Could Islam have had Nestorian origins?

I talked once before about the possibility of an Ebonite origin for Islam.  Back then I was pretty skeptical of comparing Nestorains to Islam, but things have changed.  Much of what I said there I still stand by in a sense.

It is frequently assumed that there is no basis for Jesus/Isa being in any way divine in the Quran or Islamic thinking.  However Jesus is called a Kalimah "Word" from Allah (Sura 3:39, 3:45 and 4:171), and also said to be a Ruh "Spirit" of Allah (Sura 4:171, 21:91 and 66:12).  These are unique to Jesus not said of any other Prophets including Muhammad himself.  The Quran also affirms Jesus alone among all humans to have been without Sin, never touched by Satan.  It is possible to argue the Quran gives Jesus a divine quality, but wants to keep it compartmentalized from the Human.  Here is a Christian website talking about the implications of these titles.
https://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/5c.html

Some background on the Nestorians.
http://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/04/nestorianism-and-church-of-east.html

The Quran speaks very highly of Mary the mother of Jesus, being the only Woman mentioned by name in the Quran.  But the Quran also condemns the Mary worship that had already developed among many Christians.  In one verse doing so in a way that has caused people to think it's confused on what the Trinity Doctrine is.  Since the Quran repeatedly affirms Jesus as Al-Masih (The Messiah/Christ) it could be said that the Quran supports Mary as the Christokos but not Theotokos.

Bahira aka Sergius is a monk said to have influenced Muhammad, who's sometimes speculated to have been a Nestorian.  And sometimes so is the relative of Muhammad I talked about in the Ebonite post.

Here is an article arguing that much of the Quran could be flawed Arabic translations of Aramaic Christian Liturgy.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2012/12/the-christian-origins-of-islam
I don't think all of it is though, many of the Median Suras were definitely the sayings of a man who's made himself king of his own little kingdom trying to rewrite how Arabian society functions.  This theory also suggest they were being critical of Miasyphite and Monophysite theology which the Nestorians certainly were.

Nestorius strongly taught Divine Impassability which is also part of Islamic theology.

But speaking of possible Aramaic origins for the Quran.  The Aramaic Peshita renders Jesus name as Eshu and God as Alaha.  Isa isn't the only way the Quran's form of Jesus name has been transliterated into English, Esa has also been common.  So maybe this name coming from Eshu rather then any Greek or Hebrew text could explain why the Quran doesn't render the name of Jesus the same way most Arabic Christians do.

It is also a misunderstanding that leads people to think the Quran says Jesus didn't die.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_Jesus'_death#Earliest_reports
The interpretation that these verses are about saying Allah took his life and not that he was killed by whatever appeared to be the physical cause of his death, also makes sense in a Christian context, just look at John 10:17-18.

Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.  No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Jesus is saying He lays down His Life, no one else could kill him.

On the subject of the Quran seemingly knowing only one Gospel.  There was said to have been an Aramaic harmonized Gospel written by the heretic Tatian, and there exists a text of what is believed to be an Arabic translation of that Harmonized Gospel.

Or Muhammad could have been combining Nestorian ideas with the ideas of some Hebraic-Christian groups and just used only an Aramaic version of Matthew or maybe Mark, or possibly John.  But I think Luke would be the least likely.

Some sources say Nestorius and some of his friends were exiled to Petra in Arabia in 435 briefly before later going to Egypt.  Flavian II of Antioch would also be banished to Petra after being accused of Nestorianism.

Chris White has shown how Islamic Eschatology derives from ideas popular in Eastern Christian Eschatology during the same centuries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOULuQdve-M

The Book of The Bee is a Nestorian text that clearly proves the Nestorians for a long time believed in that same basic model of Eschatology.

