There seems to be two very different discussions going on here.
1. Was Pauls teaching heretical?
and
2. The nature of antichrist.
My answers go like this.
If you belive in God then you also need to believe in the infallibility of Scripture.
Been through that argument a hundred time in this forum...the OT is, the NT has been edited so it's not entirely infallible....and believing in God has nothing to do with that....
I have one very important question.
If you don't beleive that the new testament is infallible, then how do you decide which parts are procedding from the mouth of God and which parts are just people spouting off?
If your answer in anyway uses some sort of internal or personnal method then you automatically make scripture subjective, and it becomes possible for any person to disregard any part of the NT as not from God simply because they don't agree, or it doesn't fit their picture of God.
If you don't then you have no basis for quoting scripture in any sort of defence.
Yes you absolutely do have basis.....You can quote scripture to prove Paul...you can quote the Gospels, James, Peter, John, Jude and Acts to prove Paul...
But who's to say that the sections disputing Paul a) even mean Paul and b) are from God and not just some person who doesn't like Paul.
And if you do believe in the infallibility of scripture, then you must believe that the inclusion of Paul's writings are valid.
The trouble is.....The Books of the OT quote God so they should be added, the Gospels and Revelation quote Jesus so they should be added. None of Paul's books quote Jesus or God directely, or in commision. For example, Paul is not commanded to write as John was...
And yet there is nothing that I have found in Pauls writtings that make me think that he held a corrupted veiw of Christianity.
God would not allow anti-christian teaching to be included in what is meant to be his word to the people of the world. I don't think Paul's teachings were in anyway heretical.
God had nothing to do with the formation of the NT unless it was to include James, Peter, John, and Jude in addition to the Pauline epistles so scholars could ferret Paul out....Please don't make the mistake in thinking God had a hand in it....if he did, we would have had a formal canon in 95 AD....not 400 AD.... The OT I will admit is God Breathed Scripture (almost pristine from the day it was penned).
If that were true, then we have no idea what books should be included in the NT as there are many that have been written. What criteria would you use to decide on the books of the NT? And I am honestly interested.
As for Antichrist, scripture tells us that there are two types of antichrist.
There is the type that can be anyone, they are simple anti christ, or against christ.
The second type is The Antichrist.
Yes...I agree with that and should have stated that earlier...one is against Christ, the other is a replacement Christ (Savior)...
The man of lawlessness who will rule the world during the seven years of the tribulation. He is the Satanic answer to Jesus. He will be indwelt by the spirit of Satan, and perform miracles by his power.
Is it possible to be indwelt by the spirit of Satan....? I personally believe that Satan, as an angel, has no spiritual (God like) power over anyone....He does I believe have power of persuasion however....
Given that this requires a face value reading of Revalation I understand that there are many people who will disagree with me on one point or another. Revalation tells us that at the mid point of the tribulation the Antichrist will be killed by a wound to the head. He will then be indwelt by Satan for the remainder of the tribulation. Remember Satan was not just an angel. Before his betrayal he was the chief amongst the angels. Which could mean that he had abilities the other angels didn't. And remember that demon posession is very real, jesus dealt with it many times.