2.a. The Teacher Monitors the Test
The test of Paul's claim to be an apostle is "test one." The second test is of his fruit, for Jesus says that by their fruits, we shall know them (Matthew 7:15-20). So the second issue we can raise regarding Paul is his food menu, which comes with a license to sin in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 (and chapter 10, we can argue, as well), and his blasphemy in 1 Timothy 4:1-5. We will see how Paul says one thing but does another just like a Pharisee [and, later, Jesuits] would.
In Revelation 1:1, we are told that The Father gave Jesus a revelation who in turn gave the revelation to an Angel (Messenger) who in turn gave the revelation to John, who in turn gives it anyone who reads the book. In the book, part of the Revelation includes a rebuke by Jesus concerning an interesting issue: meat sacrificed to idols. Paul teaches that eating such things is ok according to one's "strong" conscience. We find that this Pauline Doctrine is opposed to James and the Apostles, and is even rebuked by Jesus himself who calls it the Doctrine of Balaam. Just as with the test concerning Paul's initial claim, we find the answers are given if we are careful in our analysis of scripture.
His noncommittal attitude to the Assembly's decision in Acts 15 (discussed more in depth later) didn't go unnoticed. Jesus Christ himself personally rebukes Paul's menu three times in Revelation (Revelation 2:6,14--Assembly at Ephesus; Revelation 2:14,15--Assembly at Pergamum; and Revelation 2:20--Assembly at Thyatira). Let's see Paul's menu and blasphemy and license to sin on full display:
Romans 14:1-3; 14-17 -- "One believes that he may eat all things" / "another, who is weak eateth herbs"(v.2) / Paul is convinced "by Jesus" that "Nothing is unclean itself"(v.14). Paul defines the "food issue" as a "doubtful disputation" (v.1); his conclusion is that "nothing is unclean itself" and that each party shouldn't judge or despise the other (v.1). Paul defines a strong person as someone who can eat anything; a weak person restricts their diet to "only herbs."
1 Corinthians 8:4,7-13 -- "We know an idol is nothing in the world" (Paul "knows" this--v.4); "Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge" (v.7) / "Take heed lest by any means this liberty [context: liberty to eat meat sacrificed to idols, v. 4] become a stumbling block to them that are weak [herb-only eaters]" (v.9) / "But food will not commend us to God" (he means whether we eat or abstain)(v.8). Paul very clearly identifies himself as having "knowledge that an idol is nothing" and who "has liberty" to eat food sacrificed to idols. He says, "Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." Paul said he becomes weak to the weak; but he also uses his "liberty" to eat things sacrificed to idols for he says, "I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." Paul will do "whatever it takes" to "save some"--even if it means eating meat sacrificed to idols! The Pharisee doth compass land and sea, indeed! (See Jesus in Matthew 23:15)
1 Corinthians 10:25-32 -- "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles [market], that eat, asking no question for conscience sake"(v.25) / [likewise...] "whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake"(v.27) / "Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the others': for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?"(v.29). Here, Paul says that it's ok to eat whatever is available in the market, or whatever is placed before you (like at a guest's house). Why? Because you have liberty to; Paul says, Why is my liberty to do this judged by another man's conscience? It's ok by mine!
The record shows that Paul's entire point in all three places is that this is a "doubtful" and "divisive" issue that doesn't matter unless it offends a "weaker brother." But Paul tells his readers that, despite that one condition, like himself, they otherwise have "liberty" to eat what they want. This is Paul's meaning when he says to the readers who embrace him that they are to "abstain from all 'appearance' of evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22). Moreover, he tells Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:1-5 that whoever teaches to abstain from meat is teaching a doctrine of demons. Paul is lying when he said not to judge others for being weak, did he not, for he is judging another man's conscience! The interesting fact of the matter is that this is a dire issue, not trivial as Paul would have you imagine (even though he contradicts himself); add to that the fact he was outnumbered by the Apostles and Jesus himself! It certainly wasn't a "doubtful disputation" or matter of conscience for Jesus if he spent time messaging John through an angel that such things were an abomination (Revelation 2). Jesus was offended by the doctrine. Does Paul think Jesus is weak?
As to the libel and slander in 1 Timothy 4:1-5, in Matthew 10:25 we read, "It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?" As we will see later, we find from historical record that James and the Apostles, and all the early assembly, including converting Gentiles, thus, ultimately Jesus himself, were strict vegetarian/ vegan, the exact "weak brothers" Paul has in mind. Because the Jesus/ Apostolic standard was that converting Gentiles should abstain from meats ["offered to idols"], Paul's statement to Timothy that such people are "teaching doctrines of devils" helps underscore the idea that Paul thought that "the other Christ" he rebukes is the true Jesus. Jesus expects us to take the same test and expose Paul, just as the Asian assemblies eventually did.