It's tedious to have to bring this issue up. I'm afraid many of you know this already and I will look like a fool for offering this seriously.
I'm also afraid that it is not me, but rather my readers who are fools for not having yet discovered this principle.
I'm afraid the veracity in the second is greater than in the first.
This principle of which I speak, that,
"When a thing is written or spoken, there are two things therein contained: The thing which is said and the thing which is meant."
Often, but not always there is a unity in these two things.
A good communicator.. They may be good public speakers, good negotiators, or they might just be gifted at interacting with the people around them.
What makes them such great communicators is the unity, the equality between what he says and what he means. When he speaks, everyone knows precisely what he means to convey and there is no doubt about what he is saying. That is because there is a very high affinity between what he says and what he means. In short, there is a union, or a conjunction in what he says and what he means to say.
A troubled communicator, by contrast, is someone who is often troubled as to how to best convey their meanings. They may use one word or term where another is more appropriate, they may use other words where they do not belong at all, or to the greatest extreme, those suffering from a primary thought disorder could have trouble forming thoughts which comport to even the most rudimentary mechanics of grammar or syntax at all, and their meanings are incredibly distorted. This is a person whose meanings do not line up consistently with what they say. Their meanings are confused, for not having spoken more clearly.
In light of these most indubitable principles, I have to introduce Paul as the most disordered, confused and confusing writer in all the scriptures.
I hold that often in the Epistles, there are two things you will find: You will find what Paul actually said, but far more importantly is what he did not say, but rather meant. This is card of a bad communicator, someone who has trouble conveying their meanings in plain speech.
The light of history shows the great lengths to which churches have divided themselves over Paul's language and writings. It shows that nothing he said was for the convenience of the reader or for the sake of understanding, but all said lacking a theory of mind or any appreciation that no one would be sure of what
he was saying.
I go even further and say that his double-talk was so prolific that he could in fact say two opposite things at the same time so cleverly that no one would notice the difference!
"6 But of those who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person: for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles;) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision... 11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."
Of course there is not one thing here which is true. Elsewhere Paul says he is the least of the apostles, not worthy to even be an apostle.
"I go even further and say that his double-talk was so prolific that he could in fact say two opposite things at the same time so cleverly that no one would notice the difference!"
Therefore, Christians eat it up when he says he is the least and at the same time, he takes swipes at the apostles to bolster his image.
"those who seemed to be somewhat"... This evidently refers to Peter, James, and John.
That whatever, that somewhat, who only thought they were something, that was the Bishop of the universal church who was also the biological half-brother of Jesus, along with the chief evangelist and prophet, the three men that God sat in authority over the church globally, two of which were Yeshua's best friends on earth. How dare this bastard Paul to call them whatevers and somewhats.
Paul is literally saying, they only 'seemed to be pillars..' John, who was given the Revelation of Jesus Christ, one of the most powerful evidences of divinity in the whole Bible, only 'seemed to be a pillar.. but whatsoever [he] was, it maketh no matter to me.'
The truth about this conference to which Paul here refers, is that Paul was reprimanded for alleged misconduct and he submitted to the sanctions. He actually DID NOT gain recognition in his perceived grace toward the uncircumcision. That is a lie.
But there had been much disputing, "...Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe." [Acts 15:7]
So actually Paul is wrong because the 'minutes' of the meeting, or what record we have of the summit indicates that it was understood amongst the apostolic leadership that Peter was the apostle to the Gentiles. But Paul wasn't just wrong, he was a liar.
A Christian recalls: Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles
God called Peter the apostle to the Gentiles
So let us be clear. If you like Paul your apostle rather than Peter, then say that. Paul, the apostle whom I have chosen. The apostle whom I prefer. But do not say that is the apostle who God chose, because God chose Peter for that job. Peter is your apostle. Now like many arrogant men throw aside the judgments of God you can do that, I won't interfere with you. But be clear once and for all, you prefer Paul to Peter.
But Paul was not chosen, he only built up himself.
Aside from the many lies and inconsistencies Paul wrote, I also number many true and valuable things in his letters also. But I still throw him out. Why?
Because there is a small conjunction between what he said and what he meant. If there was a high affinity, then he certainly would have been a good communicator over whom only a few would fight over. But he was not a good communicator, evidenced by the profound number of debates arising from his confused writings.
It should be noted as the most damning thing... When he attacks Peter, James, and John, he is attacking three authors who God gave tremendous place in the New Testament. I thought if you attacked authorship then you were doing something bad, which they attack me for when I attack Paul. I attack Paul because he casts into doubt the ministry of the twelve and manages to puzzle nearly all of his readers, and leaves very little to make up for the trouble.