I refer to this post when talking about paul's alledged conversion because he told two different versions. >>3554
Next I want to actually state that Peter called the people disciples and immediately stated that someone needed to replace Judas.
And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
Notice he calls them disciples rather than apostles. Now I already went over what is required to be an apostle that you had to have been since john the baptist to the resurrection. However it is specifically called an apostleship in acts 1:25
"That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place."
Thus we can assume that an apostle is a disciple that has specifically had been with Jesus since the time of John the Baptist all the way to the resurrection. In this case if we were to claim that Paul was an apostle we could also make the argument that Ellen G white was an apostle. If we go by "Pauls criteria". So no Paul could not be an apostle at least through the definitions of what acts gives.
Also galatians 2:7-8 states that paul was the "apostle of the gentiles"
"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)".
Did you know that Peter himself stated that he would preach to the gentiles and he would convert them to christianity.
"And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe."
Also note that this is after Pauls conversion thus we can assume that Peter decided he would preach to the gentiles. So technically it could be argued that the actual apostle to the gentiles was Peter not Paul.>Yes, i'm saying that you were saying IF he was an apostle, then he would replace Thomas.
Ok to be fair this was a bad idea to begin with. I shouldn't have even attempted to justify Paul's claim to apostleship. I apologize for this.>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.
It doesn't say that at all, in fact. It doesn't even mention he was there at all.
2 Timothy 1:15-18
"15This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. 16The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: 17But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. 18The 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.">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,
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. I see it as Paul states that faith alone is enough to be saved and that works are bonus points. I see it as faith and works are both required for salvation. In this regard I'd bring up that faith is the seed and that works are the fruits. You cannot get a good tree with corrupt fruits. >In Galatians 1:11-12 Paul states that he received revelations from Jesus
How do we know he is telling the truth. If it is only Pauls statements I believe they are untrustworthy. Example for the existence of Jesus not only do we have 4 seperate gospels but we also have a large amount of archeological finds. Paul's revelations only have himself as backup.