I don't think even the earliest form of Islam would have been in proper Communion with the Church of the East however.  Muhammad definitely broke with proper Nestorian thinking in many ways.  Especially his denial of the Fatherhood of God. I disagree with many aspects of how David Wood chooses to deal with Islam, but his Psychology of Islam/Faith of the Fatherless series of videos I do think are pretty good.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVQDuplCV7iZkSqORRYgaDEaG67nYGQHG

Now I want to state that I believe Muhammad existed.  However I've learned some interesting facts about history studying those saying he didn't.  I have come to agree with Robert Spencer (author of Did Muhammad Exist?)'s theory in that I think Islam was originally a sect of Christianity and remained so till at least the early 700s, and the Quran wasn't really written down in a form like we now know until about then, and continued being edited even after that.  (Spencer is also someone who's politics I don't agree with.)

But there is room for a Historical Muhammad in that, if he was originally just like many charismatics calling themselves Prophets today, then those who followed his movement wouldn't have made it about him at first.  And I'll agree that the word Muhammad may have originally been a title applied to Jesus or perhaps many prophets and not necessarily the Quran's author as an individual.  But it's often forgotten that the official view of Islamic history doesn't claim Muhammad was his birth name.

But I've already discussed on this Blog how The Quran says Israel belongs to the Israelites.  So that's a problem for Spencer saying the entire Quran was the political agenda of an Empire that had already ruled Israel for a century or two.

Here are two YouTube videos on the subject I watched.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6bBeyaRjac
His debate with David Wood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXf7uP9lhE8

Now my reasons for believing Muhammad existed are not what David Wood's main reason is.  I'm not impressed by the "Criterium of Embarrassment" because I'm an aspiring writer myself, so I know that if I'm gonna invent a character I won't make him flawless, especially if I want him to seem plausible.  If I was gonna create a fictional Prophet in the style of an Old Testament Prophet, I'd look at how flawed the Old Testament prophets were and imitate that.

On the subject of "the Satanic Verses", it could be that Sura was originally a Pagan Arabic Prayer predating even the presumed time of Muhammad that this new Monotheistic Arabic Empire appropriated.  And after the reference to the goddesses was edited out people later sought to invent a story to explain there being two versions of the Sura.

I think Muhammad existed first because of the Doctrina Jacobi, it was written between 636 and 640 AD depicting events supposed to have happened in 634 AD.  It refers to an unnamed Prophet among the Arabs.  Now some want to use this against the historicity of Muhammad, saying this Prophet is alive still after Muhammad traditionally died (632 AD) and implying he was personally part of the Arab invasion of Palestine.  But it doesn't matter if the details don't line up, it proves a charismatic Arab Prophet was known to have precipitated the Arab invasion of the Eastern Roman Empire.  This is a fictionalized account so of course it may get some things wrong.  And there is also a 5 year discrepancy on the traditional date of King Arthur's death, his existence isn't doubted because of that discrepancy but because of no reference that is this contemporary, since I think an Arthur did exist it'd be hypocritical of me to question the existence of Muhammad on these grounds.  Of course it could be the "Prophet" himself is here being confused with the second or third Calif.

And a second witness is the seventh Century Armenian Bishop Sebeos a couple decades latter, he mentioned a Mahmed by name.  But these sources do not depict him as starting a whole new religion, but present him as advocating for an already existing Abrahamic Faith.  Sebeos also mentions Umar(Amrh) by name as well as Mu'awiya.

And then there is the Chronicle of 741, which was written sometime between that year and 750. It refers to Muhammad by name, but says he lead an Arab rebellion within the the Eastern Roman Empire, and says he was only called a Prophet posthumously by his followers.  And it's the first written down reference to the name of Mecca, but strangely places Mecca in Mesopotamia.
http://www.academia.edu/6485616/_The_Chronicle_of_741_

I actually think the Mesopotamian Mecca of that reference could be Karbala, which the fourth Shiite Imam said was a more ancient Holy Place then the Kaaba.

