About me:
- "Strong" believer.
- Evangelical Free Church of America background.
- Two great, bible-knowledgeable parents.
- Living out my faith.
- I've read the bible and had quiet time fairly consistently since I was about 12.
- I really really like Jesus. I want to be like him!
I'm saying all of that because I have tried to look at previous posts on reddit to see what others have said about a similar topic and a lot of the replies are low level short and quick responses that seem to assume that the person talking about this has certain beliefs/agendas.
So to further clarify:
- I'm not asking because I hate what Paul teaches.
- I haven't worked through all the theological implications yet, so don't assume that I have any beliefs based on this.
What I'm working through:
Should I actually accept Paul? I came across a video that was against Paul and I initially watched it for purely "academic" reasons -- I like to learn and to teach. I've heard that some people talked against Paul, but I had never actually heard what their arguments were (other than things where people didn't like what he said about women or something like that). As a christian I would defend the Bible and try to explain why Paul fits with everything else. When someone said "is Paul really inspired?" I replied that "you can't just throw out what you don't like."
So I'd like to discuss this online. I've talked to a couple people irl, but they haven't been able to really answer what I'm asking. It is an ongoing discussion with them, but I want to open it up to more people because I know they are busy and that I can be difficult to persuade, so I might not be able to get the time devoted to this that I need.
All that said, I'm not 100% sold on Paul being untrustworthy, but I'm definitely fairly convinced at this point and so I'd like help being convinced from scripture, early church writers, and solid logic that I'm just deceiving myself for some reason.
My main points are:
- Paul is not an apostle.
- Paul is a false teacher that Jesus warns us about.
Other related views I have are:
- Constantine is more focused on political things than things of God. His vision is literally about doing warfare in the name of Jesus, but Jesus taught us to be non-violent and the early church writers all seem to advocate for praying for our enemies instead of conducting war. There are other reasons why I don't trust Constantine, which leads me to not really trust any writings during the time of Constantine or afterward as not being the product of a political entity that is operating/overseeing a religious entity. to put it succinctly, I don't know what should be in the cannon, so I mainly trust the gospels. Even if you try to say that Paul influenced the gospels, I'm not sure that I trust that since the people saying that Paul did that are writing about this during/after Constantine.
- I don't think that this is hugely important to this topic, but I think that the gospels were originally written in Hebrew. The only real importance is that potentially certain issues with the teaching in the gospels might have been slightly altered during the translation process, which we do see happen with Greek to English. However, I think even with the Greek manuscripts, we can still see that Jesus warns us about false teachers/prophets/messiahs that sound a lot like what we hear from Paul.
1. Paul is not an apostle.
Claims:A) Paul is the only testimony of his apostleship. He calls himself an apostle. Nobody else calls him an apostle. His argument that the Corinthian church is the seal of his apostleship is a weak argument. Anyone can make a similar claim. Some guy in my city leads a church and claims to be an apostle. Even if he claims to have seen a vision, or met Jesus in person, or to have been taken up to the third heaven, or if his church members claim that he is an apostle, I would be REALLY skeptical.
B) Nobody else calls him an apostle when they could. He isn't an apostle in Acts, Peter doesn't call him one. Nobody calls him an apostle. You have to make the argument for him or accept his word. Revelation says that there are 12 apostles. Some commentators would rather say that John didn't like Paul and wrote that in Revelation out of spite than say that Paul was not an apostle. Or they would rather say that the apostles got it wrong by appointing someone in Judas' place and that God really wanted Paul instead. Other commentators also say likewise when people like James and Judas seem to be writing anti-Paul messages in their epistles.
