What are anti-Pauline believers missing?

[Lamb]

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.

Anti-Pauline refers to those that do not believe that the books that are in the bible that Paul wrote were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and thus, not true canon.

 

[tango]

Anti-Pauline refers to those that do not believe that the books that are in the bible that Paul wrote were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and thus, not true canon.

OK, so the question is whether denying that Paul was divinely inspired necessarily means denying that what Paul wrote was wholly, or even partly, true.

 

[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.

@JustTheFacts, in what ways do Paul's words contradict the words of Jesus? Please list them, and we then can discuss them.

 

[jswauto]

I had to look it up. I never heard of it before!​

​

Anti-Paulism​

Anti-Paulism is a term used to describe opposition to the apostle Paul, particularly regarding his authority, teachings, and writings within the New Testament. Those who hold to Anti-Paulism often reject Paul's epistles as authoritative or question his apostleship. This view challenges the foundational Christian doctrine because Paul is a central figure in the New Testament, and his teachings are crucial to understanding core elements of Christian theology, such as justification by faith, the nature of the church, and the role of the law.

History of Anti-Paulism​

1. Early Church Period: Opposition to Paul began in the early church, shortly after his ministry started. The book of Acts and Paul’s own letters reflect the fact that he was frequently met with hostility, particularly from Jewish-Christian groups who believed in the necessity of adhering to the Mosaic Law. These groups, sometimes referred to as Judaizers, insisted that Gentile converts must follow Jewish customs, such as circumcision and dietary laws, in addition to believing in Christ. Paul vehemently opposed this view, especially in his letters to the Galatians and Romans, where he argued that justification is by faith in Christ alone, apart from the works of the law.
2. Ebionites: In the early 2nd century, a Jewish-Christian sect known as the Ebionites rejected Paul entirely. They considered him an apostate from the Mosaic Law and held him responsible for spreading teachings that undermined Jewish customs. The Ebionites held to a form of Christian legalism, insisting that Gentile Christians needed to observe the full Mosaic Law in order to be part of the people of God. They viewed Paul as distorting the true teachings of Jesus, who they believed upheld the law completely.
3. Marcionism (2nd century): Interestingly, opposition to Paul also found an unexpected form in Marcionism, though in a different way. Marcion (ca. 85–160 AD) accepted Paul’s authority exclusively but rejected the Old Testament and most of the New Testament writings, as he believed that the God of the Old Testament was different from the God revealed by Christ. While Marcion himself was not an Anti-Paulist, his selective use of Paul’s epistles (which he saw as the only true apostolic writings) led some early Christians to become suspicious of Paul’s teachings, fearing that they downplayed the importance of the Hebrew Scriptures and might lead to further distortions like Marcion’s heresy.
4. Gnostic Reinterpretations: Various Gnostic sects (2nd–3rd centuries) also reinterpreted Paul's writings in ways that diverged from orthodox Christianity. Gnostics claimed to possess secret knowledge (gnosis) and believed in a dualistic worldview that separated the material world (which they saw as evil) from the spiritual. In some cases, they viewed Paul as an advocate for their own beliefs, interpreting his teachings on spirit and flesh in line with their dualism. However, orthodox Christian theologians like Irenaeus and Tertullian combated these misinterpretations, defending the apostolic nature of Paul's writings and his commitment to the unity of Scripture.
5. Modern Expressions: In the modern period, Anti-Paulism has resurfaced in some theological and academic circles. Some liberal theologians and secular scholars argue that Paul distorted the original teachings of Jesus or that his theology represents a radical departure from the "simple" gospel of the early Jewish-Christian movement. These critics often portray Paul as overly influenced by Greek thought, claiming he introduced doctrines (such as justification by faith and the nature of the atonement) that were foreign to Jesus’ original message. Some also argue that Paul's letters promote patriarchal or oppressive systems, particularly in his teachings on gender roles and authority.
   Certain Jewish scholars and others within the Hebrew Roots Movement have also criticized Paul, asserting that his teachings misrepresent the continuity of the Mosaic Law in Christian life. These critics contend that Paul diverged from Jesus' Jewish identity and context, thus misguiding Gentile Christianity away from its true roots.

Anti-Paulism | Monergism

Anti-Paulism is a term used to describe opposition to the apostle Paul, particularly regarding his authority, teachings, and writings within the New Testament.

www.monergism.com

 

[jswauto]

Don't you see all kinds of evangelists, preachers, and Christians operating in the Lord, coming under scrutiny and attack by naysayers and more times than not, by other Christians.
When you attack the Lord's anointed, you attack the Lord!

Look in 1 Samual 8:

4Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, 5And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. 6But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. 7And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. 8According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. 9Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

And when you attack the Bible, it's even more true the retribution against you. These aren't Paul's words, they're the Word of God!

Look at John 1:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God.

So way before Paul. the Word existed!