do protestants go to heaven?

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

read the article, he has absolutely zero sources for his claim, it's a hunch he got by observing the converts around him

I challenge any christian, I can refute the trinity and the crucifixion of Jesus peace be upon him

You can’t refute anything, you’re Mohammed is dead and under the feet of Jesus faggot bitch


Greatest biblical academic on the New Testament bhart erhman said and I quote “If there’s one thing we know for certain it’s that Jesus died on the cross” and he’s an atheist who hates Christianity

The romans the Greeks the Jews all say he died on the cross


Roman Historians





Tacitus (56–120 AD):


• Source: Annals (written around 116 AD), Book 15, Chapter 44.


• Tacitus, a prominent Roman historian, refers to Jesus’ execution under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Emperor Tiberius:


• “Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus…”


• The “extreme penalty” refers to crucifixion, the Roman method of execution.


• Tacitus is hostile to Christianity but provides an independent confirmation of Jesus’ crucifixion.





Lucian of Samosata (125–180 AD):


• A Greek satirist, Lucian mocks Christians for worshiping Jesus, whom he acknowledges was crucified:


• “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…” (The Passing of Peregrinus).





2. Jewish Sources





Flavius Josephus (37–100 AD):


• Source: Antiquities of the Jews (written around 93–94 AD), Book 18, Chapter 3.


• Josephus, a Jewish historian, briefly mentions Jesus in what is called the Testimonium Flavianum:


• “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man… He was the Christ… Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross…”


• The passage has likely been altered by later Christian scribes, but most scholars agree that Josephus originally mentioned Jesus’ crucifixion.





The Talmud (5th Century but based on earlier traditions):


• The Babylonian Talmud refers to Jesus’ death in a negative light:


• “On the eve of the Passover Yeshu [Jesus] was hanged.” (Sanhedrin 43a).


• “Hanged” was a term sometimes used for crucifixion, reflecting the Jewish perspective on Jesus’ death.

Mara Bar-Serapion (1st–2nd Century AD):


• In a letter written to his son, this Syrian philosopher refers to Jesus:


• “What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished.”


• This is seen as an allusion to Jesus’ crucifixion and its aftermath.

Early Non-Christian Critics





Critics of Christianity in the early centuries confirm the crucifixion as well:


• Celsus (2nd Century AD): A Greek philosopher and critic of Christianity, Celsus acknowledges Jesus’ crucifixion in his polemic The True Word, though he denies Jesus’ divinity.



I can prove Islam has a trinity and can prove Mohammed is not a prophet he is a schitzo or demon possed man like he said in your Hadith after “Gabriel” squished him.


@Mosh12 unelss he can refute these and refute the gospels with historical evidence for the 1st century then he will fail always and continue to fail forever to site that Jesus never died on cross.

 

[R@m@]

Only morons do

 

[R@m@]

I think in order to go to heaven one needs to achieve purity and that can take lot of reeinvarnations

 

[ponpon]

You can’t refute anything, you’re Mohammed is dead and under the feet of Jesus faggot bitch


Greatest biblical academic on the New Testament bhart erhman said and I quote “If there’s one thing we know for certain it’s that Jesus died on the cross” and he’s an atheist who hates Christianity

The romans the Greeks the Jews all say he died on the cross


Roman Historians





Tacitus (56–120 AD):


• Source: Annals (written around 116 AD), Book 15, Chapter 44.


• Tacitus, a prominent Roman historian, refers to Jesus’ execution under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Emperor Tiberius:


• “Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus…”


• The “extreme penalty” refers to crucifixion, the Roman method of execution.


• Tacitus is hostile to Christianity but provides an independent confirmation of Jesus’ crucifixion.





Lucian of Samosata (125–180 AD):


• A Greek satirist, Lucian mocks Christians for worshiping Jesus, whom he acknowledges was crucified:


• “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…” (The Passing of Peregrinus).





2. Jewish Sources





Flavius Josephus (37–100 AD):


• Source: Antiquities of the Jews (written around 93–94 AD), Book 18, Chapter 3.


• Josephus, a Jewish historian, briefly mentions Jesus in what is called the Testimonium Flavianum:


• “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man… He was the Christ… Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross…”


• The passage has likely been altered by later Christian scribes, but most scholars agree that Josephus originally mentioned Jesus’ crucifixion.





The Talmud (5th Century but based on earlier traditions):


• The Babylonian Talmud refers to Jesus’ death in a negative light:


• “On the eve of the Passover Yeshu [Jesus] was hanged.” (Sanhedrin 43a).


• “Hanged” was a term sometimes used for crucifixion, reflecting the Jewish perspective on Jesus’ death.

Mara Bar-Serapion (1st–2nd Century AD):


• In a letter written to his son, this Syrian philosopher refers to Jesus:


• “What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished.”


• This is seen as an allusion to Jesus’ crucifixion and its aftermath.

Early Non-Christian Critics





Critics of Christianity in the early centuries confirm the crucifixion as well:


• Celsus (2nd Century AD): A Greek philosopher and critic of Christianity, Celsus acknowledges Jesus’ crucifixion in his polemic The True Word, though he denies Jesus’ divinity.



I can prove Islam has a trinity and can prove Mohammed is not a prophet he is a schitzo or demon possed man like he said in your Hadith after “Gabriel” squished him.


