One question for Christians and one for Muslims neither can answer

Who were the witnesses?
No one saw the vision or heard the vision. Some soldiers were around but they didn't know what was going on.

But feel free to post the witnesses to the vision and whom the vision was with.
Saul just made up who he said he had some vision with. No one can verify.

 

There were witnesses to Pauls activities after his conversion, as documented by Peter and Luke, with Luke (in Acts) describing Pauls interaction with all the Apostles. Why would they confirm Pauls decades long work as a Christian if Paul was not converted? Clearly you need to read the Bible.

 

LOL. After his supposed conversion.
I asked for the witnesses to the actual vision he claims to have had. For all anyone knows his vision was with Satan to cook up a plan to become a wolf in sheep's clothing.
All anyone has ever had, was the persecutors own words.

 

And yet Paul's teaching were accepted and endorsed by all the Apostles, and by all the people who knew Jesus.

All you have is wild conjecture, there is no basis at all for it.

 

Do you know what an apostle is? If you did you would know there weren't just twelve of them. I'd tell you where to find it but I want you to tell me.

So much for your daily red herring.

 

I'm pretty sure you're confusing "disciple" and "apostle".

Luke wasn't an apostle of Jesus. He could have been an apostle of Paul or someone else.

There are lots of disciples.

I don't know why you're so stubbornly arguing this point.

What difference do you think it makes?

 

Don't you think if Satan and Saul concocted a deceit plan, they'd make it a good one?
There is as much basis for my conjecture as there is for yours.

 

Definition of apostle
: one sent on a mission: such as: one of an authoritative New Testament group sent out to preach the gospel and made up especially of Christ's 12 original disciples and Paul
b : the first prominent Christian missionary to a region or group

• St. Boniface, the Apostleof Germany

: a person who initiates a great moral reform or who first advocates an important belief or system
b : an ardent supporter : adherent

• apostles of high technology

: the highest ecclesiastical official in some church organizations
: one of a Mormon administrative council of 12 men

So much for you claiming to be a person of the cloth.

But which of the above definitions fit Luke. A man who never met Jesus. Just like Saul.

 

...

 

I don't know why YOU'RE so stubbornly arguing it, what difference do YOU think it makes?

 

So having a disagreement with a self proclaimed internet expert disqualifies me for the priesthood?

 

Wrong. Your conjecture has no basis at all, there is nothing to support it. You are not consistent, you pick from the Bible what you want to believe and discard what goes against your conjecture.

Within the context of the entire Bible, Paul persecuting Christians, converting, evangelizing, and his teaching are consistent with the other authors and the detailed and general message of Jesus.

 

Given the size of the Christian population of the world, it's interesting to know the path of information that led to the Bible, the roots of Catholicism, etc.

Maybe that's why you care, too.

 

No, I care because I find it annoying that people make unsubstantiated claims, especially when it comes to Christianity. Luke was one of the 70 (or 72, depending on who you are talking to) who were given a mission to spread the word of his coming, which is what an apostle is. A disciple is a student. As for the claims that Paul never "met" Jesus, they ignore the fact that there were others present, and given that Jesus was resurrected bodily, the only way he could have appeared to anyone was in the flesh, not in a disembodied voice. Later, Ananias tells Paul that Jesus "appeared to him" (Paul). He sent Paul to take the Gospel to the Gentiles, which makes Paul an apostle, too.

This meme that Paul was not an Apostle and that he took over Christianity and made it something it never was are absurd on it's face. There is no conflict between Paul's teachings and Jesus', just conflicts in certain people's understanding.

Finally, "Catholicism" is not a denomination, it is the belief of the Body of Christ (all of them), although I am sure you probably think it means the church in Rome. I refer you to the Athanasian Creed.

 

I didn't see the claim that Paul wasn't an apostle of Jesus.

I see lots of cites that give sound arguments that Luke was not an apostle of Jesus. He may have been an apostle of Paul.

 

Maybe you could show them to us, because I read a lot of Christian history and theology, and I have yet to hear or read anybody saying that. Or are these things you can only get on the internet?

 

Yes. Because you think Luke was an apostle.
And I now gave you an opportunity to show how he is an apostle and you didn't or can't.
A real man of the cloth would know what an apostle is and who they are. You don't. This isn't the 1st time you made a claim about the religion and were wrong.
A man of the cloth would be more knowledgeable about their religion.

 

I have as much basis as Saul's claim he had a vision with Jesus. His claim is completely unverifiable.
The other authors only repeat what Paul claims. There is no proof of his vision or who/what his vision was with our about.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/apostles-who-werent-part-of-the-twelve
No apostle Luke by catholics.

 

And it's not the first time a layman has tried to claim that I was an impostor out of their own ignorance. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. My point stands.

 

What would you define as a layman in this case?

Someone unordained by YOUR version?

Someone who hasn't read YOUR Bible?

Someone who does not accept what YOU say?

What is a Layman to you?

 

This is the 3rd time you had the opportunity to show proof of your claim of Luke the Apostle. You even tried a derail by bringing Paul the Apostle up in a post.
A man of the cloth would already know he was not an Apostle. A man of the cloth would admit to a mistake instead of continuous personal attacks unrelated to the topic.
Not sure you even qualify as a layman on christianity. And I'm sure many have questioned your clergy qualifications, with good reason.

 

Within the context of the Bible, you have nothing. There is not a hint of anything in the Bible to support your claim.

Luke was not part of the original 12, that's not the point. Luke knew the surviving original 11, he dealt with some of them often and on a long term basis. Luke and Acts reflects Lukes research into the events.

And the original Apostles supported and agreed with Paul.

Paul fits into the Bible. Your claim does not.

 

Paul called himself an apostle.
But that is more symbolic language - the literal "Apostle" in our
context are the 12.
It's possible that Paul never met Jesus.
And Luke, the "beloved physician" went to Rome with Paul.
He too most likely never met Jesus.

 

Sure there is. Satan wants to rule earth. Satan wants soles.
The threat of false prophets. Wolves in sheep clothing.

Saul does not fit into the bible. At least not the bible about Jesus. Saul completely took Jesus' words in a complete different direction.

 

It's true, Paul/Saul never met Jesus. The only claim to some meeting is some vision Saul claims he had and no one else could hear or see the supposed vision.