Thread 18071080

Galatians 1:8-9
>But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
And with that, Islam is done for.

So are Roman Catholics or Protestants damned because they either add (from the Prot perspective) or remove (from the Catholic perspective) books from the Biblical canon?

It's like me saying anyone posting below this line is gay, and then putting some underscores. Means little to men of reason.

>>18071080 (OP)
The big book of waloody al sandnigger says you are wrong. Because the Big Book of Waloody al-Sandnigger is the inerrant word of God it trumps your Jewish fan fiction.
This shuts the door on PAULianity pretty much.

>>18071080 (OP)
You know Muslims don't consider Paul a prophet right? So the fact Paul said "only believe what I say" doesn't carry much weight unless you already reject Islam.

Why should I trust some guy over an angel?

>>18071174
Why would you trust some guy who said he spoke to an angel?

>>18071252
It's more believable than some guy claiming he saw Jesus according to biblical standards. Angels speak to people in private all the damn time
> I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie
lmao

>>18071267
>Angels speak to people in private all the damn time
According to some guys. Which you've already established isn't a trustworthy source. These angels seem very reticent to speak in public.

>>18071278
Angels do according to Islam though, how is this less reliable than?
>no I never knew Jesus but I'm an apostle because... because... look I just am ok?
The same guy that supposedly met Jesus somehow teaches the opposite things...

>>18071285
"According to Islam" is just according to some guy called Mohammed. Joseph Smith also met an angel, do you trust that he telling was the truth?

>>18071285
jesus literally says he is yahweh to the pharisees and knew abraham before he existed. he also establishes baptizing in the name of three divinities (father, son, holy spirit)
all abrahamics are retarded but muslims are actual toiletbrains

>>18071290
Absolutely not, Islam uses the narrations from the companions for its claims not just one book or one person as a source. Compare this with Paul who pretended to be blind for 3 days and nobody even saw his encounter
>>18071300
>jesus literally says he is yahweh to the pharisees
verse? everything else is not a claim to divinity

>>18071305
https://biblehub.com/john/8-58.htm
the use of "I am" here is the tetragrammaton told to moses as the name of the abrahamic god. this is his response to the pharisees after jesus says he saw abraham and the pharisees press him on it. in your terms, he said he was allah and ascribed the name(s) of allah to himself

>>18071305
The narrations from the companions aka some guys, passed down orally through a chain of more some guys, then judged on their validity by a load of other some guys. Seems like you're trusting an awful lot of some guys here for a man who doesn't trust some guy.

The whole thing rests on someguyism, ultimately some guys said some other guy said he met an angel and you're trusting that. You seem to believe you have an angel available as a primary source.

>>18071316
No he wasn't using the divine title, this is such a tired argument see https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/john8_58.html Unitarians deal with this all the time.
>>18071319
The more guys you add the lower the probability that any one of them is lying, how is this hard for you to comprehend? This isn't something I am inventing on my own It's a standard practice when it comes to biblical scholarship as well as hadith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_multiple_attestation

>>18071080 (OP)
Islam did not start out contrary to the gospel, and even did make those outside of grace worship the one true God, but they no longer recognize God and so have become a path of damnation.

>>18071342
the entire lead up to that is jesus saying he existed before and knew abraham, which is against your islamic view in the first place. jesus was condemned by the sanhedrin because he claimed yahweh's divinity. there's zero wiggle room in the gospels to not conclude that jesus claimed to be divine and was killed for it

>>18071366
It's not actually because we believe in the preexistence of souls. And Jesus in fact explicitly denies being God when they misunderstood that about him. In other places his status as the Messiah was the only thing they could find against him. The only reason he was "killed" was because as the Messiah he challenged the Roman rule who kept the corrupt in power. Why the fuck would Rome care about some man calling himself God lmao?

>>18071342
>The more guys you add the lower the probability that any one of them is lying
Yes famously in the game of Chinese whispers the phrase gets more accurate as it passes through each person.

Number of people makes no difference when the ultimate end point is "some guy said he met an angel in private". The fact you get a load of other people saying "yeah some guy did say he met an angel in private" doesn't make the original claim any more true. Paul also has a load of sources saying "yeah this guy said he had a revelation from god".

If you backtrack through Islamic sources you don't end up at an actual angel, you end up at some guy. You've managed to implicitly disprove your own religious belief.

>>18071388
Maybe you should open the link before making straw men? It's important that they have multiple end points "This criterion cannot be used for sources that are not independent.[4] For example, a saying that occurs in all three Synoptic Gospels may only represent one source". Also you are wrong the difference is Paul claims to have seen Jesus while these people independently claim to have seen the Angel

>>18071380
muslims don't even understand the jewish concept of a messiah because you think a "prophet" in the middle of arabia can show up hundreds of years after the jews no longer even have records due to the destruction of the second temple, with nothing to show for it but a book in arabic. jesus says he fufilled the law and prophets, the final prophet was john the baptist, because jesus is the true priest, prophet, and king of israel. mohammad is a nobody schizoid that syncretized heterodox versions of jewish/christian beliefs

>>18071402
The Jewish understanding of the Messiah is literally a king, the same thing they mocked Jesus on the cross with you absolute idiot. It most certainly isn't a mangod sin chicken replacement.