@Mosh12 unelss he can refute these and refute the gospels with historical evidence for the 1st century then he will fail always and continue to fail forever to site that Jesus never died on cross.

dnrd as my claim isn't that it didn't happen but It was only made to appear so

Ayah an-Nisa 4:157: “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was only made to appear so.

I will prove the following:

1st century Christians from the JEWISH CHRISTIANS that were abundant in number denying the crucifix and Ignatius of Antioch writes against them IN 4 LETTERS while they were making the arguments as follows

-He only appeared to have suffered like the quran says
(وَلَكِن شَبَّهَ لَهُمْ)

-they claimed ignatius had a corrupted Gospel and that theirs didn't mention the crucifix and resurrection narrative

 

[JeanneDArcAlter]

No

 

[JeanneDArcAlter]

Notice how Satan @Mosh12 is trying to lead you away from the truth. Your seeking to learn the word of God and the god of your ancestors and this demon rages in hatred of the mear mention of Jesus so now he wants to cohere you into becoming the very people who seek to rape your women and destroy Europe (Jew and Muslim)

You literally cannot make this up, this should strengthen your faith alone your witnessing Satan send his minions to make you leave to follow bullshit.


You heard the devil say “Jesus cannot be messiah he didn’t fulfil the OT prophecies as he had virgin birth” btw he listens to a JEW A FUCKING JEW telling him that


Well here you go

1. Isaiah 7:14: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Christians interpret this prophecy as foretelling the miraculous birth of Jesus and His role as “God with us.”


2. Genesis 3:15: The “seed of the woman” will crush the serpent’s head. This is viewed as the first prophecy of a Savior, with the virgin birth emphasizing that Jesus was uniquely the “seed” of a woman, not of a man.


3. Micah 5:2-3: The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem and come forth from God, with references to His eternal nature, aligning with Jesus’ divine origin.


4. Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 9:6-7: These passages reference the Messiah as the Son of God and ruler on David’s throne, fulfilled in Jesus’ divine conception and kingship.

dnrd as my claim isn't that it didn't happen but It was only made to appear so

Ayah an-Nisa 4:157: “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was only made to appear so.

I will prove the following:

1st century Christians from the JEWISH CHRISTIANS that were abundant in number denying the crucifix and Ignatius of Antioch writes against them IN 4 LETTERS while they were making the arguments as follows

-He only appeared to have suffered like the quran says
(وَلَكِن شَبَّهَ لَهُمْ)

-they claimed ignatius had a corrupted Gospel and that theirs didn't mention the crucifix and resurrection narrative

bro tf yall doing arguing all day

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

dnrd as my claim isn't that it didn't happen but It was only made to appear so

Ayah an-Nisa 4:157: “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was only made to appear so.

I will prove the following:

1st century Christians from the JEWISH CHRISTIANS that were abundant in number denying the crucifix and Ignatius of Antioch writes against them IN 4 LETTERS while they were making the arguments as follows

-He only appeared to have suffered like the quran says
(وَلَكِن شَبَّهَ لَهُمْ)

-they claimed ignatius had a corrupted Gospel and that theirs didn't mention the crucifix and resurrection narrative

“Qur’an depicts Jesus’ disciples as devout Muslims who followed Islamic teachings. This is based on verses where the disciples express their submission to God, aligning with the Islamic concept of being a Muslim.

historical records and the New Testament depict the disciples as adhering to beliefs that are inconsistent with Islamic doctrine. For instance, the disciples are shown to believe in Jesus’ divinity, crucifixion, and resurrection—core tenets of Christianity that Islam rejects.

By asserting that the disciples were Muslims, the Qur’an misrepresents historical facts. This misrepresentation which brings questions on the Quran reliability as it not only conflicts with historical accounts but also the Bible.”

Many Muslims interpret this as one of Jesus’ disciples being made to look like Him, which leads to the critique:
If Jesus had told His disciples that someone else would be swapped for Him, they would not have preached the message of the crucifixion, which is central to Christian doctrine.

And finally this verse destroys Islam

In Surah 61:14, the Qur’an states:


• “O you who have believed, be supporters of Allah, as when Jesus, the son of Mary, said to the disciples, ‘Who are my supporters for Allah?’ The disciples said, ‘We are supporters of Allah.’ Then a faction of the Children of Israel believed and a faction disbelieved. So We supported those who believed against their enemy, and they became dominant.”


This verse asserts that the disciples of Jesus (described as faithful Muslims) were victorious over their opponents and remained triumphant until the Day of Judgment. So that means Christianity today has to be what the apostles and Jesus taught because if it isn’t then Allah is wrong Then Islam is false. If the gospel today being taught by Christian’s is false then Allah made a wrong prediction and mistake making Islam false

@PsychoH @Mosh12 @notsocommonthumb
@Averagecel see how easy it is to destroy this gnostic illiterate jumbled text it refutes itself it

 

[rory4579]

?

