/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>638540

<They cite Paul and Peters debate at Antioch as further evidence

What can two christians not have a disagreement on occasion? As long as they remain united in Christ who cares?

>They say Paul abrogated Jesus's teaching and introduced his own message. How do we respond?

Ask for their proof. They are preety exactly similar in the KJV.

>What evidence do we show?

1 corinthians 14:36-38

>What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

>If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

>But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

<but anon I, a muslim, am not a prophet or spiritual

Then why are you here? As they that worship God must worship Him in spirit and in truth as stated in john 4:24

<muslim proceeds to kill you for the truth

/thread

The early muslims explicitly called Paul a true disciple of Jesus

Because there is no evidence of a "Pauline/Christian" split. Even the Antiochine episode is a dispute about pastoral conduct, not doctrine.

Otherwise just point out the fact that Christ died His followers stuck together, remaining unified in spirit despite being sent all over the known world to spread the world, each one dying in humiliation for the Gospel.

Then look at Muhammad's followers, in which less than a generation after his death they already started squabbling about who should be his successor, resulting in civil war which split their movement apart almost from the very beginning.

In fine, Gamaliel's advice from Acts 5 :38-39

>And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. And they consented to him.

>>638540

The major issues:

1. This claim means that Paul was more powerful than both Jesus and Allah

2. The apostles who declared themselves Muslims (Surah 3:52) accepted Paul as an apostle (Galatians 2)

3. Early Muslim commenters accepted Paul and said he was an apostle

The most you'll probably get though is that "okay, Paul was an apostle but his message, along with Jesus's, was also corrupted"

>>638540

>How do we respond here?

Seems like it will lead to and endlessly ceasing circular argument that changes nothing.

>>638549

They say Paul made up the other stuff about him being approved by the Apostles, and even when I site Acts they say it was written by a Paul sympathizer so it cannot be trusted. They say because Paul says, "my gospel", that he is claiming to be a prophet abrogating Jesus teachings and introducing new things.

>>638553

They're pulling the selective reading trick like what the crazier protestants do. Paul qualifies each instance of "my gospel" with explicit statements that he is not the origin of these thoughts. The whole argument boils down to whether or not we believe that Paul is divinely inspired. Which we obviously do. They'd be better off trying to argue Evolutionism like the atheists do if this is the quality of theological debate they bring to the table.

>>638540

Is this truly a muslim specific issue? I've seen Christians deny Paul's authenticity too. One cited Jesus warning to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing as well as Benjamin's prophecy of becoming ravenous wolves. Some Nazis also questioned the authenticity of Paul.

>>638561

Only super lib women "priests" would deny Paul's authenticity because he does not permit a woman to speak or something.

>>638568

Kek

>>638546

Sources?

>>638540

For those who have not seen the Paul vs. Mohammad series

>>638540

> They cite Paul and Peters debate at Antioch as further evidence

>>638540

https://www.youtube.com/user/Acts17Apologetics

>>638540

they never read Paul, this is such a joke.

If you read the Epistles you will see there is a perfect harmony between Paul and the words of Jesus in the Gospels.

"If I said of my God that the scripture He gives us could be corrupted by human hands, I think I would be blaspheming His name, because I would be saying that His power can be diminished by people." I usually say something along these lines, they either walk away immediately or they are visibly distressed and want to study the Bible more.

>>638540

>They cite Paul and Peters debate at Antioch as further evidence.

Well Peter himself called Paul's writings scripture, so there's that.

<2 Peter 3:15-16

(15)  And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

(16)  As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

>>638540

Muslims used to think we worshiped Mary as part of the trinity (or at all).

Now they talk shit about St. Paul and they gripe about the trinity by telling themselves that it is polytheism. All of it is from ignorance.

Pretty sure this guy is a con artist, but he's entertaining. He did a video on Paul that seems relevant to this discussion, so I'll just leave it here.

>>639551

>Muslims used to think we worshiped Mary as part of the trinity

That's in the Quran:

And when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.

— Qur'an, sura 5 (Al-Ma'ida), ayat 116

I was just speaking with a Catholic I knew for years and she's convinced Paul was a heretic. Why are so many people from so many diverse groups rejecting Paul?

I also hear muslims pointing out Emperor Constantine a lot, that he corrupted the teachings also at the council of niacea where he was still pagan

>>641287

Because modern scholars have driven a wedge into Christianity to separate "Jesusism" from "Paulianity" and the result is what you would expect. St Paul commited the cardinal sin of not having postmodern 21st century socio-political beliefs in the 1st century Levant.

The trouble with this, however, is that once you separate Christ from His apostles, you can then quite easily separate Christ from Christ, when you start to argue over which Gospel is more authentic, to the rejection of others, and then you get Jesus Seminar/Authentic Gospel of Jesus stuff where they vote on which statements seem most authentic and so instead of several chapters of the Gospels you end up with a tailored list of phrases which seem "right".

Then there are those who just go straight for the juggular with trash like Pullman's "The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ".

>>641287

Well, if she's genuinely convinced, then she is ipso facto not a Catholic herself.

>>641287

Paul is the most prolific writers among the apostles and his teachings on correct doctrine, as taught to him by Christ Himself, is fundamental to anything we'd recognize as Christianity. Of course they hate him, he wrekted them thousands of years before they were born.

>>641963

>Pullman

I wonder if anyone is taken in with His Dark Material's depiction of a luciferian cosmos where the highest exaltation humanity can experience is to shove their souls into a cosmic recycling and be broken down for bits. Then I get sad because of course they do.

>>638561

Paul's job was to round up Christians and kill them. You think the Pharisees would deem it usefull to have one of their own to distort the word of Jesus? Just a thought

>>638575

The tafsir of Ibn Kathir on surah Yasin.

>>643141

I think a man who endured so much on Christ's behalf is beyond reproach in this regard.

Also, the dude was beheaded for his faith, some say by Nero.

Muslims are only using this to attack Christianity. The truth if it is irrelevent to them, therefore you literally cant argue against is because even if you do flawlessly, theyll just discard it and use something else to attack us.

How often does it need to be said:

DONT CAST PEARLS BEFORE SWINE