Was Paul an Apostle?

[Maranatha]

Angainor:

Paul’s ministry was commisioned directly by Jesus, that is Paul’s ministry was commisioned independantly of Peter’s chair.

Interesting conclusions can be drawn from that. In Catholicism, all priests must be commisioned from Peter’s chair. Was Paul meant to be the only exception?

That matter of who appoints the bishops has been a contentions issue throughout history. At times the Pope appointed them. At other times it was the local royalty or state. Some Popes were appointed and not elected. Even now China want to appoint the “official” bishops in China. When Protestant churches like the Anglicans broke away, the appointment of bishops was one of the reasons given for the break.

I think we need to separate the appointment of bishops from the issue of those bishops submission to Rome on the matters of dogma.

 

[RonWI]

In Acts 6, the “increasing” number of disciples is distinguished from the original apostles. This distinction is important because in Acts 9, we read:

18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. 21All those who heard him were astonished and asked, “Isn’t he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn’t he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?” 22Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ.

I see no indication that Paul “went to Peter” prior to preaching the Gospel. Rather, he was “with the disciples”. As we see in Chapter 6, “disciples” is distinguished from the 12 apostles.

 

[Maranatha]

RonWI:

In Acts 6, the “increasing” number of disciples is distinguished from the original apostles. This distinction is important because in Acts 9, we read:

18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. 21All those who heard him were astonished and asked, “Isn’t he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn’t he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?” 22Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ.

I see no indication that Paul “went to Peter” prior to preaching the Gospel. Rather, he was “with the disciples”. As we see in Chapter 6, “disciples” is distinguished from the 12 apostles.

The way I understand it, Jesus always had more disciples than apostles. In the CC we can equate the disciples with the religious orders. The apostles are a subset that in the CC include just the bishops.

 

[RonWI]

Maranatha:

The way I understand it, Jesus always had more disciples than apostles. In the CC we can equate the disciples with the religious orders. The apostles are a subset that in the CC include just the bishops.

I still see no basis for concluding that the reference in verse 19 to “the disciples” means Paul went to Peter.

Regardless of your understanding, when the writer of Acts meant the apostles, that is the word he used. See Chapter 6. In Chapter 9, the reference is to “the disciples”, not to the apostles or to Peter.

Paul received his call from Jesus, and immediately began proclaiming the Gospel to the Gentiles.

 

[DavidB]

Some clarification is needed here again. While Paul did immediately begin proclaiming Jesus as the Christ based on his personal encounter with Jesus and while he continued to gain strength, he also did have an opportunity to be with Peter shortly afterwards before going away to Tarsus for years. So it’s safe to assume that Paul’s early message was fundamental in nature and not fully mature and that in his brief time with Peter and the other Apostles, they did teach him some things. However, the core of his message to the Gentiles was not yet present, and must have come later, because he would have had the opportunity to check it out with Peter and the others at that time rather than have to return 20 years later for a message validation as he did.

Here’s scriptural proof that Paul did meet with Peter early on.

From Acts:
"Now (AD) for several days he was with (AE) the disciples who were at Damascus, 20and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus (AF)in the synagogues, saying, “He is (AG)the Son of God.” 21All those hearing him continued to be amazed, and were saying, “Is this not he who in Jerusalem (AH)destroyed those who (AI)called on this name, and who had come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?” 22But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ. 23When (AJ)many days had elapsed, (AK)the Jews plotted together to do away with him, 24but (AL)their plot became known to Saul (AM)They were also watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death; 25but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a large basket. 6(AN)When he came to Jerusalem, he was trying to associate with the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. 27But (AO)Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had (AP)seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how (AQ)at Damascus he had (AR)spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. "

 

[Christy_Beth]

When it came to doctrinal issues, Peter was consulted. Jesus had appointed Peter His shepherd. “Feed my sheep,” “feed my lambs.” So, Peter was appointed, by Christ, as the head of the church. Paul went to him with this in mind. Of course, that isn’t to say that Peter didn’t make mistakes. As Paul said, he confronted Peter. This is to show, I believe, that we are to let others know when we are aware of their sin. This would give that person a chance to reform. We are all called to be accountable to each other.

 

[Psalm45_9]

St. Paul is an Apostle, however he is not one of the 12. St. Barnabas is also known as an Apostle and St. Mary Magdalene is called The Apostle of the Apostles.