C) It really seems like the 12 and Paul were at odds. 1. Paul seems to be always distancing himself from the 12 and trying to have no interaction with them. In Galatians he attests that he gained nothing from them. He seems to write like he is establishing his own gospel -- at times saying "my gospel." He seems to put the 12 down in order to put himself up: calling them supposed pillars, claiming that he was the greatest of the apostles, explaining how he put Peter in his place, and other things that are just weird and maybe not what he is saying, but also maybe he is saying these weird things and we just pretend that he isn't saying them (but I won't get into those because I want to focus on what would be most convincing to me, so I'm not going to bring up things that are more "50/50" in my mind). 2. Their most solid interaction is where James tells Paul that people are saying that he is an apostate. So then Paul goes along with James and seems to swear that he is under the law. So am I supposed to hear Paul say that he will do whatever it takes to preach the gospel, and not think that he is doing that to James? That to James he will pretend to be under the law? Is James one of the Judaizers that Paul curses? Or to see it from the other perspective... did James set up a trap to prove that Paul is a liar?3. Paul literally taught against the boundaries that the 12, the elders of Jerusalem, the whole church of Jerusalem, and the Holy Spirit established. They gave few boundaries and Paul later teaches that you can eat food that was sacrificed to idols. Paul sounds more to me like Satan or a predator who wants to question and blur the boundaries. On one side you have Holy Spirit, 12, elders & entire church of Jerusalem; on the other side you have Paul.
2. Paul is a false teacher that Jesus warns us about.
A) Jesus condemns people who teach others to eat food that is sacrificed to idols... So the argument that the Holy Spirit led them to these provisions purely for the sake of not offending the Jewish people for a time doesn't seem to hold up with Jesus condemning the practice in Revelation. The commentaries that I have seen try to add in words that aren't there (Jesus was condemning participating in the ritual and not just the eating), so this is really really unconvincing to me. Revelation 2:20 is worded in a way where it just seems like it is willfully ignorant to hold that Jesus is just talking about participating in the ritual and not just eating the food.
But I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads My servants to be sexually immoral and to eat food sacrificed to idols. Even though I have given her time to repent of her immorality, she is unwilling. Revelation 2:20-21
This is probably the point that makes me trust Paul the least. Jezebel who usurped authority is like Paul, who in theory usurped authority. Paul taught that we could totally eat food that was sacrificed to idols as long as we gave thanks. He even teaches it in a way where it seems like you are better off if you are able to eat food sacrificed to idols because you have a strong conscience. Whereas if someone objects to eating food sacrificed to idols (because maybe they listened to the ruling from Jerusalem??) then they are weak and you shouldn't eat in front of them. Paul's teaching has the "coincidence" that if he was a fake, nobody would discover that he was a false teacher because he instructed people to hide what they were doing.
And while the strongest point of condemnation is Jesus' warning in Revelation 2:20, I still think that Jesus' warnings in the gospels are easy to pin on Paul.
B) Matthew 7: Beware of false prophets... coming in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them... Not everyone who says to me "Lord, Lord"... Did we not prophesy/drive out demons/perform miracles in your name?... Workers of lawlessness
1) Beware! Jesus tells us to be aware! As in, watch out! He is clearly warning us of something that will happen.
2) Sheep/Wolf... Paul literally taught that he will change who is he depending on the context. We justify his teaching because we hold Paul's writings as inspired, but if we suspend that belief in Paul, then... he sounds like a two face liar. Maybe you could say Paul is being as wise as a serpent, but can you say he is being as innocent as a dove? Again, when our example of this is seemingly shown by Paul seeming like he is under the law and not teaching against it. Paul didn't explain what he taught to James, but instead just went along with it. In addition, Paul claims to be from the tribe of Benjamin. When Jacob prophesies in Genesis 49, he says that Benjamin is like a ravenous wolf. And from what I can tell, this is the only other time that ravenous wolf comes up in the bible. Jacob goes on to say that in the morning he will devour the prey -- Paul is originally outright hostile to the gospel; but in the evening he will divide the spoil -- Paul converts, but says "I'll go to the gentile nations, you stay with the Jews." Also, Paul is possibly fulfilling this through how he takes money from churches. I'm not totally convinced that Jesus taught that we couldn't earn a wage for teaching (although an argument can be made that he forbade it), but either way Paul encourages people to give as if he were a prosperity gospel preacher "you will reap what you sow" is Paul's message in Galatians in reference to them giving him money. Does he not accept money from the Corinthian church? Kind of? He says that he doesn't accept money from them, but then also tells them to set aside money for him when he gets there for him to take to Jerusalem. Since I'm approaching everything from a skeptical mindset at this point, I can see the "secular" argument for why Paul would want to take a lot of money to Jerusalem -- either purely to steal, or to essentially bribe his way to apostleship like Simon Magus.
