Muslims dislike him for "altering" the Gospel
Jews hate him for "betraying" them
Short story he did neither. He was a high ranking Pharisee until he converted after having a vision. He died for his beliefs, as a criminal and a poor man, but his teachings inspired by the Holy Spirit were fundamental in Early Christendom, and still are now.
Only a few types of people dislike Paul. Mainly LARPers and contrarians. Whether they like it or not, Paul, being the only literate person around, codified much of Christian theology and practices. The Gospels themselves are fourth-hand account similar to Hadith. Being a Gospels-only Christian is quite a strange position to take.
A man's basedness is proportional to how many israelites he makes seethe
>desired the things of the world >asks to be crucified horizontally.
Why are talmudic satanists lying 100% of the time? This is the eternal question and we still have no solution.
Qadi Ibn Abdul Jabbar's Tathbit Dalail Al-Nubuwwa, english title is Critique of Christian Origins
Sure thing rabbi. Are you gonna tell me Saul of Tarsus wrote the talmud too? Oh wait, that came 400 years later and it happened in Iraq with Sassanid support.
You're not fooling anyone talmudist.
John 8:44
Christus Rex!
Why are you using "rabbi" as an insult? Don't you know the disciples used to call Jesus rabbi?
2 months ago
Anonymous
I'm using talmudist as an insult, which it is. No need to kvetch rabbi, I know etymology and I know how your people try to pilpul. Try another angle.
2 months ago
Anonymous
So, the disciples used to call Jesus rabbi, they were circumcised and observed the Law, then Paul comes and says because Jesus became cursed and took on the curse of the law, sacrificed himself, nobody has to follow the Law? And also we need to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ to be saved? Seems legit
2 months ago
Anonymous
Can anyone explain to me how Paul says the Law is a curse when Jesus himself says that "if you wish to enter into eternal life, keep the commandments"?
2 months ago
Anonymous
He's a israelite. To them everything Christ and Christian is a curse. They have been like this for at least 2000 years.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>baptized
the talmud is blasphemous and satanic. go lie elsewhere.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Jesus rabbi
Only the disciples who have a foot fetish should call him Rabbi.
Never heard such a story, even in islamic sources.
Also, i know the author is shamelessly ripping off St. Peter's crucifixion story, but crucifying someone horizontally im pretty sure doesnt really work, due to weight distribution.
Only a few types of people dislike Paul. Mainly LARPers and contrarians. Whether they like it or not, Paul, being the only literate person around, codified much of Christian theology and practices. The Gospels themselves are fourth-hand account similar to Hadith. Being a Gospels-only Christian is quite a strange position to take.
Paul is one of the easier apostles to attack, as he was the last and had the most sinful past, he is also central to Christian theology, thus he is often attacked by the enemy.
Sure thing rabbi. Are you gonna tell me Saul of Tarsus wrote the talmud too? Oh wait, that came 400 years later and it happened in Iraq with Sassanid support.
You're not fooling anyone talmudist.
John 8:44
Christus Rex!
Trying to thread the needle in Rome was a doomed task which led to the perversion of the teaching of the Christ. The gospel of Matthew is the way. The children of God are of the Kingdom of Heaven and no more legalization and compromise was required to establish there in the heart of Europe a communion between those wild vines of the tree.
>Jesus was anti-establishment
Jesus established himself as a priestly authority in the Temple before his persecution, his companions James and Peter succeeded him
Because he never personally met Jesus. He showed up on the scene years later. And he told the living apostles of Jesus (Peter, James, John) that "Actually you guys are wrong. Jesus told me in a vision". Also for someone who constantly talked about the "Gospel" he seemed unable to actually quote anything Jesus ever said during his lifetime.
>Because he never personally met Jesus. He showed up on the scene years later.
Jesus Christ resurrected and is alive at this moment. Christ appeared to many believers after the resurrection showing infallible proofs according to the book of Acts, chapter 1 verse 3. It is perfectly within reason that Jesus would appear to Saul on the road to Damascus if it was part of God's plan for that to happen all along.
>he seemed unable to actually quote anything Jesus ever said during his lifetime.
When Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus, that is during Jesus' lifetime. According to the Bible, our Lord and Savior is at the right hand of God the Father. And Paul did quote from the Gospel, for instance the second part of 1 Timothy 5:18 is a direct quote of Luke 10:7. Peter says outright that Paul's epistles are Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16.
The problem is that
1. You kind of have to take his vision at face value. It's not Paul's fault that the religion was founded on sorcery and "it was revealed to me in a dream".
2. There isn't much of Christianity if you take Paul out of the equation. You can convert to a Karaite israelite, follow all the mitzvot and that would be the closest you'll get to "Christianity as Jesus intended".
>You can convert to a Karaite israelite, follow all the mitzvot and that would be the closest you'll get to "Christianity as Jesus intended".
The problem with that idea is that the various forms of "Judaism" were only formed after rejecting Jesus Christ. They are basically a gnostic offshoot of the Biblical faith. Also, see the chart.
