What are anti-Pauline believers missing?

[Lamb]

What important pieces of scripture are the anti-Pauline believers missing?

 

[JustTheFacts]

What important pieces of scripture are the anti-Pauline believers missing?

I think this is a good post; thank you as it will ensure that my end results are either accurate or invalid. Please note though I don't consider myself an "anti-Pauline" believer because that reads to me like someone who is biased against Paul. I have no bias against Paul and in fact up until I did my research, I considered him to be the replacement disciple for Judas. I'm just following where the facts and data (evidence) lead.

 

[Lamb]

I think this is a good post; thank you as it will ensure that my end results are either accurate or invalid. Please note though I don't consider myself an "anti-Pauline" believer because that reads to me like someone who is biased against Paul. I have no bias against Paul and in fact up until I did my research, I considered him to be the replacement disciple for Judas. I'm just following where the facts and data (evidence) lead.

As someone who rejects portions of Holy Scripture, do you accept these books that are credited to Paul as author?

Romans Paul
1 Corinthians Paul
2 Corinthians Paul
Galatians Paul
Ephesians Paul
Philippians Paul
Colossians Paul
1 Thessalonians Paul
2 Thessalonians Paul
1 Timothy Paul
2 Timothy Paul
Titus Paul
Philemon Paul

 

[JustTheFacts]

As someone who rejects portions of Holy Scripture, do you accept these books that are credited to Paul as author?

Romans Paul
1 Corinthians Paul
2 Corinthians Paul
Galatians Paul
Ephesians Paul
Philippians Paul
Colossians Paul
1 Thessalonians Paul
2 Thessalonians Paul
1 Timothy Paul
2 Timothy Paul
Titus Paul
Philemon Paul

Lamb, you opened up your comment with a statement that I reject portions of Holy Scripture. This is not true! I accept all portions of Holy Scripture--the Word of God, and I try very hard to follow them. You and I don't disagree on Jesus--we both love Jesus and follow Jesus, we disagree on what is the Holy Scripture. I'm an expert analyst and fraud investigator and my analysis proves the word of God is limited to the words of the Prophets and Jesus. This is in accordance with the word of God as specified in Deuteronomy. I keep presenting my findings but thus far, nobody has provided me any data or facts that would change any of my conclusions. The more I dig, the more evidence I find supporting my conclusions.

There are too many eyewitness details in Paul's letter for him to be a created person, therefore I believe Paul was a man who wrote those letters. Paul did write some very good things, but he also contradicts the words of Jesus. The main issue with Paul's words are the ones describing the antichrist and the end time. His summary is persuasive, but the big picture shows that those words of Paul hide the beast in the future. With the beast hidden in the future, the church fails to look inside for the beast. Consider the end time and everyone goes to Paul rather than trying to figure out what Jesus said.

However, that being said, In Paul's own words the disciples had problems with accepting Paul. Since Jesus chose the disciples and Paul never met Jesus, my logic says that there was a reason for the disciples to reject Paul. There are no letters from the disciples that welcome Paul as one of them, yet half the New Testament is attributed to him. We weren't there and we don't have the documentation, but the warning signs are flashing for us. Then over the last few weeks using my training and experience to analyze resurrection accounts I found five valid ones, but Paul's account are among those that are fiction.

 

[Lamb]

Lamb, you opened up your comment with a statement that I reject portions of Holy Scripture. This is not true! I accept all portions of Holy Scripture--the Word of God, and I try very hard to follow them. You and I don't disagree on Jesus--we both love Jesus and follow Jesus, we disagree on what is the Holy Scripture. I'm an expert analyst and fraud investigator and my analysis proves the word of God is limited to the words of the Prophets and Jesus. This is in accordance with the word of God as specified in Deuteronomy. I keep presenting my findings but thus far, nobody has provided me any data or facts that would change any of my conclusions. The more I dig, the more evidence I find supporting my conclusions.

There are too many eyewitness details in Paul's letter for him to be a created person, therefore I believe Paul was a man who wrote those letters. Paul did write some very good things, but he also contradicts the words of Jesus. The main issue with Paul's words are the ones describing the antichrist and the end time. His summary is persuasive, but the big picture shows that those words of Paul hide the beast in the future. With the beast hidden in the future, the church fails to look inside for the beast. Consider the end time and everyone goes to Paul rather than trying to figure out what Jesus said.

