Weebly Criticism / Jason Dulle Criticism

Another criticism of "Jesus Words Only" is to group Paul as one of the apostles, and say if one of the apostles was in error such as Paul, then Matthew or John in their gospels could be wrong, and thus anyone who attacks Paul's validity is the same as attacking the validity of the gospels.

You will find this argument at The Truth Ministries of Mr. Weebly. You will also find it at Jason Dulle's page at this link: http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/jesuswords.htm

However, there are several flaws in this argument.

1. Jesus said the true apostles would be inspired in recollecting the words of Jesus (John 14:26). Jesus never said that the 12 were henceforth inspired prophets in every word they said or did except to the extent it was a recollection of something Jesus said;

2. Paul never quotes Jesus except the last supper passage from Luke, and thus the validity of the gospels is never in doubt by questioning Paul. Hence, what makes the gospels valid as inspired has no applicability to make the words of Paul valid as inspired.

3. Even if we ignored that important scope of apostolic inspiration, Jesus never calls Paul an apostle in the three vision accounts recorded in the book of Acts -- chapters 9, 22, and 26. The Jesus of this encounter says Paul will be a MARTUS -- a witness (which I do not dispute Paul served as when Paul proclaimed Jesus Messiah and Son of God), but this Jesus never says Paul will be an APOSTOLOS -- an apostle. Hence, if everything an apostle says, does or writes is inspired (which is contrary to what Jesus said would be the scope of inspiration), Paul was not called an apostle by Jesus in the accounts that Paul had 2 companions with him and which were recorded by Luke.

4. Paul alone says he is an APOSTOLOS of Jesus. But Jesus in Rev. 2:2 says someone who told the Ephesians that he was an apostle was not truthful, which means Jesus teaches us that a self-serving claim to apostleship is not sufficient proof of apostleship. Jesus elsewhere said His own status as Son of God depended upon two witnesses == "my own witness would not be true" (John 5:31) - and Jesus was validated by the voice of the Father from heaven at both his Baptism and Transfiguration in front of multiple witnesses. And thus, the proof that one is an apostle cannot come only from one's own mouth. That is all Paul has. Hence, under the Lord's principle to that effect in Revelation 2:2 (one who says he is an apostle was correctly found false) is the final word on that issue.

Conclusion

Thus, the logic of the argument of Dulles and the Weebly website is faulty. Questioning Paul's interpretations, as the Bereans did, is perfectly Biblical. Also questioning someone's self-serving claim to Apostleship, as did the Ephesians, is commended by no less a figure than our Divine Lord Jesus Christ in Rev. 2:2.

To try to tie the validity of Jesus's Gospels written by John and Matthew to Paul is incorrect. It goes to show that those defending Paul know they must retreat to some other ground than Paul's own validity. It is a desperate manouever to take advantage of the common assumption that Paul was as much an apostle as the 12, and then tie Paul's validity into the validity of the true 12.

However, as Jesus Words Only proves, that assumption that the Bible proves Paul was an apostle is unfounded. As Jesus commended in Rev. 2:2, we are duty-bound to test Paul's self-serving claim to apostleship. And we must aslo test whether every word of Paul is inspired. If Paul contradicts Jesus, as I demonstrate Paul repeatedly does, then we have the proof we need not to follow Paul, but follow only our Lord Jesus Christ. For a list of contradictions, see Paul's Contradictions of Jesus. If Paul contradicts Torah, as he repeatedly does, God likewise commands us to ignore him in Deut. 13:1-5.

None of Paul's defenders have yet in 7 years since Jesus Words Only was published been willing to address these key issues. This makes me more certain every day that they know there is no rebuttal possible. They must revert to efforts to take advantage of common unfounded beliefs that Paul was an apostle, and then try to avert the attention of sincere Christians to listen further to the very valid question being raised whether there is any Biblical basis for the common belief that Paul was an apostle, prophet, etc.