The claim that Paul wasn’t a true apostle or caused division falls apart under basic scrutiny. First, Paul didn’t "self-proclaim" his apostleship. His encounter with the risen Christ (Acts 9) was a direct commissioning by Jesus, and **both Peter and James**-the pillars of the Jerusalem church-**affirmed** his apostleship in Galatians 2:9. If Paul wasn’t legitimate, are you really prepared to say Peter and James got it wrong too? Second, your argument that Paul misinterpreted scripture, like in Galatians 3:13, shows a misunderstanding. Paul was explaining how Jesus’ death fulfilled the law, not that He was a criminal. This perfectly aligns with Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:17 about fulfilling the law, not abolishing it. The so-called contradiction between Paul and Luke’s resurrection accounts is just a difference between summary and detail-nothing more. And leaning on Clementine literature, a non-canonical source with questionable origins, over the New Testament makes your argument even weaker. You dismiss Paul’s writings, but then trust a revelation that came 600 years later (the Quran), with no direct link to eyewitnesses or historical evidence. If you’re applying this logic, how can you justify dismissing Paul while accepting the Quran? It’s inconsistent reasoning at best.
The claim that Paul wasn’t a true apostle or caused division falls apart under basic scrutiny. First, Paul didn’t "self-proclaim" his apostleship. His encounter with the risen Christ (Acts 9) was a direct commissioning by Jesus, and **both Peter and James**-the pillars of the Jerusalem church-**affirmed** his apostleship in Galatians 2:9. If Paul wasn’t legitimate, are you really prepared to say Peter and James got it wrong too? Second, your argument that Paul misinterpreted scripture, like in Galatians 3:13, shows a misunderstanding. Paul was explaining how Jesus’ death fulfilled the law, not that He was a criminal. This perfectly aligns with Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:17 about fulfilling the law, not abolishing it. The so-called contradiction between Paul and Luke’s resurrection accounts is just a difference between summary and detail-nothing more. And leaning on Clementine literature, a non-canonical source with questionable origins, over the New Testament makes your argument even weaker. You dismiss Paul’s writings, but then trust a revelation that came 600 years later (the Quran), with no direct link to eyewitnesses or historical evidence. If you’re applying this logic, how can you justify dismissing Paul while accepting the Quran? It’s inconsistent reasoning at best.