However, that being said, In Paul's own words the disciples had problems with accepting Paul. Since Jesus chose the disciples and Paul never met Jesus, my logic says that there was a reason for the disciples to reject Paul. There are no letters from the disciples that welcome Paul as one of them, yet half the New Testament is attributed to him. We weren't there and we don't have the documentation, but the warning signs are flashing for us. Then over the last few weeks using my training and experience to analyze resurrection accounts I found five valid ones, but Paul's account are among those that are fiction.

Then that's a YES to rejecting these writings?

Romans Paul
1 Corinthians Paul
2 Corinthians Paul
Galatians Paul
Ephesians Paul
Philippians Paul
Colossians Paul
1 Thessalonians Paul
2 Thessalonians Paul
1 Timothy Paul
2 Timothy Paul
Titus Paul
Philemon Paul

 

[JustTheFacts]

Then that's a YES to rejecting these writings?

Romans Paul
1 Corinthians Paul
2 Corinthians Paul
Galatians Paul
Ephesians Paul
Philippians Paul
Colossians Paul
1 Thessalonians Paul
2 Thessalonians Paul
1 Timothy Paul
2 Timothy Paul
Titus Paul
Philemon Paul

Why are you ignoring my request for your thoughts?

 

[Lamb]

Why are you ignoring my request for your thoughts?

Because this answer depends on what I've asked concerning the books I listed. Since you're being evasive, then I'll just have to assume that you reject all of them?

 

[JustTheFacts]

Why

Because this answer depends on what I've asked concerning the books I listed. Since you're being evasive, then I'll just have to assume that you reject all of them?

Why would your belief in the, depend on my answer to that question? I follow the evidence I’ve presented and thus far nobody here has changed my mind. What was my conclusion from the evidence that I provided?

 

[Lamb]

Why

Why would your belief in the, depend on my answer to that question? I follow the evidence I’ve presented and thus far nobody here has changed my mind. What was my conclusion from the evidence that I provided?

So it looks like it's true that you reject those books of the bible.

Now, as for the OP, who can tell me some important pieces that the anti-Pauline believers are missing out on?

 

[BruceLeiter]

As someone who rejects portions of Holy Scripture, do you accept these books that are credited to Paul as author?

Romans Paul
1 Corinthians Paul
2 Corinthians Paul
Galatians Paul
Ephesians Paul
Philippians Paul
Colossians Paul
1 Thessalonians Paul
2 Thessalonians Paul
1 Timothy Paul
2 Timothy Paul
Titus Paul
Philemon Paul

Yes, all of them!

 

[BruceLeiter]

Lamb, you opened up your comment with a statement that I reject portions of Holy Scripture. This is not true! I accept all portions of Holy Scripture--the Word of God, and I try very hard to follow them. You and I don't disagree on Jesus--we both love Jesus and follow Jesus, we disagree on what is the Holy Scripture. I'm an expert analyst and fraud investigator and my analysis proves the word of God is limited to the words of the Prophets and Jesus. This is in accordance with the word of God as specified in Deuteronomy. I keep presenting my findings but thus far, nobody has provided me any data or facts that would change any of my conclusions. The more I dig, the more evidence I find supporting my conclusions.

There are too many eyewitness details in Paul's letter for him to be a created person, therefore I believe Paul was a man who wrote those letters. Paul did write some very good things, but he also contradicts the words of Jesus. The main issue with Paul's words are the ones describing the antichrist and the end time. His summary is persuasive, but the big picture shows that those words of Paul hide the beast in the future. With the beast hidden in the future, the church fails to look inside for the beast. Consider the end time and everyone goes to Paul rather than trying to figure out what Jesus said.

However, that being said, In Paul's own words the disciples had problems with accepting Paul. Since Jesus chose the disciples and Paul never met Jesus, my logic says that there was a reason for the disciples to reject Paul. There are no letters from the disciples that welcome Paul as one of them, yet half the New Testament is attributed to him. We weren't there and we don't have the documentation, but the warning signs are flashing for us. Then over the last few weeks using my training and experience to analyze resurrection accounts I found five valid ones, but Paul's account are among those that are fiction.

As I've said to you previously, JustTheFacts, the fact that you rely on your "expert analyst and fraud investigator" experiences themselves outside of Scripture shows that your analysis is flawed. Instead, depend on the Bible's own assumptions, teachings, and history to interpret it. You depend on your "training and experience." That's called pragmatism and leads to erroneous conclusions.

