A Defense of the Apostle Paul What a precious treasure we have in our salvation, in Yahshua, and in the Bible. Sadly, though, there are those who are out to steal all three treasures from us. I personally know of several brethren in my circle of acquaintances who have renounced Yahshua as their Savior. They failed to guard their treasure and their hearts. Those treasures were stolen from them. The theft occurred slowly over time and it all began with doubting the Apostle Paul. The Ebionite teaching that the Apostle Paul is a false apostle is being revived. If it hasn't touched you yet, it will. This study is actually a refutation to an article en_title_d, Paul, The Good, The Bad, The Ugly , as well as other accusations not found in that article. Hopefully, this refutation will prepare you to discern the truth of the matter. The foundation of the belief that Paul is a false Apostle lies in the inability to harmonize Paul with the rest of the Bible. Rather than waiting on Yahweh to provide understanding concerning Paul's writings, the anti-Paulists prefer to simply dismiss his writings as those of a false teacher. Peter warned us that this would happen. 2 Peter 3:15,16 reads, And account that the longsuffering of our Master is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other _script_ures, unto their own destruction. Conveniently, however, anti-Paulists would say that the second epistle of Peter was not written by the Apostle Peter and therefore should not be part of our current New Testament canon. This reveals the extent that they will go. They would discard the entire epistle in order to get rid of two verses in support of Paul. The fact is that no one knows for sure that Peter did not write this second epistle. At this point in time it is simply a theory. I offer two sources which defend Peter as the author of the second epistle; 1 , 2. Historical Arguments Anti-Paulists have no choice but to discard The Acts of the Apostles as well because it, too, contains pro-Paul statements. Luke, for example, calls Paul an apostle twice in one chapter (Acts 14:4, 14). The anti-Paulist says of those two verses; By this time in the record, Luke would have been very familiar with Paul calling himself an apostle and was no doubt in agreement with Paul's assessment of himself. By these statistics alone, it is evident that Paul is by far his own biggest fan... and his side kick Luke was his number two fan. This leaves no one else anywhere in the Bible going on record as recognizing his apostleship! Luke is also the only one in the Bible who goes on record to describe the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Feast of Weeks). Should we doubt that account because only Luke records it? Of course not. According to Yahshua's words to Ananaias, Paul was specifically chosen by Yahshua to bear his name before the Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel (Acts 9:15). In other words, he was sent by Yahshua which is what the word apostle means. We see Paul's actual separation as a sent one (apostle) in Acts 13:1-4 where the Holy Spirit spoke to the prophets and teachers in the Antioch congregation. Now there were in the assembly that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Master, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. It was actually the Holy Spirit that separated Barnabas and Paul for the work. Was the Holy Spirit incorrect in doing that? Anti-Paulists will attempt to discredit Luke and Paul by showing how the three accounts of Paul's conversion differ from one another. Acts 9:7 says the men traveling with Paul heard a voice . Acts 22:9 says of those same men, they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me . I offer three possible reasons for this difference; 1) One voice spoke to Paul while a different voice spoke to the rest saying something like, Fear not 2) They heard the same voice, but could not hear the actual words that were spoken 3) They heard all the words, but did not understand. The Greek word for hear can have the meaning of understand as in Jn. 8:43,47. The NIV uses the word understand in Acts 22:9, basing it upon the Greek text which reads differently. 9:7 - akouontes men tes phones 22:9 - ten de phonen ouk ekousan tou lalountos moi Here are the notes from Dr. James R. White (a Greek scholar) in his book en_title_d, _script_ure Alone , pg.160: First, in 9:7 akouo, the verb that means to hear, is a nominative plural participle; in 22:9 it is a plural aorist verb. Second, in 9:7 phone, a sound or voice, is a singular genetive noun; in 22:9 it is a singular accusative noun. Third, in 9:7 akouo precedes its _object_; in 22:9 it follows its _object_. Fourth, in 9:7 the phrase is not modified; in 22:9 it is modified by of the one speaking to me. Finally, in 9:7 Luke is narrating an event in Greek; in 22:9 Paul is speaking to a crowd in Hebrew or Aramaic . . . The context of Acts 22:9 suggests that the reason the men did not hear the voice is because the voice was speaking to Paul in Hebrew, which they did not understand. Remember, Paul said they did not hear the voice and then says, of the one speaking to me. That either Paul or Luke was lying is not a valid choice. Acts 29:9-18 is the third conversion account wherein Paul goes into greater detail as to what Yahshua said to him. These differences in Paul's conversion account lead anti-Paulists to doubt his apostleship. I don't know about you, but when I give my testimony to people, it never comes out the same. I share more info with certain people than with others _base_d on who I'm talking to and how much time I have to give my testimony. To accuse Paul of lying to King Agrippa when giving his testimony for the third time is outrageous to say the least. Anti-Paulists accuse Paul of lying in Acts 23:6. It reads as follows: But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. They contend that he was not called in question over the resurrection, but simply lied in order