I would not call it the " Gospel of Paul " for the whole word of God is God's.
The theology of Paul ? once again, Paul gained that understanding from God himself and ? Paul was well taught in the Hebrew writings, and he also was a teacher of the law.
The point I was trying to make here is we have those anti-Paulites trying to say that Paul was a false teacher because he taught so much on God's grace and then go into what Christ himself had to say about damnation, judgment.
The point I was making was ? they would like to rule out 2/3s of the new Testament by disregarding Paul's writings and teaching, but yet ? Paul was a associate and contemporary of Dr. Luke, and St. Mark.
Paul even mention those 2 in one of his writings.
Now would it be to far fetched to think and believe that Paul may have had a help in helping Dr. Luke and St. Mark write their books also ?
If anything ? The Aposple Paul had a influance on Dr. Luke and St. Mark.
“I would not call it the “ Gospel of Paul “ for the whole word of God is God’s.
The theology of Paul ? once again, Paul gained that understanding from God himself and ? Paul was well taught in the Hebrew writings, and he also was a teacher of the law.”
Don’t worry, I agree with you. I could have been clearer though originally. My position is that the “Gospel” of Paul is the same one given to us by all the Apostles, who all received the same message from God.
The “anti-Paulites,” as absurd as they are, would have to remove a whole lot more than just the works of Paul. Notice this particular thread is analyzing a chapter out of John. Thus, they would have to add to the list John the Apostle as well to those they ban. And we could keep on doing it to others, like Peter, who refer to the epistles of Paul as Holy scripture (2 Pe 3:15-16). The anti-Paulites, logically, would be left with no Bible at all at the end of the process.