>But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
This one verse alone is enough to destroy Islam.
Christ is King.
 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
ironic you should pick that verse because that's the one verse that is the most dishonest and conniving thing ever said by a so-called Christian prophet
listen to what he actually says:
Even if an angel from heaven should directly tell you something other than what Paul says, Paul says you have to listen to him over God's own messengers.
And you think this is a credit to him?
>prophet
Or whatever the frick he called himself, disciple, whatever.
Satan is an angel, should one listen to him over Paul?
how convenient that even an angel speaking to is apparently the devil whenever it disagrees with the human Paul, who surely is an honorable man
Answer me homosexual
settle down c**t, you can handle waiting for a while
Paul is a messenger of God.
Muhammadﷺ is a messenger of God.
His message disagrees with the Gospel, so, no.
He's a heretic.
>His message disagrees with the Gospel
"17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
Sound exactly like Paul to me then.
Correct, the Law has not been abolished, since it was established by God, but if we were to be judged in accordance with the Law, we would all be condemned, but Christ lived in accordance with the Law perfectly, so that we didn't have to in order to be saved.
"19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the israelites I became like a israelite, to win the israelites. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law."
>the law is not abolished
>tells every gentile he isn't under the law and comes up with a new one where everything goes and nobody has to follow anything really
>tells israelites he is still under the law so they accept him as a disciple despite never actually having seen Jesus
This is exactly how you'd react if your goal was power and influence over a huge number of people. This guy persecuted Christians but saw that Christ's followers were unstoppable so guess what change teams and take over.
>if we were to be judged in accordance with the Law, we would all be condemned
Nobody said God's mercy was not needed and that ONLY our works would justify salvation.
>>the law is not abolished
every gentile he isn't under the law and comes up with a new one where everything goes and nobody has to follow anything really
Objectively incorrect, the Epistles show us how we must behave and what to avoid.
israelites he is still under the law so they accept him as a disciple despite never actually having seen Jesus
He met Jesus in the road to Damascus.
>This is exactly how you'd react if your goal was power and influence over a huge number of people.
What "huge number of people"? The Church was miniscule even in relation to israelites during his lifetime.
This guy persecuted Christians but saw that Christ's followers were unstoppable so guess what change teams and take over.
So you admit that he saw the error of his ways and changed to the side of truth?
>Objectively incorrect
Say that to the Christians who believe they are allowed to continue to sin because they believed Jesus died for their sins and paid for all of it in his blood. The eternal law has been practically abolished because some guy said so...
>He met Jesus in the road to Damascus.
He met something claiming to be Jesus if anything at all.
>What "huge number of people"?
The gentiles outnumbered the israelites and took over, this is fact.
>So you admit that he saw the error of his ways and changed to the side of truth?
People seeking power do not go against it. They make their way to the top and exploit it. In Romans 3:7 he admits to lying but copes by saying it's for a good cause. God has no need for deception " We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood. "
>Say that to the Christians who believe they are allowed to continue to sin because they believed Jesus died for their sins and paid for all of it in his blood.
Those who believe that are not Christian.
>He met something claiming to be Jesus if anything at all.
Jesus.
>The gentiles outnumbered the israelites and took over, this is fact.
How many gentiles were Christian in the time of Paul?
>People seeking power do not go against it.
How much power did the Church have during the time of Paul?
>Those who believe that are not Christian.
They claim it's the holy spirit guiding them, what makes them different from you?
>Jesus
His contemporaries didn't seem to believe his account which is why they kept making him justify himself in his own writings. There's even less reason for us to believe in him this century.
>in the time of Paul?
It really doesn't matter the fact is he wrote most of the book you follow, Paulanity won over the Christianity of the Disciples/Jerusalem Church and that is because of the brilliant use of deception.
>They claim it's the holy spirit guiding them, what makes them different from you?
I never claimed this.
>His contemporaries didn't seem to believe his account which is why they kept making him justify himself in his own writings.
They all embraced him as one of their own.
>It really doesn't matter
It does, because it demolishes your claim that Paul was just seeking power.
