/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Good thread OP

>>684881

Saint Paul is merely Christian

Nobody cared who I was until I took on the thorn

>>684890

yeah marcion took some of his epistles, and i think the valentinians took some of his stuff too. the gnostics really really love the gospel according to st. john though. they live for that. i really should read iraenaeus again, i never did the first time i was into gnostic stuff. before i just read the nag hammadi stuff and was intrigued at first (before i came back to the church), but then i started to realize that like it's all a mess. how on earth can you tell which story is true or not. and secondly what the hell is this supposed secret knowledge, no one really says what it is. but yeah never read irenaeus' takedown of them yet, i should.

you forgot the muslims

>>684932

According to them Paul's the reason Christianity was corrupted from being Islam as Jesus taught

>>685087

except this is a modern muslim invention, not even historical. mohammed never mentioned paul and actually in their tafsirs (exegesis) some scholars call one of the three messengers jesus sent in the quran, one of them was paul. one of their most respected scholars, ibn kathir, says in his book al bidayah wan nihayah (in the beginning and the end) that paul was a messenger of god, has a whole section on him and has this bastardized story about him getting hit "with the wing of an angel" on the road to damascus. muslims are so desperate and pathetic, and literally can just copy and paste from stuff they see, a copy paste nation.

one reference:

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1491

""The names of the first two Messengers were Sham`un and Yuhanna, and the name of the third was Bulus, and the city was Antioch (Antakiyah)."

Bulus is Paul in arabic.

>>684881

>Liberal Christians hate him for being conservative

That has always bothered me because for his day Paul seemed to have been super liberal. He argued against circumcision essentially because of how unappealing it was and his defense of sexual morality was less out of irrational prudishness and more to stop the rampant usage of the weaker elements in society as sex objects, knowing how degrading that was (which we see happening again as the world abandons sexual morality).