/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22140048]

This was great. Very short and compressed view of Christianity presumambly from the 1st century. I'm amazed it exists.

Here's a PDF of the didache https://legacyicons.com/content/didache.pdf

[Anonymous No.22140092]

>>22140048
yeah, few people know of it. probably protestants try to keep it hidden and undiscussed because it challenges their claims to apostolicity and early Christianity, when the Didache clearly shows that the early Church was heavily eucharistic and ascetical.

[Anonymous No.22140236]

>>22140092
>eucharistic
It's just symbolic bro
>ascetical
It's just a personal choice bro

[Anonymous No.22140331]

>>22140092
>yeah, few people know of it. probably protestants try to keep it hidden and undiscussed
The Didache was lost until the 19th century. The first translations of it into European languages were all made by Protestants.

[Anonymous No.22140377]

>>22140331
It was published by an Eastern Orthodox Greek

[Anonymous No.22140382]

>>22140377
That doesn't contradict what I said.

[Anonymous No.22140393]

>>22140382
He published it in Greek which is an European language

[Anonymous No.22140399]

>>22140393
Keyword: translations

[Anonymous No.22140401]

>>22140399
He translated it from Koine Greek to modern Greek.

[Anonymous No.22140427]

>>22140401
Now you're just being pedantic. I don't know if that's true. My point stands that Protestants have never tried to hide the Didache.

[Anonymous No.22140436]

>>22140427
Well I never said they tried to hide it because I'm not the other poster. But you tried to give yourself credit for something you don't deserve. This is very common for Protestants to take Greek works and claim they contributed something because they did some translation from a lost text that they got from Mt Athos. The truth is you're not producing anything of value.

[Anonymous No.22140465]

>>22140436
People will do that as long as Catholics and the Orthodox lie and say that Protestants don't care about church history. Your apologists literally depend on Protestant patristic translations to argue against Protestants, and yet you claim that Protestants don't produce anything of value?

[Anonymous No.22140481]

>>22140465
What apologists? Almost all Orthodox theologians can read Greek. Do you actually think they read your English translations? Most don't even care you exist.
>you claim that Protestants don't produce anything of value?
Yes. In fact, you only ever produced negative value for anything you ever touched.

[Anonymous No.22140501]

>>22140481
>Almost all Orthodox theologians can read Greek.
Can you?
>Most don't even care you exist.
Then why are you here seething? Follow their example.

[Anonymous No.22140513]

What explicit evidence is there in linking the Didache to the 12 Apostles? It's so early you could honestly attribute it to Cerinthus and the Gnostics just as easily. Hell it may even be older than John.

[Anonymous No.22140538]

>>22140427
>Protestants have never tried to hide the Didache.
How do they cope with it basically affirming the early Christians' belief in the real presence of the Eucharist as far back as the 1st century?

[Anonymous No.22140604]

>>22140538
You can be Protestant and believe in the real presence. Lutherans and Anglicans do.

[Anonymous No.22140622]

>>22140538
Most protestants don't have a theology aside from women priests and LGBTQ, so you can believe anything as long as you like women pastors. Marxism is a bonus.

[Anonymous No.22140675]

>>22140604
https://witness.lcms.org/2009/whats-the-difference-4-2009/
>Differences remain about both the number and the nature of the sacraments. Lutherans believe that Christ’s body and blood are truly present in the Lord’s Supper, but they do not believe, with Catholics, that the bread and wine are permanently “changed into” Christ’s body and blood [transubstantiation].
Lutherans think that God is spiritually present at the service where the Eucharist takes place but they don't actually think that the Hosts are fundamentally transformed. This is different from Catholic/Orthodox transubstantiation.

[Anonymous No.22140677]

>The final section is a brief apocalypse, or revelation of the end times. This is notable, as the Didache
was likely written even before the book of Revelation, which was not universally accepted into the New
Testament until the 7th century.
>Even though the Didache itself did not find its way into the final canon of the New Testament
If the Revelation is not included in the New Testament, nor duetero canonical books, then why read it?

[Anonymous No.22140688]

>>22140677
The idea of something being "hard canon" or not is a recent construct. The canon exists but that doesn't preclude non-canonical works from having valid insights. Orthodox/Catholic Mariology heavily cites the non-canonical Protoevangelium and the canonical Jude literally cites the non-canonical Enoch.

[Anonymous No.22140700]

>>22140675
The Orthodox don't believe in transubstantiation, and transubstantiation is not taught in the Didache, so I'm not sure what your point is here. Lutherans do not believe that Jesus is merely "spiritually present;" that is Reformed terminology. They believe that he is literally present; end of story.

[Anonymous No.22140707]

>>22140677
>which was not universally accepted into the New
>Testament until the 7th century.
Kek where do you get this shit? It was accepted in the 4th century.

[Anonymous No.22140708]

>>22140688
>The idea of something being "hard canon" or not is a recent construct. The canon exists but that doesn't preclude non-canonical works from having valid insights.
But that's just as true of any Christian work
It is not canonical yet may have solid religious or theological points. Yet they are still secondary to the Canon
If it weren't, I doubt very much we would use the Hebrew Masoretic text which was meticulously copied by what were thought to be Jews who viewed things like midrash as not baring the same authority as God's word

[Anonymous No.22140712]

>>22140707
That's verbatim from the intro to ops book link
I just didn't green text right.

Maybe read it before you engage in discussion

[Anonymous No.22140717]

>>22140712
I don't need to read a gay intro written by an idiot when I read this a long time ago and I'm more familiar with church history than you

[Anonymous No.22140729]

>>22140717
>op posts link to book and wants to discuss it
>post quote from it
>"HOW DARE YOU DONT YOU KNOW I READ THIS A LOBG TIME AGO! DONT DISCUSS WHAT OP POSTED I KNOW BETTER"
K homo

[Anonymous No.22141074]

I like the Didache for supporting women in the church. There is no dispute that women can be prophets and every reference to priest is stated as priests/prophets, meaning that any honour or duty that could be afforded a prophet is accorded a priest. My conclusion is that women can be priests.

[Anonymous No.22141974]

>There were a number of books that were not included in the Bible, the assumption being "well why not?"
Makes me laugh everytime
https://youtu.be/FB3tmYsteJo?t=634

[Anonymous No.22142018]

>>22141074
Your conclusion is baseless and malicious. There's no mention of women ever being allowed to be priests, the Scripture forbids them to teach men, and there is no mention of this ever changing and it's only made clearer with time eg in Hippolytus' Apostolic Tradition. You're just trying to warp the faith to fit your modernist beliefs.

