Explanation For False Apostles

[bluegreenearth]

2 Corinthians 11:13 - "For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ."

According to Paul, there were false apostles walking around and deceiving some Christians into following improper theologies during his lifetime. If identifying as an apostle for Christ was fraught with persecution, imprisonment, and even a painful death in many circumstances, what would be the advantage of deliberately misrepresenting yourself as a Christian apostle during the 1st century? Could these "false apostles" have strongly yet mistakenly believed they actually experienced the resurrected Jesus to have been willing to suffer the same or similar hardships as the traditionally accepted apostles? If false apostles could come to a mistaken belief through some unidentified means, then why rule-out this possibility for the accepted apostles?

[Goose]

Could these "false apostles" have strongly yet mistakenly believed they actually experienced the resurrected Jesus to have been willing to suffer the same or similar hardships as the traditionally accepted apostles?

It's possible.

If false apostles could come to a mistaken belief through some unidentified means, then why rule-out this possibility for the accepted apostles?

It's not ruled out.

Are you saying these false apostles held to a risen Christ?

I'm proposing that we consider the possibility that these false apostles sincerely but mistakenly believed they had encountered a risen Christ.

Okay. Consider it considered.

If that possibility cannot be ruled-out for the false apostles, then why rule-out the same possibility for Paul and the other apostles?

Like I said, the possibly is not ruled out.

Are you saying these false apostles held to a risen Christ?

[bluegreenearth]

Are you saying these false apostles held to a risen Christ?

You'll need to clarify what you mean by "held to a risen Christ" because I'm not sure how to interpret that phrase in the question. Are you asking if I'm suggesting the false apostles did encounter a risen Christ? If so, that is not what I'm asking.

[Goose]

Are you saying these false apostles held to a risen Christ?

You'll need to clarify what you mean by "held to a risen Christ" because I'm not sure how to interpret that phrase in the question. Are you asking if I'm suggesting the false apostles did encounter a risen Christ? If so, that is not what I'm asking.

I mean held to a risen Christ in the sense held the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Whether they actually experienced the risen Christ or how they came to hold that belief is irrelevant to that question. So I'm asking if you are arguing that these false apostles held the belief Jesus rose from the dead.

[bluegreenearth]

Are you saying these false apostles held to a risen Christ?

You'll need to clarify what you mean by "held to a risen Christ" because I'm not sure how to interpret that phrase in the question. Are you asking if I'm suggesting the false apostles did encounter a risen Christ? If so, that is not what I'm asking.

I mean held to a risen Christ in the sense held the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Whether they actually experienced the risen Christ or how they came to hold that belief is irrelevant to that question. So I'm asking if you are arguing that these false apostles held the belief Jesus rose from the dead.

Yes, I'm arguing that at least some of these false apostles could have believed Jesus rose from the dead.

[Goose]

Yes, I'm arguing that at least some of these false apostles could have believed Jesus rose from the dead.

This implies that there are two opposing factions - the apostles (Paul, etc.) vs. false apostles - who, although they presumably disagree on numerous import theological issues, both hold the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Would you agree?

[bluegreenearth]

Yes, I'm arguing that at least some of these false apostles could have believed Jesus rose from the dead.

This implies that there are two opposing factions - the apostles (Paul, etc.) vs. false apostles - who, although they presumably disagree on numerous import theological issues, both hold the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Would you agree?

I suppose there could be more than two opposing factions depending on whether the false apostles share a similar theology with each other or not. If the false apostles were collectively united in opposition to the version of Christianity Paul was endorsing, then it would have only been two factions in that situation. However, I'm thinking it was more like what we see today with the various denominations of Christianity competing with each other except to a much smaller degree.

[Goose]

Yes, I'm arguing that at least some of these false apostles could have believed Jesus rose from the dead.

This implies that there are two opposing factions - the apostles (Paul, etc.) vs. false apostles - who, although they presumably disagree on numerous import theological issues, both hold the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Would you agree?

I suppose there could be more than two opposing factions depending on whether the false apostles share a similar theology with each other or not. If the false apostles were collectively united in opposition to the version of Christianity Paul was endorsing, then it would have only been two factions in that situation. However, I'm thinking it was more like what we see today with the various denominations of Christianity competing with each other except to a much smaller degree.

Sure, there could have been numerous factions. But I think the number of factions is a trivial point. Your argument implies there were at least two opposing factions who both believed that Jesus rose from the dead. Do you agree?

[bluegreenearth]

Yes, I'm arguing that at least some of these false apostles could have believed Jesus rose from the dead.

This implies that there are two opposing factions - the apostles (Paul, etc.) vs. false apostles - who, although they presumably disagree on numerous import theological issues, both hold the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Would you agree?

I suppose there could be more than two opposing factions depending on whether the false apostles share a similar theology with each other or not. If the false apostles were collectively united in opposition to the version of Christianity Paul was endorsing, then it would have only been two factions in that situation. However, I'm thinking it was more like what we see today with the various denominations of Christianity competing with each other except to a much smaller degree.

Sure, there could have been numerous factions. But I think the number of factions is a trivial point. Your argument implies there were at least two opposing factions who both believed that Jesus rose from the dead. Do you agree?

I'll accept that for the sake of seeing where this goes.

[Goose]

Yes, I'm arguing that at least some of these false apostles could have believed Jesus rose from the dead.

This implies that there are two opposing factions - the apostles (Paul, etc.) vs. false apostles - who, although they presumably disagree on numerous import theological issues, both hold the belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Would you agree?

I suppose there could be more than two opposing factions depending on whether the false apostles share a similar theology with each other or not. If the false apostles were collectively united in opposition to the version of Christianity Paul was endorsing, then it would have only been two factions in that situation. However, I'm thinking it was more like what we see today with the various denominations of Christianity competing with each other except to a much smaller degree.

Sure, there could have been numerous factions. But I think the number of factions is a trivial point. Your argument implies there were at least two opposing factions who both believed that Jesus rose from the dead. Do you agree?

I'll accept that for the sake of seeing where this goes.

Ironically, your argument goes towards strengthening the historical case for the resurrection not weakening it. The former, I suspect, was not your intention but the latter was.

[bluegreenearth]

Ironically, your argument goes towards strengthening the historical case for the resurrection not weakening it. The former, I suspect, was not your intention but the latter was.

I assume you are going to describe how this is the case and permit me the opportunity to evaluate the situation?