What did Paul specifically add to the doctrine? Like, if he didn’t exist, how would Christianity be different?

11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. 12 When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile believers, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. 13 As a result, other Jewish believers followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

Why does Paul oppose Peter when Peter literally was an apostle and saw Christ his whole life? Isn’t he claiming Peter who saw Jesus while he lived and was appointed by Jesus to be his successor was literally a heretic? How could Paul know better from a supposed vision than a literal apostle?

Oops I don’t mean his whole life I mean his whole ministry

...

Peter was a simple Fisherman and yes, he did wrong. Paul had more insight since he knew the Law better.

Dude Paul persecuted Christians before. What would he know about Christ that Peter wouldn’t. This sounds like a hoax to me.

Without Paul the Word would carry a more interpersonal value and would be more up to interpretation. imo anyway.

You mean heretics wouldn’t have been burned by the thousands

In part, yes but I also think what is deemed heretical now probably wouldn't've been.

You’re right, the insane Jewish hunter of Christians corrupted with his wrath the Christian doctrine

*Fanatic rather than insane

What? Gnostics, the worst heretics in history, had their own scripture too.
I’m not a Jew god forbid.

>Even though Peter would have been unable to explain the contradiction himself if a gentile asked him

That's a bit extreme and you know that isn't what I meant. As a Catholic, It sometimes feels as though we worship the Church above Christ. The words from Christs lips are not interpretable as well as a lot of other stuff and that has caused a lot of pain in the world and amongst followers of the Faith.
Denominations probably would still have arisen but the schisms between them may not have been seen as so great and as divisive.

That came out wrong, I meant the things we disagree upon have caused pain.

Where is a mistake? Circumsision? How is that a mistake. Jesus didn’t talk about it. Also that is not the only thing Paul did and you know it.

Why did he do that?

It wasn't total opposition, it was opposition on this one issue. Later councils agreed with Paul, as did Peter himself. You see, Peter actually was one of the first ones to have anti-judaizing doctrines revealed through him. It was Peter's vision of a sheet that led to gentiles being included in Christianity. Paul is criticizing Peter for being wishy-washy. Peter ate with the gentiles, than these Jews came and he stopped eating with the gentiles out of embarrassment. Peter was teaching one thing, but practicing another. That's what Paul criticized. Peter later wrote of Paul, calling him a "dear brother" and describing his letters as scripture. It's not like Peter was teaching anything against Paul

I bet you Peter also called Judas a dear brother before the betrayal. Just saying. This doesn’t mean much, because Paul did change the Law and that’s not acceptable, I read the other two guys who were with him at the time he supposedly met Christ did not see Christ appear to Paul.

By the way I have doubts about Peter reconciling with Paul’s changes

Oh I remember you, you were here recently. You used this pic.
You never did find an answer for the destruction of scripture that happens if Paul is removed. I can't explain it as well as the Catholic in that thread, but maybe someone here remembers. Basically, if you remove Paul you must also remove all the other books of the New Testament except James

Regarding your actual response though, it's a non-sequitur. Yeah, I'm sure Peter did call Judas a dear brother before the betrayal. However, here Peter is calling Paul a dear brother after Paul rebuked him and after Paul wrote all his epistles. You claim that Paul rebuking Peter's behavior is one thing that proves he's not an apostle, you also claim that his letters change the teachings of Christianity. Am I correct in inferring that you are comparing these two actions to Judas's betrayal in your post? This is analogous to what Peter said about Judas after the betrayal. You see how Peter praises Paul, showing that your views on Paul are not shared by Peter

Attached: confused nick young.png (600x512, 297.71K)

So you think Peter was a hypocrite his whole life? Paul wasn't arguing against Peters teachings, he was rebuking Peter for acting out of line. Peter should have been rebuked for his hypocritical actions, and I'm glad he was. Peter was glad too.
If you believe Peter shouldn't have been rebuked for what he was doing, you get two options.
Gentiles shouldn't be Christians. Jews and Gentiles should not mix as Christians, and Peter was doing right by not eating with them. Peter's vision was a lie, he never got it
Peter had a vision saying gentiles could be Christians. He should have ignored it, and directly disobeyed God
Of course, option 3 is this

>Except for Paul. He gets a free pass to mislead the church for 2000 years, so good luck pal.

That’s insane I never posted this picture before and never talked about Paul here before stop it
How would you have to destroy scripture? That was literally composed before Paul got “visited”

jesuswordsonly.com/books/727-proofs-the-12-apostles-rejected-paul.html

Scroll down to number 11 and read how Epiphanius records: ebionite was originally a term for ALL early Christians.
Then number 13 says, quote: 13. More proof the Ebionites were the apostolic church was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There scholars found a remnant writing for the community known as the EBION at Jerusalem whose leader – the Zaddik - the "JUST ONE" in Hebrew – was battling the "Spouter of Lies" over whether "works" were necessary for righteousness besides faith. They were arguing over Habakuk 2:4 - Paul's frequent proof text for faith alone. James, the bishop of Jerusalem, was in fact known as James the Just. This fits the label Zaddik – a Hebrew word meaning Just One. The debate with Paul, who often deflects charges he is "lying," was over the proof text Paul misused twice - Habakkuk 2:4. It takes no stretch to deduce the Ebionites were the church of James and the twelve depicted in Acts 15. As Professor Eisenman, an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls, persuasively argues about this Dead Sea Scroll document, that it has an uncanny parallel to Paul and the Just One - James the Just, as well as the name of the earliest Christians being the EBIONITES. See JWO ch. 12. Hence, we can confidently say that the Ebionites were the same as the Jamesian apostolic church at Jerusalem.
The church tells you constantly the Dead Sea scrolls are very bad, HMMMMMM

so whens your circumcision?