>>18071405
you muppet, the messiah is explicitly in possession of the priesthood, davidic kingship, and prophethood. none of those can exist after the second temple was destroyed, because davidic lineage was mutted and extinct, there is no temple for priests, and john the baptist (final prophet, https://biblehub.com/luke/16-16.htm, https://biblehub.com/matthew/11-13.htm) is the forerunner who pointed to who the messiah was, made way for the lord, and he said that was jesus. no precedence for a towelhead from arabia to show up 500+ years later

>>18071397
>these people independently claim to have seen the Angel
A chain of oral some guys claim those people claimed to see the angel. You have zero primary sources for any of Mohammed or his companions angel claims. You are practicing selective skepticism here.

All evils nothings goods

>>18071413
What are you even disagreeing with? Go ask a Jew and tell them their religion is now invalid because he doesn't have the 2nd temple see how well that goes. And your verses there say nothing about John the baptist being the final prophet. Jesus who is also a prophet according to the bible came after him. But anyway our idea of what Jesus taught and who he was supposed to be is very much in line with early Jewish Christianity. Many scholars have attested to this similarity it's not just something we are saying.
>>18071423
What selective skepticism? Did you see me criticize Christians for relying on 2nd century anonymous works for their religion? In fact in this thread I am granting that Paul wrote and said all these things. Also the Quran is our earliest dated source on Muhammad's life and it does make the angel claim... My entire point however is that unlike them we have many more independent sources that confirm the angel's existence so I am explicitly avoiding that. My book vs Your book makes for a very unconvincing argument, that's OPs and Paul's point not mine.

>>18071474
>What are you even disagreeing with?
no continuation of the biblical religion is possible now, the temple is long gone, and with it the priesthood and records. jesus presents an interesting figure that fulfills various types of the OT messiah. muslims need to hide behind "authenticity" and "original faith" because nothing mohammad did was creative or sensible (jews and christians apparently have the word of god) and religion was merely a tool for him. you expect christians and jews to believe that moses prayed like muslims do which is a joke, the OT religion was liturgical with imagery all over their temples/synagogues. if someone is interested in an abrahamic religion, christianity is the only option, and even that fails to account for basic empirical truths like the existence of new world continents or elements. so epic fail for these cults
>Jesus who is also a prophet according to the bible came after him.
he is supposed to be the true and eternal prophet due to being god like he is the king of kings and eternal priest of a higher order. it's basic typology that applies to him as a messianic figure and not a bedouin in the 5/600s
>early Jewish Christianity.
OT synagogues and post-jesus churches had imagery that your religion forbids
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos_synagogue
>Many scholars have attested to this similarity it's not just something we are saying.
do you want to hear the higher textual criticism scholars have for the quran and hadith or are you a hypocrite?

>Talking snake
And abrahamism is done for

>>18071508
Okay so you don't really have something to disagree with and you're just pissed that we can "hide behind" Jesus. I do believe the bible depicts a similar prayer. They even had a qibla (that we shared for a while) which is something almost no lay Christian today knows was a thing. But all of this is a side issue, do you even have a clue why modern Jews are still waiting for another Messiah? You think just because you drank Pauline Kool-Aid that means their religion suddenly became invalid. I can do the same thing to Christianity where scripture depicts the construction of a 3rd temple where even the Son of Man will have to resume sacrifices for his own sins
>he is supposed to be the true and eternal prophet
According to? Also that's an incredibly vague statement. It already invalidates your previous claim that there was a final prophet before Jesus if Jesus is also a prophet. Doesn't matter if he's the greatest of them, he still is one. The typology excuse even works better for Muhammad, being like Moses and all that btw
>imagery that your religion forbids
You really seem to think this is a good argument. Not only is the bible very clear about the prohibition against such imagery but early Christians including Church Fathers were iconoclasts. Until the second council of Nicaea wiped all of that tradition ofc. You even see the same type of ideas represented in protestant churches. I am not sure why you think Muhammad brought anything new here when secular scholars pretty much believe us to be a sect of Jewish Christianity. Don't you know that even in our faith we have sects that ignore this law?
>higher textual criticism
Irrelevant to the discussion about which religion resembled early Christendom, it has nothing to do with text but historical data. Not like the epistle to the Galatians is contested that much to begin with. And wow you actually think we don't have any responses to orientalists? I actually use them in support of my arguments all the time btw