Posted on 09/21/2025 12:59:32 AM PDT by Jonty30
I am just wondering about the anti-Pauline movement within the church and what reasons they reject him?
I understand that some blacks have trouble with his prioritizing witnessing to Onesimus over his freedom from slavery.
But I don't understand what theology they are accepting that rejects him.
Exactly!
Simple answer is they are not Christians, so don’t call them that.
There are those who only believe what the scriptures say, except when it differs with their “learned” opinion. They don’t believe the writings of Paul are the word of God and authoritative. Goes back to Eden. Did God really say....?
A Jewish woman (not Messianic, but outright Jewish) told me that Jesus preached pure Judaism, and that Paul changed Jesus' teachings away from Judaism.
She said to me, "Christians are really Paulines."
Jews are also offended by Paul's use of the terms "Judaizer," and "Judaizing." I've been told those words are offensive and anti-Semitic.
This uneasiness with Paul might be coming from some extreme Dispensationalist factions.
Just what are they reading?
Paul only restores the escape slave on the condition "that thou shouldest receive him for ever; Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself. If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account...receive him as myself."
I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me: Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels: Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel: But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly. For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself. If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account; (Philemon 10-18)
Just how does Paul's "son" being restored as a beloved brother, as Paul as himself(!) equate to slavery? And note that life was hard, and it would be harder for Onesimus than with a landowner and business. Instead, Paul essentially requires "fellowlabourer" Philemon to grant Onesimus his freedom but commits him to his care, even as Paul himself!
Outside of that, Paul counsels slaves to obtain freedom if able:
Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. (1 Corinthians 7:20-21)
Tet Christian faith is about overcoming circumstances, which would change society from the ground up, while Rome did not treat slave revolts kindly, and the infant church was not in any position to effect abolition in a slave state. That position would not come till the 1800's helped by mechanization, while f we lived 200 years ago, many people would be looking for slaves. Or to be one.
Meaning a Judaism that meant:
No prophet is accepted in his own country. But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian. And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he passing through the midst of them went his way, (Luke 4:24-30)
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. (John 10:16)
I know some Jews think that gentiles are trying to steal their birthright of being the appointed people because of the Christ branching us into the plan of salvation.
Thanks for this article. I’ve only heard of Mohammedans saying Paul distorted the “Injil” that Isa (The 8th century islamic version of Jesus) brought.
Regarding Philemon and Onemisus, I don’t see how black people could be upset with that. Neither of thise two were black or African. Both were probably the same Hellenized Anatolian ethnicity.
I would think Noahides like ZC would be anti Pauline, but don’t know. ZC would know better
I just googled and see that Swedenborgians, Unitarians and Christian Scientists are anti Pauline.
Quite frankly this is the outcome of sola scriptura where the logical outcome is to question every choice made by earlier Christians
I don’t think impossible, but very hard.
The essence of what Christ taught is in the Gospels and the Johannine, Petrine , Jude and James epistles. We can understand who He is, that we need to repent believe, be baptized, eat of His body and endure to the end to be saved. I would also argue that the 2nd temple Judaism concept of “The two powers in heaven” is an early view of the Trinity that we read in Genesis.
Paul elaborated on what Jesus taught, he didn’t have a separate teaching (that is the accusation Mohammedans make against Paul)
Gosh, 40 years ago I read an op-ed in one of the San Francisco newspapers in which the town’s then Episcopalian bishop wrote off St Paul as a hopelessly sexist, patriarchal, homophobic prude. Not knowing many Episcopalians at the time, that was the first time I realize that that sect had completely gone off the rails.
When your Christianity is Social Justice, causes become more important than the Gospel.
🔝🔝🔝
✝️✝️✝️🙏🙏🙏🛐🛐🛐
“uneasiness with Paul might be coming from some extreme Dispensationalist factions.”
You are very correct.
Jesus preached 2nd temple Judaism. Christianity IS a sect of 2nd temple Judaism with the High Priest and perfect Sacrifice (Jesus), with ministerial priests and with a nation of priests ,(all believers).
What we call Judaism today is really Rabbinical Judaism, another sect derived from the 2nd temple Judaism sect of Pharisees.
Read about the Pharisee Rabbi Yohanna bin Zakkai who created Rabbinical Judaism in 70 AD at the council of Jamnia by rejecting the Deuterocanonical books and the Septuagint that the Jesus movement 2nd temple Judaic sect was using.
Yes, what we call “Judaism” is really “Rabbinical Judaism” and is 40 years YOUNGER than Christianity.
The 2nd temple Jews didn’t have the Talmud (written in the 8th century in Baghdad and which influenced the stabilization of Islamic doctrine at that time), they focused on the temple, priests, animal sacrifices.
We Christians ARE the expanded Israel as Jesus promised and John saw in his apocalyptic vision. God has always looked to expand His relationship with humanity: from a single man, Abraham, to a tribe to a nation, to the whole world (Daniels vision of a rock unheen by human hands becoming a mountain that covered the entire earth.
“I know some Jews think that gentiles are trying to steal their birthright of being the appointed people because of the Christ branching us into the plan of salvation”
Then they forget what the Jewish people were appointed for.
Salvation came from the Jews.
Jesus was born a Jewish man.
The Jews were a light to the nations, spreading the worship of Yahweh to all the nations that they all might be one again like the pre Babel days
Liberation Theology
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.