The second reason is because of the evidence I've been convinced of that the original Mecca was actually Petra.  A theory proposed by Dan Gibson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOxZl60MyqE

There are other theories proposing a different location for the Mecca of Muhammad's life.  I first watched this video from Tom Holland.  He doesn't say exactly where he places it here but I know elsewhere he proposes Avdat in modern Israel south of Beersheba.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDQh2nk8ih4

And this article proposing a Sinai Peninsula location.  It depends on Mt Sinai and Kadesh being traditionally placed there.  I don't think that's where Biblical Sinai or Kadesh was, but them being believed to be there was firmly entrenched by Muhammad's time, or at least Sinai was.
http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/original-christian-quran-online/content/original-quran15.html
Josephus identified Petra with Kadesh, a fact often cited by Jabal El-Laws supporters.   I've grown increasingly unsure where I place Sinai or Kadesh, but I know it's East of the Gulf of Aqaba.  And it is reported that one ancient name for the Kaaba was Al-Qadis.  Maybe this can re-contextualize Velikvosky's reason for identifying Kadesh with Mecca?

Diodorus Siculus possible allusion to the Kaaba also places it in northern Arabia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca#cite_note-38

The references to Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat in the biography of Muhammad also support a more northern location.  They were Nabatean goddesses, not well known that far south in Arabia outside their association with stories from Muhammad's life.  And they're not limited to the controversial Satanic Verses story either.  David Wood also loves to mention an account where someone tells someone to "suck the Clitoris of Al-Lat".

It is also said that at some point (sometimes said to be 400 years before Muhammad, sometimes seemingly far older then that) a Hubal idol was placed on top of the Kaaba.  Hubal was also a Nabatean god.

And there is even Ancient evidence for something being called a Kaaba in Petra.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaabou

I don't know if Dan Gibson would agree with Tom Holland's view that the Mushrikun of the Quran were Monotheists not Pagan Polytheists.  But in the context of combining those views, I could see the Miaphysites and/or Chalcedonians being called Mushrikun by Nestorians easily.  And the Ghassanid Arabs who controlled much of northern Arabia in Muhammad's time were predominately Miayphysites.  (But I could also see the Ghassanids being called Sabians because of their Yemenite origins.)  The Coptic Church was also Miayphsite.

A recently discovered site in Petra could very well be the exact site of the original Kaaba.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upOPc0Yl12M

Josephus in Antiquities Book IV Chapter 4 section 7 refers to Petra as the Metropolis of the Arabians, Metropolis is a combination of the Greek words for Mother and City so the Qur'anic title "Mother of Cities" is an equivalent title.  Later in chapter 7 Josephus also tells us an alternate name for Petra was Arecem which also occurs in the Koran.

Going back to how this effects the main point of this post.  The closer we get to the immediate outskirts of the Eastern Roman Empire, the more likely it is Nestorians could have had a presence.

Isaac of Nineveh was an ethnically Arab Nesotiran Bishop who lived from 623-700 AD, mostly in Mesopotamia after it had all been conquered by the Arabic Empire.  He never discuses Islam in his writings at all.

Back to the Word of God as a title of Jesus in the Quran.  Since the links I've provided in this post provide much documentation of how the Quran has been changed.  Maybe originally this title was said with more of a definite article then how it reads now.

My goal is not to smear either the Quran or Nestorians by associating one with the other.  While I do strongly disagree with the final product of the Quran on a lot of theology, I have come to think my own understanding of how the Divinity and Humanity of Christ relate may be a little Nestorian.  But the Quran is the result of a Nestorian theology that was distorted over time.

"Neither Male or Female in The Church" Follow Up

This is a follow up to my earlier Paul Said there is Neither Male or Female in The Church.  Which was based on Galatians 3:28.

I want to address some of the other passages in the New Testament, mainly other teachings of Paul, people might insist contradict my absolutist understanding of that verse.  Some of course I already anticipated in advance there, or dealt with when defending Female Pastors, [that post is a big out of date only in that I no longer support the traditional office of "pastor" at all, but I definitely support female Presbyters].

