37). “Paul says it’s better to not get married like him. The Torah says otherwise. “It is not good for man to be alone”.

REBUKE: In 1 Corinthians 7:6-9, Paul states the following: “But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn”. 

Here, Paul is talking about the “spiritual gift” of “singleness” vs. the “spiritual blessing of marriage”. He says that “singleness” is a slightly higher spiritual calling than being married.

However, Paul doesn’t discount marriage but rather, upholds it. Paul is confirming that married souls are to “be as one flesh”, “one body”, “one soul” and “one mind” (more or less AFFIRMING Jesus’s words in Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9!) Paul says that some people are CALLED to be married, while OTHERS are NOT called to be married! And that’s very much TRUE, according to the bible! Look at Hosea, who was called to be married to a prostitute! And to Jeremiah, who was CALLED TO BE SINGLE ALL HIS DAYS!?

And when Paul is saying that he wished all men were like him, it was NOT for selfish, egotistical purposes as it might first appear on the surface. But rather, he was saying in his heart that he wished ALL men had “24/7” to devote to Christ and Christ’s gospel! For a married spouse is more concerned with “worldly things” (such as how to please their spouse, rather than how to please God!) However, like I said, Paul is NOT denouncing marriage. He talks all throughout 1 Corinthians 7 on the IMPORTANCE of marriage, about how two “become as one”, etc.

And as far as I can see, Paul gives a very easy descriptor of those that are “called” to marriage; they simply “can not control their lusts” for a very specific person of the opposite gender! For he says that those who are called to “singleness”, by CONTRAST, will, by the power of God, easily be able to DEFEAT any lustful thoughts or temptations and remain “pure” and live a “celibate lifestyle”. We also don’t know if Paul was NEVER married OR if he was at some point and was “widowed” by the time he was called to ministry! But what we DO know is that Paul is making some very clear “distinctions” between “married life” and “single life”.

38). “Paul’s teaching of abstinence above all lead to sexual immorality among church leaders for centuries, and it still continues”.

REBUKE: Paul did NOT preach “abstinence ABOVE ALL”. Lets re-examine 1 Corinthians 7:2 again! 1 Corinthians 7:2-5 says the following: “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency“. 

So in other words, Paul ONLY taught abstinence OUTSIDE of marriage. While INSIDE a marriage, Paul taught husbands and wives to GIVE SEXUAL AFFECTION TO ONE ANOTHER – for to do otherwise – in a MARRIAGE – was “sin” and giving a foothold to Satan! And true, several “religious leaders” over time HAVE taken Paul’s words OUT OF CONTEXT and started whole “religious movements of abstinence” (i.e. Catholic priests, Buddhist Monks, etc.) But that is NOT Paul’s fault!

If I myself were to write a memoir and people 100 years into the future misinterpreted what I said and started a “false religious movement” BASED off that MAJOR “misinterpretation” of MY written work, how would that be MY fault? Think about it, folks! Answer: It wouldn’t be! And just like it wouldn’t be MY fault but the misinterpreters’ own fault(s), neither is it Paul’s fault for “religious leaders” MISINTERPRETING his written words SEVERAL years after his death!

Also as well: how is Paul (now long dead) responsible for THEIR SEXUAL SINS *due* to their misinterpretation/false teaching OF his written words? If those same people who, 100 years from now, misinterpreted my written words then partook of a MAJOR sin DUE to that misinterpretation, would “I” (a person long dead by then) then be responsible for THEIR SINS? I think NOT! So it is with Paul!

39). “Paul says he, “being crafty, caught you with guile”.

REBUKE: Being “crafty” doesn’t necessarily mean that one is being “malicious” or “evil”. Let me think of an example. If a 19-year old boy still lives at home and has no job and his father is trying to get “junior” to get a job. So the father goes out and strategically and secretly places tree branches under junior’s tires to see rather or not junior had gone physically job-applying that day or not. And then, at the end of the day, the “sticks” were still in the same spot under junior’s tires, so the father KNEW his son had NOT gone physically job applying like he promised his father he would. The father, by non-evil “craftiness”, found his son “full of guile” and “deceit!”

And so it was with Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:16 in which Paul states, “But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile”.