Of course,I think if you are a good trinitarian christian,then you can make it to heaven

 

[ponpon]

Qur'an’s depiction of Jesus’ disciples as Muslims reflects their submission to Allah and adherence to the true teachings of Jesus (peace be upon him), which align with Islamic monotheism. It does not assert that all those who later claimed to follow Jesus maintained the purity of his original message

In Islamic belief, the disciples referred to in the Qur'an were those who genuinely followed Jesus in his monotheistic teachings, as guided by Allah. However, over time deviations occurred, The Qur'an itself acknowledges that the message of previous prophets, including Jesus, was distorted by later generations (Surah 2:79) therefore the Christianity practiced today is not representative of what Jesus or his true disciples taught but is a result of subsequent alterations and innovations

regarding Surah 61:14, it does not imply that the disciples' exact beliefs (as interpreted today) remained dominant, but rather that the truth they upheld—submission to Allah and monotheism—prevailed through Allah’s support. This victory can be understood as the survival and eventual triumph of monotheistic faiths, including Islam, which continues to uphold the teachings of all prophets, including Jesus

the Islamic tradition that one of Jesus’ disciples was made to appear like him during the crucifixion does not contradict their role as true followers. The disciples' later teachings about the crucifixion, as understood today in Christianity, have been influenced by subsequent misinterpretations or external pressures, not the direct teachings of Jesus or his original disciples

so the Qur'an’s does not misrepresent history but rather distinguishes between the authentic teachings of Jesus and his disciples and the distortions introduced later

@PrinceLuenLeoncur

 

[Deleted member 55437]

@ey88 knows the answer

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

dnrd as my claim isn't that it didn't happen but It was only made to appear so

Ayah an-Nisa 4:157: “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was only made to appear so.

I will prove the following:

1st century Christians from the JEWISH CHRISTIANS that were abundant in number denying the crucifix and Ignatius of Antioch writes against them IN 4 LETTERS while they were making the arguments as follows

-He only appeared to have suffered like the quran says
(وَلَكِن شَبَّهَ لَهُمْ)

-they claimed ignatius had a corrupted Gospel and that theirs didn't mention the crucifix and resurrection narrative

Failed Surah 2:78 explains it’s about JEWS who are UMII how can you distort scripture IF YOU ARE AN UMI it’s speaking about incorrect teachings and false attributions of god made by the J00s highlighting their IGNORANCE, false interpretations and commentaries WHICH I AS A CHRSITIAN AGREE WITH BTW JEWS DO CORRUPT THE BIBLE WITH THEIR TOUNGES. Even when you try to reach with your book to prove ours is false you fail, how can they ADD TO IT IF THEY ARE UMMMI EVEN IBN KATHIR EXPOUNDS ON THIS.

You appeal is to gnostics ….


Gnosticsss….

Groups like the Docetists or Gnostics emerged later and were not part of the 1st-century Jewish Christian movement.

Are you retarded? Do you know what gnostics believe in the Weber “Jewish Christian’s”? They believed Jesus never died in the cross because he was DIVINE, Ignatus was referring to Docetists who were literal GNOSTICS who believed that Jesus was God who POSESSED a human body and LEFT BEFORE THE BODY WAS CRUCIFIED you’d know this if you read what Ignatius was saying

“ Gnosticism was a religious movement that arose in the late 1st and 2nd centuries. Gnostics often viewed the material world as evil and believed that Jesus, as a purely divine being, could not have truly suffered or died.”

Sound very “Muslim” to you? You can literally google this shit you Mohammedens are so fucking retarded


But I’ll admit you brought up an argument most unlearned Christian’s wouldn’t be able to answer for they haven’t read the letters I HAVE HOW UNLUCKY FOR YOU ALLAHU ACKBAR BOY


And even if it were true the Qur’anic assertion in Surah 4:157 that Jesus was not crucified and that “it was made to appear so” conflicts with the overwhelming historical evidence, both Christian and non-Christian.


The Qur’an claims that the true followers of Jesus were victorious (Surah 61:14), yet history shows that the group who spread Jesus’ message worldwide—the early Jewish Christians and their successors

So even using your argument modern Christianity beat the Docetists and you still are in the Conundrum

you see the problem is for Mohammedens is that you allahu ackbars cannot refute Christianity because it’s true. But I can refute Islam because it’s false

 

[ponpon]

Failed Surah 2:78 explains it’s about JEWS who are UMII how can you distort scripture IF YOU ARE AN UMI. Even when you try to reach with your book to prove ours is false you fail, how can they ADD TO IT IF THEY ARE UMMMI EVEN IBN KATHIR EXPOUNDS ON THIS.

View attachment 3440147


You appeal is to gnostics ….


Gnosticsss….

Groups like the Docetists or Gnostics emerged later and were not part of the 1st-century Jewish Christian movement.

Are you retarded? Do you know what gnostics believe in the Weber “Jewish Christian’s”? They believed Jesus never died in the cross because he was DIVINE, Ignatus was referring to Docetists who were literal GNOSTICS who believed that Jesus was God who POSESSED a human body and LEFT BEFORE THE BODY WAS CRUCIFIED you’d know this if you read what Ignatius was saying

“ Gnosticism was a religious movement that arose in the late 1st and 2nd centuries. Gnostics often viewed the material world as evil and believed that Jesus, as a purely divine being, could not have truly suffered or died.”

Sound very “Muslim” to you? You can literally google this shit you Mohammedens are so fucking retarded


But I’ll admit you brought up an argument most unlearned Christian’s wouldn’t be able to answer for they haven’t read the letters I HAVE HOW UNLUCKY FOR YOU ALLAHU ACKBAR BOY


And even if it were true the Qur’anic assertion in Surah 4:157 that Jesus was not crucified and that “it was made to appear so” conflicts with the overwhelming historical evidence, both Christian and non-Christian.


