>>3589
>This doesn't mean that Paul isn't being talked about in revelation. That is like me doing this their are multiple false doctrines in christendom. Catholicism is just a single doctrine on the other hand. That doesn't suddenly make Catholicism not a false doctrine that's ridiculous.
Perhaps, but you can't say for certain it's talking about Paul, since it actually refers to multiple such false apostles. Perhaps Paul was the exception.
>I'm pretty sure the tribe of Benjamin had more names than "Saul"
Of course, but Benjaminites would've prided Saul as a name as it was used for a king of their tribe.
>for unto this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done awau in Christ
Again, the Law is a way God instructed us to live. To avoid sin. Jesus's atonement pays for our sins. This is what Paul is talking about, not that the Law of Moses was abolished.
>mental gymnastics
Justifying the consistency of Romans 7:12 isn't mental gymnastics.
>Actually funny thing with this. In acts 15 that was talking about circumcision. Peter and James were actually for restricting circumcision. They also say you are saved by grace in christ.
Acts 15 was most likely after the Incident at Antioch (otherwise the timeline would be very inconsistent), which is where Paul called out Peter regarding circumcision.
>However Paul states the opposite numerous times. This led to James confronting him about it in acts 21.
Perhaps, however with the Incident at Antioch and the later Epistles Paul's view on circumcision was consistent with Peter's in Acts 15.
>Jesus actually mean's God's salvation. Joshua means God is my salvation.
True, but both are translated the same in Greek. Hence they have to differentiate between Joshua and Jesus, and this carried on to the Vulgate (partially translated from Hebrew), and then to the KJV.