So in other words, this is the moment in time when Paul (I’m assuming this is when Paul went to go back and “check” on a church he had originally planted, earlier?), being non-maliciously crafty (much like the “father” in the example above), found “deceit/guile” IN the church (the one he had planted or taught in, earlier?) When Paul says in the passage: “I DID NOT BURDEN YOU”, Paul is letting us know how much he LOVED this “church” that he was so-called “going back to check on/inquire about”. That tells me that the type of “crafty” Paul employed was NOT evil or malicious but yet, humble, loving and long-suffering.

Afterall, the father in the above example only LOVINGLY wants what’s BEST for his son, just like Paul only LOVINGLY wants what’s best for God’s people! “Caught you with guile”. OUCH! Think about those words, folks! Think about how it must’ve grieved Paul AT HIS VERY HEART to have to think, then to verbally SAY those words! Like, imagine in the example given up above when the father is FORCED to confront his son with the TRUTH that he’s discovered: “Junior! You LIED to me! You didn’t go job-applying like you told me you would!”

When and if junior tries to defend himself (just as I’m sure it’s likely the church tried to defend ITSELF against Paul’s accusation of “guile” being found among them – atleast at first, anyways), the father then would’ve had to say to his beloved son: “WITH CRAFTINESS, I CAUGHT YOU!” And then when he SHOWED “Junior” the PROOF of what he had found, “Junior” would’ve then had nothing to say for himself, just as the church would’ve had nothing to say for ITSELF once confronted with the PROOF that Paul had that THEY were full of deceit and guile!

40). “Paul says it’s OK to lie, as long as it leads people to Christ (Romans 3:7)”.

REBUKE: This one, like many before, was taken WAY OUT OF CONTEXT! Romans 3:7 states: “For IF the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?”

There, Paul is asking his congregants a philosophical question. Many at the time were persecuting Paul, calling him a false prophet, accusing him of lying and everything else under the sun. So Paul, in his defense, more or less asked the congregants a question of rational and deductive reasoning: “IF my lie caused the gospel of salvation to prosper and glorified God in the process, then why am I still judged as a sinner?“

In other words, Paul is saying between the lines that God is a God of truth and can NOT lie, so neither can HE, for it would serve NO THEOLOGICAL OR PRACTICAL PURPOSE! In another sense, he’s also implying that LIES can NOT prosper the gospel of salvation but if they ever do, it would serve the person telling the lie NO PURPOSE since that individual will have given all that “testimony of God” FOR NOTHING since they would be eternally judged as an “unrepentant sinner!” And Paul, as we know, was about as “religious” and “over-zealous” for Jesus/the gospel as one can GET!

Therefore, it stands to reason: if the gospel “so-called” prospered by Paul’s “so-calling” lying, and Paul KNEW he’d go straight to hell when he died, why would Paul put himself through all that? The threat of persecution, DEATH? The loss of “FINANCIAL SECURITY and PRESTIGE” among the Pharisees, the “loss of reputation and livelihood” among the Pharisees? Being HATED by MANY? He risked ALL THAT for a LIE? I don’t think so! A person ONLY risks all of those things if they were doing it for something or someone that they 100% BEYOND ALL SHADOW OF A DOUBT BELIEVE IN! Otherwise, a person would NOT risk everything for “said person” or “said thing”, that’s just human nature, folks! 

41). “Paul says to be all things to all people, a subtle doctrine of deceit”.

REBUKE: It’s NOT deceit to relate to people at their own pace and on their own level! 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 states: “For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you”.

At first glance, it might appear as though Paul was trying to be “the master of disguises”. But that’s NOT what Paul was doing there. He was simply meeting them at their own spiritual pace, and on their OWN level! That would be no different than if I were to learn everything I possibly could about the Hindu religion before preaching about Christ to the Hindu! I would be doing myself a SERIOUS disservice if I knew nothing firsthand about the Hindu religion BEFORE preaching about Christ to the Hindu. Not to mention the Hindu themselves would also probably think: “Oh, so you think you’re better than me and that YOUR religion is better than MINE, do you? Away with you!”

But yet, if I LEARN everything I can about the Hindu religion BEFORE preaching Christ to the Hindu, I’d have a much better chance conversing with the Hindu about Christ! Plus the Hindu would then be more “receptive” to what I was saying about Christ, if they knew that “I” knew about their Hindu religion or where they were currently “at”. Paul met people where they are “at” and didn’t expect them to be at the “same pace” as HIM! He meant them at their own pace and didn’t try to FORCE them to do ANYTHING, other than to be receptive to Christ’s love for mankind during his sacrifice on the cross for our sins! Therefore, we can all learn ALOT from Paul and his preaching style!