The Qur’an claims that the true followers of Jesus were victorious (Surah 61:14), yet history shows that the group who spread Jesus’ message worldwide—the early Jewish Christians and their successors

So even using your argument modern Christianity beat the Docetists and you still are in the Conundrum

you see the problem is for Mohammedens is that you allahu ackbars cannot refute Christianity because it’s true. But I can refute Islam because it’s false

As I have shit to do unlike you polytheistic cock sucker I'll attach my proof I posted on TikTok already with sources included unlike you, quoting your dumb fuck arguments without sources, and 1st point, they're not gnostics who claimed this as I will prove, 2nd I will have to repeat myself regarding surah 61:14, as your retarded head can't understand, "This victory can be understood as the survival and eventual triumph of monotheistic faiths, including Islam, which continues to uphold the teachings of all prophets, including Jesus"
+ your argument for surah 4:157 doesn't have any proof you just claimed it without sources.
I don't give a fuck if the attachments don't come out in the right order, if you're gonna cry about it get on an easier way to communicate

 

[ponpon]

Failed Surah 2:78 explains it’s about JEWS who are UMII how can you distort scripture IF YOU ARE AN UMI it’s speaking about incorrect teachings and false attributions of god made by the J00s highlighting their IGNORANCE, false interpretations and commentaries WHICH I AS A CHRSITIAN AGREE WITH BTW JEWS DO CORRUPT THE BIBLE WITH THEIR TOUNGES. Even when you try to reach with your book to prove ours is false you fail, how can they ADD TO IT IF THEY ARE UMMMI EVEN IBN KATHIR EXPOUNDS ON THIS.

View attachment 3440147


You appeal is to gnostics ….


Gnosticsss….

Groups like the Docetists or Gnostics emerged later and were not part of the 1st-century Jewish Christian movement.

Are you retarded? Do you know what gnostics believe in the Weber “Jewish Christian’s”? They believed Jesus never died in the cross because he was DIVINE, Ignatus was referring to Docetists who were literal GNOSTICS who believed that Jesus was God who POSESSED a human body and LEFT BEFORE THE BODY WAS CRUCIFIED you’d know this if you read what Ignatius was saying

“ Gnosticism was a religious movement that arose in the late 1st and 2nd centuries. Gnostics often viewed the material world as evil and believed that Jesus, as a purely divine being, could not have truly suffered or died.”

Sound very “Muslim” to you? You can literally google this shit you Mohammedens are so fucking retarded


But I’ll admit you brought up an argument most unlearned Christian’s wouldn’t be able to answer for they haven’t read the letters I HAVE HOW UNLUCKY FOR YOU ALLAHU ACKBAR BOY


And even if it were true the Qur’anic assertion in Surah 4:157 that Jesus was not crucified and that “it was made to appear so” conflicts with the overwhelming historical evidence, both Christian and non-Christian.


The Qur’an claims that the true followers of Jesus were victorious (Surah 61:14), yet history shows that the group who spread Jesus’ message worldwide—the early Jewish Christians and their successors

So even using your argument modern Christianity beat the Docetists and you still are in the Conundrum

you see the problem is for Mohammedens is that you allahu ackbars cannot refute Christianity because it’s true. But I can refute Islam because it’s false

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

@ponpon I’m impressed tbh. You did more research than most . At least link where you got this information from. Also the Ebionites beloved in the death and resurrection and most DID NOT believe Mary was a virgin and believed Mary had sex with Joseph (yes they believed Joseph was Jesus’s biological father) so they CANNOT BE MUSLIM EITHER

I accept your challenge you are a true warrior of your demon god Allah the Satan.

I will proceed to crush you in the mighty name of Jesus Christ and put you (Satan) in your place


1. The Belief in the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Before Paul


The Apostles and Early Christians: From the earliest Christian texts and traditions, the death and resurrection of Jesus were foundational beliefs. The apostles and the early Christian community (including Peter and the other disciples) proclaimed Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection as central to their message from the start.


Paul’s Writings (1 Corinthians 15:3–5): Even before we get to the second century writings of the Church Fathers, Paul (writing in the 50s CE) explicitly affirms the death and resurrection of Jesus as a core part of Christian doctrine. He writes:


“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” (1 Corinthians 15:3–4).



This is one of the earliest creedal statements in Christianity, confirming that the death and resurrection of Jesus were believed by Christians very early on—certainly within the first two decades of His life proving the TRUE original Christian’s were Trinitarians





Martyr and the Ebionites


Justin Martyr (ca. 160 CE) does mention the Ebionites, a Jewish Christian sect that rejected the full divinity of Jesus and likely had a distorted view of His death and resurrection, they believed this because once the TEMPLE FELL they had I choice but to claim the messiah had come and it was Jesus, they also relied on apocryphal works such as the gospel of James which were fake books written by a random who never even met James or any of the apostles . The Ebionites were a sect that came around minimum 175 AD and do NOT HAVE ANY RELATION TO THE AOSTOLLIC TEACHINGS FROM THE FOLLOWERS OF JESUS REMEBER WHAT I SAID IN OUR LAST COMMENT The Qur’an claims that the true followers of Jesus were victorious (Surah 61:14), yet history shows that the group who spread Jesus’ message worldwide—the early Jewish Christians and their successors. being said, Justin Martyr himself was clear about the centrality of the resurrection in Christian faith. For example, in his First Apology (written around 150 CE), Justin affirms:


“We have learned from the apostles that Jesus Christ our Lord is the Son of God… and that He suffered and died, and rose again on the third day, and ascended into heaven.” (First Apology 47).




