What are anti-Pauline believers missing?

[Lamb]

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.

So I'm to believe you only adhere to 4 or 5 books from the traditional Christian bible and reject all others?

HOW could you possibly believe in the Nicene Creed without the other books that traditional Christians believe in?

 

[JustTheFacts]

So I'm to believe you only adhere to 4 or 5 books from the traditional Christian bible and reject all others?

You didn't read my summary. Name all the prophets that prophesied Jesus, and per Deuteronomy they spoke the word of God. That's a good portion of the Bible--likely most of the Old Testament. Then there is Revelation by John who wrote one of the Gospels and the three Gospels that are the word of God. What to do with the information in the Bible that isn't the word of God? It needs to be scrutinized to see if it is the word of God. For example, the resurrection account of the two men on the road in Luke is a proven true account, therefore it is the word of God. Also, the forty day reference in Acts connects to Daniel so it also is from God.

Your request for support of Paul has come up empty, as nobody has provided anything to support Paul. Your question on 2 Peter was to address the only piece of evidence there is that people use to validate Paul, but I am with many who object to Peter as the author of that letter. Under scrutiny, it is more likely 2 Peter was written by Paul.

HOW could you possibly believe in the Nicene Creed without the other books that traditional Christians believe in?

I've looked over the Nicene Creed and believe it to be true. How could I not believe it.

 

[Lamb]

You didn't read my summary. Name all the prophets that prophesied Jesus, and per Deuteronomy they spoke the word of God. That's a good portion of the Bible--likely most of the Old Testament. Then there is Revelation by John who wrote one of the Gospels and the three Gospels that are the word of God. What to do with the information in the Bible that isn't the word of God? It needs to be scrutinized to see if it is the word of God. For example, the resurrection account of the two men on the road in Luke is a proven true account, therefore it is the word of God. Also, the forty day reference in Acts connects to Daniel so it also is from God.

Your request for support of Paul has come up empty, as nobody has provided anything to support Paul. Your question on 2 Peter was to address the only piece of evidence there is that people use to validate Paul, but I am with many who object to Peter as the author of that letter. Under scrutiny, it is more likely 2 Peter was written by Paul.

I've looked over the Nicene Creed and believe it to be true. How could I not believe it.

So only parts of some of the books are the word of God according to YOU?

You have said elsewhere that you don't believe in the traditional Christian theology (if I remember correctly), that's why I'm asking you how you can believe in the Nicene Creed if you're rejecting most of traditional theology and most of the New Testament?

 

[Lanman87]

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.

Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 are about finding people guilty of breaking the Mosaic law. It has nothing to do with how scripture is determined to be scripture or proving Jesus in the Messiah. Now if Jesus was guilty of breaking the law and was about to be put to death for it, then you may be on to something.

It is pretty simple. Jesus made claims, His followers believed His claims, His followers wrote down His claims and the teachings and happenings. Then they weeded out writings that claimed to be written by His followers but weren't and those writings who didn't faithfully follow His Teachings and those of His apostles.

The reason we have our current New Testament is because the early believers (thousand of "witnesses") chose the writings that were faithful to the teachings of Christ and His Gospel. Very early on the Gospels were considered Scripture, including by people who knew Christ and/or the Apostles. All the books of the New Testament were written within the first 70 years after the Resurrection. Most think that Johns writings were the last to be written, which makes sense because he was the youngest apostle.

Now, if you want to proclaim that those "thousands of witnesses" who vetted what we hold as the New Testament Canon are wrong then have fun with that. We have freedom of religion and you can make any claim you want.

However, I trust the early believers, who walked with Christ and the Apostles and lived in the early church, over some guy on the internet who thinks he has special abilities and knowledge and visions, as to what makes up authentic inspired Christian text.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 are about finding people guilty of breaking the Mosaic law. It has nothing to do with how scripture is determined to be scripture or proving Jesus in the Messiah. Now if Jesus was guilty of breaking the law and was about to be put to death for it, then you may be on to something.

