But that NO is not at all clear. He wanted to be influential and he became so. Mission accomplished. Convincing others that God spoke to him was obviously very helpful.
Peter’s letters were saved. John’s letters were saved. Jude’s letter was saved. That doesn’t mean Paul made everything up for the sake of earthly “power”.
They didn't need to make up anything, they actually knew Jesus during his lifetime.
Sometimes, but not all time. Also, he gave advice, not just directives. And none of that shows that Paul made everything up for the sake of earthly “power”.
It shows he gained the influence he clearly wanted.
And he met with other Church leaders. So? None of that shows that Paul made everything up for the sake of earthly “power”.
It shows that he was one of the church leaders. He had power and influence in this growing religion.
So totalitarian regimes only imprison and execute those who are “dangerous”? None of that shows that Paul made everything up for the sake of earthly “power”.
Uhm... yeah, they tend to focus on the dangerous ones. Unless you want to tell me why they killed him. Did they not like his hair?
Malchus was name of the man whose ear was cut off by Peter. I know his name because it’s in the gospel of John. Was he influential?
I dunno, vlad, are we on a thread titled "Did Malchus invent Christianity?"
I’m not playing a game, but you sure are jumping around like you’re playing hopscotch.
No, my point has been simple and clear from the beginning. Like others on this thread, I wonder if Paul hijacked or invented Christianity.
“If Paul had not become a leading figure in the development of Christianity, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”
Sure we would - because your claim was that he did what he did to gain “power”.
No we wouldn't, because if he had not become a leading figure, I'd have never heard of him. So no, we would not be having this conversation. Indeed, this entire thread would not exist.
You acknowledge that the Apostles all knew Jesus and walked with him while he was on earth, but you deny that Paul could have had a similar experience with the risen Jesus and been used by God to further the knowledge and understanding of the Christian faith? Since we know from the writings OF those other Apostles that they believed the claims Paul made and they whole-heartedly approved of his ministry and supported his work, then how is it that you - two thousand years removed from the scene - can declare you know what Paul was up to and it was ONLY to gain power and prestige and not from a sincere heart and divinely-ordained mission?
You don't even believe in God much less who Jesus was, so why are you arguing with Christians about Paul's place in the Christian faith? If it was Thaddeus, for example, that God used to write the majority of the New Testament and he said the same things God led Paul to write, would you be dumping on him instead? Is the real reason you don't like Paul because he said some things you didn't like hearing? Things that annoy or bother you concerning women back then? Or is it really that you think Christians are fools for believing what we do and this was a good opportunity to express it?
Vladimir99 and others have given you some pretty good arguments that dispute your ideas about Paul and his motives and you barely acknowledge them. I hope you understand that it is not you specifically that is being criticized here but the false and illogical ideas you have expressed. I hope you will thoughtfully reconsider what has been said to you.
Interesting.
Why do you care?
“But that NO is not at all clear. He wanted to be influential and he became so.”
No. There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that he “wanted” to become influential. None. He did what he did out of sense of religious duty. That is the only possible explanation for his actions as both a Jew and a Christian. He knew he was going to be persecuted. You keep avoiding that fact.