3 The Role of the Resurrection in the New Testament and Early Christianity


• Q Source and the Resurrection: It’s true that the Q source (a hypothetical source of sayings of Jesus used in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke) may not explicitly mention the resurrection, but resurrection beliefs were not confined to a single document; they were deeply embedded in early Christian preaching and the oral traditions passed down by the apostles.


The Gospels, which contain the passion narratives (detailing Jesus’ suffering, death, and resurrection), were written by the end of the first century and affirm the centrality of the resurrection.


The Apostolic Creeds: Early Christian creeds, like the one found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, existed long before the time of the Church Fathers, showing that the death and resurrection of Jesus were central to Christianity from the very beginning.








Conclusion
Belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus was a universal teaching in early Christianity, predating Paul’s letters and present in the teachings of the apostles. Groups like the Ebionites and Gnostics deviated from this core belief, but they were considered heretical by the mainstream Church. The teachings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and other Church Fathers affirm that the resurrection was a central belief of early Christians and was not in dispute among orthodox believers. Therefore, the claim that many early Christians did not believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus is both historically inaccurate and misrepresents the early Christian faith.

The claim that the Ebionites preserved the “pure” form of Christianity is historically unsubstantiated. Early Christian beliefs, as evidenced in the New Testament, Historians and the writings of the Church Fathers, consistently affirmed the death, resurrection, and divinity of Jesus.




YOU TRIED ME SHAYTAN ALLAHU ACKBAR YOU TRIED BUT TOU FAILED LIKE ALL THOSE BEFORE YOU FOR NOTHING CAN DEFEAT THE ONE TRUE FSJTH OF JESUS CHRIST, GLORY TO RHE FATHER SON AND HOLY SPIRIT AND MAY GOD PROTECT AND SHIELD US FROM THE MACHINATIONS OF THE PAGAN HEATHEN MOHAMMEDEN PEDOPHILE FOLLOWERS

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

You’re source also fails short and the main Giveaway is the claim that “Paul did not adhere to the mosaic law” and that “Paul didn’t tell Jews to still carry it out”

Well yes he did and yes Paul did explain why the gentiles need not carry out the mosaic ritual and ceremonial laws for we are in a new covenant

Acts 21, we see Paul participating in a Jewish purification ritual and taking part in a Nazirite vow. This suggests that Paul still participated in Jewish practices in a symbolic or cultural sense, especially when interacting with Jewish believers.


• Acts 21:23-24: “Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow. Take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.”


• Acts 18:18: “After this, Paul stayed many days longer and then took leave of the brothers and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow.”


Acts 16:3 (Timothy’s Circumcision)





Paul had Timothy circumcised in Acts 16:3 before they went on their missionary journey, even though he had taught that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised to be saved.


• “Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.”


Paul teaches that Christ’s death removed the need for the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law (e.g., dietary laws, circumcision), breaking down the division between Jews and Gentiles.

Ephesians 2:14-16,
Romans 10:4 (Christ as the End of the Law),
Galatians 3:24-25 (Law as a Tutor)

 

[ponpon]

@ponpon I’m impressed tbh. You did more research than most . At least link where you got this information from. Also the Ebionites beloved in the death and resurrection and most DID NOT believe Mary was a virgin and believed Mary had sex with Joseph (yes they believed Joseph was Jesus’s biological father) so they CANNOT BE MUSLIM EITHER

I accept your challenge you are a true warrior of your demon god Allah the Satan.

I will proceed to crush you in the mighty name of Jesus Christ and put you (Satan) in your place


1. The Belief in the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Before Paul


The Apostles and Early Christians: From the earliest Christian texts and traditions, the death and resurrection of Jesus were foundational beliefs. The apostles and the early Christian community (including Peter and the other disciples) proclaimed Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection as central to their message from the start.


Paul’s Writings (1 Corinthians 15:3–5): Even before we get to the second century writings of the Church Fathers, Paul (writing in the 50s CE) explicitly affirms the death and resurrection of Jesus as a core part of Christian doctrine. He writes:


“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” (1 Corinthians 15:3–4).



This is one of the earliest creedal statements in Christianity, confirming that the death and resurrection of Jesus were believed by Christians very early on—certainly within the first two decades of His life proving the TRUE original Christian’s were Trinitarians





Martyr and the Ebionites


Justin Martyr (ca. 160 CE) does mention the Ebionites, a Jewish Christian sect that rejected the full divinity of Jesus and likely had a distorted view of His death and resurrection, they believed this because once the TEMPLE FELL they had I choice but to claim the messiah had come and it was Jesus, they also relied on apocryphal works such as the gospel of James which were fake books written by a random who never even met James or any of the apostles . The Ebionites were a sect that came around minimum 175 AD and do NOT HAVE ANY RELATION TO THE AOSTOLLIC TEACHINGS FROM THE FOLLOWERS OF JESUS REMEBER WHAT I SAID IN OUR LAST COMMENT The Qur’an claims that the true followers of Jesus were victorious (Surah 61:14), yet history shows that the group who spread Jesus’ message worldwide—the early Jewish Christians and their successors. being said, Justin Martyr himself was clear about the centrality of the resurrection in Christian faith. For example, in his First Apology (written around 150 CE), Justin affirms:


“We have learned from the apostles that Jesus Christ our Lord is the Son of God… and that He suffered and died, and rose again on the third day, and ascended into heaven.” (First Apology 47).