42). “There are only 12 foundations on New Jerusalem, with the 12 disciples’ names written on them, Paul makes 13″.

Rebuke: Paul NEVER said or claimed to be “one of the 12!” In Galatians 1:12, Paul says: “For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ”. There, Paul is letting us know that he got his authority to “teach the gospel” from Christ HIMSELF! And though he called himself “apostle” and fellowshipped with the other apostles, he never ONCE called himself a member of the original 12! He also never assigned himself a number of any sorts! Therefore, since Paul NEVER claimed to be one of the 12, and NEVER claimed any “number”, he ALSO never claimed that his name was gonna be featured on one of the 12 foundations on New Jerusalem!

[Disclaimer: Judas Iscariot “betrayed” the Lord. So will the 12th foundation STILL have Judas’s name on it? Or will it be replaced by Matthias? Or could it POSSIBLY be replaced by Paul? We simply don’t know, folks! Only God The Heavenly Father knows!]

43). “There are only 12 gates leading into New Jerusalem, where’s Paul’s?”

REBUKE: The 12 FOUNDATIONS of the walls are composed of 12 apostle names while the 12 GATES are the names of JACOB’S 12 SONS! Therefore, Paul would NOT be named on ANY of the 12 GATES since the 12 GATES are named after Jacob’s 12 sons (Reuben, Judah, Joseph, Benjamin, Simeon, Issachar, Zebulon, Naphtali, Levi, Asher, Gad, and Dan).

[Disclaimer: The tribe of Dan “disgraced the Lord” and was “cast out” – much like Judas Iscariot was. So will Dan STILL have a gate named after him? Or will it be replaced by Manasseh – Joseph’s younger son – whose tribe REPLACED Dan in the 12 tribes of Israel? Or will it instead possibly be named David after King David? Again, only God the Heavenly Father knows!]

44). “Paul quotes writings of Euripedes (406B.C.) and claims it to be the words of the Messiah (“kick against the pricks”)”.

REBUKE: The play called “Baccae” by Euripedes was written around 406B.C. while the letters of Paul are estimated to be written around 50 to 58A.D. – So yes. In retrospect, The Baccae by Euripedes was written FIRST, several hundred years before Paul’s gospels, sure. However – the Old Testament Jewish scriptures had been in circulation LONG BEFORE any “Greek play” hit the Earth. Therefore, it’s FAR more possible that Greek “plays” borrowed from the Old Testament scriptures, than the Old Testament scriptures borrowing from THEM! Therefore, if any New Testament writers borrowed from any Greek plays (who more than likely borrowed from Old Testament scriptures), then it wouldn’t mean much in retrospect.

Eusebius of Caesarea, wrote in his work “The Preparation of the Gospel”, and argued the case in great detail that Plato learned from Moses, etc., for instance. Plus we also knew that Luke was Paul’s personal secretary and was “Greek-educated”. So did Luke himself insert the words “kick against the pricks?” Quite possibly. But if so, did Luke do so with deceitful intentions? Ofcourse not. He may’ve possibly only did that so that the Greek “converts” to Jesus would have a much better, richer understanding of who Jesus the Messiah WAS! 

But regardless. Rather Paul and Luke borrowed from the ancient Greek play or not [and just for the record, I don’t think they did], it still doesn’t change the fact that A) Jesus appeared to Paul and that B) Jesus “commissioned” Paul to preach the gospel. And think about it folks, if Paul “lied” about his “spiritual visitation from the ressurected Jesus”, then why would he risk his LIFE, his REPUTATION, his FINANCES, his good, cushy societal standing in the synagogue/with Rome, etc. just to be “popular” among those he had previously severely persecuted/killed, knowing FULL WELL that now HE would now be A HUMAN TARGET at risk for being severely persecuted and possibly KILLED for his *newfound faith in Jesus?* That doesn’t make any sense, whatsoever!

Therefore, in conclusion, it’s FAR more likely that Paul REALLY DID have a supernatural experience with Jesus that filled him with SO MUCH DREAD/FEAR of going AGAINST Jesus (as he had previously done) to now desperately wanting to SERVE JESUS in any way he could, in order to save him FROM THE WRATH OF THE ONE HE HAD PREVIOUSLY PERSECUTED! And sure, it took him “three full days” to come to terms with what he had just seen and experienced. But think about it, folks. Think about if YOU had been Saul in that position and had had the total, divine visitation that he had had of the VERY THING you made an occupation out of PERSECUTING! Wouldn’t that also throw YOU for a “mental” and “spiritual’ loop for 2-3 days? Answer: it WOULD and anyone that says otherwise is most likely LYING! 