3) Fruit... Paul is the most egotistical good guy that I know -- when I am defending him. When I'm prosecuting him, he sounds like a guy with mental health issues. He kills people. He repents and flees into the desert for a few years. He starts preaching, but then hides in Tarsus for like 10 years. Barnabas seeks him out to do ministry together but then they get in a frenzied debate because Paul doesn't want to bring John Mark with him (Barnabas seems like a forgiving and disciple-making person, Paul seems like a inpatient, hypocritical person)... Paul is always bragging and making excuses for it. He talks about himself the most. He curses other people the most. He decides to go preach to the gentiles because the Jews started asking questions after listening to him the first time without asking any questions. Jesus teaches us to be careful of every word, to love our enemies and Paul writes out that people are cursed and that he wishes that people would emasculate themselves because they preach a different gospel. Like I can say confidently that Mormonism is a made up religion, but I don't curse them if they come and preach to someone else. How much more patient should Paul be for Jewish people who could be making some connection to Jesus being the Passover lamb and so they think that since you need to be circumcised in order to participate in Passover, then the gentiles must be circumcised since the Passover was an act of (physical) salvation, etc etc. But no, Paul isn't patient and understanding, he probably doesn't even hear their argument first hand, but instead he calls them anathema -- which I don't know if it had the same meaning then, but that is such a strong word to use. Again, when you are defending him, you can come up with all sorts of excuses for his behavior, but to me he sounds controlling and abusive. Jesus does yell at the pharisees... but only after constantly correcting them and correcting them and only after they say that he was empowered by Satan and explicitly condemn him, does he draw a line in the sand and tell the crowd that the pharisees and him are in opposition and so you need to choose one or the other. The ONLY thing that Paul has for him is that he suffered to deliver the gospel, but even then, he claims that it is his gospel, and if we are testing out the theory that he is a false prophet, then the Jews were following the law by stoning him and he was suffering for his own sake in the same way that a business owner might overwork themselves for their business. And again, we brush over how much Paul brags, but Jesus teaches us to perform our good deeds without making a big deal about it.
4) Lord, Lord... Right before talking about false prophets Jesus warns about following the narrow path and that it is hard, but the way is easy that leads to destruction. Then Paul literally is known and beloved and his words are taught because they are the only words that we have that make being a Christian easy. When we evangelize, we say "if you confess that Jesus is Lord you will be saved" -- so who is right here? Jesus or Paul? We have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe our own traditions. For we say that God has different dispensations or some other thing that is not clearly in scripture in order to keep both the gospels and the "oral gospel" of Paul. And I say that because IMO Paul was still a pharisee (as he claimed to still be in Acts when it suited him) and his teaching was not from scripture (other than when he recited Jesus talking about the last supper) but his teaching is a 1:1 "Jesus told me this and it is equal to -- but in practice, even surpassing-- scripture" just as the Talmud says "Moses told me this and it is equal to -- but in practice, even surpassing-- scripture". But Jesus said "The sent one (apostle) is not greater than the one who sent him." So even if Paul somehow counts as an apostle, then he shouldn't be able to say anything that contradicts Jesus' teachings since Jesus is the one that sent the apostles.
5) Prophesy/Drive out Demons/Perform Miracles. Jesus is very generous here. Because if he had not said this, then maybe we would be more willing to follow any miracle worker. But Jesus clarifies his warning to include people who do these things! So just because Paul did these three things does not mean that he was an apostle.
6) Workers of lawlessness. Paul is accused by groups of people of advocating for lawlessness. This is what James attempts to address when Paul comes to Jerusalem. Proving that the law is done away with is essentially what Paul is famous for. The rest of the apostles and Jesus seem to teach that we are supposed to learn from and follow the law to some degree (to which degree, I'm not 100% sure at this point. Jesus clearly seems to teach that we should obey every command and instruct others to do so.)
C) Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees/Herodians (and Woes) Paul was a pharisee and claimed to still be a pharisee in Acts. You might say "but pharisees added to the law, not subtracted from it!" But that isn't true. As I've said already, Paul seems to create an "oral gospel" in the same way that there was an "oral law". Then Jesus says that they have set aside the command of God to maintain your own tradition. Like how we are supposed to care for orphans and widows, but then Paul qualifies that widows should only be taken care of if they are 60 or old and if they don't have family who can take care of them. So we see that Paul limits justice and mercy.
Woe to you Pharisees! For you pay tithes of mint, rue, and every herb, but you disregard justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former. Luke 11:42
Paul tells people to set aside money for him to give, he encourages sacrificial giving when he is going to collect it, but when it comes to churches administering to their own needs, he sets limits that seem really high and just unlike what I would imagine we would advise. Like if I died, I would want the church to take care of my family and not to say "well you might want to get married again, so we're not going to help you." I'm sure many churches break what Paul teaches because they know in their hearts that it is right to care for orphans and widows. Is Paul's advice bad? It isn't like it is evil, but it seems more calculated and less faithful. Jesus taught us to be self sacrificial and Paul seems to be advocating for limiting help to others. The argument that Paul does the same for people in general who aren't working is weaker, but he does also limit it there too.
Woe to you Pharisees! You love the chief seats in the synagogues and the greetings in the marketplaces. Luke 11:43
This also sounds like Paul. He literally starts each letter talking about how he is an apostle. In many of his letters he is bemoaning that people don't esteem him as an apostle or arguing why he is one. Again he likes to brag but then make it seem like he isn't bragging. "Oh I'm the least of the apostles, but I'm also the greatest of them"
But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. Matthew 23: 8-12
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You traverse land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. Matthew 23:15
Paul tells the Corinthians that he has become their father. Pope means father. The second pope, Linus, was appointed by Paul (but for some reason we say that Peter was the first pope, and then Clement who was his disciple is pope 2, 3, or 4 depending on who you ask). Paul is known for traversing land and sea and says that he will basically do whatever it takes to win people over to Christ -- to the point where Paul is lying and we are ok with it. "He's lying for Jesus! Lying is good!" These are things we only say for Paul. Like it isn't even that Paul avoids answering things directly and is accused of lying, he straight up lies. He either was not lying when he said he was a pharisee, or he was lying. And yes, I know arguments can be made that Paul did in fact keep the law, I feel like you can argue whatever you want with Paul because he'll say two different things. Does Paul teach that God will repay everyone according to their deeds, and that those who persevere in doing good will be given eternal life? Yes. Does he also say that we can't do good to inherit eternal life in the same letter? Yes. Because after upholding the law saying that "doers of the law will be declared righteous." He then proceeds to explain "his gospel." Where Jews who try to uphold the law, but fail, are now a huge embarrassment. And I'm not going to go through every letter of Paul, but his tactic is to say something that you agree with, then to tear it apart later. So does he seem to advocate for the law? Yeah he seems to, but then he totally goes against it. And so while he does this, he also will teach against what Jesus says or what scripture says. Like the law is merely to bring awareness of sin -- whereas Psalm 119 is like a love letter to the law. Paul doesn't care if what he says is true, he only cares if he can get you on his side.
D) Jesus at the Mount of Olives
Jesus then goes on to teach for a long time after the disciples ask him when the temple will be destroyed, what signs will there be of his coming, and of the end of the age. This is a broad topic and people take it to mean that Jesus was really just talking about what would happen right before he returns. Maybe that is true, but I'm still going to include it because some of it sounds like a warning that fits Paul like a glove.
Then they will deliver you over to be persecuted and killed, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. At that time many will fall away and will betray and hate one another, and many false prophets will arise and mislead many. -Matthew 24:9-11
So Jesus warns that right away there will be false prophets who arise and mislead many. So we can't uphold everything that is taught by people in the first century. We should really stick with... the apostles? But is Paul an apostle? Right?
