Evidence for God from Science

The anti-pauline movement is nothing more than wolves in sheep's clothing seeking to scatter the sheep. Give them NO place!

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

Sorry to drag up an old thread like this, but this subject is new and dear to me.

To understand the Anti-Pauline movement you have to understand what the dividing doctrines are. To understand this, read this article from a Dallas Theological Seminary graduate. He is not an anti-Pauline and I disagree with his conclusions, but his scholarship is excellent.

Jesus vs. Paul

Make sure that after you read the article, that you read the comments under it. It's overly heated for my taste, but it does introduce you to the common arguing points.

I recognize a number of the "talking points" that are anti-Paul or attempt to diminish his role/authority in Scripture. Won't get into a big elaboration but I used to be sympathetic to anti-Paul rhetoric. That changed as I was going through our church class a year ago. You see, I had never approached the Scriptures in an organized or disciplined manner, that is if and when I read the Bible.

Our church class was called a fast track or survey so we didn't get into stuff real deep. But at a slower, methodical pace with thought provoking from our pastor and group members, I really started seeing Paul in a whole new light. Basically close to a 180 is how I'd describe it. Add in a personal experience regarding Paul and I really began to understand him on a more personal level. Sometimes his writings still spin my brain at times trying to sort out what he's trying to say.

Ya, he can be tough; but i think most or all of Paul resolves when one takes the passages as instructions for their Church, personally, the one they are building as a Priest.

REPeet wrote:Sorry to drag up an old thread up like this, but this subject is new and dear to me.

To understand the Anti-Pauline movement you have to understand what the dividing doctrines are. To understand this, read this article from a Dallas Theological Seminary graduate. He is not an anti-Pauline and I disagree with his conclusions, but his scholarship is excellent.

Jesus vs. Paul

Make sure that after you read the article, that you read the comments under it. It's overly heated for my taste, but it does introduce you to the common arguing points.

"Jesus v Paul" nice! i don't agree with all of it, he posits that Christ meant "political kingdom" which i don't think is true; neither this, restating the same thing, essentially--

"Israel had an opportunity to have its long-promised kingdom on earth if it repented (Matthew 6.10). The King was present."

even if i understand why he said it. ("If" it repented, it would no longer desire a fleshly king, or kingdom, iow)

Now that's interesting, because that's not what I got out of it. The way I understood it is that there are two distinct gospels presented in the New Testament.

The first, the Gospel of the Kingdom. Where you believe and trust in God, to the point that you are willing to follow his directions on how to live. As outlined in the Old Testament (the law).

The second, the Pauline Gospel of Grace, where you believe and trust that God has saved you. Then you try to live a godly life by doing what is right by guidance of the Holy Spirit. Without reference to "the law".

Paul made trips to Jerusalem as reported in Galatians 1:18-20 and Galatians 2:1-10. He first met with Peter and James. The second time around Peter, James, and John were present. Acts 15 might be the same trip as Galatians 2 also, perhaps separate. So Paul may have made at least three trips to Jerusalem which confirms his message and preaching of the Gospel.

So then, if one thinks Paul preached or hijacked Jesus' teachings, perhaps Jesus was a pitifully poor Rabbi (teacher) who couldn't teach those whom He made his disciples and entrusted His message to. Either that, or there is actually Apostolic agreement as to what Jesus Himself taught and authority given to Paul, as confirmed by the Apostles.

I do not see two different messages or Gospels, it is all compatible and unified under one. Paul goes a long way with his depth and breadth of knowledge as a previously zealous Jew to connect all the dots that it was by faith anyone in the Old or New has been saved.

I have heard the two gospel teaching and it is interesting and thought provoking. But what baffles me is this anti-paul movement shaming Paul unfairly for the sake of their interpretation. I mean whether they agree or not we cannot just throw out parts of the bible we don't like.

