It also says that he is a scholar of Greek and Latin
here is a book on the subject http://books.google.com/books/about/Jesus_Words_Only_Or_Was_Paul_the_Apostle.html?id=3VFnsDuxBPcC called Jesus' words
Most seam to be debating on the date I'd giving some scholars reason for the early date in chapter 11 would seam silly for Jesus to tell John to measure something that is no longer there don't you think? I would like to also add and I know you all put a lot of " faith" in the Church Fathers and there writings but many of them thought that the Phoenix was a real bird in there writings so that kinda shows you where I would put some of there knowing of facts rate in my book.
Nicolaitan some scholars hold that it is not a sect but the greek word for Hierarchy nicos , layos is what is in the text there meaning Overlords in to english hierarchy which leads some to point to Paul as he seamed to set up the hierarchy of the church in his writings. so if we were to read it in this way Jesus would be saying that he hates Hierarchy. I don't know Greek and have to take scholars at there word on this.
As for the point of the 2 messages is that if James and Peter was preaching something else then what would it have been and history goes to the Nasar which we find them in Jewish writings Christian and Islamic writings as well. Nasar's hold that Jesus was christ but not G-d. All three groups had there hand at trying to kill them off.
Did Jesus call Paul a false apostle?
I'll ask again, can you cite even a single scholar who believes the Apocalypse is referring to Paul?
I have not read this book yet but I 'm showing you that there are people out there saying these things. I did find this on my own in reading I have not much info on this but I see now that I;m not the only one to do so
So your answer is no then, correct? I asked if you could cite a scholar; if you were to follow your own link it clearly says the man is an attorney; he is not a scholar.
You should not trust what people say about themselves so easily; the man obviously has a very loose definition of 'scholar.' He says in his biography - which can be found in the book preview - "In school, I studied Classical Greek for one year and Latin for three years. I became a Classic Language Scholar. I am fluent in Spanish and Italian." Clearly, the man doesn't know what he's doing because "Classic Language Scholar" should have none of those words capitalized, and he implies he is not fluent in Ancient Greek nor Latin. Further, one is not a language scholar just because one studies a language for a year and another language for three years. He would have difficulty getting into any graduate program in classics, because - while he has three years of Latin - he does not have even two years of Greek. His Latin is also completely irrelevant to the book he wrote, and he has nowhere near enough study of Greek to think himself a scholar, without being extremely arrogant and full of himself. And even if he was a "Classic Language Scholar," that would mean next to nothing with regard to this discussion, because it would not provide him with any basis upon which to call himself a Biblical scholar (or, more specifically, a New Testament scholar).
So, again, can you provide me with a scholar who has made the claims you do?