[P.S.: For a Modern-day human being to compare Jesus’s own words to the words of Euripedes is the HEIGHT of spiritual blasphemy! I pray that any and ALL modern-day souls who do that WILL REPENT!!!!!]

45). “Paul taught popular doctrines of stoicism instead of the law (deny the flesh)”.

REBUKE: In Acts 17:16-21, it states, “Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him. Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoics, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)”

So in summary: Paul was waiting for some of his spiritual companions at Athens. He’s GRIEVED to discover that the city is wholly given over to IDOLATRY! Therefore, Paul starts speaking out AGAINST IDOLATRY! And the Hellenistic Epicureans and Stoics then become interested in Paul’s preaching for he seems to be preaching “a new thing” (salvation and faith in Jesus Christ, alone!) And much like Buddhism, stoicism tells its followers to “deny themselves physical pleasures – IN GENERAL – in order to attain a degree of higher spirituality”. 

Paul teaches ABSTINENCE OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE, while it may “appear” somewhat similar to stoicism and Buddhism at first glance –  is totally DIFFERENT from what the Stoics/Buddhists later taught! So I’m not seeing the point being made here…..? From what I can see in Acts 17, Paul was ANTI-STOIC…. 

46). “Paul has no witnesses to his conversion”.

REBUKE: Paul’s conversion story can be found in Acts Chapters 9, 22, and 26. Each account has slightly different literary details, yes. But one thing is consistent, all throughout. The two “witnesses” to Paul’s conversion are A) his traveling companions and B) a Christian man by the name of Ananias. Note: The internet is chalk FULL about the traveling companions of Paul AFTER his conversion. But not BEFORE his conversion. Those sources are a little bit more harder to come by. Nevertheless, if and when I find out who any of THOSE pre-conversion travel companions were of Paul’s, I will list and add them here. 

47). “The early Ebionite and Nazarene churches utterly rejected Paul as a false apostle”.

REBUKE: In Acts 24:5-6, it says: “For we [The Pharisees/Sanhedrin] have found this man [Paul] a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law”.

Verses 14-15 then go on to say: “But this I [Paul] confess unto thee, that after the way [Ebionites] which they [The Jewish Pharisees] call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: And have hope toward God, which they [The Jewish Pharisees] themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust”.

And upon reading the ENTIRE chapter of Acts 24, it becomes readily apparent that only THE PHARISEES/SANHEDRIN reject Saul-turned-Paul as a “false apostle of/to the Jews”, NOT the Nazarenes or Ebionites!  

48). “The other disciples did not believe Paul was a disciple in Acts 9”.

REBUKE: Acts 9:26-28 states: “And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem“.

Translation? The 12 disciples (now included with Matthias in place of Judas?) weren’t sure if they could “trust” Paul’s “genuineness” at first. And that’s to be perfectly understandable. For imagine if a jihadist-Christian-beheading-RADICAL-MUSLIM, who had most recently been “indicted” for KILLING Christians, then had a seeming “change of heart” and walked into a MAJOR Christian church JUST THREE DAYS LATER and said: “I’ve had an encounter with Jesus, I want to co-pastor!” Imagine how ANY Christian pastor would IMMEDIATELY REACT! They would FEAR! They would likely say: “No! You’re not gonna kill me or my congregants! Get outta here before I call the cops! NOW!” Therefore, is it ANY WONDER that the 12 disciples who were with Jesus weren’t 100% sure at first if Paul was “trolling” them or not? Think about it, folks! 

49). “The true apostles did not defend Paul when he was imprisoned and questioned”.

REBUKE: Paul’s “imprisonment” is discussed in Acts chapters 24-28, Acts 16:23-24, Philemon 1:1-25, among possible other places in the New Testament that I’m not yet aware of. At VERY first scriptural glance, it DOES appear as though no-one defended Paul as he was being imprisoned and questioned.

However, in Acts 20:36-38, [RIGHT AFTER PAUL TELLS THEM HE’S ABOUT TO BE ARRESTED OVER IN JERUSALEM], it says: “And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all. And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul’s neck, and kissed him, Sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more. And they accompanied him unto the ship”.

Then again, in Acts 21:4 “And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem“.

And again in Acts 21:8-12 “And the next day we that were of Paul’s company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus. And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem”.