[Anonymous No.22142026]

>>22141074
Read St Paul's letters. They can't. Eg.
>For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 1 Corinthians 14:33-36

>>22140048
Yeah. Its good. Its a shame it wasn't included in the pre-schism Canon imo. I love works that synthesis scripture like this. Have you read Imitatio Chrisiti thread?

[Anonymous No.22142032]

What's the difference between 2nd century Christianity and 3rd century Christianity?

[Anonymous No.22142037]

>>22142026
I've read the entire NT and I don't find the Epistles compelling in context. Your quote was specifically directed at women in the church at Corinth who continually gossiped through the service.

>>22142018
The Scripture has no such prohibition. Nor is it permissive. The most compelling anti-female priest argument is the composition of the original group of apostles.

But my argument trumps it and you have failed to interact with it. The Didache has potentially female prophets becoming presiding priests and performing the Eucharist.

[Anonymous No.22142051]

>>22142037
Your contradicting one of God's chosen saints. He explicitly says "it is not permitted for them to speak."

1 Corinthians 14:35
If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church.

Ephesians 5:22
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.

1 Timothy 2:11
A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness.

I think I'm gonna trust Saint Paul, the Apostle, the Martyr, over you sorry. I recommend for the sake of your salvation you do the same.
If this is a matter of jealousy that women can't perform the consecration or what have you, rest assured, women can do something just as divine: bring children into the world.

[Anonymous No.22142065]

>>22142037
Prophecy and priesthood are distinct. But sure enjoy heresy thinking there's no cost to spreading falsehoods.

[Anonymous No.22142066]

>>22140513
It might be older than Mark

>>22140048
Interestingly the Didache has no mention of the eucharistic theophagy, vicarious atonement, redemptive suffering or crucifixion of Christ

[Anonymous No.22142068]

>>22142051
>Saint Paul, the Apostle
Paul of Tarsus was not an apostle

>Claimed to have received revelation directly from Christ, yet no one confirms this except Paul and his followers
>Claimed to be approved by James and Peter, yet could not produce a letter of recommendation from them(2 Corinthians 3:1-3)
>Claimed to have worked harder than all the other apostles who were eyewitnesses to Christ(1 Corinthians 15:10)
>Opposed by men from James, successor and brother to Jesus(Galatians 2:11-13)
>Advocated for the abolishment of the Law when the other apostles still held by it as Jesus did(Galatians)
>The Corinthians and Galatians doubted his apostleship, dismisses them with empty platitudes, calls the Galatians stupid and bewitched

[Anonymous No.22142080]

>>22142032
No difference, it's just Apostolic faith the same you find today in Orthodoxy

[Anonymous No.22142085]

>>22142080
Early Christians did not make icons of Mary and Jesus and pray to them.

[Anonymous No.22142092]

>>22142068
Fine. Of course your free to believe what you want. If you want to disregard ~2000 years of spiritual tradition go ahead. Have fun in hell. Don't say I didn't warn you. May God guide you out of your darkness. St. Paul, Pray for us. Peace.

[Anonymous No.22142099]

>>22142092
>~2000 years of spiritual tradition go ahead
Hinduism is a longer spiritual tradition going back 4000 years, yet you don't seem to be Hindu?

Christ said in your Gospel: "Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who workers of LAWLESSNESS!' "

Paul said: "for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

[Anonymous No.22142103]

>>22142085
How does this error persist?
>Whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.
-St Basil, The Holy Spirit, 18, 45.
I honestly think this argument can only be made in bad faith because I think even children are capable of understanding that the prayers are not addressed to the image.
Also, what is the art in the Catacombs? Just decoration I guess you'll say.

[Anonymous No.22142110]

>>22142099
Protestantism folks.

God bless you, find you, and spare you from the fire.

[Anonymous No.22142111]

>>22142103
St Basil lived 300 years after Jesus. Did James venerates images? Did Peter? Did Clement? Even Paul didn't venerate images. It is clearly an innovation

[Anonymous No.22142118]

>>22142110
Christ said: "And this is eternal life, that they know You, THE ONE TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

[Anonymous No.22142126]

>>22140048
When one reads the Didache without any pre-conceived notions about the beliefs that the author had, you'd be hard pressed to find anything in there that goes against common Jewish and Muslim theology and practice.

Same goes for the Epistle of James and the Pseudo-Clementines(which are much later)

[Anonymous No.22142127]

>>22142103
>How does this error persist?
Same way ill intent, lying, jealousy, etc. persist

[Anonymous No.22142128]

>>22142051
Your quotes, if taken out of context as you suggest, would require women to be silent at all times, or at least whenever in a church. No church holds that. Certainly it has no bearing on the priesthood.

>>22142065
I don't spread it, and it's something I'm still wrestling with. I'm open to debate on it, but the main anti-women argument is the 14 apostles being men. The Didache is more solid unless you don't care about the early church. That said, the Didache isn't really in favour of apostolic succession either which complicated the issue.

[Anonymous No.22142132]

>>22142068
Let's say I believe you. What church do I join?

[Anonymous No.22142133]

>>22142128
>the Didache isn't really in favour of apostolic succession either which complicated the issue.
How can you misread a text so much? What does it say against Apostolic succession? You truly hate honesty

[Anonymous No.22142136]

>>22142132
Islam

[Anonymous No.22142146]

>>22142133
What I referred to from it already stands unaddressed. But if you want a separate reference for apostolic succession, here is a reference from my notes:

>the Didache allows itinerant prophets to become chief priests and perform the Eucharist. All Christians hold that women can prophesy.
>Perhaps the strongest argument occurs at 15-1("On the Election of Bishops and Deacons") with the passing of permission to perform the sacraments to elected officials devoid of apostolic succession: "Select, then, for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, mild-tempered men who are not greedy, who are honest and proven, for they too perform the services of prophets and teachers for you."
>The procedure for making the choice is not prescribed. The Greek word used means "choose" or "elect," not "appoint." Those who are chosen bear the titles E; this is most probably to be understood to mean that a number of E and / or O are to work in each community. Therefore, in the region from which the tradition of the Didache comes, there is not yet a monepiscopate.
>Further, the E are not itinerant charismatics but ecclesiastical officials "on the local scene." One becomes a bishop or deacon not by being called to follow the Kyrios in the same pointed sense that still marks 11.4-12 (itinerant apostles/prophets), but by being elected by a local congregation.
>The last statements probably indicate that the local officials, together with the prophets and teachers/apostles (or, to the extent that the last two groups are absent, they alone) lead the worship service that formerly was in the hands of the prophets and teachers alone.