For example, Paul did meet Jesus in God's glory light as Luke reported in Acts 9. You go on to say that your "logic says" and then go on to argue from silence, a very poor argument, because the absence of apostles' letters demonstrates nothing. The warning signs are only flashing in your head, not in ours.

I recommend that you get a good Bible concordance, Bible dictionary, and commentary by scholars who study the Bible from its own perspective instead of their own. Your analysis is missing the biblical mark.

 

[JustTheFacts]

As I've said to you previously, JustTheFacts, the fact that you rely on your "expert analyst and fraud investigator" experiences themselves outside of Scripture shows that your analysis is flawed. Instead, depend on the Bible's own assumptions, teachings, and history to interpret it. You depend on your "training and experience." That's called pragmatism and leads to erroneous conclusions.

Bruce, I could state that theological assessments have faults because they don't consider the details I examine. But for the sake of argument, I'm open to consider my supposed shortcomings. Please give me an example of how my analysis failed because I don't have the right pedigree. Be specific with a reference to the word of God that I have misinterpreted.

For example, Paul did meet Jesus in God's glory light as Luke reported in Acts 9. You go on to say that your "logic says" and then go on to argue from silence, a very poor argument, because the absence of apostles' letters demonstrates nothing. The warning signs are only flashing in your head, not in ours.

But the Word of God came from the Holy Spirit, meaning God had it written just the way he wanted it to be. Allowing for the Holy Spirit to be exact means that words that aren't presented are missing for a reason--God didn't want them there. Missing words are also the intention of the Holy Spirit. This means that we MUST pay attention to every written word and also pay attention to what is missing. Arguing otherwise is faulty. You are claiming that my training and experience doesn't qualify me to examine a testimony, but you have no qualifications to make that claim.

I recommend that you get a good Bible concordance, Bible dictionary, and commentary by scholars who study the Bible from its own perspective instead of their own. Your analysis is missing the biblical mark.

You just don't like my results. I know this because you haven't addressed any conclusion from my analysis of scripture--you try to nit-pick on credentials and experience because you cannot prove my analysis to be in error. Pick one of my conclusions from the words I've interpreted rather than attacking my background and abilities. That's the old, attack the messenger rather than address the message and I've dealt with this strategy a multitude of times. It's the strategy of those who don't like the message and don't want to accept it, but they can't repute it.

 

[JustTheFacts]

So it looks like it's true that you reject those books of the bible.

Now, as for the OP, who can tell me some important pieces that the anti-Pauline believers are missing out on?

They are not the word of God as I've been saying for a while--even before my analysis of Saul's claimed appearance by Jesus confirmed my earlier finding.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I'm not an anti-Pauliner, but I'm still waiting for someone to answer Lamb's request. What are those that object to Paul's writing as the word of God missing?

 

[Lamb]

@JustTheFacts do you believe that 2 Peter is the word of God?

 

[BruceLeiter]

Bruce, I could state that theological assessments have faults because they don't consider the details I examine. But for the sake of argument, I'm open to consider my supposed shortcomings. Please give me an example of how my analysis failed because I don't have the right pedigree. Be specific with a reference to the word of God that I have misinterpreted.

But the Word of God came from the Holy Spirit, meaning God had it written just the way he wanted it to be. Allowing for the Holy Spirit to be exact means that words that aren't presented are missing for a reason--God didn't want them there. Missing words are also the intention of the Holy Spirit. This means that we MUST pay attention to every written word and also pay attention to what is missing. Arguing otherwise is faulty. You are claiming that my training and experience doesn't qualify me to examine a testimony, but you have no qualifications to make that claim.


You just don't like my results. I know this because you haven't addressed any conclusion from my analysis of scripture--you try to nit-pick on credentials and experience because you cannot prove my analysis to be in error. Pick one of my conclusions from the words I've interpreted rather than attacking my background and abilities. That's the old, attack the messenger rather than address the message and I've dealt with this strategy a multitude of times. It's the strategy of those who don't like the message and don't want to accept it, but they can't repute it.