>the fact is he wrote most of the book you follow,
The Epistles are only a fraction of the Bible.
>Paulanity won over the Christianity of the Disciples/Jerusalem Church and that is because of the brilliant use of deception.
It must be so sad to be you, believing that deception defeated the truth. How tragic.
>I never claimed this.
Okay cool so how do you contest their claims that they are right?
>They all embraced him as one of their own.
The early church was in a state of confusion, nobody knew what to believe and it continued for centuries.
>demolishes your claim that Paul was just seeking power
It's not my claim, he said he wants followers above all else.
>The Epistles are only a fraction of the Bible.
What he wrote is the foundation of your belief. The OT is practically discarded, the gospels are only to be understood through Paul's writings, etc.
>believing that deception defeated the truth
The prince of this world's truth? The guy lies and justifies it. I would much rather take the word of someone who is deceived than one who deceives. "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind" Paul implies this is false
Are you a gnostic, by any chance?
>gnostic
No I am not, at least Paul might have had motivation to ultimately serve God with his influence. That is just philosophical nonsense with no reason or rhyme
A gospel forged by the liar Paul.
Black person how is Paul being dishonest in that verse? He's telling them that even if he changes his mind and starts preaching something different than what he's been preaching them before, that they should disregard him and curse him and only believe the message. He's putting even himself on check.
>He's telling them that even if he changes his mind
(he won't, because that's one of the oldest tricks in the book when you're lying)
what messenger of God would ever tell you to distrust an angel?
it surely has nothing to do with the fact that Paul's story of what Jesus said was inconsistent with what other people were claiming Jesus said, and the Galatians didn't trust him as a result
>he won't, because that's one of the oldest tricks in the book when you're lying
He is putting himself on the line as well as the angels, he's telling them that even if he starts contradicting the message that he brought them, then they should discard him.
>what messenger of God would ever tell you to distrust an angel?
Like this anon said
Satan is an angel and so were the ones who fell with him, obviously this proves that just because they're angels doesn't necessarily make them completely trustworthy. Only God is good after all.
>it surely has nothing to do with the fact that Paul's story of what Jesus said was inconsistent with what other people were claiming Jesus said, and the Galatians didn't trust him as a result
He was fighting heresy, which Islam is.
>He is putting himself on the line as well as the angels
No he's not. You're just gullible. People lie like this all the time. "My story never changed right from the start," or "I swear bro, if (event liar knows isn't going to happen) happens, I'll walk myself right down to the police station."
Come on, think.
Paul wants absolute obedience to what HE's saying, because he had a spat with other Christians who were saying his story was bullshit and were accusing him of twisting Jesus' words. He comes out with this line where he's saying nobody else is to be trusted except him. Not even an angel. Even if an angel from heaven should appear to you, if it tells you Paul is wrong, then the angel is a liar. How convenient for Paul.
Like I said, the objection "but Satan is an angel" is cute, but let's follow similar logic with Paul. Paul's just a human. And humans lie. And they lie a frickload more than angels do.
Believe him if you want, but I have a feeling you won't believe someone using that exact same style of rhetoric when you suspect them of dishonesty in your real life.
>No he's not.
>>But even if WE or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Dumbass
>Paul wants absolute obedience to what HE's saying,
You mean like Muhammad?
>because he had a spat with other Christians who were saying his story was bullshit and were accusing him of twisting Jesus' words.
You mean like Muhammad?
>He comes out with this line where he's saying nobody else is to be trusted except him.
No, he doesn't say "he", he said "we", referring to all the apostles, it's not just him.
>Like I said, the objection "but Satan is an angel" is cute, but let's follow similar logic with Paul. Paul's just a human. And humans lie. And they lie a frickload more than angels do.
Paul was not just a human, he was empowered by the Holy Spirit.
>Believe him if you want, but I have a feeling you won't believe someone using that exact same style of rhetoric when you suspect them of dishonesty in your real life.
If someone comes, and tells me that they have a message from God that disagrees with what I've been given in the Gospel, then I will rebuke him, if he comes telling me the same things as there are in the Gospel, then there is no use for him.
