What are anti-Pauline believers missing?

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
33,295
Age
58
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
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

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,971
Location
Somewhere Nice Not Nice
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
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

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2024
Messages
454
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
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.
 
Top Bottom