Please explain in detail considering the fact that the only reason Jesus came was to repeal our death sentence through belief in him. Is there a more applicable case than the death of everyone born?

It is pretty simple. Jesus made claims, His followers believed His claims, His followers wrote down His claims and the teachings and happenings. Then they weeded out writings that claimed to be written by His followers but weren't and those writings who didn't faithfully follow His Teachings and those of His apostles.

Jesus didn't make claims, he spoke the word of God. God gave us the law and the requirements so do you think God wouldn't provide eyewitnesses to testify on his behalf? A small feat for a very powerful God don't you think?

The reason we have our current New Testament is because the early believers (thousand of "witnesses") chose the writings that were faithful to the teachings of Christ and His Gospel.

So who were those "thousands of witnesses" that chose the writings and where did those thousands get their authority to do so?

Very early on the Gospels were considered Scripture, including by people who knew Christ and/or the Apostles.

Prophecy says the testimonies were written the last portion of Jesus seven-year mission.

All the books of the New Testament were written within the first 70 years after the Resurrection.

From approximately 30-33 AD based on an estimate of Jesus' sacrifice in 30 AD.

Most think that Johns writings were the last to be written, which makes sense because he was the youngest apostle.

You don't know John's age and you "most think" is more theology.

Now, if you want to proclaim that those "thousands of witnesses" who vetted what we hold as the New Testament Canon are wrong then have fun with that. We have freedom of religion and you can make any claim you want.

Yes we have freedom of religion and the proof of that is about 30,000 factions of Christians who love their theology and will reject other followers of Jesus because of it. BTW, I make no claims, I read and analyze then present my results. You can disagree with my findings and so far everyone does, but they never provide verses and tell me how I misinterpreted the word of God. A prime example is my analysis of Pau's resurrection account. There hasn't been one point made where I've erred, but nobody likes what I find and write so they attack me and my credentials.

However, I trust the early believers, who walked with Christ and the Apostles and lived in the early church, over some guy on the internet who thinks he has special abilities and knowledge and visions, as to what makes up authentic inspired Christian text.

lol. I trust the early believers to --we have their testimony. I don't hide behind the internet--I'll meet with anyone at anytime to debate the word of God. Any abilities and knowledge that I have came from God.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Liking Lanman87’s comment and ignoring my response to his baseless comment along with the expected laugh from Origen, is avoiding the debate. Attacking the messenger and ignoring the message are amateur tactics used by those who have no facts or data to debate with.

 

[Lamb]

Anti-Pauline believers don't believe in "by grace through faith" in Jesus. They say they believe in Jesus, but miss out exactly what that belief clings to in regards to His death and forgiving our sins "by grace through faith". How do they have a proper belief in the Holy Trinity when a huge portion of scripture isn't accepted by them? There are too many holes in their theology.

 

[Lanman87]

Yes we have freedom of religion and the proof of that is about 30,000 factions of Christians who love their theology and will reject other followers of Jesus because of it.

30,001, you have to include your own unique theology.

 

[JustTheFacts]

30,001, you have to include your own unique theology.

Can't give me credit for one because I'm not looking for a following, starting a business, nor do I reject any Christian believer in Jesus because of their theology. God knows our hearts and our thoughts and we are all held accountable. That's why I follow the facts rather than following others. Do you think God gave wisdom to only a select few people to understand his word so that the rest of us have to rely on the opinions and theology of others? If so, you are badly mistaken. Please take a look at Revelation and consider whey Jesus described two sets of books and put that into perspectives with the 30,000 denominations (or 30,001 as you now claim).

 

[prism]

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

2 Peter 3:15-16 NASB
and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, [16] as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

They forget that Jesus commissioned Peter and Peter approved of Paul here, even calling His writings scripture

 

[Lamb]

2 Peter 3:15-16 NASB
and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, [16] as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

They forget that Jesus commissioned Peter and Peter approved of Paul here, even calling His writings scripture

Excellent scripture to point out!

