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

 

[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!

 

[CrossWalk]

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.

Hi @JustTheFacts. Do you have a post somewhere that lays out the verses/passages of Paul's that you believe contradict Christ's words/teachings?

God bless.

 

[FredVB]

I do believe the passage that says Paul (his writings, that is) is hard to understand. That does not mean that Paul, and his writings, are not accepted. He did encounter Jesus who himself came to Paul, and Paul met with apostles, several times, and he was recognized for being sent to the gentiles with the gospel. Much of what is being misunderstood is about God's grace and the law from God, and works from us. Certain people go to an extreme in one direction or the other. But this is not necessary when taking in the full context of passages under consideration rather than those by themselves to support some position. My understanding says that the law from God is good, sin is shown to be contrary to the commandments from God. In coming to Christ with repentant faith, that we really turn from our old ways to God, that we ultimately grow to obedience to God's will, we would not be under the law, to not have the consequences in judgment for sin. That does not void commandments though, which is not said. The priesthood, sacrifices, and way to be made clean before God, is really through Christ, and the shadows representing that were what was shown in the old covenant.

 

[jswauto]

Who came up with the name: Anti-Pauline? That is wrong on so many levels! It's Anti-Paulism!

Pauline...really?

 

[Lamb]

Who came up with the name: Anti-Pauline? That is wrong on so many levels! It's Anti-Paulism!

Pauline...really?

AI says that anti-Paulism describes the movement an anti-Pauline describes adversity to the man and to the texts.

 

[jswauto]

AI says that anti-Paulism describes the movement an anti-Pauline describes adversity to the man and to the texts.

There's 2 separate movements against Paul's writings....is that correct? Who would of guessed. My humblest apologies!

 

[Lamb]

There's 2 separate movements against Paul's writings....is that correct? Who would of guessed. My humblest apologies!

No, not really. The terminology is separated into a movement and also what describes the writings.

 

[tango]

Who came up with the name: Anti-Pauline? That is wrong on so many levels! It's Anti-Paulism!

Pauline...really?

What's the problem with Pauline teaching? Is it any different to Mosaic law?

 

[jswauto]

What's the problem with Pauline teaching? Is it any different to Mosaic law?

What are anti-Pauline believers missing?

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...

christianityhaven.com

 

[jswauto]

What's the problem with Pauline teaching? Is it any different to Mosaic law?

What are anti-Pauline believers missing?

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...

christianityhaven.com

 

[SetFree]

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?

You haven't actually provided... any... evidence, but have just been making false assumptions.


The Book of Acts was not written by Paul, but attributed by scholars to have been written by Apostle Luke, and it confirms Paul's Apostleship by being specifically 'chosen' by Lord Jesus Christ in Acts 9...

Acts 9:10-16
10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, "Ananias." And he said, "Behold, I am here, Lord."
11 And the Lord said unto him, "Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,
12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight."
13 Then Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:
14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name."
15 But the Lord said unto him, "Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto Me, to bear My name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake."
KJV


According to Apostle Luke above, Lord Jesus Christ specifically CHOSE Saul (later called Paul) to be His "chosen vessel" to take The Gospel to the Gentiles, and to kings, and to the children of Israel!

That above Acts 9 is ENOUGH BIBLICAL PROOF to show that what you have said is just BOGUS, and that you have come here pushing another agenda, most likely some Jewish converts to Christ which do not accept Paul's Epistles.

Furthermore, EVERYTHING Apostle Paul taught in his Epistles agree with what the other Apostles AND Lord Jesus Christ taught. Saying it is different is a BOGUS doctrine of men also. And those on your BOGUS ideas about the Pauline debate wasn't started by you, it's a pretty old FALSE DOCTRINE from enemies of Christ that crept into the Church long ago. Even among those themselves who mostly agree with Paul's Epistles cannot agree just when Paul's ministry for the Church actually began, and even push the BOGUS idea that Paul actually preached a whole different Gospel than the other Apostles, which he didn't. Your ideas are just to the OTHER EXTREME.