 

[MBS1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MBS1
*I think scripturally we can conclude that despite being an apostle chosen by Jesus, Paul still did not have all the answers. He still needed instruction by Peter and the other apostles. *
God Bless,
MBS1

Nope. You can’t make that conclusion at all since it contradicts Paul’s direct testimony in which he says NO ONE TAUGHT HIM EXCEPT GOD. It’s in Galatians in chapter 1, “11For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”
David

I think you are reading more into this passage than it actually says. I would venture to say that this passage is true of all of the apostles, not just Paul. The gospel was given to Peter and the rest by Jesus, not by man. However, it does take the Holy Spirit to let them know what the gospel means. Just look at the first Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Just knowing revelation does not imply that one automatically knows what it means. Please read the verses I quoted in post #10. They all point to Paul spending time with Peter and the apostles for some purpose. The quote from Galatians 2 is especially telling. If Paul knew the all the meaning of the gospel he received, why did he have to communicate what he received to the apostles so he was sure he had “not run in vain”. Should he not be saying that he told the apostles what it meant so that THEY would not run in vain? It is clear in Galatians, just as it is clear in Acts that Paul needed verification as to what the Gospel meant.

Since I agree with DavidB in Post #19, and Post #25, I will say that the way I worded Post #10 must have been poorly done for DavidB to disagree. My thought process is that in order to verify something to someone, you have to teach them what it means.That is the instruction I was discussing in Post #10.

Thanks. This is a fun topic to discuss. However, since scripture does quote Paul as saying he is an apostle (as RonWi shows in post #4), does anyone here actually disagree with scripture on this question?
MBS1

 

[MBS1]

Psalm45:9St. Paul is an Apostle, however he is not one of the 12. St. Barnabas is also known as an Apostle and St. Mary Magdalene is called The Apostle of the Apostles.

I could not find the quote, but an early church father called St. Mary Magdalene the apostle to the apostles because she told them that Jesus had risen from the dead. The word apostle can mean “messenger”, and it is in this context that it is used. This does imply that she has apostolic status, the same as the twelve. It is really only in apocryphal literature like the Gnostic Gospels does she end up seeming to be equal to the apostles, and not in scripture or the early church fathers. Does anyone know who first called her the apostle to the apostles?
MBS1

 

[jimmytoes]

MBS1:

Jimmytoes noted, “From the time of his conversion through his being “sent” to the gentiles, there is no mention of his being instructed, yet there is mention of his preaching right after the scales fell from his eyes.”

Actually, this is not true. In Acts 15 it says that Paul and Barnabas “had no small contest” (Acts 15:2) with the Judiazers who felt circumcision was still needed to be saved. He needed the advice and instuction of the Church on this issue (he apparently couldn’t settle the issue on his own, else why would he have to go to the apostles in Jerusalem?). Therefore, he and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to get the answer, which after much debate was settled by Peter (Acts 15 7-11).

In addition, while Paul did preach some on his own right after that scales fell, he soon went to Arabia (Gal 1:17) which theologians feel was when he was taught the Gospel by Christ. He was there 3 years, and came back to Jerusalem specifically to “see Peter” (Gal 1:18). He stayed with Peter for two weeks. Do you think Paul spent this time with no instruction from Peter?

We also see in Gal 2:1-2 - that he went away again for 14 years. When he came back (this time with Titus), to Jerusalem he again went to the apostles to the communicate the Gospel as he knew it, “lest perhaps I should run, or had run in vain.” Now that is an interesting quote from Paul. It would seem he was verifying his instruction in the gospel with theirs to be sure what he (Paul) was preaching was “not in vain.” I’m not sure how else one would interpret this.

I think scripturally we can conclude that despite being an apostle chosen by Jesus, Paul still did not have all the answers. He still needed instruction by Peter and the other apostles.
God Bless,
MBS1

Thanks for the cites. A lot of interesting posts here.

 

[Funky_Cedars]

MBS1:

…It is really only in apocryphal literature like the Gnostic Gospels does [Mary Magdelene] end up seeming to be equal to the apostles, and not in scripture or the early church fathers…

just as a note of interest, in the martyrology of the Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church, july 22 is the feastday of St Mary Magdelene, who is called ‘myrrh-bearer and *Equal to the Apostles’. *
on may 11, we celebrate the feastday of Sts Cyril and Methodius, on may 21, the feastday of St Constantine, and on july 15, the feastday of St Vldimir the Great. all of these are also given the title, Equal to the Apostles.
in addition, we give the title of Apostle to several saints who were not amongst the 12 including the protomartyr, St Stephen.

Christ is risen!