If anyone desires to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” (Matthew 16:24).
Rather than be crucified with Christ, Jesus maintains his disciples should lay down their lives for others, just like he does: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:12-13).
Paul’s impersonation of Christ continues with his assertion that he has “the mind of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 2:16). But the same Paul says: “I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.” (Romans 7:19). This double-minded confusion is certainly not suggestive of someone who has the mind of Christ.
_______________________________________
*>Daryl here: I may have to give this person the benefit of the doubt, that they are being serious here, but it reveals the ignorance of Biblical language, esp. the way Paul can turn a phrase. (explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words) He says in 1 Cor. 2:13-14
And this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. (NIV)
More References
Was the Apostle Paul actually a false prophet?
a https://www.gotquestions.org/apostle-Paul-false-prophet.html
The theory that the apostle Paul was a false prophet and not a true follower of Christ is usually put forth by those of the Hebrew roots movement persuasion, among others. They believe Christians should submit to the Old Testament Law, but Paul clearly disagrees with them, proclaiming that Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15), but the Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), which is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind…and to love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39). Rather than submitting to God’s Word, the Hebrew roots movement simply dismisses Paul altogether and claims that Paul was a false apostle and that his writings should not be in the Bible.
But Paul’s apostolic authority has been well documented in Scripture, beginning with his dramatic Damascus Road experience which changed him from a Christ-hating persecutor of Christians to the foremost spokesman for the faith. His astonishing change of heart is one of the clearest indications of his anointing by the Lord Jesus Himself.
When the apostle Paul first came to Jerusalem after his conversion to Christianity, he tried to associate with the disciples, but they were all afraid of him and didn’t believe he was a true convert (Acts 9:26) because of his past persecution of Christians. Today, some people feel the same way about Paul. Occasionally, a charge is made that Paul was a Pharisee who tried to corrupt the teachings of Christ and that his writings should have no place in the Bible. This accusation can be put to rest by examining his conversion experience and his adherence to Christ and His teachings.
Why did Paul defend his own apostleship?
a https://robertbsloan.com/2014/09/24/why-did-paul-defend-his-own-apostleship/
“His opponents claimed that Paul did not have proper letters of recommendation. Paul responded,
Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? You are our letter… (2 Corinthians 3:1-2)
He pointed to the fact that the Corinthians themselves had heard Paul preach the gospel. They were touched by the Spirit of God. They were touched by the message. They were truly converted to faith in Jesus Christ and thus they themselves stood as living witnesses, living letters of recommendation to the authenticity of his apostleship.“
What is the proof in the Bible that Paul is an apostle of Christ?
a https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-proof-in-the-Bible-that-Paul-is-an-apostle-of-Christ
The greater evidence is the unanimous testimony of the early Church, which accepted Paul’s letters to churches as unquestionably Scripture. The first requirement for inclusion was Apostolic authorship; thus, the early Church unanimously accepted Paul as an Apostle.
Not only that, the Church also accepted Luke’s works based on his relationship with Paul. This only happened elsewhere with Mark and Peter.
Why did no one else call Paul an apostle besides himself, and Luke, his traveling companion and scribe?
This another point made an issue of, that only Paul called himself an apostle, portraying him as a self appointed apostle only, delegitimizing his apostleship.
In the entire New Testament, the word ‘apostle’ occurs 79 times. Most of these usages are in the Gospels, in Acts, and in Paul’s letters.
Outside of these, nobody refers to any of the disciples but themselves by name as ‘apostle’. Peter describes himself as ‘apostle of Christ’ in his first and second letters, but does not name anybody else as such. However, he does reference ‘apostles and prophets’ as the authors of the Scriptures in the third chapter of his second letter, and then goes on to talk about Paul as writing ‘Scripture’.
The reason that Paul isn’t mentioned as an apostle in the Gospels is because he wasn’t a believer then.
You may be under the impression the ‘apostle’ only refers to the original 12, minus Judas, plus Matthias and/or Paul.
There were, indeed, 12 that Jesus designated apostles. They are also referred to as ‘disciples’. However, there are other people named as ‘disciples’ and ‘apostles’ who did not belong to the original twelve. In Acts 14:14 both Barnabas and Paul are described as ‘apostles’. Epaphroditus is described as ‘apostle’ in Philippians 2:25, though many English translations use ‘messenger’ instead. In 2 Corinthians 8:23, Paul refers to ‘our brothers’ as ‘apostles of the churches’. Again, this is often translated out in English.
There is clearly a usage of ‘apostles’ which refers only to the twelve—specifically in Revelation 21:14—but there is also a more general usage which seems to apply to missionaries. In Luke 10, when Jesus sends out the 72, the verb used is ‘aposteleo’—I send you out. This does not come across in English translations, but it is present in the original text for all to see.
Whether you believe that Paul was added to the twelve (and even if you believe that Matthias should not have been) or was merely an apostle in the general sense, it does not affect the fact that Peter writes that Paul’s letters are to be treated as ‘scriptures’ like the other scriptures.
scribal well 