SECTION 1: Opening Statement | Approx. 5 minutes.
Introduction and Thesis--Paul: A God-Given Test
Is Paul a legitimate Apostle of the Lord Jesus? I used to think so, and I will endeavor to show why I no longer do. First, let's begin with Deuteronomy 13:1-5, which says, "If a prophet or someone who has dreams arises among you and proclaims a sign or wonder to you, 2 and that sign or wonder he has promised you comes about, but he says, ‘Let us follow other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us worship them,’ 3 do not listen to that prophet’s words or to that dreamer. For the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul." Let's test Paul's claim--Paul's sign and wonder--of having a miraculous encounter with Jesus and being deputized an Apostle. Here are five possibilities:
Jesus literally, physically appeared to Paul
Jesus was seen only in a vision
Paul was deceived by an evil spirit
Paul fabricated the entire story
Paul is a maniac who suffered delusions
We're more interested in the fist two claims because that's what most Christians will say. Whether or not Paul had a mere mental vision or a physical encounter is technically beside the point because Jesus said, in no uncertain terms, that post-ascension/ pre-return sightings of him are to be disbelieved. In Matthew 24:23-28 we read, "Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For wheresoever the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together." In verse 24, Jesus says there would arise false Christs and false prophets after he is ascended who will do signs and wonders, claiming to either be Christ or to have seen Christ. Remember Deuteronomy 13:1-5? Jesus gives us the same test. Paul claims to have seen Jesus in a desert place (Acts 9, 22, 26), while in a trance (Acts 22), and also while awaiting trial (Acts 23:11); Paul also cites his signs and wonders as proof of his Apostleship. Jesus warned us this would happen. Why don't Paulinists heed that warning?
Now if Paul only had visions, then how did his companions hear or see anything if it were only in Paul's mind? To that point: what could be more private and secret than that? But Paul is emphatic: "Have I not seen the Lord Jesus Christ?" The question is, "Why would Jesus tell us to disbelieve post-ascension, pre-return visions and meetings but then appear in post-ascension, pre-return visions and meetings?" My opponent has to prove that Jesus didn't intend us to apply such scrutiny towards Paul's claim in the same way we scrutinize others who make similar claims, such as Ellen White or Joseph Smith.
In addition to God's law and Jesus' warning, we're told what the qualifications of Apostleship are. In Acts chapter 1:15-26 Peter says the candidate was to be in company with Jesus from his baptism to his ascension. It's clear that an Apostle was one who was a direct eyewitness of the resurrection and ascension. Paul doesn't fit that criteria. Paul claims to have seen Jesus after those events took place: "And last of all he was seen of me also, as one born out of due time." Christians accept and admit that Paul's meetings on the road are about two to three years after Jesus already ascended, before Jesus returned for all eyes to see. Moreover, Paul has no witnesses. Two or three are required! (Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18:16). We don't know who was on that road with Paul. I would like to call those witnesses to the stand, but I can't. Besides, Paul's accounts in Acts 9, 22, and 26 contradict anyway as to who saw and heard what. And to all of these points, let's not forget that Ananias also claims to have encountered the Lord Jesus in a vision, or to at least heard a voice--again, this is prohibited in Matthew 24. And to add another layer of intrigue, why would Paul's violent mercenary companions take their leader to the house of a disciple of Jesus and leave him there? Weren't they out to destroy such people? Why leave an asset like Paul in the care of their sworn enemy? Were they also converted? We don't know! Are they Secret-Agent Men!?
Conclusion of Opening Statement
In great irony, Paul dismisses women from being able to speak or hold office in the assembly, yet the Marys and Martha, yea any woman who was with Jesus those many years, were more qualified to hold the office that he usurped because the women with Jesus were actual eyewitnesses of everything! I say to Paul that he should sit down, be quiet, and let the women who witnessed those things teach because Paul simply isn't an Apostle.
***
Additional Concluding Thoughts (Not Used In Debate): Despite Paul’s supposed miraculous encounter of the third kind, many people of his day, in churches he planted, stood in doubt of his claims. This skepticism of mine, therefore, is hardly a modern phenomenon of "textual criticism," "atheism," or a "hatred" for spiritual things. How can you expect me to entrust my spiritual nourishment to a man who has no evidence to his qualifications other than, "I'm not lying. I really saw him. You gotta believe me"? I have reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed. What's interesting is that all of the Asian assemblies had forsaken Paul. Why? The answer lies somewhere between the fact that his claims of having met or seen the true Jesus post-ascension/ pre-return are an impossibility. Let's add to that the fact that Jesus teaches a different Gospel from Paul; another reason is that Paul has a different "food" menu that's rebuke by Jesus. But the evidence I've presented here in the introductory statements is sufficient enough: Paul doesn't fit the criteria; Paul never met the true Jesus; therefore, Paul isn't an Apostle. Every other proof is interesting to discuss, and will be discussed in the remainder of this document; but, really, Paul's opinions on the subjects are irrelevant because his first claim of having met Jesus are false.