 

[tango]

What are anti-Pauline believers missing?

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...

christianityhaven.com

This seems like a totally different point to the one I replied to

 

[jswauto]

This seems like a totally different point to the one I replied to

So I have to repeat it??...OK!!!

It's not Paul's words, It's THE WORD OF GOD!

What's the Bible say: This same action is possible when we follow the Lord. When the Lord work's thru us like he did Paul, these accomplishments stand for eternity. It is treasure taken to heaven when you go. It's like this:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in Me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.”
— John 14:12

 

[jswauto]

God’s Voice Gives Scripture its Authority​

Whenever God speaks through a human vessel, the message becomes God’s Word, not the vessel’s personal thoughts. This is the pattern across the entire Bible.

• God spoke through Moses, but the authority was God’s.
• God spoke through David, but the authority was God’s.
• God spoke through Isaiah, but the authority was God’s.
• God spoke through Paul, but the authority was God’s.

The human writer is the instrument, not the source.
This is why Scripture says:

• “Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
• “All Scripture is God‑breathed.”

The breath is God’s. The pen is the writer’s. The message is divine.

Paul Himself Insists the Words are not His​

Paul never claims originality. He repeatedly says:

• “The things I write to you are the Lord’s command.”
• “I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you.”
• “We impart this in words taught by the Spirit.”

He sees himself as a messenger, not an author of doctrine.

The Apostles Recognized God’s Voice in Paul’s Writings​

Peter’s statement is the clearest:

“Our beloved brother Paul… his letters… the ignorant twist them, as they do the other Scriptures.”

Peter is not elevating Paul. He is identifying the same divine voice speaking through Paul that spoke through Moses and the prophets.
That’s exactly what the Blessed of the Lord are saying: they are not Paul’s words — they are the Lord’s words spoken through Paul.

The Lord Could Have used Someone Else​

This fits perfectly with the biblical pattern mentioned earlier: if a chosen servant refuses, God raises another.

• Saul → David
• Judas → Matthias
• Moses → Joshua
• Elijah → Elisha
• Mordecai from Esther warned: “If you remain silent… deliverance will arise from another place.”

Paul was not irreplaceable. He was chosen — but the mission was God’s.
If Paul had hardened his heart, God would have raised another vessel. The authority lies in the Divine Sender, not the messenger.

Why This Matters for how We Read Paul​

The framing protects two essential truths:

• Paul’s writings are Scripture because God spoke through him.
• The authority belongs to God, not to Paul’s personality, intellect, or background.

This keeps the focus exactly where Scripture puts it:

The Word is God’s. The vessel is chosen Divinely. The message is eternally from the Lord.

The Human Authors are Instruments; God is the Source​

Think of it like this:

Element	Human Author	God
Origin of message		✔
Authority		✔
Personality/style	✔
Truthfulness	Derived	Original
Inspiration	Received	Given

The human authors contribute voice, vocabulary, personality, and context — but not authority.

Authority belongs to the One who speaks: JESUS CHRIST!

 

[prism]

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

2 Peter 3:15 KJV
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

I like to say, Peter tapped Paul after Jesus tapped Peter.

Matthew 16:18 KJV
And I (Jesus) say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

[jswauto]

If Someone Rejects Paul
If someone rejects Paul, they are not just rejecting a man — they are rejecting entire sections of the Bible, the testimony of the apostles, and the words of Jesus Himself.
Here are the major pieces of Scripture anti‑Pauline believers are missing, broken down clearly and powerfully.

1. They miss that JESUS Himself chose Paul​

Anti‑Pauline believers often say, “Paul appointed himself.”
But Scripture says the opposite.

Acts 9:15​

Jesus says of Paul:

“He is My chosen instrument to carry My name…”

This is not Paul’s claim. This is Jesus’ voice.

Rejecting Paul means rejecting Jesus’ choice.

2. They miss that JESUS personally taught Paul​

Paul didn’t invent doctrine. He received it directly from Christ.