@JustTheFacts, again, you have no proof that Nicodemus wrote anything in the New Testament but instead rely on your expertise, which is a non-biblical approach. I'm especially sensitive to your approach because of the following:

I grew up in a theologically-liberal or neo-orthodox church that got their pastors from Union Theological Seminary in Chicago. They used their logic and rational powers to reason away the miracles and history of Scripture with allegory, which enabled them to make the Bible say anything they wanted it to with their reason being their extra-biblical source of their truth, not the Bible's.

Then, I attended a Baptist church, where God saved me with a biblical line of reasoning within the realm of Scripture. The Baptists kept saying, "Be saved..., be saved." But I asked myself, "Now that I'm saved, what next?" They didn't seem to have an answer to that question.

We attended what I call a cult for a while, where the charismatic "preacher" added his own intellectual and historical ideas that were not in the Bible to say what it really didn't say. Of course, what he said was the law.

Then, I attended Calvin College as a student, met my wife, and joined the Christian Reformed Church because I felt that its beliefs were the most faithful to the Bible on its own terms. That's why your reliance on your own experience and logic caused red flags for me.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Well....for starters we don't know who authored it.

 

[JustTheFacts]

@JustTheFacts, again, you have no proof that Nicodemus wrote anything in the New Testament but instead rely on your expertise, which is a non-biblical approach. I'm especially sensitive to your approach because of the following:

I grew up in a theologically-liberal or neo-orthodox church that got their pastors from Union Theological Seminary in Chicago. They used their logic and rational powers to reason away the miracles and history of Scripture with allegory, which enabled them to make the Bible say anything they wanted it to with their reason being their extra-biblical source of their truth, not the Bible's.

Then, I attended a Baptist church, where God saved me with a biblical line of reasoning within the realm of Scripture. The Baptists kept saying, "Be saved..., be saved." But I asked myself, "Now that I'm saved, what next?" They didn't seem to have an answer to that question.

We attended what I call a cult for a while, where the charismatic "preacher" added his own intellectual and historical ideas that were not in the Bible to say what it really didn't say. Of course, what he said was the law.

Then, I attended Calvin College as a student, met my wife, and joined the Christian Reformed Church because I felt that its beliefs were the most faithful to the Bible on its own terms. That's why your reliance on your own experience and logic caused red flags for me.

Bruce, What is a Biblical approach and why is it so much better than performing an in-depth analysis of the only evidence we have--the documents in the New Testament? Did you consider that you reject my methodology and conclusions because you don't have the experience and expertise I do? Los Alamos hired me to evaluate numerous Laboratory national security and nuclear safety functions and areas because I wasn't "one of them" and I had a proven track record. I was good enough for the most prestigious facility in the world, but I'm not smart enough to analyze the Bible. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

You mentioned four different approaches to following Jesus--why would I want to follow any of them? I don't want to be like them, I want to find the truth. My results prove Jesus as the Messiah and God through eyewitness testimony. My results also prove the words of Jesus and the prophets are the word of God--per the law of God. Why is anyone objecting to those conclusions? Isn't that what we all want? Why do you promote those who reject the law of God to consider the words of mere men to be the word of God, then fight and argue over what their words mean?

 

[Lamb]

Well....for starters we don't know who authored it.

It looks now as if you reject 14 books that Christians call canon. Are there any others we should know about?

 

[JustTheFacts]

It looks now as if you reject 14 books that Christians call canon. Are there any others we should know about?

My findings are only proving what I stated early on when I joined this forum. Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 specify the requirements for proving Jesus as the Messiah. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 18:21-22 specify what validates a prophet to speak for God. The prophets who prophesied Jesus speak the word of God if Jesus is proven to be the Messiah and God. My investigation results found that three of the Gospels are eyewitness testimonies proving Jesus as the Messiah and God. Therefore, the words of Jesus and the prophets are the word of God. Everything else is not. I'm all ears if anyone wants to object, but I'm just trying to follow the word of God.

In every analysis I've ever done, I have had to consider the starting point--what are the requirements? Are there Federal laws governing? Are there state and local agencies dictating what must be done? Is it company procedure that require following to keep people from getting injured or killed? What are the requirements that God gave us? They are in the book of Deuteronomy and I have found no others. The prophets pointed to Jesus and Jesus fulfilled the prophets--but only if there is eyewitness testimony. You see, if Jesus is not proven through eyewitness testimony, then God's law has not been met to prove the story of Jesus true. I have found the evidence and it is really cool. Y'all want to hang on to theology and not let go and I don't understand why.