>>3582
>Firstly the definition of an apostle is related specifically to the twelve hence why Jesus distinguished them from the other DISCIPLES.
>"And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;"
Yes, the 12 people of Christ's disciples were named apostles. However, the criteria of an apostle, disciple, and even the criteria that Paul went under are all different.
Since Paul received a revelation from Jesus, he became an "apostle". Not one of the original twelve who were by Jesus's side during his life on earth, but still not the same as the other disciples.
>Also nice idea conveniently leaving out the part of acts 1 where it stated specifically what a candidate for an apostle was. I.e to be by Jesus' side from John the Baptist all the way to his returning to heaven. Paul does not fit this criteria thus he is NOT an apostle. No matter how many times Paul repeats it. Note Paul spends quite a couple of passages defending himself as an apostle. Example 1 corinthians 9:1-4
Again, still a difference between the 12 apostles and Paul's position as an apostle. This is the position that he was in, he never argues to be an apostle like Peter or anybody else. He simply held the title of an apostle.
>No I made that for the sake of an argument. I never said he replaced Thomas. In fact I would consider such a thing blasphemous
Yes, I'm saying that you were saying IF he was an apostle, then he would replace Thomas. However he didn't replace any of the twelve apostles.
>WRONG the verse states that about a man named Onesiphorus and that he ministered Pauls doctrine at Ephesus when Paul was captive in Rome. It never states anything about Paul praising Ephesus just this man Onesiphorus for preaching his doctrine to the Ephesians.
Indeed it does. However I was talking about the next verses, in 2 Timothy 1. He says that during his time in Ephesus, he was helped by the Lord.
>Just because Paul writes something doesn't mean he won't contradict it. After all Paul called the law a curse in galatians 3:10-14
I went over this argument against Pauline Christians who reject the Mosaic Law in my Judaiser general thread on /christianity/.
Essentially, when he says the Law is a "curse", he means that you can't be saved by simply following the Law and avoiding sin on your own, you're saved by faith in Christ's atonement. But this doesn't mean that the Law is bad and is thus not contradictory with Romans 7:12.
>James 2:20
This was addressed to scattered Israelites who were already Christians, that good works were a sign of faith.
>He also goes against the words of John who states that the law is not burdensome.