/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>679123

*Dabs*

*Sages*

>>679123

No, can you tell us more OP?

>>679123

*Gasp

>You think

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaAAAA

>W-we *wheez reject

HAHAHAHEeeee

>reject the gospel of

Choke on spit

>Peter because

HAHAHAHaaHAHAHA

>because

HAHA *thyroid hops out of mouth

>because of

*losing consciences

>Paul?!

…Ha! I'm dying!

>>679127

>>679126

Simon Peter literally translates to "Stone or Rock" in Hebrew. The builders of Christianity (Ie. St Paul/Paulinism) rejected the gospel as was depicted in the bible

Psalms 118:22

>"The stone which the builders rejected

Has become the chief cornerstone."

I Peter 3:6-7

>6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,

>“Behold, I lay in Zion

A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,

And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”

>7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who [a]are disobedient,

>“The stone which the builders rejected

Has become the chief cornerstone,”

The Christian worldview was built on flawed foundations

>>679132

>Paulinism

Get banned, Muzzie scum.

>>679138

It's from Greek you dip.

>>679141

close enough

>>679132

i still don't understand what your trying to say

>The Gospel of Peter (Greek: κατά Πέτρον ευαγγέλιον, kata Petrōn euangelion), or Gospel according to Peter, is one of the non-canonical gospels rejected as apocryphal by the Church Fathers and the Catholic Church's synods of Carthage and Rome, which established the New Testament canon. It was the first of the non-canonical gospels to be rediscovered, preserved in the dry sands of Egypt.

>The gospel is widely thought to date from after the composition of the four canonical gospels. Scholars are divided as to the exact date of the text, with Bart Ehrman placing it in the first half of the second century and considering it to have been compiled based on oral traditions about Jesus, independent of the canonical gospels.

>>679146

Jewish lies.

to deny Peter is to deny the cornerstone of Christianity

>>679132

>Implying that Peter actually wrote this book

You're tripping again.

>>679151

What makes you think he couldn't have?

>>679132

Are you some kind of absolute brainlet ignorant of history and basic Christian teaching? Oh wait, yes you are. The stone you are referring to is Christ, as understood by the Church since the beginning. St. Peter being the rock upon which the Church is built is established in the Gospels and is the main justification for the Roman Papacy. The two instances are not the same.

>>679152

Peter died in the first century whereas this text was written in the second, you utter retard.

>>679152

>Peter died during the 60's

>the gospel of peter was written at least during the second century

>gnostic themes

It's self-evident

>>679155

Hypothesised* to be written in the second century

>>679148

How so? How is any of that "lies"? Do you have evidence to the contrary? Do you have any logical reason to disagree? Are you a special person?

>>679156

Maybe there is some truth to Gnosticism

>>679157

There is no evidence it existed in the first you mong. If it did, it would have been mentioned in early texts.

>>679159

Ah, I see what we have here. Another "do-it-yourself" gnostic who picks and chooses his sources based on his own stupidity. Congratulations, dumbass, you win the "Proven Wrong for 2000 Years" prize.

>>679161

I'm not Gnostic, but I do think Gnosticism could be used to bridge the Abrahamic religions. Imagine if all the world followed the same interpretation of Abrahamism

>>679163

>implying Islam is a true religion

>implying the core claims of the three major Abrahamic religions are compatible

You are clearly very ignorant on matters of religion and history. Why are you even here?

>>679163

Sorry bud, Islam has already been trying to that.

>>679169

Islam uses Gnosticism? how so?

>>679170

I dismiss it because its historical claims are false and its theology internally inconsistent.

>>679172

One could argue that Christianity is also internally inconsistent

>>679174

How much proper Christian literature have you actually read?

>>679142

my sides