Not wanting a circumsision is not an argument against the truth.

Very interesting. Thanks.

did you keep your foreskin?

By the way Islam with all its heretical thoughts ALSO says faith alone is not enough. Quran frequently mentions the “nazarenes”, which are by Muslims today falsely interpreted as meaning the SAME as “Al-maseeh” (which refers to mainstream Christians, remember Mohammed lived in 600 ad centuries after council of Constantinople) but they are different. And Mohammed calls them “much closer” to Muslims than Jews, Muslims also follow mosaic law Arab version.
Now my interpretation is Mohammed was supposed to bring Christianity to the Arabs but failed horrendously, we don’t know much about early Islam.

Sorry mistake, “al-maseehiun” not al-maseeh
Al Maseeh means the messiah in arabic

By the way
Judiasm before Kabbalah was introduced, was proletyzing Romans en masse. Real Judaism is not pharisaic nor secretive.

Kabbalah isn't practiced by many Jews anyway.

You are right. Actually the destruction of the temple has more influence on why Jews don’t proletyze anymore, I’m not sure.

Who cares about what apostles do and don’t do. Were Christians followers of Jesus Christ and only he is infallible

No i don’t care what Peter did there. he didn’t make a command there nor did he make scripture up.

Read the website I posted

That happened close to 2000 years before Kabbalah was an actual thing. Well, at least called that. There was gematrica and stuff.

The destruction of the temple AD 70 happened 2000 years before Kabbalah was called Kabbalah you mean? Is the term Kabbalah really this recent?

I just had a quick read up then, apparently the term was used through that period.
Sorry about that.
I read prior that it was a relatively recent (late 1800's) movement from eastern Russia iirc.

Cathodox Christianity would be essentially the same

Maybe you mean frankism the satanic Jewish heresy

I think I was looking up Hassidic Jews and came across that, I'm not sure. It was a fairly long time ago when I was still hung up on that stuff.

jews don't proselytise because of the concept of Noahidism

Wrong. They proselyzed Romans before 70 AD this is well recorded.

Quote:
Because Jews themselves were later on the sharp end of Christian and Muslim missions, there is a reluctance to accept that Judaism itself was a missionary religion. Yet as early as 139BC, Jews were being expelled from Rome for trying to convert Roman citizens. A little later, the great lawyer-politician Cicero complained about proselytizing Jews. Two emperors, Tiberius and Claudius, transported Jews from Rome for the crime of trying to convert Romans. Roman writers such as Horace, Seneca, Juvenal and Tacitus all discuss the issue. Later, the emperor Theodosius published ferocious decrees in the Christian era against anyone who attempted to make converts to Judaism.

Andrew Marr, A History of the World, p129

He added that you are saved by faith alone, this goes against the teaching of Christ.

probably because they where polytheists but today for gentiles it seems that Noahidism is good enough and Rabbis seem to discourage conversion of gentiles to Judaism even. Where or what is 'real' judaism today?

Cathodox don't believe in faith alone

This Eisenman sure has a low opinion of Paul, I wonder why
Ah, of course

Pre-Christ Judaism was very splintered, biggest example are the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Real Judaism is following Christ, I don’t know much more.
Really, who believes in being saved by faith alone then? Heard that somewhere

Does that change what is written in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Read them yourself if you don’t believe that Jew.

This.
Get that mentality out of your head OP.

Deuteronomy 4:2
You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

If I do not believe that Jew why would I accept a connection between the Dead Sea Scrolls and Christianity?

Attached: 3849021A-CC54-49AE-88ED-810AF6BA30A0.png (211x239, 3.5K)

If you don't even know what the Protestant Reformation is how can you possibly have a grounding in theology to be able to argue that Paul was a faker this whole time?

interfaith.org/community/threads/1692/

Two authors published a book confirming this claim. Both non-Jewish.

I have a grounding in early church history. The reformation is a 500 year old bootleg Christianity

Is this a joke? You're quoting the people who wrote Holy Blood and Holy Grail as an authority? Do you seriously believe the Merovingians were descended from Jesus through Mary Magdalene?

If you hear the truth it doesn’t matter from whom it came. They say Jesus existed. Do you now think Jesus didn’t exist because they said that? That sounds like fanaticism.

