Why do Muslims reject Paul on the basis that his vision on the Road to Damascus "cannot be trusted" yet we are expected to trust Muhammad's encounter with Gabriel in the cave without hesitation?
It seems to me that if someone rejects Paul on the basis that he "simply made it up and created a new religion" then surely someone could apply the same argument to Muhammad in the cave?
Or is there some other reason Muslims reject Paul as a false apostle besides this?
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
I don't think the Quran mentions Paul once. There are also figures like Jonathan that are just completely missing.
I have seen Muslim apologists dismissing Paul on the basis that his vision on the road to Damascus is just made up by a madman and cannot be trusted but I don't see how the same argument could not be put on Muhammad
Paul's status as a deceiver was a later innovation by Muslim scholars as a cope for the fact that what Muhammed claims Jesus said is completely different from what the apostles claim Jesus said.
Muhammad barely had a grasp on the concept of the Trinity, he probably didn't even know who Paul was.
Paul didn't believe in the trinity
Hi JWAnon this thread isn't about you or that so please kindly frick off.
>this thread isn't about you
Paul was a Jehovah's Witness
That's nice. Can you leave now?
You made a thread about a JW and you expect a JW to leave ? Why ?
Because you're annoying.
Paul didn't opine on the time of the end and make wild predictions about the timeline of the last days because Christians know that it will come as a thief in the night.
Are you saying Christians cannot make mistakes ?
How ?
Christians repent after making mistakes.
They don't obfuscate their errors and move goalposts.
I agree, what does it have to do with me ?
Go contemplate the fact that your attachment to the generation that witnessed world war 1 is at best an overreach based on bad math, that your faithful and discrete slave castigates the proposed infallibility of church leaders that you regard as enemy while hypocritically maintaining that they should be regarded as unquestionable to their subjects, and that your incessant proselytizing at inappropriate times among people that have already asked you to leave is in-fact a bad witness.
>Go contemplate the fact that your attachment to the generation that witnessed world war 1 is at best an overreach based on bad math
Why ?
>that your faithful and discrete slave castigates the proposed infallibility of church leaders that you regard as enemy while hypocritically maintaining that they should be regarded as unquestionable to their subjects
It's not true that we "cannot question" anything. If a Christian is not convinced by a certain point in our publications, nothing happens. Nobody is disfellowshipped for seeing one point differently.
Thousands of Christians send letters to the governing body with questions about explanations they don't agree with. The Faithful and Discreet Slave appreciates that feedback and sometimes new understandings come as a result of it.
>and that your incessant proselytizing at inappropriate times among people that have already asked you to leave is in-fact a bad witness.
We are simply saving people's lives.
>How ?
Well let's see, you entered this thread by replying to me with a completely irrelevant point, continued spamming provocative irrelevant talking points in an attempt to bait someone into an argument, once someone responds you continue responding with irrelevant provocative talking points, completely derailing the thread and splitting it into an infinite fractal of moronation.
You do this consistently in every single thread you enter.
I would consider that fairly annoying.
What did I say that was false ?
Ok I see you didn't actually read anything I wrote and also you're still responding to me, so this effort is futile.
Congratulations on killing another thread. Your prize is nothing. Enjoy.
Why are you angry at me ?
Because I am influenced by Satan and hate righteous men like yourself.
Why ?
You win.
I have converted to real Christianity.
Praise Jehovah.
Can we be done now?
You can't convert like that, it takes months of studying
I'm dying I have 10 minutes to live.
If it takes years why didn't John and Jesus' followers baptize people immediately?
Thanks for the question !
The practice of baptizing individuals immediately ended somewhat early among Christians, especially when Gentiles were starting to learn about God and Christ. This professor talks about early church history and discusses this very subject:
If I am a troll what did I say that was false ?
No you don't
Jay Dubya please.. I'll do anything... except get a blood transplant... I only have.. ACK!
[Now I'm going to be annihilated and it's all your fault]
Your blood is on your own head. I shake the dust off my shoes
Just ignore her bro. JW is a just a troll and might even be a bot.
>I don't think the Quran mentions Paul once
According to Ibn Kathir verse 36:14 refers to Paul.
Ibn Kathir is like 700 years after the Qur'an.
Which makes his position even more interesting because muslims would have read the NT by then.
The Prophet (pbuh) was obviously telling the truth, because the Qu'ran says so.
>Expecting Islamic theology to make sense
Good luck cousin
Everybody is just trying to steal Israel's Elohim and claim him for themselves. He will make known who his elect are soon. All of the false religions have been allowed to stand until know to test the loyalty of the exiled Isrelites, to see if they go after other gods and after other ways of life or if they remain loyal to their Elohim. This is how the Elohim does things:
>I will no longer drive out before them any of the nations Joshua left when he died. I will use them to test Israel and see whether they will keep the way of Yahweh and walk in it as their ancestors did.”
>They were left to test the Israelites to see whether they would obey the Lord’s commands, which he had given their ancestors through Moses.
Stop arguing about which false religion is the best, they're all false.
Muslims believe Muhammad because they consider the Quran to be a poetic work of such mastery that it could only be created by the divine. The Quran is genuinely beautiful in the original Arabic - it contains some of the most euphonious liturgical passages in human history. In that sense, most Muslims will feel they have personally borne witness to Muhammad's miracle (i.e. the Quran).