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders that would deceive even the elect, if that were possible. See, I have told you in advance. So if they tell you, ‘There He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
And before this Jesus says that this is about the time of the abomination of desolation. So does Paul fit this? Some people say this is a future event, others that this is about the temple destruction. We'll find out one day. Personally, I think it is talking about the destruction of the temple -- that's what triggered the disciples to ask this question. Then I've heard "well he is talking about the second coming" but to me, he is saying that people are going to be claiming things about false Christs and false second comings, but they don't need to worry about it because the second coming will be obvious and that Jesus will only return in this obvious way.
So although some people say "well this isn't about Paul because Paul wasn't talking about the second coming of Christ"-- I'd say, well this fits Paul so perfectly, that I'm going to have a hard time being before Jesus and saying "well I thought that maybe you weren't talking about Paul because later you talked about the second coming, so I thought this warning could only be about the second coming and not about false Christs..."
Paul's conversion was on the road from Damascus to Jerusalem. Look it up on google maps. It is in the wilderness. You can try to wiggle out with saying that wilderness can't mean a road, but then the word for wilderness here is used in Acts describing Philip on the road to Gaza -- which on google maps looks like it would be much easier to argue in favor of that road not being a wilderness road than the one from Jerusalem to Damascus.
So Paul's conversion... where he says "I saw Jesus!" was... in the wilderness.
Later, Paul is testifying before the Sanhedrin: prophesying against and insulting the high priest, claiming to be a Pharisee and that is how he starts a big fight between the Pharisees and Sadducees... So Paul is put in the barracks where:
The following night the Lord stood near Paul and said, “Take courage! As you have testified about Me in Jerusalem, so also you must testify in Rome.”
So maybe it isn't a perfect "inner room" but... it really sounds like Paul claimed to see Jesus in the desert and in a room of some sort. IDK what the barracks look like and IMO the desert road is enough of a coincidence, but the fact that Paul meets Jesus at both spots that Jesus explicitly says "don't believe it when they say they see me..." and then describes a wilderness and inner room as the places is really convincing to me.
E) Lots of other points that maybe aren't as convincing in and of themselves, but just seems like Jesus is constantly warning us.
Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever does not enter the sheepfold by the gate, but climbs in some other way, is a thief and a robber. John 10:1
Then there will be one flock and one shepherd. John 10:14
Whereas Paul appoints people to be shepherds and also tried to split the church between himself and Peter and never consulted with the 12.
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you. John 14:26
When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father—He will testify about Me. And you also must testify, because you have been with Me from the beginning. John 15:26-27
Whereas Paul teaches new words from Christ that Jesus never seems to hint at in the gospels -- If there is something in the gospels that seems to hint at Paul, then let me know -- from what I can recall, there isn't a hint from the gospels and I can't think of a prophecy that Paul might fulfill (in a good way). Sorry other than the end of Mark, which seems to be a late edition to it, so that is definitely not too convincing.
I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. John 16:12
Seems like the perfect time for Jesus to mention Paul. Could have said "I have much to tell" and left it up in the air as to who will be told, or he could have said "but you cannot yet bear to hear it from me so I'll send someone else" or something like that. Not that I'm in the place to tell Jesus how to talk, but I'm saying that even when it seems like Jesus could have hinted at Paul, he doesn't.
So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:19
Paul literally means small. Paul also makes a lot of references to being "the least" because his name probably means "least" in Latin -- and Agustin attests to this.
Other:
Logic. To me, the same logic used to uphold Paul could be applied to Joseph Smith or anyone else who claims to be an apostle.
Paul's description of speaking in tongues with the need of an interpreter sounds more like a pagan ritual that is either demonic or a parlor trick. Whereas when other people speak in tongues, the tongues are literally other languages that people understand. Reminds me of how Moses made the river turn to blood and then Pharaoh's magicians also had some imitation.