[Anonymous No.22142148]

>>22142132
>Those who follow the Messenger, the Gentile prophet,
>whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel,
>who enjoins upon them what is right and prohibits them from what is wrong
>and makes lawful for them what is good and forbids them from what is evil
>and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them.
>So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him
>and followed the light which was sent down with him
>it is they who will be the successful
(Qur'an 7:157)

[Anonymous No.22142151]

>>22142148
>believes there's not enough evidence for Paul's divine revelations
>believes there is enough evidence for Mohammed's divine revelations

[Anonymous No.22142154]

>>22142146
I don't care about your notes I asked you to quote the text where it opposed Apostolic succession

[Anonymous No.22142155]

>>22142154
My notes literally refer to the exact sections.

[Anonymous No.22142156]

>>22142151
Paul's christology is at odds with all the prophets throughout the ages, even Jesus himself. "Depart from me you workers of lawlessness"

Muhammad returned true monotheism to the Earth, when Jews were worshiping Metatron and Christians were praying to Mary. He is the prophet like Moses, who led his people to victory from oppression. He is the Gentile Prophet of Isaiah who's praises the islands sing for. He is the Paraclete of Jesus, who intercedes for the righteous and speaks from only himself.

[Anonymous No.22142160]

>>22142148
>>22142156
>Here is my servant, whom I uphold
>my chosen one in whom I delight;
>I will put my Spirit on him,
>and he will bring justice(deen) to the nations(gentiles).
>...
>I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness;
>I will take hold of your hand.
>I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people
>and a light for the Gentiles,
>to open eyes that are blind,
>to free captives from prison
>and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.
(Isaiah 42)

[Anonymous No.22142163]

>>22142156
The evidence for the Trinity is sufficient in the Gospels. Even John alone. And Christians have never prayed to Mary, not even Catholics. But at least you have faith, anon. I wish you well, though I know that you will suffer from a lack of love because Islam does not fully fill the heart of a man.

[Anonymous No.22142164]

>>22142160
I thought all of that stuff was able Jesus

[Anonymous No.22142165]

>>22142164
>able
*about

[Anonymous No.22142168]

>>22142155
The quotes don't say anything against it. Yes choose good priests, so? Do you even know what Apostolic succession means? There's nothing against it, all that advice stands alongside it. What's wrong with your mind?

[Anonymous No.22142170]

>>22142163
There is nothing in the NT and OT that even implies, let alone explicitly supports the worship of the Holy Spirit as a person of God. Not in the Gospels, nor in the Epistles nor in Acts and Revelation. I implore all Christians to prove me wrong.

I would like to remind all Christians, you have NOTHING to stand on unless you stand on the Torah and the Gospel and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.

[Anonymous No.22142172]

>>22142170
>you have NOTHING to stand on unless you stand on the Torah and the Gospel and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.
Christians definitely do: Holy Tradition. Protestantism fried your brain. The Bible was put together, maintained, and preserved by the Holy Tradition.

[Anonymous No.22142173]

>>22142170
>unless you stand on the Torah and the Gospel and what has been revealed to you from your Lord
I thought the mainstream Muslim consensus is that the Bible and Torah have been corrupted which is the reason why the Quran was sent in the first place?

[Anonymous No.22142174]

>>22142164
Jesus was not a gentile, he said, "I am sent to the lost sheep of Israel" nor did he bring the Lord's victory as he was betrayed by his very own people. And Christians don't believe Jesus to be God's servant, but God's Son, who is also God somehow. The expression goes, they want to "have their cake and eat it too"

[Anonymous No.22142176]

>>22142168
The method for selection is democratic or at least from among the local community, not from a pool of pre-ordained priests belonging to a centralised or widespread order. The quote about not being a monoepiscopate is not mine, but the translator's.

>>22142170
The Holy Spirit is God and that is what allows its worship.

[Anonymous No.22142178]

>>22142148
>makes Jews seethe
>makes Gnostics seethe
>makes Muslims seethe
>makes atheists seethe
How does St. Paul do it bros?

[Anonymous No.22142179]

>>22142173
The Bible has been corrupted, but there is still truth in it, and if Christians had eyes to see and earnest hearts, they would know to worship God and not any other

[Anonymous No.22142181]

>>22142176
>The Holy Spirit is God
Jesus never said this, nor God, nor any apostle. Prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.22142184]

>>22142181
What is it then?

[Anonymous No.22142185]

>>22142172
>Holy Tradition
Your "Holy Tradition" is as fickle as conservatism. Now with gays being legalized, will transgenderism be legalized too by church authorities? Why did "Holy Tradition" innovate so much from the practice of the Apostles, that they accepted money as indulgence, or worship and venerate bones and images?

[Anonymous No.22142186]

>>22142184
The Spirit of Prophecy, God's angel that He sends upon the Earth, to inspire prophets

[Anonymous No.22142187]

>>22142176
>The method for selection is democratic or at least from among the local community, not from a pool of pre-ordained priests belonging to a centralised or widespread order.
It never says any of this, this is your wrong interpretation that you project on a text that has nothing to do with your delusions. Worthy of the Lord, proven, etc you dismiss and think they mean what you want them to mean. It's pathological what you do.

[Anonymous No.22142191]

>>22142178
One must speak against falsehood. There is no shame in it! Paul of Tarsus was a liar and I condemn him

[Anonymous No.22142194]

>>22142187
This is literally what it says. Have you even read it? The main premise of most of it is the integration of locally selected priests with travelling preachers and prophets.

[Anonymous No.22142195]

>>22142191
Explain to me why Muslims single out Paul out of all the Apostles? Didn't the rest still believe that Jesus was God?

[Anonymous No.22142196]

>>22142186
Unfortunately I don't know the answer to this. That doesn't mean there isn't one, I'm certain there is, but I don't know it.

[sage No.22142203]

>>22142195
>Didn't the rest still believe that Jesus was God?
This is clearly not true. Acts is basically a Pauline version of history. the Epistles of Peter are clear forgeries, the gospel writers clearly didn't care much for portraying Jesus and the apostles accurately. Paul was, in fact, the first recorded man in history to proclaim Jesus as crucified. When one looks at the Didache, the Epistles of James and what's left of Q, we can deduce that the disciples did not worship Jesus, and they kept the Law of Moses, and this is the current historical consensus.