Galatians 1:11–12​

Paul says the gospel he preached was:

“not from man… but through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

If someone rejects Paul, they are rejecting what Jesus revealed.

3. They miss that PETER calls Paul’s writings SCRIPTURE​

This is the most devastating passage for anti‑Pauline arguments.

2 Peter 3:15–16​

Peter says:

• Paul writes with the wisdom God gave him
• Paul’s letters are Scripture
• Those who twist Paul’s writings do so “to their own destruction”

This means:

• Paul’s writings = Scripture
• Rejecting Paul = rejecting Scripture
• Twisting Paul = spiritually dangerous

Anti‑Pauline believers cannot explain this passage without contradicting Peter.

4. They miss that LUKE (not Paul) records Paul’s authority​

The book of Acts — written by Luke, not Paul — shows:

• Paul receives visions
• Paul performs miracles
• Paul casts out demons
• Paul raises the dead
• Paul is commissioned by the Holy Spirit
• Paul is affirmed by the apostles
• Paul is sent by the church
• Paul suffers for Christ
• Paul’s ministry is validated by heaven

Rejecting Paul means rejecting Luke’s testimony and the Holy Spirit’s work in Acts.

5. They miss that the APOSTLES accepted Paul as equal​

Acts 15 (the Jerusalem Council) shows:

• Paul and Barnabas present their gospel
• Peter agrees with them
• James agrees with them
• The whole church agrees with them
• They send Paul out with full authority

Anti‑Pauline believers often claim Paul contradicted the apostles — but the apostles themselves say the opposite.

6. They miss that Paul’s teachings match JESUS’ teachings​

Anti‑Pauline believers claim Paul “changed the gospel.”
But compare:

Jesus:​

• Salvation by faith
• New covenant
• Inner transformation
• Love fulfills the law
• Gentile inclusion
• Persecution for righteousness
• The coming resurrection
• The return of Christ

Paul:​

Exactly the same themes.
Paul didn’t change Jesus’ message — he explained it to the Gentile world.

7. They miss that rejecting Paul destroys the New Testament​

If you remove Paul, you lose:

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

That’s 13 books — nearly half the New Testament.
And you also lose:

• Peter’s affirmation of Paul
• Luke’s record of Paul
• The Jerusalem Council’s approval of Paul
• Jesus’ calling of Paul

Rejecting Paul collapses the entire New Testament structure.

8. They miss that Paul’s message is the fulfillment of the Old Testament​

Paul didn’t invent grace. He showed how grace was always God’s plan.
He quotes:

• Genesis
• Exodus
• Deuteronomy
• Psalms
• Isaiah
• Hosea
• Habakkuk

Paul’s gospel is the Old Testament’s gospel, revealed in Christ.

9. They miss that Paul’s writings produce HOLINESS, not lawlessness​

Anti‑Pauline believers often accuse Paul of “abolishing the law.”
But Paul teaches:

• holiness
• purity
• obedience
• righteousness
• self‑control
• love
• humility
• repentance
• spiritual warfare
• walking in the Spirit

Paul is not the apostle of lawlessness — he is the apostle of Spirit‑empowered holiness.

10. They miss that rejecting Paul is a fulfillment of prophecy​

Paul warned that in the last days:

• people would reject sound doctrine
• people would follow teachers who suit their desires
• people would turn away from the truth

Anti‑Pauline movements are not new. They are predicted.

THE BOTTOM LINE​

Anti‑Pauline believers are missing:

• Jesus’ calling of Paul
• Jesus’ teaching to Paul
• Peter’s affirmation of Paul
• Luke’s record of Paul
• The apostles’ acceptance of Paul
• The unity of Paul’s gospel with Jesus’ gospel
• The Old Testament foundation of Paul’s teaching
• The Spirit’s power in Paul’s ministry
• The danger of rejecting Scripture
• The prophetic warning about rejecting Paul

Rejecting Paul is not a small disagreement. It is a rejection of Jesus’ choice, the apostles’ testimony, and the unity of Scripture.