They don't see anything similarly impressive about Paul. He turns up shortly after Jesus has died and massively retcons the religion as it was practised by the people who actually met Jesus in his lifetime; writing a bunch of dry-ass texts that Christians subsequently decide should comprise half the Bible. They struggle to understand why Christianity is shaped so dramatically by a man who neither was Jesus nor was one of his 12 disciples.
Thanks for that. Your explanation makes sense. So essentially it’s more about how Paul changed the teachings of the religion as it was practiced by those who walked with Jesus? I didn’t know that Paul never met Jesus
>most euphonious liturgical passages in human history
listening to the quran is torment.
post the best recitation you have
Paul's writings are far from dry; they are very poetic and human.
>it contains some of the most euphonious liturgical passages in human history
irrelevant, and a matter of opinion
it was narrated over the span of a few years by a single person, then their followers wrote it down
whereas the bible was written over a thousand years by many different hands, so you can't explain internal consistency by saying only one person wrote it
it's easy to argue that a single man just made it all up as he went, its another thing entirely to say that many people each separated by centuries did the same thing
moreover, it explains next to nothing about the bible and does not quote from it. Compared to the NT, which extensively quotes and comments on the Torah and the other writings. Any one book in a canonical body of literature should quote and explain the other works contained in that canon. Quran really doesn't do this. But Jesus and the apostles spend the entire NT quoting and explaining scripture.
see the problem? Contradictions in quran are handwaved away by asserting that the later books supercede or even abrogate the earlier ones.
>Muslims believe Muhammad because they consider the Quran to be a poetic work of such mastery that it could only be created by the divine.
That's easy when Arabic basically had no literature before the Quran and its entire lingual basis ended up being constructed around it, so of course they would make it sound nice.
>Muhammad's encounter with Gabriel
The fact that this is not in the quran is beyond moronic.
Even more moronic is the fact that the annunciation of muhammads prophethood was not made by Jibril, it was made by a homie named Waraqa - the cousin of muhammads wife. Any way you look at it, islam is a pile of shit.
Muslims have always observed the internal contradictions within the NT. Early muslims weren't that much interested in reading the Bible, but later on, Islamic scholars would come to the conclusion that much of the NT was edited(corrupted) by Paulines, and modern biblican scholars agree.
Just reading the letters of Paul by themselves, you get the impression that he was seen as fringe, and he wasn't trusted. Responding to the Corinthians, Paul says, "I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super apostles" " and in Galatians, Paul calls James, Paul and John, "those esteemed as pillars", he says "As for those who were held in high esteem-whatever they were makes no difference to me, God does not show favoritism"
You get the sense that what he was teaching was against what the actual eyewitnesses of Jesus were teaching at the time.
It doesn't take much intelligence to see that Acts and the Gospels were written by Paulines. Compare this to James which has no trace of his kind of theology
What traces exist of the original Christianity, before Paul?
The epistle of James and the Didache are probably earlier than the Pauline Epistles. They had partices such as Baptism and Eucharist, but no rejection of the Law, nor the mystical interpretation of the Eucharist, where you eat the body of Christ. There exists no evidence that they held Jesus as divine in any sort of way.
These beliefs are very similar to what Eusebius describes about the Ebionites, meaning the "poor ones". They didn't worship Christ and they held unto the Law. Some of them believed in the fatherlessnes of Jesus, some didn't.
From Galatians, Paul speaks of those who came to correct what Paul had taught them. He says they preach "another Gospel".
He says, "Even if an angel were to teach something other than he has taught, let him be accursed". He then gives testimony of how he received the approval of the disciples, and said "whatever they were makes no difference to me"
Early Gospels, perhaps before Mark, were sayings gospels, like the Gospel of Thomas. These were like hadith, they were a collection of the sayings of Jesus in no particular order.
Matthew and Luke are very similar to Mark, but if you compare the content of the two which doesn't repeat the events in Mark, there exists remarkable similarities. This content consists of sayings of Jesus, mostly parables and the Lord's prayer. It seems that Mark and Luke both took content from a common source, which is verh possibly a sayings gospel, which the scholars call Q.
With the recent discovery of P. Oxy. 5575, which contains common material between Matthew, Luke and Thomas, it seems more and more likely that sayings gospels represent the earliest literature of Christianity, and thus their earliest beliefs.
None of the content of Q includes the crucifixion, death and ressurection of Christ.
mega samegay vibes from these posts
fr?
>Early Gospels, perhaps before Mark, were sayings gospels, like the Gospel of Thomas. These were like hadith, they were a collection of the sayings of Jesus in no particular order.
Those sayings are meaningless unless there was a story about Jesus being a powerful being anon. It'd be like if I quoted the gospel of your shitposts to people with no context. Why the frick would anyone especially non-Jews care about the sayings of some poor israeli death cultist
Sayings gospels were distributed among people who knew who Jesus was, that is, israelites in Judea. Papias tells us that "logia" were written by the disciples and their students in Hebrew. Narrative gospels were created, in the style of Greek novel, for a people who never heard of Jesus, that is Gentiles. From the start, narrative gospels were Pauline
Except why in the world did israelites have any reason to believe Jesus above any other rabbi of the day