Here, we've reached our conclusion. For this, I'd like to revisit Don Stewart's article and the five reasons he presented for Paul's legitimacy. You may wonder why I didn't just answer Stewart's claims like this right away. The reason is I wanted to try and carefully explore the possible objections and see what evidence there was on both sides. It isn't enough to hear an argument and immediately disagree. After all, I started out as someone who wanted to believe Paul. That's why I read Don Stewart's article and others', too, for that matter. I wanted to build a case either for or against Paul, which meant there'd be more work required of me. So now I'm going to summarize my conclusion, which is based off my research presented in each of the other chapters. For the purpose of neatly summarizing our studies, I'll present Don's claims and then provide my rebuttals.

Paul believed his message was divine

Paul certainly believed his own message was divine, and many today will confess this. This is predicated on Paul's own testimony of meeting the risen and ascended Jesus on the road to Damascus. And if you believe the signs and wonders he did, then you have two reasons to believe this. However, in our three-part investigation[1] into that event, we have reason to believe Paul never met Jesus and therefore had no direct, divine revelation(s). And why should we believe otherwise? There are no witnesses to verify what happened. Paul's testimony of meeting the glorified Jesus is just as believable as Ellen G. White's, Joseph Smith's, or any other person's personal, fabricated testimony as an attempt at gaining such an office.  

Paul spoke of "My Gospel"

Paul says that if anyone preaches another Gospel than what he does, they should be accursed, anathema, and that they're agents of Satan himself. But we've shown that Paul's own Gospel is altogether different. from the Gospel of Jesus and the apostles. The evidence of this is felt in "churches" everywhere. According to many, Jesus and company preached to the Jews; Paul came preaching to the Gentiles. If you mix the two, you're "fallen from grace" and are counted "unsaved."

In reality, Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom was to the Jew and Gentile--the whole of mankind. His first mission was to bring this to the Jews, but they rejected it, whereupon Jesus himself said that he would take the Kingdom from the Jews and give it to another group bringing forth the fruit thereof. Prophecy also tells us that God's plan all along was to welcome Gentiles as his people, and he used the Jewish Messiah to accomplish this![2] How can Paul have "his" Gospel that's different from Peter's and Jesus'? 

The evidence: Paul received direct revelation from the Lord

No, Paul didn't. Are men's opinions God's inspirations? We've proven in our study on what Scripture is that Paul's writings certainly aren't inspired. What's worse, his writings don't even have the same authority, if any, when compared to the letters of actual apostles!  

Disobeying Paul's writings brings discipline

This is doubtful in light of the previous conclusion. Certainly Paul went to great lengths to censure his opponents and ensure people only heard what he taught. He assumed great power and authority, elevating himself above the true apostles. But what actual discipline results after neglecting to hear Paul? Jesus said, "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."[3] Paul wanted people "cut off" and excluded if they hinted they were opposed to him. While a healthy distance from apostasy and the world is warranted, such malice towards people isn't. While I understand why people would warn me of departing from Paul, my salvation isn't determined by Paul, it's determined by what Jesus did. Nothing more or less.  

His writings were considered scripture during his lifetime[4]

Once again, I'll disagree. Paul's writings weren't considered scripture. Don Stewart only cites Peter's alleged recommendation, but we've already considered at least three reasons why Peter wasn't endorsing Paul's epistles as Scripture. First, Peter makes a distinction between Scripture and Paul's letters, saying, to paraphrase, "Those who twist Scripture twist Paul's writings, too." Paul's writing is clearly distinguished from Scripture. Second, Hebrews 1:1,2 give us insight on the issue: Inspired Scripture was spoken by prophets of old, then by Jesus in the last days. Third, there's at least some reason to believe the passage in question in Peter's second epistle is a forgery. The entire passage reads seamlessly without verses 14-16. It's not hard to understand why the insertion would be made, especially in one of Peter's epistles.  


There's no reason to believe Paul is a divinely inspired Apostle who can benefit a follower of Jesus. Jesus alone has the words of eternal life. Jesus is the door to the sheepfold. Jesus is the greatest teacher there is. Every other writer, inspired or not, needs to be carefully interpreted by Jesus. When I've considered the evidence, I've come to believe Paul is a wolf, a robber, antichrist. One who should be forsaken.


Joh 8:31  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

Joh 13:35  By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Joh 15:8  Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.



[1] Damascus Road: Part A; Damascus Road: Part B; Damascus Road: Part C

[2] Isaiah 2:2, 42:1, 66:18; Matthew 24:14; Mark 11:17 to name a few

[3] Matthew 10:28

[4] Scripture?


This is an on going study and is subject to revisions according to further studies.