Seems to me Christians might want to be careful paying heed to “theologians” who would discredit Paul. Without him there just isn’t much of a New Testament left. Of course, that just may be the point.
The ones who discredit Paul seem to be the same ones with the “left behind” philosophy
Craig did not discredit Paul in any way. He is saying that rapture fiction is based upon a incorrect interpretation of Paul.
The gospel comes from Jesus not Paul, we would have the gospel with out even one letter from Paul.
I do not see this as discrediting Paul, but the interpretations of his writings. I, too, find little with the concept of the rapture which is consistent with the balance of scripture.
The real damage it can cause is complacency about the world: “I wont be here, so what difference does it make.” This attitude is totally contrary to the balance of scripture.