Quote from the book:
“27 In 1 Timothy 2:7, for example, he asserts indignantly, as if defending himself, that ‘I am telling the truth and not lie’. In II Corinthians 11:31, he swears that: ‘The God and Father of the Lord Jesus . . . knows that I am not lying.’ These are but two instances; Paul’s letters reveal an almost obsessive desire to exculpate himself from implied accusations of falsity."

Just want to point out Genesis has been manipulated by Jews in the time of around 0 AD, there is a name missing in the geneaology which is a person who was involved in sorcery, Kabbalists do not want you to know that because it would link them to Satan.

So much to the Bible has not been altered by the forces of evil

That’s not the way it works friend. They didn’t invent the concept of Jesus existing. Rather, they believe Jesus existed because other researchers said he did and they accepted these other people’s claims. However, Holy Blood and Holy Gail is original research from them, as is their Dead Sea Scrolls book. Since we know how bad their original research is from one book, that casts skepticism on all their original research.

Just looked it up, carbon dating disproved the theory

How bold of them to declare that a man accepted as historical for two thousand years existed. Of course they proclaim that He existed in no form recognizable to Christians, especially on the part where they claim He survived the crucifixion and migrated to Gaul with his wife Mary and their daughter. How fanatical of me to deny that such a Christ existed.

Matthew 5:
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20

I must apologize for using these two loons as a source

Paul will be called least in the kingdom of heaven - not someone I trust in scriptural matters.

What do you mean? Paul said we shouldn’t sin. You should read pretty much all of Romans 6 and 7

Do not lie, we know Paul changed the Law. Read the passage I posted.

And you read the epistle of Jude
Quote from the website posted above:
“Next, Jude said this person and his followers also teach Balaam's error. What was that? It was eating meat sacrificed to idols (Rev. 2:14) – something Paul endorses multiple times unless you are around a "weak" brother who thinks it is wrong. You refrain only if such a “weak” minded brother might see you exercising the right to eat meat sacrificed to idols, and violates his "weak" conscience. See 1 Cor. 10:28-29; 1 Cor. 8:4-12.”

Ephesians 2:
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

So basically, Paul caused the corruption of the early church, AND the reformation, which has produced such fruits in certain places, described by Luther himself as “like Sodom”
This happens if you claim salvation by works makes you boastful. So was Abel boastful? Literally a Cain sympathizer.

Jude was the third bishop of Jerusalem

Where is ebionism today? looks like noahidism is your only real option. Or maybe ebionites where wrong.

I follow the Bible and not the nonsensical additive works of Paul. What is your argument?

“The gates of Hades will not prevail against it”
And
“The Doctrine will not be corrupted”
Are two different things.
The Church just needs to remove falsehood from their Books - it prevailed against the Gates of Hades. Revelation in fact shows: John himself opposed Paul.

Christ opposed Paul, if you believe in Revelation

I never claimed I am Ebionite - I am a real Christian, who does not follow the false teachings of Saul of Tarsus, not an Ebionite.

That is abhorrent - rejecting another Christian and ordering he only follows the Noahide Laws. That sounds like something that will lead you into Hell.

nada
He clarified a lot, though

Rome was not down with ANY talk about this "one true God" business. Romans were pretty Muslim about you even mentioning who you worshipped if you were a Jew. Jews got stripes for doing this all the time, and Christians just made things worse by actively evangelising.
tl;dr Conflating proselyzing and "happen to be Jewish and admit it"

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
You're a troll who came to visit and troll here.

Attached: impossible-autism-levels.jpg (567x561, 56.93K)

Of course you have no source. Because it’s not true. Jews converted Romans before the time of secrecy.

There you go
“This view received its classic description in Salo Baron’s 18-volume Social and Religious History of the Jews:

Although there were no professional missionaries, uninterrupted religious propaganda seems to have gone on throughout the dispersion. There must have been Jews among the itinerant preachers and rhetoricians who voyaged from city to city, propagandizing for one or another idea. To this extent the well known denunciation of the Pharisees by Jesus—“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte; “

Inb4 Jewish author
His wiki reads
“Baron opposed the "lachrymose conception of Jewish history," sometimes identified with Heinrich Graetz, a great 19th-century Jewish historian who found the main elements of Jewish experience through the ages to be suffering and spiritual scholarship.”

No comment.

Matthew 13 shows that the apostles have been given secrets no one else has received.
The apostles were outlined (I think in Revelation) as TWELVE.
Thus Saul of Tarsus can neither be an apostle, nor did he receive the secrets the other apostles have received. He is a fraudster who received satanic “revelations” by trance or something similar.

I’m not a troll, may God curse all people who blaspheme against God almighty and deceive Christians like that.

I may be a zealot, but if you’d know my circumstances you’d be one too.

Anyone who reads this, I will find out the truth and I am still at the beginning. Wish me good luck, and protection from Satan.

I recommend you take a look at where your entire knowledge of Christ comes from

Here we have yet another retard who tries to talk about le evil Paul

What a surprise. It wouln't surprise me if tomorrow you said Jesus is satanic, while saying "wish me protection from Satan!"