3 The Role of the Resurrection in the New Testament and Early Christianity


• Q Source and the Resurrection: It’s true that the Q source (a hypothetical source of sayings of Jesus used in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke) may not explicitly mention the resurrection, but resurrection beliefs were not confined to a single document; they were deeply embedded in early Christian preaching and the oral traditions passed down by the apostles.


The Gospels, which contain the passion narratives (detailing Jesus’ suffering, death, and resurrection), were written by the end of the first century and affirm the centrality of the resurrection.


The Apostolic Creeds: Early Christian creeds, like the one found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, existed long before the time of the Church Fathers, showing that the death and resurrection of Jesus were central to Christianity from the very beginning.








Conclusion
Belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus was a universal teaching in early Christianity, predating Paul’s letters and present in the teachings of the apostles. Groups like the Ebionites and Gnostics deviated from this core belief, but they were considered heretical by the mainstream Church. The teachings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and other Church Fathers affirm that the resurrection was a central belief of early Christians and was not in dispute among orthodox believers. Therefore, the claim that many early Christians did not believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus is both historically inaccurate and misrepresents the early Christian faith.

The claim that the Ebionites preserved the “pure” form of Christianity is historically unsubstantiated. Early Christian beliefs, as evidenced in the New Testament, Historians and the writings of the Church Fathers, consistently affirmed the death, resurrection, and divinity of Jesus.




YOU TRIED ME SHAYTAN ALLAHU ACKBAR YOU TRIED BUT TOU FAILED LIKE ALL THOSE BEFORE YOU FOR NOTHING CAN DEFEAT THE ONE TRUE FSJTH OF JESUS CHRIST, GLORY TO RHE FATHER SON AND HOLY SPIRIT AND MAY GOD PROTECT AND SHIELD US FROM THE MACHINATIONS OF THE PAGAN HEATHEN MOHAMMEDEN PEDOPHILE FOLLOWERS

1. The Belief in the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Before Paul

Logical Issues and Fallacies

You start by claiming that the belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection was central to early Christianity from the start. However, you assume a monolithic belief system among early Christians, which I have already shown to be inaccurate. Diversity of belief in the early Christian community, particularly among Jewish Christians like the Ebionites, clearly undermines your claim that the resurrection was universally accepted from the beginning. These groups, as I’ve pointed out, were substantial and had significant influence in the early centuries of Christianity.

Additionally, your reliance on selective evidence from Paul’s writings (1 Corinthians 15:3–4) is misleading. While Paul’s creedal statement is an important piece of evidence for the resurrection belief, you ignore the other groups who rejected this narrative, groups that were not fringe but rather widespread in the early church. You cannot use Paul’s letters as the sole basis to assert a universal belief in the resurrection without considering the competing Christian traditions of the time.

Finally, you claim that this belief existed "within the first two decades of His life," which is a chronological ambiguity. To clarify, the belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus could not have existed during Jesus' life itself, as He had not yet been crucified. Your statement is both chronologically confused and lacks historical basis.

Unsubstantiated Claims

You also make an unsubstantiated claim that "the TRUE original Christians were Trinitarians." There is no historical evidence to support that Trinitarian doctrine was present in the early church. In fact, Trinitarian doctrine was only fully formulated in the 4th century. While Paul affirms Jesus' death, resurrection, and divine role, he does not articulate the fully developed Trinitarian theology that would come later. This claim is anachronistic and does not align with the historical development of Christian theology.

2. Martyr and the Ebionites

Logical Issues and Fallacies

You continue to dismiss the Ebionites with an ad hominem attack, labeling their beliefs as "distorted" and their texts as "fake books." This approach does not engage with the theological rationale of the Ebionites, who were a significant sect of early Jewish Christians. Instead of refuting their views, you resort to dismissing them. This is a logical fallacy and doesn’t address the historical complexity of early Christian diversity.

Regarding your chronological inaccuracy, the Ebionites likely existed in the 1st century, not the 2nd century as you claim. The Ebionites were contemporaneous with the apostles, and their beliefs reflect a Jewish Christian tradition that rejected Paul’s teachings on Jesus’ divinity and crucifixion. Their views were part of the theological landscape of early Christianity and cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the apostolic tradition.

Misrepresentation of Historical Context

You claim that the Ebionites "had no relation to the apostolic teachings," but this is unsubstantiated. The Ebionites were part of the broader Jewish Christian movement, and while they held different beliefs about Jesus' divinity and resurrection, they still regarded themselves as part of the larger Christian community. Dismissing their teachings as entirely separate from apostolic teachings oversimplifies the historical situation and ignores the plurality of beliefs that existed within early Christianity.

Additionally, your claim that the destruction of the Temple (70 CE) forced the Ebionites to adopt Jesus as the messiah is not supported by historical evidence. There is no clear, direct link between the fall of the Temple and the development of Ebionite Christology. This claim is speculative and lacks the historical rigor needed to substantiate it.

Unsubstantiated Claims

You also argue that the Ebionites "relied on apocryphal works... written by a random who never even met James or any of the apostles." This is a speculative claim and fails to engage with the authenticity of apocryphal works like the Gospel of James, which, while debated, reflects early Christian traditions. The authorship of these works may be uncertain, but this does not automatically make them "fake" or irrelevant.

Your circle reasoning and strawman argument are not going to save you polytheist fucker, which one of your three God's are you going to pray to help you?