>why Muslims single out Paul out of all the Apostles?
He talks a lot of bs and he is likely the origin for Orthodox Christianity as we know it today

[Anonymous No.22142205]

>>22142203
Luke and Acts were written by the same author.

[Anonymous No.22142210]

>>22142196
May Allah guide you! I did not come to this thread to belittle Christians nor to berate them, but to make people question their beliefs, and it is not a deplorable thing to do so! Faith is gained through understanding

[Anonymous No.22142213]

>>22142205
Most scholars say that, what's certain is that they were Pauline in christology

[Anonymous No.22142696]

>>22142203
>historical consensus
also known as seething anti-Christian fanfic, until proven wrong.

And, time and time again, they are, and keep holding onto theories until they can't logically do so anymore. kek.

[Anonymous No.22142739]

>There is no dispute that women can be prophets
Why should there be? There were women prophets in the OT.
>meaning that any honour or duty that could be afforded a prophet is accorded a priest
No, priesthood and prophethood are distinct.

[Anonymous No.22142778]

>>22142099
>Hinduism is a longer spiritual tradition going back 4000 years,
False analogy. Their oldest texts go as far as 4000 years, but you won't find a spiritul Hindu linage with unchanged rites and doctrines going further back than the medieval period. Also if you make such a comparison, you should include the OT period as part of the Christian tradition.
Also, it's not what he wanted to say at all. It doesn't matter how old is the Christian tradition, what matters is the authentic faith preserved by this tradition.

[Anonymous No.22142855]

>>22142203
>This is clearly not true
It is true, Jesus was seen as God explicitly in some epistles of the early church written by people whose main or any association was not with Paul. Epistles of Clement for example.

[Anonymous No.22142891]

>>22142170
If Holy Spirit is not God, how do you explain the fact that speaking against the Holy Spirit is the most unforgivable thing?
>There is nothing in the NT and OT that even implies the worship of the Holy Spirit as a person of God
There is a lot, since the Holy Spirit posesses devine attributes. Regarding persons of God, there were even discussions of theophanies within rabbinical Judaism.

[Anonymous No.22144136]

k

[Anonymous No.22144633]

>>22142739
The Didache allows prophets to perform the role of priest, including performing the Eucharist.

[Anonymous No.22146275]

>>22142891
>speaking against the Holy Spirit is the most unforgivable thing?
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, he only conveys only the Truth from the Lord to the prophets. Not believing in the prophets is blasphemy against the angel of prophecy. This is the apparent meaning, but Christians don't care for the apparent

[Anonymous No.22146645]

>arguments from muslims, a faith that the historical record confirms to be a broken phone compilation of popular biblical-related stories with blatant historical inconsistencies with the actual Bible and even the presentation of pagan kings (Alexander) as believers.

Absolutely incredible.

[Anonymous No.22146658]

>>22142185
>or worship and venerate bones and images?

Are you aware, muslim of the presence of recorded instances of both of those things during the early period of the church? Are you aware of the catacombs? Are you aware of the presence of icons in the synagoge of Dura Europos? Are you aware of the multiple mentions of images in the textual evidence as an extended practice among christians from the very hand of those who condemned the practice?

>gays being legalized

Not an argument, no one claims that's apostolic.

[Anonymous No.22146672]

>>22146645
there is no point arguing with them. they will distort bible verses to make the bible seem to agree with the quran. but if a christian then shows them how the verse actually alligns with christian teachings and contradicts the quran, the muslim will then fall back on "it's a corrupted verse". heads i win, tails you lose.

[Anonymous No.22146752]

>>22146672
Have you read any of my posts itt? The Christian position is indefensible. And I did not act like what you say, I showed that the Gospels were undoutably influenced by Pauline theology which was historically at odds with the teachings of the apostles in Jerusalem. I showed how writings like the Didache which holds no mention of the crucifixion only proves this further.

No response has ever been sufficient to what I say repeatedly to Christians. It seems they do not question their own beliefs

[Anonymous No.22146756]

>>22146658
If the apostles didn't worship icons, why do you or did any of those people in Early Christianity do so? It is a clear violation of a famous commandment

[Anonymous No.22146813]

>>22146756
The problem is that there is already pre-apostolic evidence of icons in jewish places of worship, not to mention prayers for the death and even instances of "prayers to saints" before Christ.

So, yeah, there is reasonable grounds to assume the practice to be of apostolic origin. Your idea fo some kind of iconoclast, extreme-monotheistic early church doesn't seem historical at all.

[Anonymous No.22146829]

>>22146752
Dude, your presuppositions dont line up with what we actually now about the time period nor have you shown anything but arbitrary readings of christian texts based purely on your own muslim nonsense.

There is pre-christian theological discussion among jews about "two Powers in Heaven" as an effort to understand the Son of Man present in the prophets, not to mention multiple instances of God being represented as twofold or multiple in the Old Testament. How that squares, exactly, with your own muslim theology?

And lets not even go into how arbitrary your selection of "corrupted christian texts" is. Is not based on any logical standard nor in evidence but rather on whatever your own theology presupposes as false: Seemingly Trinitarian verses? Corruption of Paul! Logos? Corruption! Yet then you use those same corrupted texts to """disprove""" christians. It is arbitrary.

And worse, you act as if the Didache was our only early christian testimony when in reality many other sources of the 1st and 2nd century treat Christ as God, support the sacraments, and even we can find (again) mentions if icons.

>muh violation

The jews themselves """violated""" that commandment by making images of cherubins for the tabernacle, and the Solomon repeated that with even bigger statues, bronze bulls and trees for the temple. Yet they are never condemned for that.

An absolute iconoclast reading can't make sense of that passage nor the rest of Exodus.

[Anonymous No.22146859]

>>22146752
The Didache is a book of liturgy, why would it mention the crucifixion?