In Romans 7 the point of the Torah Passage being cited there is to demonstrate that we are no longer under the Law once we are made Dead to the Law in Christ at Baptism.  I don't think it's meant to be relevant to how Christians should understand Marriage, Gender Roles or the Bride of Christ Doctrine.

The end of 1 Timothy 2 I think is about the Seed of the Woman prophecy, it's not saying any individual woman's salvation is dependent on bearing children.  As for everything alleged to be Sexist about this passage, quite a bit has been written about it already.

1 Corinthians 11:5 is clear that Women were speaking in Church.  1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is what's often cited to say that women are forbidden to speak in Church and thus be pastors.   First of all 1 Corinthians 14 was largely about the misuse of Tongues and other Charismatic practices.  Second that statement can be viewed as Paul quoting a Rhetorical slogan that he then refutes in verse 36 "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?".

Ephesians 5 is the key passage used to insist the New Testament reinforces patriarchal Gender Roles in Marriage.  But here is what I want to point out, the words for Male and Female used in Galatians 3:28 are not used at all in the entire book of Ephesians.

There are likely a variety of ways Ephesians 5 has been translated, and maybe not even always internally consistent.  What you need to know is Aner/Andros gets translated both Man and Husband while Gune/Gyno gets translated Woman, Wife and maybe sometimes Bride.

In ancient Greek, the words in Galatians are much closer to being clinical terms, with the word for Female there also being the root for the Greek word for breastfeeding.  Aristotle explained their meaning in his Generation of Animals where he says the Arren are those who generate in another and the Thelu are those who generate in themselves, Aristotle on issues was Conservative but not Reactionary, so whatever ones opinion on his philosophy we can trust he got the meanings of words right.  Gyno only seems clinical to us now because of the modern medical profession's selective use of Greek and Latin words.  

Basically, I think Ephesians 5 is about Marriage rather then Gender.  And that in the context of this author also writing Galatians, it can be considered possible that a Female could be a Husband and a Male could be a Wife and a Non-Binary individual could be either or both.

Seneca the Elder’s Controversiae is a teaching manual in legal rhetoric featuring unusual law cases and strategies to be used for or against the defendants involved.  One example he uses comes from Sacaurus consul suffect in 21 CE in his criticism of the tactics used by Hybreas in defending a man who murdered two women he caught having sex with each other.  Sacaurus referred to both women as Tribades (an often debated term associated with Lesbianism during the Greco-Roman era), Hybreas however used Andra of the active partner.  The scene may be interpreted as being comedic, but the use of Andra is not the punchline, it's the set up, the punch line is using "stitched on" to describe the Dildo he looked for didn't find.  This is a first century AD legal precedent for describing a Butch Lesbian as a Husband.  Later in Lucian's Dialogue of the Courtesans Megilla/Megillus and Demonassa call themselves Husband and Wife.

The Tithe and Socialism

The food and money gathered via the Tithe in the Mosaic law wasn't just used by the Priests and Levites.  Deuteronomy 14:29 makes clear it's also for the Immigrants, Orphans and Widows.

The Tithe was a 10% Tax of sorts, but it can't be compared to something like a Tax on hourly wages. It was a Tax on increase, productivity, more analogous in our modern Tax system to something like the Capitol Gains Tax.

The Tithe is one of many parts of the Law of Moses not applicable under the New Testament as there is no Temple and we aren't supposed to be a civil nation state.

However it's existence in the Mosaic Law means if you want to use The Bible as a guide for your Politics you can't claim things like Welfare and Food Stamps are completely incompatible with The Bible.

But I'd argue in a modern society that is far less agrarian over all then Ancient Israel's, God would approve of even more Socialism when you look at how much Jesus talked about caring for The Poor and the Sick.