If you're a Sola Fidetard, what's the point of arguing about muh Paul? Because Paul didn't really contradict anything relating to the faith part of Sola Fide. If you believed in work AND you believed in Anti-Paulism, you'd be doing the 613. If you don't believe in work, what's the difference between Jesus commanding people to do the 613 and Paul saying no.
2 months ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/PTws4K5.jpg
Paul not only altered so many, but also made up everything else.
The difference is context. It's a story as old as time: people take verses out of context, and while having the exegetical skills of a chimpanzee they assume that there's contradictions going on.
In actuality if you had even a slight understanding of the Old Covenant/New Covenant distinction, the different meanings of the word "commandment" and the nuances of translation ('entole' in Koine Greek vs 'mitsvâh' in Hebrew) then you would know it's not as simple as saying "look these two sentences say different things!!!"
2 months ago
Anonymous
>If you're a Sola Fidetard
Funny how those who preach against Biblical salvation but rather works-based salvation are always so full of themselves.
He was a Christian salesman. He would literally say whatever he thought his audience needed to hear to convert. Including contradictory stuff like "people who do bad works won't be saved" to "faith is what saves, not works".
>He would literally say whatever he thought his audience needed to hear to convert
He tailored his message depending on the circumstances but never contradicted the core of Christianity. >Including contradictory stuff like "people who do bad works won't be saved" to "faith is what saves, not works".
You have quite obviously contradicted yourself in your desperation. Paul makes it quite clear that faith is the root of Salvation, but faith entails good works.
Lefties hate him because he said (quoting the scripture and the holy Spirit) that sexual immortality and """sex work""" are sins and are of the devil. Righties hate him because he said (quoting the scripture and holy Spirit) hording wealth, not being humble, and chasing temporal power is a sin and of the devil. Women hate him because he (quoting Scripture and the holy Spirit) said that only men can be ordained in the priesthood. Andrew Tate types hate him because he (quoting Scripture and the holy Spirit) places a far higher onus on men when it comes to married life and that men are supposed to sacrifice/give their lives for their wives like Christ did for the world.
In short, people who love the fallen world that him because he had called us to attain to Christ, which means picking up your cross and following Christ, which is hard to do if you're not truly in Christ
short answer: slaves
>subjects
There isn't? He is everywhere in Europe.
Muslims dislike him for "altering" the Gospel
Jews hate him for "betraying" them
Short story he did neither. He was a high ranking Pharisee until he converted after having a vision. He died for his beliefs, as a criminal and a poor man, but his teachings inspired by the Holy Spirit were fundamental in Early Christendom, and still are now.
>desired the things of the world
>asks to be crucified horizontally.
Why are talmudic satanists lying 100% of the time? This is the eternal question and we still have no solution.
What book is this? Al-hawariyyun is the Islamic term for the disciples
Qadi Ibn Abdul Jabbar's Tathbit Dalail Al-Nubuwwa, english title is Critique of Christian Origins
Why are you using "rabbi" as an insult? Don't you know the disciples used to call Jesus rabbi?
I'm using talmudist as an insult, which it is. No need to kvetch rabbi, I know etymology and I know how your people try to pilpul. Try another angle.
So, the disciples used to call Jesus rabbi, they were circumcised and observed the Law, then Paul comes and says because Jesus became cursed and took on the curse of the law, sacrificed himself, nobody has to follow the Law? And also we need to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ to be saved? Seems legit
Can anyone explain to me how Paul says the Law is a curse when Jesus himself says that "if you wish to enter into eternal life, keep the commandments"?
He's a israelite. To them everything Christ and Christian is a curse. They have been like this for at least 2000 years.
>baptized
the talmud is blasphemous and satanic. go lie elsewhere.
>Jesus rabbi
Only the disciples who have a foot fetish should call him Rabbi.
Never heard such a story, even in islamic sources.
Also, i know the author is shamelessly ripping off St. Peter's crucifixion story, but crucifying someone horizontally im pretty sure doesnt really work, due to weight distribution.
Only a few types of people dislike Paul. Mainly LARPers and contrarians. Whether they like it or not, Paul, being the only literate person around, codified much of Christian theology and practices. The Gospels themselves are fourth-hand account similar to Hadith. Being a Gospels-only Christian is quite a strange position to take.
Paul is one of the easier apostles to attack, as he was the last and had the most sinful past, he is also central to Christian theology, thus he is often attacked by the enemy.
A man's basedness is proportional to how many israelites he makes seethe
The seething rabbi who mass replied just proved you right.
Saul was part of the tribe and just another hypocritical grifter, anyone who actually investigates Paul's writings closely would realize this
Sure thing rabbi. Are you gonna tell me Saul of Tarsus wrote the talmud too? Oh wait, that came 400 years later and it happened in Iraq with Sassanid support.
You're not fooling anyone talmudist.
John 8:44
Christus Rex!