[Anonymous No.22146911]

>>22146829
>How that squares, exactly, with your own muslim theology?
Allah calls Himself "We" a lot in the Qur'an. Doesn't mean you should start praying to Jesus

>not based on any logical standard nor in evidence but rather on whatever your own theology presupposes
I have based what I said on 200 years of textual criticism, not nitpicking, but considering the texts of the NT in their context. John and Luke clearly didn't care for the truth. The other gospels were clearly influenced by Pauline Christology. The Q source is remarkably different from this. It seems to me that you're not engaging with my ideas, but the ideas of a shadow you created in your mind

>Seemingly Trinitarian verses? Corruption of Paul!
There are only two Trinitarian verse. The Johannine comma has always been considered a corruption and has since been removed from newer translations. And "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" could easily be seen as "in the name of God, his prophet and his angel", it doesn't imply you should worship a triune god!

>It is arbitrary.
Here's a good thought experiment. Why is there so much material unique to the Gospel of John, that isn't found on any other gospel? When Luke wrote, "I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account", was he not aware of the sayings of Jesus that were later recorded in John? Given that he was aware and drew from Mark, Q and potentially Matthew why do you think are all those famous "I am" statements missing from the other 3 gospels?

>many other sources of the 1st and 2nd century treat Christ as God
Who authored these sources and who is their rabbi? Hint: His name starts with a P

[Anonymous No.22146919]

>>22146859
Considering the Orthodox put so much emphasis on the Crucifixion, on vicarious atonement and the passion, even in the liturgy, why is it absent from the Didache?

[Anonymous No.22146932]

>>22146813
>Your idea fo some kind of iconoclast, extreme-monotheistic early church doesn't seem historical at all.
That is precisely the description of the Ebionites, who were the earliest Christians. I feel like every Christian should read Eusebius' Church History before talking about their own faith.

And I wouldn't consider ~200 AD Early Christianity. Many Christians did many sorts of things at that time, some worshiped Mary like Venus, some were syncretic with Zoroastrianism. The standard should be the practice of the apostles, James and Peter in Jerusalem who succeeded Jesus. When an orthodox practice goes against a clear commandment, one might expect the early church to affirm that the commandment was indeed abrogated in some way, but there is no indication of this.

[Anonymous No.22146962]

>>22146932
And what commandment was violated exactly? What the early church did that in your opinion somehow indicated deviaton or heresy? As I said before, mentions of Christ as God can be found in other early church documents so the idea of that being a later, polytheistic addition can go out of the window. The presence of iconsis also attested in the jewish archological record BEFORE Christ, therefore your idea of extreme iconoclast attitudes is under suspicion too.

Even more important, if somehow these people were mainstream christians, if these are the teachings of the actual Apostles, why there is no outrage from any writen source about those suppossed, outrageous additions like the deity of Christ? Why across the hellenic world and the churches the apostles founded we find those very creeds, with sacraments, some mentions of icons and Christ as God if this was a later innovation? Why minor theological issues can split the Church in two yet such an extreme reformation, such a brutal persecution, somehow goes unmentioned?

Pagan sources in fact contradict part of what you are saying, accusing christians of being "adorers of the cross", and openly call Christ the "god of the christians" in mockery. Christian sources also call the cross the "symbol of the Lord".

What evidence do you have of Ebionites being older than mainstream christianity? Why is that we find iconography in the christian catacombs during the persecutions, and writen inscriptions in places like the Holy Sepulchre, if that group of plain jewish iconoclasts were in fact the original christians? Further, how all of that squares up with the fact that they seemingly followed mosaic law, that in Acts of the Apostles is NOT required from gentiles after a lengthy debate?

Your stance produces too many problems and brings barely any answer to the discussion.

[Anonymous No.22147012]

>>22146962
>And what commandment was violated exactly?
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image

>mentions of Christ as God can be found in other early church documents
Which ones?

>The presence of iconsis also attested in the jewish archological record BEFORE Christ
You should know that Jewish practice is not to be taken as a faithful rendering of God's Law if you've ever read the OT

>why there is no outrage from any writen source about those suppossed, outrageous additions like the deity of Christ
The Ebionites famously went against this, the Pseudo-Clementines, which were only recently discovered, were Anti-Pauline writings that were heavily coded. Perhaps it was to avoid prosecution as Pauline Christianity became state religion.

>Pagan sources in fact contradict part of what you are saying
By 100 AD, Pauline theology gained immense popularity in Greece and the provinces, not so much in Jerusalem and Paul wrote in 50 AD, he is the earliest confirmed Christian author. I do not argue based on age or time, but based on Paul's false testimony of receiving revelation and his dishonesty as evident from his epistles

>Why minor theological issues can split the Church in two yet such an extreme reformation, such a brutal persecution, somehow goes unmentioned?
Simply because Pauline Christology was more appealing to a Roman or Hellenized audience, and Jewish Christianity inevitably died out

>What evidence do you have of Ebionites being older than mainstream christianity?
Eusebius, the Epistle of James, Q, connect the dots

>Acts of the Apostles
written by Paul's follower

[Anonymous No.22147205]

>>22140048
Didache is great.
Also check out
>the shepard of hermas
>the apostle of Barnabas

All three were included in the oldest complete Bible we have.
>Codex sinaiticus

[Anonymous No.22147278]

>>22147012
>thou shall not make unto thee any graven image

"Violated" in that same book when God orders artificers to make images in gold of cherubins, and later on by Solomon when, under God's inspiration, he made the Temple and placed not only massive cherubins, but also bronze bulls in the altars and trees inside the holy place.

There is very little place for such a radical, literal reading here if God seemingly orders to violate His own command.

>Which ones?

Polycarp (AD 69-155): Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.

Ignatius (AD 50-117): Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plentitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy.

Justin Martyr (AD 100-165): And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said.

The Huleatt Manuscript (50 AD): The Huleatt Manuscript "She poured it [the perfume] over his [Jesus'] hair when he sat at the table. But, when the disciples saw it, they were indignant. . . . God, aware of this, said to them: 'Why do you trouble this woman? She has done [a beautiful thing for me.] . . . Then one of the Twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priest and said, 'What will you give me for my work?' [Matt. 26:7-15]" (Huleatt fragments 1-3).

Hermas (80 AD): 80 AD Hermas "The Son of God is older than all his creation, so that he became the Father's adviser in his creation. Therefore also he is ancient" (The Shepherd 12).

Should I continue or is this enough? Because I can continue.

>You should know that Jewish practice is not to be taken as a faithful rendering of God's Law if you've ever read the OT

Yet there is not a single open condemnation of these practices, be prayers for the death or icons in the Gospels or other non-pauline sources, how curious. One would think this blatant breach of the Old Testament would require open, clear correction, yet such a thing remains absent until centuries later, with authors writing against a well-established christian icon tradition.

cont.