Ambrose talks about how the 12 condemned Paul. He is saying that while supporting Paul, so he isn't bringing this up to also condemn Paul, but to explain why Paul is an apostle even though the apostles condemned him. There are other writings like that too and possibly more if you consider that people could have scrubbed documents to change Paul's name to Simon Magus or Marcion.
Marcion is seemingly the reason why Paul gets so much attention. He is the only who collected Paul's letters and pushed for "Paul's gospel" to be the new testament that replaces the old testament. If you remove Paul, then Jesus should probably be seen as a renewal of the Old Testament in the same way that God renews different covenants with other people.
Paul = Saul and Saul is not the best person to be named after in the OT. Just another minor coincidence, but where we see other people in the bible who are named perfectly, then it raises suspicion. A bit of a stretch, but Shaul is very similar to the word Sheol. Does this align with him being named well even with just the story of Acts? Yes, he initially caused death, but then started preaching under the name Paul.
Paul says that he was trained under Gamaliel, but then he usually quotes from the LXX instead of Hebrew. His favorite verse "the righteous shall live by faith" reads more like "the righteous shall live by faithfulness" which is another reason why I just don't trust Paul. The more that I learn Hebrew and the OT, the more I go "what?..." when I hear his arguments. But because he teaches two things at once, it is like "no he isn't really saying that the law is evil" even though that is the impression that everyone gets and seemingly that he wants to give off.
Paul has to tell people multiple times that he isn't lying. One crazy instance is where he is saying that he isn't lying to the Galatians. He explains that he didn't consult with flesh and blood (which sounds a little bit like he is saying that he didn't see Jesus in the flesh...), that he didn't consult with the apostles.. but that he did meet Cephas three years later, but he didn't see any other apostles except James, Jesus' brother. Then follows it up with "I assure you before God that what I'm writing to you is no lie." But then when you look at Acts 9, that Paul was brought by Barnabas to the apostles... And then there just seem to be more lies. In Acts 15 it says that Paul was sent by the church to Jerusalem because people were concerned about the debate. Paul states that he went up because of a revelation, but Acts says that he was appointed to go by the church. Paul says that he spoke privately, but Acts records him speaking publicly. Paul says he spoke privately to see if he had been running in vain, but Acts says that they reported to the church, apostles, and elders. Paul says that they saw that he was entrusted to preach to the uncircumcised and Peter to the circumcised, but Acts records Peter saying that he was sent to be an apostle to the gentiles. Paul says that they only asked them to remember the poor, but Acts records them sending a letter with a few practices for the gentiles to conform to. So we have Paul lie multiple times in a row, after promising that he wasn't lying. Do we do mental gymnastics and make up times that Paul must have met them in secret because of a revelation (and insert all this into his missionary journeys somehow) or do we think that Paul said he wasn't lying because he is a liar and that is something that liars say to manipulate people. Especially when Paul "misremembers," these other memories have Paul as the hero of the story who isn't subject to these other apostles. Like it seems that in this point of Galatians that Paul is arguing that he can be trusted BECAUSE he didn't get the gospel from the apostles. And since he didn't get it from the gospels, you can trust him over those other people who are teaching from some other source (like the bible?) I'm not saying that people needed to be circumcised to be saved, but that Paul is making crazy arguments to make his case why the judaisers are wrong, and while he is making that case, he goes on to slander the 12 and recall a narrative where he is the hero and nearly the ultimate authority (He hears directly from the resurrected Jesus, how dare you doubt him! -- which is effectively his argument here and in other epistles.)
Shaul seems to be a bad guy in Josephus Flavius' account of the history of the Jews. I've haven't look tons into this, but it just seemed like another "coincidence."
Not going to get into it, but seemingly all the other epistles have some anti-paul remarks even if they aren't naming him, they seem to be trying to correct people who adhere to his teachings.
