Paul:
>Was a contemporary of Jesus
>Was a trained Torah scholar himself
>Met the resurrected Jesus on various occasions who forgave him of his sins against his Church and taught him the gospel
>Personally knew at least two of the apostles as well as at least one of Jesus's family members
>The apostles approved of his gospel to the gentiles and embraced him as one of their own
>Became celibate and lived a Godly life
>Went through many persecutions and hardships for decades for his faith in Christ which ultimately led to his martyrdom
Muhammad:
>Lived around 600 years after Jesus
>Was an illiterate merchant and raised polytheist
>Claimed to have received a different Jesus from an angel than the one in the New Testament
>Was rejected by the followers of Christ for preaching a different gospel
>Ironically the only Christians he came into contact with were heretical and even still the majority of them rejected him
>Was a warlord who pillaged his way through Arabia and encroached on Christian lands
>Had 11 wives at one time, one of whom was a minor that he had sex with
I wonder whose message was the true one. Hm.....
>But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we have preached to you, let him be under a curse!
>Galatians 1:8
There was no Paul moron. Muhammad (pbuh) wins.
Frick Paul, stupid dick
John's writings are the only valid epistles, along with Luke+Acts
Luke was a companion of Paul and John approved of Paul's message...
There was no Luke moron. Muhammad (pbuh) wins.
There was no Muhammad moron
>Was a trained Torah scholar himself
According to Paul
>Met the resurrected Jesus
According to Paul
>Personally knew at least two of the apostles as well as at least one of Jesus's family members
According to Paul
>Became celibate and lived a Godly life
According to Paul
Acts witnesses to the fact that Paul was trained under Gamaliel which Paul himself doesn't even mention but it's clear from his own writings that he was very well educated in the Hebrew scriptures. It also witnesses that he met the resurrected Jesus, and knew the apostles. Paul literally gives off the cuff references to the apostles and him meeting them and the Churches he was writing to, like the Corinthians, had some of the apostles actually come to them, like Peter. If Paul had lied this would've been well known and he would've gotten rejected and other writers would've wrote against him attesting to this fact, because someone else already tried to do something like this, Simon Magus. Now Simon Magus did meet the apostles but the apostles did not approve of his message and therefore the entire Church rejected him, whereas the entire Church accepted Paul because the apostles approved of his message.
>Acts witnesses
And Acts was written by someone who stanned Paul and wanted to make him look good.
>If Paul had lied this would've been well known and he would've gotten rejected
This is incredibly naïve.
Well literally the literature of the entire early Church also witnesses to this fact, including communities established by other apostles, they all accepted Paul. The only ones who didn't accept Paul were the Ebionites, who didn't arise until the early 2nd century, and who denied many orthodox Christian doctrines that even Mudshits accept like the virgin birth. Literally everyone accepted Paul because the apostles accepted him, everyone rejected Simon Magus because the apostles rejected him.
>This is incredibly naïve.
No it's not as I just showed you above, these communities Paul was writing to knew the apostles. I just gave you an example of someone who tried to do what you claim Paul did and everyone rejected him. Just admit it, your polemics are a cope. Many early Muslim writers actually did accept Paul as a legitimate apostle only later on for polemical reasons was he rejected. You did the same with Ezra when you were still polemicizing against Judaism only to later accept him back into your fold. Islam is so moronic, it makes no sense. Why the frick would someone spend around 30 years of their life trying to corrupt a religion from the inside whilst holding totally different beliefs and undergoing years and years of persecution that eventually led to martyrdom as all the early literature attests to? What would be the point of trying to corrupt the religion from the inside if he didn't even believe in it in the first place... Why wouldn't he just write critiques against Christianity? Muslims are so fricking stupid, your logic is so moronic.
>doctrines that even Mudshits accept like the virgin birth
Lolno we don't
>Many early Muslim writers actually did accept Paul as a legitimate apostle
Source
https://bliis.org/research/saint-paul-islam/
>some larping israelite on IQfy born after 1997 knows more than everyone else
The apostles are not Jesus
I do not like Islam because Moe is like the worst fricking prophet on Earth.
The 11 wives shit is ridiculous and verses from the Quran the holy book of god are about not talking to Moe too much at his home,.
Like really god had so much free time he reveled verses on not talking to the prophet but does not actually tell you how to pray step by step that did not make it in and you have to find from the Hadiths.
Yeah, Islamic logic is not sound. Why would Allah allow his religion to become corrupt time and time again only to send one final dude to make it all right and never again would it be corrupted due to his perfect Qur'an? Why couldn't he just do it the first time?
Paul throws shade against the original apostles and James in his works. He was a grifter stop coping
No, he does not. Paul and James belonged to different camps in the Apostolic Church, this I will admit, but there is no evidence that they were ever in actual competition with one, they were the moderates of their respective parties and co-operated with each other, James commissioned Paul to the gentiles. The incident in Antioch was over perceived hypocrisy on Peter's part from Paul, not over doctrine or morals. Peter had been living like a gentile, yet when those who came from James's party arrived Peter was afraid of being judged by them since they were still living out Torah while he was not living out Torah as a israelite and withdrew back. Paul speaks quite highly of James in several places, even calling him a pillar of the Church.
This and, also, why don't Muslims apply the same logic to James that they do to Paul?While it is true that James knew Jesus during his earthly ministry, being his brother and all, James did not believe in Jesus during this time up until his crucifixion. Like Paul, James did not come to believe in Jesus until he encountered him in his resurrected form.
Paul believed jesus was an angel that lived in space and muhammed didn't exist.