Originally Posted by cabio

Right, and he could not have come back down? For the point of the argument, you said that Jesus was supposed to be in heaven since he went through the clouds. If you assume, for the point of the argument, that he went through the clouds, then it is only right to assume that he could "come back down through the clouds."

Originally Posted by aa5874

But even the character called Jesus in the NT claimed there would be people who would call themselves Christ and deceive many.

Mark 13.6

The devil is a deceiver, according to Revelation 20.10. Paul may have been deceived.

There are even those who have come in the name of "Paul" and have deceived, and one have come in the name of Peter, too. There are lots of deceivers in the NT.

Originally Posted by cabio

First off, while this may be so, his justification for apostleship still holds true. He met with whom he and the whole early church believed was the resurrected Jesus. Therefore, the early church, believing he saw Jesus, would be justified in calling him an apostle. That was the whole initial point of this discussion.

Second off, it is highly unlikely that what happened to Saul on the Damascus road, was caused by a mere man, dressed up as Jesus, so that only Saul could see him but none of his companions but who heard Jesus speak, who caused temporary blindness, who set up a meeting later with members of the early church, was a mere man. That being said, if it was Satan, as you suggested, why would Satan cause the transformation of what was his greatest tool, Saul, into what would be his greatest enemy, someone who became a firm believer in the risen Jesus? None of that which is recorded as being said to Saul makes any sense if it was said by Satan. It would only serve to harm Satan. This does not seem plausible and you are grasping at straws.

In the end, since you are arguing with the possibility that Saul encountered the devil on the road, this also leaves open the possibility that Saul encountered Jesus on the road. Since we have that possibility, then my initial statement in which Paul can be considered an apostle still holds, and the evidence supports that.

Originally Posted by aa5874

And what about the Second Coming? You mean Jesus is not coming back again. He came back already!

Originally Posted by cabio

No, I mean an external source not written by Paul. That was one of your initial complaints, that “You just cannot use the words of Paul alone to corroborate the very same character.” The words from Acts are not the words of Paul, hence an external source.

....

This really does not have anything to do with my initial claim. The point is that the author of Acts was not Paul.

....

You did not respond to a point I made. Regardless, Acts is a different text backing up Paul’s claim to apostleship.

Originally Posted by cabio

Who says he cannot come more than once? Irregardless, this has nothing to do with my initial claim. Paul could have seen Jesus even though he “went through the clouds.”

Originally Posted by nickpecoraro

Paul was not an Apostle according to the requirements enumerated by Peter.

When Judas died, the Apostles got together to choose a replacement.

Peter said.......
Acts 1:20-22 (King James Version)
20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

According to Peter, an Apostle had to be a man who was there with Jesus beginning with the Baptism of John, until the resurrection of Jesus. The man had to have been there """all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,""

Paul did not meet the requirements. He was falsely self promoted to the position.

nickpecoraro

Originally Posted by cabio

First off, this was an addition to one of the 12 special apostles, the disciples. There could have been more strict requirements for these positions.

Second off, it does not actually say that the man had to be there with them from the beginning. It just records that this is how they decided on who to choose as a replacement for one of the disciples.

Again, disciple, not apostle.