I agree the bible goes together and that Jesus was a master Rabbi and God in human flesh greater than Paul however until Jesus physically died on the cross,suffering in our place,paying for our salvation in full and rising from the dead noone could be saved like we now are. It was based on your faith in Jesus and obeying his teachings but once Christ died and rose again we could then be saved.

The disciples had to have time to understand and realize what Christ did so that we can be saved by grace and not the law.They were still trying to do it the way you did it before Jesus died and rose again. And God used Paul to reveal the gospel to them and they did,but it took a little persuading and discussion for them to accept what Paul revealed. Christ did not die and suffer in our place for nothing and now we are saved by grace and not the law,which nobody could keep the law anyway.

I see this a lot on discussion boards.

I think many people do not understand what Paul is saying.

There are two verses in Paul's writings these critics use to badmouth Paul.

One is Romans 3 verse 7, where the critics say that Paul admitted to lying.

Romans 3:7Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

7 But if by my lie[/b] God’s truth is amplified to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?

The other is 1 Corinthians 9:

19 Although I am a free man and not anyone’s slave, I have made myself a slave to everyone, in order to win more people. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win Jews; to those under the law, like one under the law—though I myself am not under the law[c]—to win those under the law. 21 To those who are without that law, like one without the law—not being without God’s law but within Christ’s law—to win those without the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, in order to win the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that I may by every possible means save some. 23 Now I do all this because of the gospel, so I may become a partner in its benefits.

Paul is accused of using deception as a means to save some.

The title of this thread is "what is with the anti-pauline movement?". As a new member of this movement I can assure you that it is not any "hate" for the person of Paul. Yes Paul was fallible, and makes himself an easy target for criticism. What the "anti-Pauline movement" is interested in is the fruit of Paul. The results of his doctrines on the church and lives of the people it influences.

In my first post I referenced Dr. Don Samdahl's excellent website Doctrine.org. I believe that he does an excellent job of delineating the differences between the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven, and Paul's Gospel of Grace.

Professor James D. Tabor, in his book "Paul and Jesus", does an excellent job explaining how "the great mystery" was revealed to Paul. That when Jesus was resurrected, that a new process became possible that hadn't existed before. The fascination with this new process consumes Paul and he dedicates his life to teaching it. The contention of the anti-Pauline movement is that he was lied to, or he really misunderstood what was being said to him.

Most of us here are aware that Paul's greek is cryptic at best. Some of what we understand Pauline Doctrine to be, was formulated by others after his life. Who these people were, and what their agenda was, is a study into itself.

One of these common Paulinisms is that no one can keep "the Law". Yet in Philippians 3:6, Paul declares himself "blameless" as to "the Law". In Luke 1:6 the Bible declares the parents of John the Baptist blameless before "the Law".

In Matthew 19:20, and again in Luke 18:21 the "Rich Young Ruler" tells Jesus that he had kept "the Law" since his youth. Jesus doesn't disagree with him or correct him. Jesus just tells him that mechanically keeping "the Law" misses the point. That you must give of yourself in love to others and to God to be "perfect".

So if Believing in the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus constrains God to let you into heaven, then why does Paul give a litany in I Corinthians 6 of acts that disqualify you from Salvation by Grace. Sounds like some kinds of "works" are involved with pleasing God there.

There are eight writers in the New Testament. Seven support the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven, and only one promotes the Gospel of Grace.

Interestingly a lot of the Hebrew Roots movement believe that Paul is greatly misunderstood, just like Peter stated he was in II Peter 3. And that Paul actually was trying to teach salvation by the Torah, with a wonderful new twist to God's salvation story. They would say that until you understand the New Testament as presented without Paul. You are unqualified to understand how Paul should be incorporated in the salvation narrative.

The anti-Paulinists would say that that is being way too generous to a theology that has become so hostile to Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Paul is still a man... He isnt Jesus nor god. The issue with the paulinist is their elevation of Paul and idolness of him as if He is some sort of the fourth part of the Trinity. There is one gospel, one good news, not two. Jesus. Not Paul.