>You mean like Muhammad?
exactly like Muhammad, yes
>we
the 'we' is irrelevant. Paul knows full well he's got his own version of the doctrine that he wants and never has an intention of changing it.
As already mentioned, Paul's words are indistinguishable from the exact same tactics you'd use to try and twist a religion to your own doctrines instead. Your choice to trust him is only a choice. His words are the same as an extremely untrustworthy person, so it's purely a matter of how gullible you are.
Are you Muslim?
NTA but if someone agrees with you when you say Muhammad is a liar they’re probably not Muslim
>He's putting even himself on check.
kek he said to trust his current words over an Angel
>Satan is an angel
You've got satanic trips... Anyway he's talking about an angel from HEAVEN
>kek he said to trust his current words over an Angel
Because his message was from God.
>Anyway he's talking about an angel from HEAVEN
.........and Satan was not an angel from Heaven? Was he an angel fron hell or something?
>Because his message was from God.
His message was from himself or from Satan "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." vs " And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:"
>Satan was not an angel from Heaven?
No Satan is not in heaven wtf are you on about?
>No Satan is not in heaven wtf are you on about?
Was Satan created in heaven yes or no?
>The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.
He is not in heaven his place of creation is completely irrelevant because then there'd be no need to specify "from heave" since it would be implied that all angels are from there.
the obvious issue here is you don't know what an "angel" is in christian theology
they're messengers directly from God which are to be trusted except if they tell you Paul is wrong
the cute little "but Satan was an angel" is a nice little dodge, but it's quite clear to anyone with a brain what Paul is doing with this line. Even children see through this.
Okay let's try this:
>But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a Qu'ran contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a Qu'ran contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Would you believe this if it was found in the Quran.
No. The Quran even has a passage about Muhammad lying for personal gain.
Because everyone sees the rhetorical trick and the 'satan is the exception' thing is just being used to justify it.
Let me put it another way. If I were acting purely selfishly, wanted to twist a whole religion to my own doctrine instead, and wanted power and wanted you to accept my authority over that of the others who disagreed with me, would I have said anything different to what Paul just said?
I don't think this is an argument where people are willing to change their minds because it's foundational to the whole religion from that point on, so I think there's nothing more to add here.
>If I were acting purely selfishly, wanted to twist a whole religion to my own doctrine instead, and wanted power and wanted you to accept my authority over that of the others who disagreed with me
Presupposing intents.
I'm arguing against people who have been presupposing Paul is being perfectly honest and has no ulterior motives when his words fit perfectly with someone who does. I think I'm assuming a lot less.
>they're messengers directly from God which are to be trusted except if they tell you Paul is wrong
Like we've said before, Satan proves that they should not always be trusted.
>the cute little "but Satan was an angel" is a nice little dodge,
How is it a dodge? Satan stands in direct opposition to your claim that angels should always be trusted.
>1 Kings 22: 19~23 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.
if you accept the angels are also liars then basically the whole religion is junk and you might as well not bother believing anything
Did the spirits of the air tell you that?
Posting lust provoking images can send you to Hell.
Here's one with better resolution.
If you save it you're going to Hell.
>Who wrote the gospels?
This one question alone is enough to destroy Christianity.
Allah Akbar.
Who wrote the Quran?
The words of God are uncreated
oh you don't know? Probably why there are 30 different contradictory versions as anybody can just write one
can't you read? God
>thinks his youtube arguments are new to us
>anybody can just write one
no chain of transmission to the prophet, text and oral
Which Quran? And Allah came down himself with a pen and paper and wrote the Quran? Yet a sheep ate it and all the reciters were killed in battle, kind of a silly plan. From the same Allah who sent down Isa who couldn't win a single convert to Islam I guess so makes sense, idk if I can trust that guy though when the real God seems much more powerful
The Quran we have. Don't play dumb to write can also mean to "compose (a text or work) for written or printed reproduction or publication".
>sheep eats a page
>the only page that ever existed
>literally wipes the memory of the people who recite it daily
Isa was sent to his people and he was successful.
>much more powerful
except when it comes to iron chariots?