 

[Scarface756]

Most protestant are black so no

One of the most retarded comments I've read on here and that's saying a lot jfl.

 

[BrendioEEE]

Mosh has some of the lowest IQ posts I have seen in the entire thread.

 

[Deleted member 56968]

Mosh has some of the lowest IQ posts I have seen in the entire thread.

He is 14-16 I Think, so it makes sense

 

[Deleted member 119732]

ofcourse, anyone who believes in Christ as our Savior is saved.

 

[Deleted member 56968]

ofcourse, anyone who believes in Christ as our Savior is saved.

Then what is the point of different churches? Protestants believe in following Only what Jesus did and Said hence why we Only have 2 sacrements instead of 7 @PrinceLuenLeoncur

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Then what is the point of different churches? Protestants believe in following Only what Jesus did and Said hence why we Only have 2 sacrements instead of 7 @PrinceLuenLeoncur

Protescucks follow the Bible alone and believe in faith alone…

They believe in the Bible but not the church even though the Bible they read says “The church is the foundation and pillar of truth “. Anyways I don’t believe in this stupid faith alone nonsense because how do you know you truly have “faith” it’s so Ad hoc when they say it, at the end of the day your given faith via the grace of god and if you have faith you’ll bear fruits (works). Just saying “Jesus” is lord and then being a degenerate you won’t be going heaven doing that buddy but unfortunately many protCUCKs explain it like this and I’ll argue this is partially why the west is a shithole today because idiots just said “well I go heaven regardless of what I do I may as well YOLO “ such a silly doctrine but there you go

 

[Deleted member 119732]

Then what is the point of different churches? Protestants believe in following Only what Jesus did and Said hence why we Only have 2 sacrements instead of 7 @PrinceLuenLeoncur

there is no point in different churches, all of them lead to Christ. It is more so about tradition.

 

[lifeless]

Probably

 

[Deleted member 55437]

Just be a good person and hope for the best
Close thread

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

1. The Belief in the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Before Paul

Logical Issues and Fallacies

You start by claiming that the belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection was central to early Christianity from the start. However, you assume a monolithic belief system among early Christians, which I have already shown to be inaccurate. Diversity of belief in the early Christian community, particularly among Jewish Christians like the Ebionites, clearly undermines your claim that the resurrection was universally accepted from the beginning. These groups, as I’ve pointed out, were substantial and had significant influence in the early centuries of Christianity.

Additionally, your reliance on selective evidence from Paul’s writings (1 Corinthians 15:3–4) is misleading. While Paul’s creedal statement is an important piece of evidence for the resurrection belief, you ignore the other groups who rejected this narrative, groups that were not fringe but rather widespread in the early church. You cannot use Paul’s letters as the sole basis to assert a universal belief in the resurrection without considering the competing Christian traditions of the time.

Finally, you claim that this belief existed "within the first two decades of His life," which is a chronological ambiguity. To clarify, the belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus could not have existed during Jesus' life itself, as He had not yet been crucified. Your statement is both chronologically confused and lacks historical basis.

Unsubstantiated Claims

You also make an unsubstantiated claim that "the TRUE original Christians were Trinitarians." There is no historical evidence to support that Trinitarian doctrine was present in the early church. In fact, Trinitarian doctrine was only fully formulated in the 4th century. While Paul affirms Jesus' death, resurrection, and divine role, he does not articulate the fully developed Trinitarian theology that would come later. This claim is anachronistic and does not align with the historical development of Christian theology.

2. Martyr and the Ebionites

Logical Issues and Fallacies

You continue to dismiss the Ebionites with an ad hominem attack, labeling their beliefs as "distorted" and their texts as "fake books." This approach does not engage with the theological rationale of the Ebionites, who were a significant sect of early Jewish Christians. Instead of refuting their views, you resort to dismissing them. This is a logical fallacy and doesn’t address the historical complexity of early Christian diversity.

Regarding your chronological inaccuracy, the Ebionites likely existed in the 1st century, not the 2nd century as you claim. The Ebionites were contemporaneous with the apostles, and their beliefs reflect a Jewish Christian tradition that rejected Paul’s teachings on Jesus’ divinity and crucifixion. Their views were part of the theological landscape of early Christianity and cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the apostolic tradition.

Misrepresentation of Historical Context

You claim that the Ebionites "had no relation to the apostolic teachings," but this is unsubstantiated. The Ebionites were part of the broader Jewish Christian movement, and while they held different beliefs about Jesus' divinity and resurrection, they still regarded themselves as part of the larger Christian community. Dismissing their teachings as entirely separate from apostolic teachings oversimplifies the historical situation and ignores the plurality of beliefs that existed within early Christianity.

Additionally, your claim that the destruction of the Temple (70 CE) forced the Ebionites to adopt Jesus as the messiah is not supported by historical evidence. There is no clear, direct link between the fall of the Temple and the development of Ebionite Christology. This claim is speculative and lacks the historical rigor needed to substantiate it.

Unsubstantiated Claims

You also argue that the Ebionites "relied on apocryphal works... written by a random who never even met James or any of the apostles." This is a speculative claim and fails to engage with the authenticity of apocryphal works like the Gospel of James, which, while debated, reflects early Christian traditions. The authorship of these works may be uncertain, but this does not automatically make them "fake" or irrelevant.