[Anonymous No.22147297]

>>22147278
cont.

>The Ebionites famously went against this...

A niche group whose opposition amounted to little on the way of debates and councils, despite later opposition of similar kind from the likes of Arian nevertheless split the Church in two for a time. If they were somehow the original apostolic believers one would think a greater reaction, perhaps even the Apostles themselves defending clearly said doctrines, would be in order, yet there is none.

>...but based on Paul's false testimony of receiving revelation and his dishonesty as evident from his epistles

You haven't actually proven this, that's the thing. You claim it is "evident" but it is not and again, veyr early christian sources do affirm a position that according to your own argument would be competing with a """jewish christianity""" of equal apostolic support. Yet there is no evidence of such equal conflict, of such a massive split between jews and gentiles.

>...Jewish christianity died out

Why there is no expectation for gentiles to fulfill the law in non-pauline books of the New Testament? Why Peter doesn't write in favor of this if what you are saying is true? Why is his letter to the gentile churches not filled with condemnations about worshiping Christ as God? This is simple speculation.

>:..connect the dots

Speculation:

>written by Paul's follower

Do you have an alternative evidence? Any source outside of Acts for the lives and works of the Apostles?

[Anonymous No.22147840]

My dad went on a church mission trip and he said that one day while they were doing a prayer walk around a neighborhood, this Jewish guy wearing a gay rainbow shirt and yamaka hat came up to them and started mocking them for their Christian beliefs and calling them homophobic.
He said that the gay supporter said "Well I'm Jewish but I'll do a prayer with you" and he mockingly did a sign of the cross and pretended to pray to God in a sarcastic way after calling my dad and the rest of the group hompphobic.

[Anonymous No.22148023]

>>22147840
Ok so the fag Jew was the one making a fool out of himself by acting silly ?

[Anonymous No.22148112]

>>22148023
yeah

[Anonymous No.22150128]

bump

[Anonymous No.22150433]

>>22147278
>"Violated" in that same book when God orders artificers to make images in gold of cherubins
So it's a contradiction? Who knew the Bible had contradictions? If this is not a violation of the commandment, then what did God really mean by "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
"?

>our Lord and God Jesus Christ
This is a Johannine saying. Capitalizing "God" here is misleading. John meant "god", as in "the word was a god", not capital God, the Father who is clearly distinct from Jesus in John! inb4 "I and the Father are one", this can easily be interpreted as an expression of his closeness and affection with the Father, does not mean that the Father and Jesus are two persons of one essence!

> so that he became the Father's adviser in his creation
This goes against Trinitarianism. Early Paulines clearly thought of Jesus as some intermediary god between God and man as God and Father are always interchangable in the writings yet Jesus and God isn't.

>>>22147297
>A niche group
I wouldn't call the those who followed James and Peter at Jerusalem to be niche

>perhaps even the Apostles themselves defending clearly said doctrines, would be in order, yet there is none.
Funny that Paulines felt the need to forge letters claiming to be Peter to promote their antinomianism. Where are the authentic teachings of Peter, who was eyewitness to Christ? Why was this lost, but the writings of Paul so well preserved?

Also, the Epistle of James contains no trace of any concept of divine sonship. The Pseudo-Clementines too, outright calls Jesus a True Prophet and implies Paul to be a false one, calls his teachings trifling and fanciful.

[Anonymous No.22150449]

>>22150433
>>22147297
cont.

There is much reason to doubt the depiction of James and Peter in Acts of the Apostles, considering the Paulines were clearly in opposition to the school of Peter and James as evident from Paul's own writings. And there is room to even doubt the story Paul in Acts as there exists some conflict in the narrative with that of Paul's own writings. In the view of most scholars at the present, Christian or not Christian, Acts was written with the intent of pushing forth the views of Paul, promoting him as a true apostle, in Paul's own words, who "worked harder than all of them"

Reading the Epistle of James, however, there is nothing in there that a Muslim or Jew will see as theologically offensive in any way. If James and Peter held the same views about Jesus as Paul did, why is there no mention of it in any of their authentic writings?

The answer is, James and Peter likely did write against the teachings of Paul, but these writings are now lost as Pauline Christianity achieved immense popularity.

[Anonymous No.22150457]

>>22147297
Also,

>no expectation for gentiles to fulfill the law in non-pauline books of the New Testament?
Paul was a Jew, why didn't he follow Jewish Law? If gentiles are exempt, why is he also exempt from the Law? Why didn't he follow what James said: "What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds?"

The NT is in clear opposition to itself, so one must choose between the writers of the NT, discern which of them are truthful and which are liars. Paul is clearly a liar: >>22142068

[Anonymous No.22150616]

>>22150433
>If this is not a violation of the commandment

Keeping in mind the multiple instances of God-ordained image carving and forging, aproved and in fact sacramental by being placed within the holy place and the Temple, it stands to reason that it refers to the making of false images of idols and false images of God the Father, that couldn't, unlike angels and other creatures, be represented in any way or form.

Such was the christian stance in both East and West until roughly the Renaissance: No depiction of the Father was admited. This is a much more nuanced, precise reading that solves an issue you muslims can't actually cope with: That there is no evidence, not a single shred of proof, that the biblical texts as we currently have them are corrupted in any way or form.

We can go all the way back to the earliest examples of Hebrew writing and we still find God saying that commandment yet allowing the Israelites to build images of angels. You have no grounds to stand on.

>those two examples you attempted to adress

Great way ignoring the other very early christian quotes that openly profess divine sonship pal. Let's leave alone the fact that there is much, much more on that same line, I will limit myself to bring up the other queotes you conveniently left aside because they couldn't be forced to fit with your interpretation:

Justin Martyr (AD 100-165): And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said.

The Huleatt Manuscript (50 AD): The Huleatt Manuscript "She poured it [the perfume] over his [Jesus'] hair when he sat at the table. But, when the disciples saw it, they were indignant. . . . God, aware of this, said to them: 'Why do you trouble this woman? She has done [a beautiful thing for me.] . . . Then one of the Twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priest and said, 'What will you give me for my work?' [Matt. 26:7-15]" (Huleatt fragments 1-3).

In the last one God is used interchangably with Christ, somethng you affirm doesn't happen in your post.

I repeat: Do you want me to continue with the citations? Because I can.

