>>3585
Then in this case, Paul wouldn't have qualified for "apostleship" in the sense that the other 12 apostles were, but was an "apostle" in again his own certain criteria.
Hence why he was called the "apostle of the gentiles".
>It doesn't say that at all, in fact. It doesn't even mention he was there at all.
<The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well
It does.
>I think have differing interpretations of this entire passage. My way of seeing it is that Paul called the law a curse and that you can be saved just with faith and works are an extra benefit. That is wrong. This is why I brought up James 2:20
And here, I answered it as I did in the Judaiser general. Anti-Law Pauline Christians and pro-Law anti-Pauline Christians (like you) go with the Law as a curse, but in reality it isn't a curse.
Basically, FAITH is what saves you, while works go along with faith. Many Pauline Christians themselves still don't understand this.
>How do we know he is telling the truth. If it is only Pauls statements I believe they are untrustworthy
Since it's a revelation, of course the only men that know about it are Paul and Jesus.
As for Paul's legitimacy, just compare him to the other Christian "teachers" mentioned in Acts (written by Luke) and the early church's historical records. Simon Magus, Nicholas (founder of the Nicolaitans) etc., all were rejected and rebuked yet Paul stayed.