But you have 30+ different Quran so which one and why and where is the proof Allah wrote it? Did multiple different sources see him with a pen and paper writing it?
The only Quran we have has established chains of transmission as I have said. No you adding a letter to a verse does not mean we take your copy as a new version of the Quran as Christians do. Multiple different sources have heard him recite the Ahruf https://files.catbox.moe/a1ekyk.pdf and then they wrote it down in their own personal notes if they knew how to.
still haven't answered all my questions
neither have you, which one specifically?
People who memorized the Qur'an and had Ijazah, the question you should be asking is who authored the Qur'an
starting to see the Quran being held to a lesser standard than you use to critique other holy books, are there that many problems with it's inception?
>
You never had any standards to begin with, have you memorized the bible?
lol dunno where do I start with you because nothing you said is true. Here's my advise, lesrn how the Qur'an(word of God) got preserved over the years from Islamic sources, then compare it to the headcanons of Paul(Bible) and see which one holds up, till then you're not in any place to talk about Qur'an
>Here's my advise, lesrn how the Qur'an(word of God) got preserved over the years from Islamic sources
Not him, but i read it.
We have no written copies from before Uthman's standardization, so we can't vouch for anything.
>but muh trustworthy randos with good street memorized it
My man, you have millions of people that have identical false memories of Nelson Mandela dying in the 90's.
You have entire communities where honest people swear they are certain some random pop culture thing was in a certain way, from kids shows, to famous movies, to stripes on Pokemon.
But somehow 600+ pages of poetry are immune to that?
If the Qur'an wwas changed from all these people then there should be multiple Qur'ans out there, show me one of them
>inb4 the 30 versions cope
>inb4 the seven types of recitation taken as different Qur'ans
that's a good one to think about
>if an angel from heaven
damn
gotta judge the spirits, but it would be much more difficult when they are visible
can't get swayed
>Ok let's start simply, why should one read the Quran in the first place?
If you're a truth seeker maybe you should investigate a book that is regarded as the literal word of God by ~25% of the planet. I know I have with the bible and it's merely inspired.
I don't care about the religious shit flinging but your pic made me think.
What was life like in the crusader states? Did the cultures mix?
>tfw no hijabi arab gf
amen, frick pisslam.
Mohammed (shit be upon him) was a goatfricker false prophet and deceiver.
Still not clear on why we should gobble up whatever Paul says
Because in recognition of both history and logical reasoning, Paul understood the nature of the world and he preached the true gospel of the prophets before him, which is why he was he was persecuted, and all the powers of the Earth try to subvert his mission, which was Jesus's mission since the beginning. To substitute the God of the Bible with a god of imagination: Molech, Baal, Diana, Lucifer, etc.
>he preached the true gospel of the prophets before him
I'm basically asking why you believe that
In other words you're a follower of Paul, the man known for deceiving, lying, and being against Christianity until he suddenly got a ~~*revelation*~~ from whatever
>What is Ijazah
>What is Tawatur
Nebuchadnezzar persecuted Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. But at the end of his life his testimony is recorded.
>Daniel 4: 34~37 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me. Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.
And Daniel said this about him
>Daniel 5: 18~21 O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour: And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down. But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him: And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will.
If you only care to judge people on what you think is right, then your heart is hard
>Paul met Jesus in the road to Damascus
2nd coming already happened 2000 years ago
pack it up, roll it in
>he preached the true gospel of the prophets before him
I don't know man... Paul seems to be introducing a whole lot of new stuff. I don't understand why you'd think he's on the same page as the old prophets.
>I'm not in it for the money!
Paul protests too much.
Clearly people at the time were accusing him 'of being in it for the money', else Paul wouldn't repeatedly be denying it, and telling us it isn't the case.
Maybe there was some truth to the accusations.
>The non-doing of any evil,
>the performance of what's skillful,
>the cleansing of one's own mind:
>this is the teaching
>of the Awakened.
>-dhp 183
>The Buddha is the Wisest, King of Kings.
This is how you sound. Just because YOU believe something doesn't mean everyone else does, and when you have circular/self-referential arguments, you continue to alienate others.