 

[tango]

Anti-Pauline believers don't believe in "by grace through faith" in Jesus. They say they believe in Jesus, but miss out exactly what that belief clings to in regards to His death and forgiving our sins "by grace through faith". How do they have a proper belief in the Holy Trinity when a huge portion of scripture isn't accepted by them? There are too many holes in their theology.

I suppose a lot would depend on whether the term "anti-Pauline" requires a person to actively reject everything Paul wrote, or simply to reject Paul as being divinely inspired while accepting that some of what he wrote may have some merit.

It's not an inherently inconsistent belief system to accept some of Paul's writings while rejecting other writings, regarding him in a similar light to a modern day pastor rather than a divinely inspired apostle.

 

[Lamb]

I suppose a lot would depend on whether the term "anti-Pauline" requires a person to actively reject everything Paul wrote, or simply to reject Paul as being divinely inspired while accepting that some of what he wrote may have some merit.

It's not an inherently inconsistent belief system to accept some of Paul's writings while rejecting other writings, regarding him in a similar light to a modern day pastor rather than a divinely inspired apostle.

Rejecting any of what Paul wrote that's in the traditional bible is rejecting what the Holy Spirit wanted us to know.

 

[tango]

Rejecting any of what Paul wrote that's in the traditional bible is rejecting what the Holy Spirit wanted us to know.

Sure, my point is that one can "reject Paul" in the sense of not accepting him as being divinely inspired while still accepting some of what he wrote. Rejecting Paul as a divinely inspired apostle doesn't require, in and of itself, the rejection of every single thing that Paul wrote.

It's possible to regard Paul as being highly inspired but not divinely inspired, a great teacher who taught from his own heart rather than from above. It might not be our belief but when discussing what people who believe other things are missing it's important not to assume what they believe based on a title.

 

[Lamb]

Sure, my point is that one can "reject Paul" in the sense of not accepting him as being divinely inspired while still accepting some of what he wrote. Rejecting Paul as a divinely inspired apostle doesn't require, in and of itself, the rejection of every single thing that Paul wrote.

It's possible to regard Paul as being highly inspired but not divinely inspired, a great teacher who taught from his own heart rather than from above. It might not be our belief but when discussing what people who believe other things are missing it's important not to assume what they believe based on a title.

Normally people use the term anti-Pauline to mean Paul's books being rejected as Holy scripture.

 

[tango]

Normally people use the term anti-Pauline to mean Paul's books being rejected as Holy scripture.

Perhaps, but rejecting something as being Scripture isn't the same as believing it is inherently untrue.

My car repair manual isn't Scripture but is still useful for instruction.

 

[Lamb]

Perhaps, but rejecting something as being Scripture isn't the same as believing it is inherently untrue.

My car repair manual isn't Scripture but is still useful for instruction.

But that's not the point of anti-Pauline theology. They don't trust that it's from God, thus not a part of their bible.

 

[tango]

But that's not the point of anti-Pauline theology. They don't trust that it's from God, thus not a part of their bible.

Can one not consider some parts of a book to be sound even if the book is not divinely inspired? Does denying that Paul's words were divinely inspired require regarding every one of them as false?

 

[Lamb]

Can one not consider some parts of a book to be sound even if the book is not divinely inspired? Does denying that Paul's words were divinely inspired require regarding every one of them as false?

That doesn't make sense to consider one book not inspired.

 

[tango]

That doesn't make sense to consider one book not inspired.

I think you're missing my point.

When you refer to someone as "anti-Pauline" do you mean they inherently reject all of Paul's teachings, or that they don't consider Paul's teachings to be divinely inspired?

If someone does not believe Paul was divinely inspired they may still accept some or all of his teachings. What they accept may or may not be neatly defined within specific letters.

Rejecting Paul's teachings pretty much requires rejecting the concept that Paul was divinely inspired, but rejecting the concept that Paul was divinely inspired does not necessarily mean rejecting any of his teachings.