>I wouldn't call the those who followed James and Peter at Jerusalem to be niche

This is very obviously speculation and I would even be tempted to say a dogma you put in place with very little on the way of evidence. "Connect the dots", yeah: There is no evidence of the Eibonites before the first mention by openly christian authors in the 2nd century, and even then, at its earliest some scholars place their existence in the 70ad after the destruction of Jerusalem, a later date than the openly Christ-deifying excerpt already presented to you.

Worse: The Eibonites weren't followers of Peter but of James. Your speculation is based on little more than a personal mythology with no evidence.

Cont.

[Anonymous No.22150648]

>>22150433
cont.

>Funny that Paulines felt the need to forge letters claiming to be Peter to promote their antinomianism.

Once again, in order to make these judgements you need to actually present evidence of your words, to show me how and why this suppossed, vile pauline heresy won over the original and real teachings of the Apostles, yet you present nothing but good-sounding speculation and theories with little support.

You mention James, yet openly ignore the Epistles of John and Revelations that also contain open affirmations of divine sonship. How that squares with this idea being a mere product of Paul? How can we find extensive evidence of attitudes like these yet next to nothing about these Ebionites be either in the Bible or in the actual writen evidence of the 1st century? I ask you again: Why there is no trace of any supposed conflict within the church if the split was true (outside small heretical sects, as they are treated by mainstream christians)? Why no pagan author describes such a massive split and even in its earliest mentions, they all agree christians worshiped Christ as God?

>>22150449

This is literally all speculation projected from a small seeming fact (conflict between the Apostles). There is no evidence of any "lost" writings of Peter and James condemning Paul besides the hinted conflicts in the NT, not a single shred of such a massive split in christianity.

Worse: Considering that pretty much all of the Apostles preached to the gentiles, how it is that not a single church outside this small Jerusalemite heresy kept the ideas you are spousing? How it can be that we find no trace be writen or otherwhise of judaizing christians as a major, dominant group anywhere but after the destruction of the Temple nearly a century later?

But the blunder goes deeper: We have little to no information aboutt he lives and deeds of the Apostles outside the NT and the christian tradition itself. Yes, that same NT that you claim is corrupted, modified, tainted by the evil pauline heresies that won over the poor, original jewsih christians.

How it can be that none of those """evidences""" were supressed by Paul and his followers? How do you even know what is "genuine" and what is "fabricated" in a text that was in the hands of mainstream christians for its entire history, open to be modified or "corrupted"? Your standards are completely arbitrary, declaring anything that fits with your unhistorical doctrinal presuppositions as genuine and condemning what doesn't as false. From an epistemological standpoint you can't even be sure that Peter existed or did a quarter of what you believe he did.

It is not a honest way to approach any text, and the sheer amount of void speculation you have in your arguments should be proof of that.

cont.

[Anonymous No.22150668]

>>22150457
>>22150457
>Paul was a Jew, why didn't he follow Jewish Law? If gentiles are exempt, why is he also exempt from the Law?

Yet another blunder: It is described in Acts and implied in all the pauline letters that Paul did followed the Law like all other jewish christians were expected to do. From where, exactly, do you get this idea that he was violating the mosaic commandments?

>"What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds?"

There is not a single hint in that letter that points towards that passage being a reference to the mosaic law, and everywhere James rather attacks vices that were indeed banned for both jewish and gentile christians as presented in Acts (sexual inmorality and idolatry, alongside of course pride and other sins). You are, again, projecting your own dogma into the text, grasping at straws when no indicative is given that James expects the converts to follow the Law.

>discern which of them are truthful and which are liars. Paul is clearly a liar

As I said before, an arbitrary judgement based on sources you can't justify nor defend giving as a result a belief, a dogma that is nothing but a confirmation of previously held believes.

That this comes from a Muslim, a man that follows a prophet that broke peace treaties multiple times, that ordered assasinations, a prophet that said to have a djinn with him, that gave himself more than four wives, and whose sacred texts are riddle with anachronism and inconsistencies compared with the Bible and other historical sources (declaring Alexander a believer, for example).is nothing but rich.

[Anonymous No.22150673]

>>22150616
>Justin Martyr (AD 100-165)
By the second century Christians did indeed worship God as a duality of the Father and Son, and in the second century it became a trinity. But before this, an understanding of Jesus as the same God as God the Father is borne of the Gospel of John: "I and the Father are one" a quote which is missing from.any other gospel.

>The Huleatt Manuscript (50 AD)
I don't believe these to be as early as they claim. But this is contended, I'm not a specalist in radiocarbon dating, and I'm not familiar with the Greek source enough to say anything about this

>In the last one God is used interchangably with Christ, somethng you affirm doesn't happen in your post.
Why doesn't it happen in the canon?

>The Eibonites weren't followers of Peter but of James
James succeeded Peter in Jerusalem. Paul when confronted by Judaizers in Galatians claim that he did in fact meet Peter and James to whom he gave pledge of alliegance, which meant the "other gospel" preachers in Galatians claimed to speak on behalf of James and Peter and disputed Paul's claims.

>>>22150648
>Once again, in order to make these judgements you need to actually present evidence of your words
Open the Wikipedia page for the Authorship of the Petrine Epistles, read the references.

>the Epistles of John
Everyone agrees that the Johannines aren't actually written by John. Why would anyone trust them? To me, Christian History is so one sided, so much from Paul's side survives, yet virtually no trace of the other exists. Who were the preachers in Galatians? What was that "other gospel" that Paul mentions?

The NT clearly depicts a church in conflict with itself, but we are to believe that all the Apostles got along and believe everything Paul and Luke tells us.

>How do you even know what is "genuine" and what is "fabricated" in a text
Common sense

>Your standards are completely arbitrary
It's really not if you have been paying attention. Really, it is Christians who put so much faith in Paul and his followers so as to not see the clear contradictions within the NT that are in front of their very eyes. It is blind faith without reason

[Anonymous No.22150685]

>>22150668
Paul says: "Christ will be of no benefit to you if you let yourself be circumsised", "for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing", "a person is not justified by the works of the law"

Jesus says: "Depart from me your workers of lawlessness", "not one iota from the law shall pass till all will be fulfilled"

Christians follow Paul before they follow Jesus

>That this comes from a Muslim, a man that follows a prophet that broke peace treaties multiple times...
and believe anything they hear. Please read your own book without bias

[Anonymous No.22150707]

From the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies:

>As the True Prophet has told us, a false prophet must first come from some deceiver; and then in like manner, after the removal of the holy place, the true Gospel must be secretely sent abroad for the rectification of the heresies to come

>They do not know who is my precursor Simon. For if he were known, he would not be believed, but now not being known, he is improperly believed. and though his deeds are those of a hater, he is loved, and though an enemy, he is received as a friend, and though he be death, he is desired as a saviour and though fire, he is esteemed as light, and though a deceiver, he is believed as a speaker of truth

>Then I, Clement, when I heard this (from Peter), said, "Who then, I pray you, is this who is such a deceiver?"

