True Gospel

All of you know that this gospel was only left out because Paul is a liar right?

Attached: Gospel According to Peter.jpg (260x320, 13.98K)

*Dabs*
*Sages*

No, can you tell us more OP?

*Gasp
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaAAAA
HAHAHAHEeeee
Choke on spit
HAHAHAHaaHAHAHA
HAHA *thyroid hops out of mouth
*losing consciences

…Ha! I'm dying!

Simon Peter literally translates to "Stone or Rock" in Hebrew. The builders of Christianity (Ie. St Paul/Paulinism) rejected the gospel as was depicted in the bible

Psalms 118:22
Has become the chief cornerstone."

I Peter 3:6-7


A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”


Has become the chief cornerstone,”

The Christian worldview was built on flawed foundations

Get banned, Muzzie scum.

Attached: 2ddc23e3b4a5ee4ae0e8f6459adf61b51ed1f0459ce44b23a2f1c15049d4d58c.jpg (431x322, 27.3K)

Attached: Peter = Stone.PNG (1168x150, 25.58K)

Attached: 34445925_168872600624628_2694452736782499840_n.jpg (638x710, 52.48K)

It's from Greek you dip.

close enough

i still don't understand what your trying to say

...

Jewish lies.

to deny Peter is to deny the cornerstone of Christianity

You're tripping again.

What makes you think he couldn't have?

Attached: Wat now.jpg (820x820, 40.2K)

Are you some kind of absolute brainlet ignorant of history and basic Christian teaching? Oh wait, yes you are. The stone you are referring to is Christ, as understood by the Church since the beginning. St. Peter being the rock upon which the Church is built is established in the Gospels and is the main justification for the Roman Papacy. The two instances are not the same.

Peter died in the first century whereas this text was written in the second, you utter retard.

It's self-evident

Hypothesised* to be written in the second century

How so? How is any of that "lies"? Do you have evidence to the contrary? Do you have any logical reason to disagree? Are you a special person?

Maybe there is some truth to Gnosticism

There is no evidence it existed in the first you mong. If it did, it would have been mentioned in early texts.

Ah, I see what we have here. Another "do-it-yourself" gnostic who picks and chooses his sources based on his own stupidity. Congratulations, dumbass, you win the "Proven Wrong for 2000 Years" prize.

I'm not Gnostic, but I do think Gnosticism could be used to bridge the Abrahamic religions. Imagine if all the world followed the same interpretation of Abrahamism

You are clearly very ignorant on matters of religion and history. Why are you even here?

Sorry bud, Islam has already been trying to that.

Attached: ac92c20c4ac43353cc5c464fda3d9f16e58c4a93ddaab033c9fcbf1d2e9b46ea.png (361x408, 19.64K)

Islam uses Gnosticism? how so?

I dismiss it because its historical claims are false and its theology internally inconsistent.

One could argue that Christianity is also internally inconsistent

How much proper Christian literature have you actually read?

my sides