Now look, I'm a former Ron Paul Libertarian, so I fully get all the arguments that Jesus saying we morally should give to the poor doesn't mean he'd approve of the Government redistributing the wealth.  But that lack of Government involvement was because the early Christians didn't hold any government power, and in my opinion proper Christians probably still shouldn't seek government power.  But if American Evangelicals and their GOP allies want to keep talking about America as a Christian Nation, then the Nation should be required to do what Jesus told all Christians to do, which includes feeding the hungry and caring for the sick.  You can't have it both ways. 

Now a lot of Republican and Libertarian Christians love to misuse 2 Thessalonians 3:10 "if a Man doesn't work he shouldn't eat".  I'm going to provide some links of others talking about that. But even they are still seeking to keep the Bible compatible with a Neo-Liberal form of Capitalism.  The important part of the context being left out is verse 9 "We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate."

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/9/21/1240473/-I-don-t-think-the-words-in-Thessalonians-3-10-mean-what-you-think-they-mean
http://religiondispatches.org/gop-lawmaker-botches-bible-to-punish-poor/
http://www.christiandemocratsofamerica.org/blog/2014/08/17/dont-work-dont-eat/
http://banpreachergreed.tripod.com/id89.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/2-Thessalonians-3-10-no-work-eat.html
https://itself.blog/2013/07/16/he-who-will-not-work-shall-not-eat-an-explanation/

Also the American Conservatives citing this verse are unaware of how it's actually a part of Socialist rhetoric.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat#Soviet_Union
Likewise "From each according to his Ability, to each according to his Need" comes form Acts 4:32-35.  The problem with attempts to use the Parable of the Talents against that axiom is that Jesus parables are not about actual economic policy but allegories about spiritual work.

Matthew 5:42 says to always give to those who beg of you.

I'm not suggesting we try to make everyone completely 100% economically equal.  But income inequality is not entirely because of "merit".  Major corporations do not function because of their CEOs and shareholders alone.  In a world where some people have more money then even existed 500 years ago, it's possible to take care of the poor without making them not Rich anymore.  We are producing more then enough to feed everyone on the planet, but we don't.

Some earlier relevant posts of mine.  The oldest was written at a time when I was still more hostile to Socialism then I am now.

The Bible and Private Property

My complex views on Marxisim.

And some Conservatives will also quote the end of Genesis 3 to support the importance of work.  The context they're ignoring there is that was Adam's punishment for his sin.  On this side of the Cross the price of sin has been paid so we're supposed to restore the condition of early Genesis.  We know that the true perfection of Eden won't be fully restored till New Jerusalem descends (unless you're an Amillennial full Preterist, then you have no excuse for supporting Capitalism, no one still has to work in New Jerusalem), but we're still supposed to be striving towards that.  Genesis 3 certainly doesn't support Labor being something to be proud of.

Purgatory???

Purgatory as it's traditionally defined in Roman Catholic theology is a false doctrine I aboslutly reject.  And since Medieval Catholics coined the term you can kind of say that means I reject the concept altogether.

But there is a tendency in Protestant and Evangelical circles to use the word "Purgatory" to smear any suggestion that how the After Life and the Resurrection works isn't as simple as "Good go to Heaven and Bad go to Hell", however that view of the After Life comes from Zoroastrianism not The Bible.  But since Purgatory is a Catholic term, in circles often raised to think the Pope is the Antichrist suggesting a vaguely Catholic association is a good scare tactic.  And that includes using it against aspects of the arguments of Universal Salvation, like when we quote Malachi 3 as teaching that the Fire of God is for purifying and purging, and Matthew 5 and Luke 12:19 being clear that God's punishment isn't endless..

The problem with the Medieval Catholic Purgatory doctrine was how they used it as a form of Spiritual Extortion.  Telling people their loved ones are in Purgatory and in need of lots of Prayers to help them get out.  And so people would pay the Church money for special prayer services.