[Anonymous No.22150765]

>>22150673
>Justin Martyr and the Huleatt

The problem is that even early examples from the 2nd century already openly profess the belief in Christ as God, as it can be seen in the case of Ignatius of Antioch:

>“Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

I repeat my question: Why there is no evidence of this massive conflict or split in the writen text? Why the sources from the 2nd century onwards are virtually united regarding the divinity of Christ? Why people that according to tradition were in fact contemporary with the last Apostles preach that same dogma in their writings?

>Why doesn't it happen in the canon?

Besides Jews calling Christ blasphemer for making himself equal to God by taking the title Son of God? Besides the Apocalypse giving Christ the aspect of the Son of Man, already contested in pre-christian jewish theology and considered to be the "Second Power" in heaven?

Your assumption of "jewish christianity" is based on an idea of judaism that is completely unhistorical and separated from the actual believes and theology of jews in the 1st century. The absolute monotheism you imply wasn't as universal as you think, and in fact rises as a reaction against christianity.

>Open the Wikipedia page for the Authorship of the Petrine Epistles, read the references.

The only consensus of modern, secular, liberal scholars is that the two letters were forgeries. You are projecting a Pauline evil conspiracy based on little more than suspicions and prejudices based on a unhistorical theological understanding and your own muslim dogma.

>Why would anyone trust them? To me, Christian History is so one sided, so much from Paul's side survives, yet virtually no trace of the other exists.

Even if this was true, I repeat, you are simply speculating with no hard evidence on your side of such a massive book purgue happening during the 1st century except the fact that a position you identify as Pauline survived in pretty much the entire christian world.

I repeat: Why we don't find a single pocket of christian believers outside Palestine still clinging to the mosaic law? Why, if there was such a conflict, not a single council, debate or polemic rose as a result of it? Why, if the Apostles all founded churches around the Mediterranean and the Galatians were hostile or suspicious of Paul, we don't see single one of them keeping your muslim interpretation less than a century later? Where is the evidence of the persecution, the book burnings, the imposition of the new dogma?

cont.

[Anonymous No.22150771]

>>22150433
>Paulines felt the need to forge letters claiming to be Peter to promote their antinomianism.
Reminder Origen thought both Petrine letters were genuine and Jerome discusses their different writing styles by pointing out that they would have been written by different devoted or hired scribes. This would also solve the other problem people have with the Petrine letters in that the backwater fisherman Peter wouldn't have been educated enough to write sophisticated letters on his own.

[Anonymous No.22150779]

>>22150673
cont.

>who where the preachers in Galatians?

Judaizers converted from the pharisees as described in Acts, and condemned later on by the Apostles precisely for trying to impose the Mosaic Law to gentile converts.

>Common sense.

No, rather it is arbitrary dogmas and confirmation biases. You hold to a unhistorical idea of jewish theology and practices (iconoclast when they had icons and images, and hardline monotheist when they spoke of the Two Powers in Heaven) and then use that to decry and discard anything that doesn't fit within your mulsim paradigm.

>Clear contradictions.

And such a contradictory source is literally the only reliable chronicle you have of Peter and James, a corrupted, christian Gospel that you can't even justify on the grounds presented. Without the NT you can't even affirm that they did half of what they did or that either of them was a true Apostle, because all of that ultimately comes from christian sources and tradition.

Again, it is all arbitrary: What agrees with me is real and what it doesn't is corrupted, no matter if my own stance is unhistorical.

>It is blind faith without reason.

RICH coming from a muslim. Pic related, and also my previous post.

[Anonymous No.22150789]

>>22150685
>Paul says: "Christ will be of no benefit to you if you let yourself be circumsised", "for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing", "a person is not justified by the works of the law"

Indeed, because Christ's sacrifice is the fulfillment of the Law and represents its transformation, not its nullification. That is an old christian dogma you seem unable to grasp.

>Jesus says: "Depart from me your workers of lawlessness", "not one iota from the law shall pass till all will be fulfilled"

The fulfillment Christ is talking about is the destruction of Jerusalem by the romans in the 70ad and the scathering of the jews. With the removal of the Temple the laws in their present form do pass away (even if they are transformed throught Christ sacrifice).

This is easily proven by the fact that virtually all references to that End of Days and passing away from Christ makes refernece of armies surounding Jerusalem and the destruction of the nation of Israel. All of this was fulfilled in the 1st century.

Worse: You are falling into a clear word-concept fallacy, simply assuming that "lawlessness" refers here to the breach of the Mosaic Law when Christ Himself breaching the sabbatic commandment multiple times in the Gospels.

>and believe anything they hear. Please read your own book without bias

All of what I mentioned is in your own holy books, muslim, and your own people bragged about those crimes as signs of Allah's favor in the past.

Again, this is RICH.

>Christians follow Paul instead of Jesus

You can't even now who Christ was outside christian sources and compilers that already believed in his divnity. The Quram is a broken phone account with very little historical value and that multiple times even confuses biblical characters.

[Anonymous No.22151772]

>>22140501
>Then why are you here seething? Follow their example.
Not him, I've learned to stop seething at the Protestants, many of whom are born into their faith just as Catholics are to theirs, but their theology and the whole situation we are all in causes me much grief. The theology is one of the wolves described in this book, telling people if they get away from the corruption of the catholic church (correct) and return to their origins (understandable) they will be saved. Yet then they tell them only the bible matters (horrific heresy) and their attempts to return to the origin are too warped, cutting them off from a chain of tradition and forcing them to relive the same heresy conflicts over and over again.

I can't look at everything that happened since the Catholic Church's corruption in the middle ages, to the reformation, to the 30 years war, to the further schisms upon schisms as anything but the work of Satan.

[Anonymous No.22151782]

>>22142099
>yet you don't seem to be Hindu?
Not the first guy you replied to, but seriously be careful. The implication you are giving is that people should change faith from God if it goes on too long, that is extremely heretical.