Didn't Nero launch Christianity?

[Acrobat]

In Galatians Paul indicates that his apostleship wasn’t something ordained on him by others, but by God choosing him. That his understanding of the gospel, wasn’t through any sort of Christian schooling, but by Christ’s revelation.

Then you are contradicting yourself because you first said that he met disciples and then you claim that he wasn't schooled by anyone,

No, I'm not contradicting myself. Paul wasn't a disciple, he wasn't under the disciples instruction, etc... Just like one might say about many of the female characters in the gospel. In the gospels these woman often understand christ, his messagings, meaning etc... better than Christ own disciples, who often missed the point of the things he said.

In christian theology, this is often said as something along the lines of the holy spirit revealing it. This doesn't mean he never heard the gospel, never knew of any of the actual words, or parables of christ etc.. But that his understanding of it, isn't reducible to something someone told him, but something which Christ revealed.

A christian might say something, like he may have read the gospels a hundred times, but a true understanding of it, only took place when the holy spirit revealed it.

You can criticize the idea, but it's a part of basic christian theology and beliefs, which is found all through out the NT, which wouldn't make anything Paul said here unusual, or out of the ordinary. And definitely not something, that could be so speciously interpreted to suggest Paul didn't' believe Jesus was a historical person. Clearly those early Christians, reading the NT writings, agreeing on the Canon, didn't read the writings of Paul as suggesting the sort of things you claim, and it's highly doubtful that you're anymore a competent exegete than they or the church fathers were.  

but if he did meet them they would school him what Jesus said so that he doesn't have different theology like he did.

Well, I'm not sure how someone such as yourself, who seems to lack even a basic understanding of christian theology, of the NT writings, etc can claim differences between Pauls theology, and the theology of the Gospels, especially given what you've shared so far. I mean could you expound on something like Paul's view of Works, what he means by works vs justification? Because that's what his primary disagreement with other jewish christians revolved around, not whether Gentiles could be followers of Christ as well.

---

Not to mention the crucifixion was unexpected and unfortunate demise for the messiah, not a part of anyone exceptions of the messiahs fate, hardly the sort of thing someone would have made up for a messiah.

---

Yeah, I agree  .....
Nice to see a Christian agreeing those stating that the crucifixtion was clearly prophecisied are taking out of their assholes 

Yet, that's the suggestion here, among those implying a non-historical Jesus. Requiring not only a sort of messiah that would be crucified, but one that didn't exist at all, as part of the jewish imagination and expectation at the time.