Translation? Many of Paul’s friends (including some of disciples themselves, most likely) were WARNING PAUL NOT TO GO TO JERUSALEM, as to try to make Paul not get arrested! 

But in the next verse, in Acts 21:13-14, it says, “Then Paul answered, ‘What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done“.

Translation? Paul was “ready to die for Christ, if need be”. And once the disciples and Paul’s friends ACCEPTED that fact, they CEASED warning him about going to Jerusalem and all said in unison: “The will of the Lord be done”. In other words, the disciples and many of Paul’s followers tried to talk him OUT of going to Jerusalem, where they KNEW he’d be arrested and possibly killed. But Paul INSISTED on dying for Christ and couldn’t be persuaded otherwise, therefore, they [the disciples and others] were willing to “let go and let God”, as the saying goes. 

50). “Paul’s conversion story is almost identical to that of Pentheus, King of Thebes from the play titled Baccae, written 400 years earlier. Dionysus (instead of “Jesus”) is confronting his persecutor and states “You disregard my words of warning….and kick against the pricks, a man defying god”.

REBUKE: This one’s a “rehash” of number 44 on the list. Nevertheless, I will provide the same rebuke since number 44 and number 50 are practically one and the same:

The play called “Baccae” by Euripedes was written around 406B.C. while the letters of Paul are estimated to be written around 50 to 58A.D. – So yes. In retrospect, The Baccae by Euripedes was written FIRST, several hundred years before Paul’s gospels, sure. However – the Old Testament Jewish scriptures had been in circulation LONG BEFORE any “Greek play” hit the Earth. Therefore, it’s FAR more possible that Greek “plays” borrowed from the Old Testament scriptures, rather than the Old Testament scriptures borrowing from THEM! Therefore, if any New Testament writers borrowed from any Greek plays (who more than likely borrowed from Old Testament scriptures), then it wouldn’t mean much in retrospect.

Eusebius of Caesarea, wrote in his work “The Preparation of the Gospel”, and argued the case in great detail that Plato learned from Moses, etc., for instance. Plus we also knew that Luke was Paul’s personal secretary and was “Greek-educated”. So did Luke himself insert the words “kick against the pricks” specifically for his Greek-speaking audience? Quite possibly. But if so, did Luke do so with deceitful intentions? Ofcourse not! He may’ve possibly only did that so that the Greek “converts” to Jesus would have a much better, richer understanding of who Jesus the Messiah WAS! 

But regardless. Rather Paul and Luke borrowed from the ancient Greek play or not [and just for the record, I don’t think they did], it still doesn’t change the fact that A) Jesus appeared to Paul and that B) Jesus “commissioned” Paul to preach the gospel. And think about it folks, if Paul “lied” about his “spiritual visitation from the ressurected Jesus”, then why would he risk his LIFE, his REPUTATION, his FINANCES, his good, cushy societal standing in the synagogue/with Rome, etc. just to be “popular” among those he had previously severely persecuted/killed, knowing FULL WELL that now HE would now be A HUMAN TARGET at risk for being SEVERELY persecuted and possibly KILLED for his *newfound faith in Jesus?* That doesn’t make any sense, whatsoever!

Therefore, in conclusion, it’s FAR more likely that Paul REALLY DID have a supernatural experience with Jesus that filled him with SO MUCH DREAD/FEAR of going AGAINST Jesus (as he had previously done) that he was now, from that point forth, DESPERATELY wanting to SERVE JESUS in any way he could, in order to save him FROM THE WRATH OF THE ONE HE HAD PREVIOUSLY PERSECUTED! And sure, it took him “three full days” to come to terms with what he had just seen and experienced. But think about it, folks. Think about if YOU had been Saul in that position and had had the total, divine visitation that he had had of the VERY THING you made an occupation out of PERSECUTING! Wouldn’t that also throw YOU for a “mental” and “spiritual’ loop for 2-3 days? Answer: it WOULD and anyone that says otherwise is most likely LYING! 

[P.S.: To put Jesus’s name in QUOTATION MARKS and to compare him to DIONYSUS (a FALSE Greek “god”) is the HEIGHT of BLASPHEMY! Therefore, I pray that any and ALL souls who do that WILL REPENT!!!!!!] 

So folks, in COMPLETE SUMMARY, there you have it. The 50 reasons why we KNOW that Paul is a TRUE APOSTLE! Not OF the original 12 (which Paul NEVER claimed to be) but an “Apostle” nonetheless!