This is also the issue behind debates about "Praying for the Dead".  Someone outside Christianity might be confused why that's even controversial.  When we discus the doctrine of Prayer for the Dead, Protestants and Evangelicals are opposing the notion that the dead need our prayers to help them into Heaven, they believe our eternal destiny is decided once we die.  And I now believe in Universal Salvation so there is nothing to worry about at all.  Praying to say Goodbye if that helps you deal with your grief is not what we're talking about.

This Catholic Purgatory doctrine only really began to develop with certain teachings of Augustine of Hippo and Pope Gregory The Great.  But the term as we know it wasn't coined till the 12th Century.

Attempts by Catholic Apologists to find precedent for Purgatory in Pre-Nicene or even Pre-Augustine Early Church Fathers include Tertulian's view of the after life built on his flawed understanding of the Luke 16 parable and the Fifth Seal in Revelation 6.  And vaguely similar views from Irenaus which all agree no one reaches their final destination till the final Judgment.  And others talking about Fire purifying souls of Sin, often drawing on 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, which is specifically about believers who are Saved but their bad works are consumed by fire.

Basically, the same teachings of the Church Fathers I looked to as a basis for my old Independent Baptist style Free Grace Eternal Security soterology.  But now as an Evangelical Universalist the Biblical Passages behind them I view as supporting the teaching that even the Fires of the Lake of Fire are a Fire of purification.

1 Corinthians 3:15 was important to how I made my old Eternal Security argument even before I knew it had been tied into the Purgatory doctrine by Catholics.  It proves that references to believers facing ramifications for their sins doesn't mean they lose Salvation.  Along with my arguments for the Outer Darkness and Hebrews 6 being about loss of Inheritance and thus being outside New Jerusalem.

However the Achilles Heel to my old Soterology that I wasn't aware of at the time since no one made the argument to me, is the repeated references to a backsliden or apostate believer's judgment being worse then a non believer's.  That's an implication of Matthew 18:34, and the clear teaching of Luke 12:47-48 and some things said in 2 Peter and Jude where Apostasy is viewed as the theme.  And Jesus talking about Tyre and Sidon not having it as bad on the Day of Judgment as the Israelites who heard his message and rejected it.  1 Timothy 5:8 is another witness to that.

You can't reconcile that with a belief that unbelievers face Eternal Endless Torment while believers are definitely promised our Judgment will be temporary and not undo our Salvation.

All this is another reason that Universal Salvation is the most coherent interpretation of the fullness of The Scriptures.

Universal Salvation both with and without Paul.

Back when my Soterology was a more Independent Baptist style Free Grace Eternal Security, I made a post addressing those who reject Paul as a False Prophet showing I could argue it independent of Paul.  Primarily directed at the sub group calling themselves Jesus Words Only.

I figure I ought to do the same for Universal Salvation.  To start with I shall demonstrate it using Jesus Words Only.

John 12:30-33

Jesus answered and said, "This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.  Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.  And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."  This he said, signifying what death he should die.

The language in the Greek in verse 32 is very strong language, implying those being drawn are being drawn regardless of their will.  And on the Cross Jesus asked The Father to forgive those mocking and tormenting him, even though none of them were repentant.

That the Punishment of the Wicked is NOT endless can be demonstrated by Matthew 5:26/Luke 12:59 as well as Matthew 18:34 and Luke 12:47-48.  But back to Matthew 5, later verse 45 tells us that...

"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

Then I have my post on The Second Death where I tied Jesus teaching about the Sheep and Goats Judgment (last parable of Matthew 25) into what He taught in John 5:21-29 and Revelation 20.  I only mention Paul's Resurrection teaching there to show how I view it as consistent with that, but that doctrine can be built without Paul easily.

The idea that Jesus taught Eternal Damnation is refuted by understanding the Greek (see Words Translated Eternal and The Age of Ages), but I've also rhetorically argued how even the KJV can be interpreted consistent with Universal Salvation.