to save himself. Let's look back and see what the original cause was. In Acts 21:28, Paul was falsely accused of bringing Greeks into the temple. I say falsely because his accusers only supposed that Paul brought Trophimus into the temple (Acts 21:29). As Paul was being led away, he asked to speak to the people. He then began to recount his conversion in which he told them the resurrected Savior spoke to him. This speech took place in Jerusalem where everyone was well aware of the events that took place in putting Yahshua to death. By saying Yahshua spoke to him after his death, Paul was confirming his resurrection, through which all believers have hope in a future resurrection. Is that not what Paul said in Acts 23:6: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question ? Eventually, the mob cried out, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live (Acts 22:22). Paul is then taken before the Sanhedrin where he makes an honest mistake in rebuking the high priest out of ignorance of his identity (Acts 23:2-5). Anti-Paulists accuse Paul of lying here as well. They say he had to know it was the high priest because he knew he was his judge and he knew the difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees. Paul, however, had been absent from Jersualem for quite a while, during which a change in the high priest may have been made. High priests at that time were set up at the whim of the Roman government for political reasons. Additionally, any number of other circumstances may have led to Paul's ignorance in this matter. What saddens me is that the anti-Paulists do not give Paul the benefit of the doubt in anything. They are so quick to condemn Paul in every little point they can dig up. Paul's ensuing comments in verse 6 were perfectly true, for that is the real reason why any believer is persecuted. That is why they falsely accused Stephen in Acts 6:11-12 as well as Paul in Acts 21:28. The Sanhedrin were well aware of that because they were guilty of such persecution for that very reason. Acts 22:4-5 read as follows: And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. Paul was commissioned by the high priest and the council of elders to imprison as many of Yahshua's followers as he could find. See also Acts 9:1-2. Anti-Paulists continue their attack on Paul by showing how he fulfills Mt.10:16-18. It reads, Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. The accounts of Saul's persecution of believers certainly seem to fulfill those verses, but does Paul's actions prior
... read more »

Was Paul A Deceiver SHRINER'S CLAIMS ANSWERS ‘Paul' falsely claimed that he was an apostle to the Gentiles That the apostle Peter was the Divinely appointed apostle to the Gentiles was unquestioned by the twelve apostles of the Lamb as Peter himself reminded them, at the Council meeting in Jerusalem: After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ‘Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. (Acts 15:7) At the same Council meeting the false apostle ‘Paul' had ‘secretly crept in' (Jude 4) by changing his name from Saul to ‘Paul'. When Peter had completed his testimony the false apostle ‘Paul' sought to assert his self-assumed apostolic authority by ‘showing signs and wonders to deceive, if possible the elected twelve, as Yeshua had warned' (Acts 15:12. Matthew 24:24). When this failed the devil and false apostle ‘Paul' later sought to usurp the Divinely appointed authority of the apostle Peter as the ‘apostle to the Gentiles'. ‘Paul' wrote the lie to his Galation followers that he (‘Paul') and not Peter was entrusted with the gospel to the Gentiles (Galations 2:7). In that same infamous letter ‘Paul' also attacked the integrity of the faithful apostle Peter by making un-corroborated and false charges against Peter. These same lies have been preached and written about by Pauline Christian ministers for the last two thousand years. That God called Peter to take the gospel to Cornelius and his household is unquestionable, but was he from that time forward to be the apostle to the Gentiles? Shriner may suppose this to be true, but that does not make it so. Paul crept in by changing his name? Did he also wear a mask? The disciples in Jerusalem knew both his name and appearance. He was no stranger to the disciples in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1-3; 9:26-28; 11:29-30; 12:25). If Paul were a false apostle, as Shriner reports, then surely the church at Jerusalem, with the apostles and elders would not have received him, but they did (Acts 15:4). Had Shriner cared to read Acts 15 a bit more carefully, she would note that Paul did not show any signs or wonders before the brethren in Jerusalem. He and Barnabas spoke of all the wonders that God had worked through them among the Gentiles (15:12). Shriner indicates that Paul failed here. How so? He had gone to Jerusalem because false teaching was coming from there to the Gentiles (15:1-2). After their visit, it was confirmed by the apostles that the Gentiles were not expected to keep the law (15:23-29). May the reader take note, that both Barnabas and Paul are spoken of as beloved by the apostles. Shriner may accuse Paul of lying when he spoke of himself as the apostle to the Gentiles, but will she also call the Lord a liar? In Acts 9:15, Jesus spoke to Ananias about Paul, ...he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. Oh, that's right, Shriner only accepts what is written in the book of Acts when it seems to agree with her position!! As to the un-corroborated and false charges against Peter , Shriner refers to Galatians 2:11-21. Yes, this occasion is uncorroborated by any other Bible text, but does that make if false? Shriner believes it is false because she hates Paul. Surely, if these were false charges, and if Paul was indeed a fake, Peter would have exposed him. But what do we see Peter saying about Paul? He commends him as a beloved brother (Acts 15:25; 2 Peter 3:15).