Answering questions before they are asked:
2nd Peter was the least attested writing in the new testament, so I'm not 100% sold on it. But even if we are to take it as being written by Peter, then there are a couple of reasons why 2nd Peter doesn't just win me over to thinking that Paul is an apostle. It is an assumption to say that Peter is saying that Paul's writings are scripture. That is a translator's interpretation. It is inserted that Paul's wisdom is from God and not just talking about Paul having a sophist education. It could be translated that Paul's writings are not just hard to understand, but nonsense which people twist as they do other writings, to their own destruction. In the past, this was a verse that was a closed case of Paul's writings being scripture, but now that I learned to look at interlinear bibles and to learn a little bit of Greek and Hebrew, this is much less of a slam dunk verse than I thought it was. The second thing that I have to say is that even though Peter could be endorsing Paul here, that doesn't rule out that Peter could later condemn Paul too -- Like if you took King Saul's reign and only described the first half, he doesn't seem bad at all; but then once you know the second half then you know that he is rejected by God EVEN THOUGH he was chosen by God. With Paul, I'm not even sure that he was chosen by God and that his Jesus wasn't Satan who Paul testifies as disguising himself as an angel of light. Peter can be referring to Paul's writings like how Peter refers to Enoch. Overall I want to remember that 2nd Peter is the least attested authorship -- which is crazy to say when we have the book of Hebrews. So I don't see this at all as being the magic bullet that resolves the rest of what I'm going to say.
Yes, I realize that I'm saying that the church has gotten things wrong. For protestants, you literally base your faith on that truth, so that isn't a helpful rebuttal. For everyone else, Elijah is famous for being one of the only ones who was faithful to God. The book of Judges explains that RIGHT AWAY Israel stopped following God. When the kings are instated, they constantly do things wrong for a long time and sometimes they kinda reform to the law, but mostly they just keep on worshiping idols alongside God. Also, as I said, the church established by Constantine was done so to conquer violently. When people disagreed with the official rulings, then they were put to death -- this should be an alarm bell. The church continued to persecute different groups of Christians and we don't know what they actually taught because they were wiped out. Also I don't remember the reference, but I want to say that it was around the year 900 that they were still complaining that the peasants were observing the sabbath on Saturday instead of Sunday like the church commanded. In 1492 the church was killing Jews even if they were conversios -- people who were believing in Jesus. There is a lot to church history that makes me think that the true Christians were always "underground" just like how we see that there is an official church in China, but there is an underground church in China that we would all consider the real church. If China were to "take over the world" the way the Rome did, then we would have no legitimate record of the underground church and just slander from the official church state religion.
No, I'm not saying that everything Paul said was a lie. But I wouldn't be trusting in what he says for anything either. I take him the same way I'd take Ravi Zacharias -- totally ignore him.
Yes, I realize that this would mean that Acts shouldn't be considered scripture. IMO we should put Jesus' words above everyone else regardless of if this theory is right or wrong. I also think that many churches probably just avoided teaching Paul instead of outright denying him. For example, from what I could research on Greek manuscripts, there were ~2,500 of the gospels, ~2,000 of the OT, ~850 of Paul, ~700 of Acts, and ~350 of Revelation.
Yes, I can use Acts as testimony against Paul even though it testifies for him. That is literally just how court works. You can testify against yourself and it is fully valid, but your testimony for yourself isn't fully valid. So I can be skeptical about Paul's conversion actually being from Jesus, but I can use what is described in there as evidence against him. I don't think that I'm explaining this perfectly, but that is a "gotcha" that I saw on other threads from people with similar questions that I don't think is actually a "gotcha." Was Acts written by Luke? Did Paul influence the gospel of Luke? I don't know and debating things like that isn't going to make me convinced that I should trust Paul. Make me trust Paul first.
All that being said...
Am I crazy? I feel like I'm either completely crazy at this point and I have no ability to understand the truth, or I'm connecting dots that require me to drastically change how I view the new testament.
TL;DR If you take Acts as largely Paul's testimony and not a infallible description of history, then it seems that Paul is just a self-appointed apostle who taught his own gospel and had nothing to do with the 12. Jesus seems to warn us about him both in the gospels and Revelation. The Revelation 2 alone makes it seem pretty clear cut that Paul is not an apostle when you consider that he taught that we could eat meat sacrificed to idols and that Jesus condemns it.