Matthew 10:28 is a favorite verse of Annihilationists, where Jesus says not to fear who  kill your Body but God who can kill your Soul.  Eternal Punishment believers say "killing the soul" is just a poetic allegory for Eternal Punishment. But the problem is you need to keep reading verses 29-31, Jesus goes on to say NOT to Fear God because He won't do that because He loves us.

Going on to the writings of The Apostles, 1 John 2:2 refutes Limited Atonement.  "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."  And 2 Peter 3:9 tells us that God is not willing that any should Perish.

I'm also working on a post specifically about how I feel Revelation on it's own strongly implies Universal Salvation which will be posted on my Prophecy Blog, the Anti-Paul people love to misuse certain material from Revelation.

Objections to Paul tend to come from a place of reverence for The Old Testament, especially The Torah.  I have my post on The Resurrection in The Torah where I show that the roots of the Universal Salvation message are right there in The Torah.  And I've talked about the fact that Ezekiel 16 says even Sodom shall be restored.  And then there is Psalm 30, a Davidic Psalm, in verse 5 says that Yahuah's anger is for but a moment. 

So that point has been proven.

But what if the opposite attitude towards Paul also exists?  What if there are Neo-Marcionites out there who think only Paul got it right and the rest of Scripture must be filtered through how it lines up with Paul?  Well I can also prove that Paul taught Universal Salvation.

Romans 5:17-19, and the context only makes the point stronger.

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)  Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.  For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Which is complimented by the discussion of Adam and Christ in 1 Corinthians 15.  The number of people saved by Jesus can't be smaller then the number condemned by Adam.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 says "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all people to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.".  Which is another big Problem for Calvansit theology.  And then verse 6 does more damage to Limited Atonement.

And in Chapter 4 verse 10 we have.

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Showing Jesus has Saved all, not just Believers.

Paul only uses any of the three words that are commonly translated "Hell" once, in 1 Corinthians 15:55, but the KJV doesn't render it Hell here but rather Grave, I shall adjust the KJV reading.

O death, where is thy sting? O hell, where is thy victory?

He only refers to the Abyss when saying Jesus descended into it, making it part of the Harrowing of Hell doctrine.

What Paul says about fire as judgment is in 1 Corinthians 3:13-15, where the context is specifically about Believers at the Bema Judgment.

Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.  If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.  If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 and maybe Hebrews 6:2 are the only places where Paul is seemingly referring to Eternal Damnation, but once again this comes down to the issue of how Aionion/Aionios should be translated, and perhaps also what kind of judgment is even in mind.

And there are other Paulian passages with Universalist implications as well.  Like 2nd Corinthians 5 and Paul's teaching on Israel in Romans 9-11, or Colossians 1:20.  

But perhaps most importantly the Sermon on Mar's Hill in Acts 17, that can't be written off as some obscure teaching buried in the Epistles, this is how he presented The Gospels to the Greeks and often held up by people like Ken Ham as the model of how The Gospel should be presented to the Gentiles.  At the end in verses 31 and 32 we read.

"Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."  And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

The Judgment is mentioned, but then says that "all men" have assurance in the Resurrection.  It's not an option they have to accept, it's assurance.  And the description of how people responded, ranging from hostility to curiosity to belief, is emphasizing The Resurrection not The Judgment.

So if you limited your Canon to Paul, there isn't much of a hint of endless Punishment, the Wage he associates with Sin is Death in Hebrews.  But he also says Death has no Sting now thanks to Jesus.  Marcion's Canon was Paul and Luke minus OT references, and Luke has no references to Eternal or Everlasting punishment, only Eternal Life.  The Parable in Luke 16 is depicting Hades which Paul says will have no Victory.

My bias however has always been against picking and choosing.  So I'm glad I can demonstrate Paul to be consistent with the rest of Scripture on this.