Is he a meme that survives because of controversy, or is there virtue around the idea of being small that sustains his propogation?
he was literally the meme "source: it came to me in a dream"
>it came to me in a dream
I though that was Eliphaz.
Trying to thread the needle in Rome was a doomed task which led to the perversion of the teaching of the Christ. The gospel of Matthew is the way. The children of God are of the Kingdom of Heaven and no more legalization and compromise was required to establish there in the heart of Europe a communion between those wild vines of the tree.
Paul took the teachings of Jesus and created a religion.
Jesus was anti-establishment, Paul literally established the Christian religion.
>Jesus was anti-establishment
Jesus established himself as a priestly authority in the Temple before his persecution, his companions James and Peter succeeded him
Paul not only altered so many, but also made up everything else.
To make sense of this, we might see the death of Jesus as the fulfillment of the law. That might be why he said, "it is finished".
He's israeli
So is everyone in the Holy Bloble though. Must be a weird coincidence
Because he never personally met Jesus. He showed up on the scene years later. And he told the living apostles of Jesus (Peter, James, John) that "Actually you guys are wrong. Jesus told me in a vision". Also for someone who constantly talked about the "Gospel" he seemed unable to actually quote anything Jesus ever said during his lifetime.
>Because he never personally met Jesus. He showed up on the scene years later.
Jesus Christ resurrected and is alive at this moment. Christ appeared to many believers after the resurrection showing infallible proofs according to the book of Acts, chapter 1 verse 3. It is perfectly within reason that Jesus would appear to Saul on the road to Damascus if it was part of God's plan for that to happen all along.
>he seemed unable to actually quote anything Jesus ever said during his lifetime.
When Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus, that is during Jesus' lifetime. According to the Bible, our Lord and Savior is at the right hand of God the Father. And Paul did quote from the Gospel, for instance the second part of 1 Timothy 5:18 is a direct quote of Luke 10:7. Peter says outright that Paul's epistles are Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16.
The problem is that
1. You kind of have to take his vision at face value. It's not Paul's fault that the religion was founded on sorcery and "it was revealed to me in a dream".
2. There isn't much of Christianity if you take Paul out of the equation. You can convert to a Karaite israelite, follow all the mitzvot and that would be the closest you'll get to "Christianity as Jesus intended".
>You can convert to a Karaite israelite, follow all the mitzvot and that would be the closest you'll get to "Christianity as Jesus intended".
The problem with that idea is that the various forms of "Judaism" were only formed after rejecting Jesus Christ. They are basically a gnostic offshoot of the Biblical faith. Also, see the chart.
If you're a Sola Fidetard, what's the point of arguing about muh Paul? Because Paul didn't really contradict anything relating to the faith part of Sola Fide. If you believed in work AND you believed in Anti-Paulism, you'd be doing the 613. If you don't believe in work, what's the difference between Jesus commanding people to do the 613 and Paul saying no.
The difference is context. It's a story as old as time: people take verses out of context, and while having the exegetical skills of a chimpanzee they assume that there's contradictions going on.
In actuality if you had even a slight understanding of the Old Covenant/New Covenant distinction, the different meanings of the word "commandment" and the nuances of translation ('entole' in Koine Greek vs 'mitsvâh' in Hebrew) then you would know it's not as simple as saying "look these two sentences say different things!!!"
>If you're a Sola Fidetard
Funny how those who preach against Biblical salvation but rather works-based salvation are always so full of themselves.
He was a Christian salesman. He would literally say whatever he thought his audience needed to hear to convert. Including contradictory stuff like "people who do bad works won't be saved" to "faith is what saves, not works".
>He would literally say whatever he thought his audience needed to hear to convert
He tailored his message depending on the circumstances but never contradicted the core of Christianity.
>Including contradictory stuff like "people who do bad works won't be saved" to "faith is what saves, not works".
You have quite obviously contradicted yourself in your desperation. Paul makes it quite clear that faith is the root of Salvation, but faith entails good works.
So if you commit even one sin after you're "saved" you're not saved? Or is it just "serious sins"?
I like him but think half his letters were pseudegraphical, forged by the petrines to delegitimize what they called heresies
Lefties hate him because he said (quoting the scripture and the holy Spirit) that sexual immortality and """sex work""" are sins and are of the devil. Righties hate him because he said (quoting the scripture and holy Spirit) hording wealth, not being humble, and chasing temporal power is a sin and of the devil. Women hate him because he (quoting Scripture and the holy Spirit) said that only men can be ordained in the priesthood. Andrew Tate types hate him because he (quoting Scripture and the holy Spirit) places a far higher onus on men when it comes to married life and that men are supposed to sacrifice/give their lives for their wives like Christ did for the world.
In short, people who love the fallen world that him because he had called us to attain to Christ, which means picking up your cross and following Christ, which is hard to do if you're not truly in Christ
>Why is there so much controversy around Paul?
His epistles refute Roman Catholic false gospel, and the Vatican's homosexualry.
>I actually had a magic vision of Jesus
>He says that all the laws he said we need to keep we don't actually need to do that