Your circle reasoning and strawman argument are not going to save you polytheist fucker, which one of your three God's are you going to pray to help you?

Nigga did the chat GPT lmfao

It was universally accepted amoung the apostolic branches of Christianity aka the FIRST and INLY Christian’s the ones that can trace their lines back to the Apostles beliefs.

Idc what some random group with 0 apostolic succession says their illegitimate they can’t even give anybody one reason why we OUGHT to trust or believe them. This is why Protestantism is also false due to this reason alone.


You still use the Ebionites with your CHATGPT ass ok well the Ebionites as I said denied miraculous birth, they venerated the crucifixion and believed that GOD HIMSELF dived down and went into Jesus during his baptism in Luke. They say that GOD LEFT JESUS VESSEL before he was crucified SO THEY WERENT EVEN MUSLIM. They also as I said according to sura 61:16 WERE NOT SUPERIOR NOR DOMINANT, so once again your own theology cucks you faggot


My claim is substantiated that yes PAULS writings are legit and YES they are accurate historical documents on what early Christian’s believed in . No ambiguity in this, because I don’t give a specific date and time doesn’t mean anything this is a event that took place 2k years ago be sensible and besides at that time period literature was written about people decades after the event was done for 2 reasons, 1 most people were illiterate so things were generally transmitted orally before being put to pen and 2 the cultural style was to write about the deeds and important parts of the life after the passing of the person.

Alexander the Great did you know his campaigns and saga was ONLY WRITTEN DOWN DECADES AFTER HIS DEATH PROVING MY POINT.

The gospel of James is fake because James could only write in Hebrew and Ahrimaic, IT DATES TO THE 2nd CENTURY SO JAMES WOJLD HAD BEEN LONG DEAD BEFORE IT WAS WRITTEN James died in 62 CE, Gospel of James was written in 150-200CE by a Nutjob like Mohammed the pedophile and has no continuity with the other gospels proving it was a fabrication. But your Mohammed also used this book and the infancy gospel of Thomas lmfao stupid Abdooolah. No circularity was used the historians, theological origins as well as the traditions of the early church point to the modern Christian beliefs being in line with what was practiced back then esp as we have attention from Ignatius (Peters Deciple) and Polycarp(Johns deciple) both of which confirm the Christian beliefs and were taught by the apostles themselves.

I have evidence you have. NOTHING, and not a single strawman was used I attacked all your points and fucked them.

Come on now you appealing to Chat GPT to save your ass now and it failed miserably, HOW IS Allah an unitive one (TAWHID) if he had the eternal tablet as the Quran is His speech but the Quran isn’t Allah but its intrinsic to him? Explain elaborate in that and is Allahs attributes == to his essense? What’s the relationship of the attributes to one another and to Allah do they possess their own Asieity and are they dependent on each other. Btw whatever you answer to this I’ll destroy you and show you Allah MAKES NO SENSE AND IS A FALSE GOD

Continue to pray to Allah who prays for Mohammed (praying to who? Only god knows ) continue to worship Pazzuzu/Baal Hamoun the demon god and kiss the black stone you stone licking PAGAN fuck.

@PsychoH @notsocommonthumb @Averagecel @Thebuffdon I’m raping him

 

[ponpon]

Nigga did the chat GPT lmfao

It was universally accepted amoung the apostolic branches of Christianity aka the FIRST and INLY Christian’s the ones that can trace their lines back to the Apostles beliefs.

Idc what some random group with 0 apostolic succession says their illegitimate they can’t even give anybody one reason why we OUGHT to trust or believe them. This is why Protestantism is also false due to this reason alone.


You still use the Ebionites with your CHATGPT ass ok well the Ebionites as I said denied miraculous birth, they venerated the crucifixion and believed that GOD HIMSELF dived down and went into Jesus during his baptism in Luke. They say that GOD LEFT JESUS VESSEL before he was crucified SO THEY WERENT EVEN MUSLIM. They also as I said according to sura 61:16 WERE NOT SUPERIOR NOR DOMINANT, so once again your own theology cucks you faggot


My claim is substantiated that yes PAULS writings are legit and YES they are accurate historical documents on what early Christian’s believed in . No ambiguity in this, because I don’t give a specific date and time doesn’t mean anything this is a event that took place 2k years ago be sensible and besides at that time period literature was written about people decades after the event was done for 2 reasons, 1 most people were illiterate so things were generally transmitted orally before being put to pen and 2 the cultural style was to write about the deeds and important parts of the life after the passing of the person.

Alexander the Great did you know his campaigns and saga was ONLY WRITTEN DOWN DECADES AFTER HIS DEATH PROVING MY POINT.

The gospel of James is fake because James could only write in Hebrew and Ahrimaic, IT DATES TO THE 2nd CENTURY SO JAMES WOJLD HAD BEEN LONG DEAD BEFORE IT WAS WRITTEN James died in 62 CE, Gospel of James was written in 150-200CE by a Nutjob like Mohammed the pedophile and has no continuity with the other gospels proving it was a fabrication. But your Mohammed also used this book and the infancy gospel of Thomas lmfao stupid Abdooolah. No circularity was used the historians, theological origins as well as the traditions of the early church point to the modern Christian beliefs being in line with what was practiced back then esp as we have attention from Ignatius (Peters Deciple) and Polycarp(Johns deciple) both of which confirm the Christian beliefs and were taught by the apostles themselves.

I have evidence you have. NOTHING, and not a single strawman was used I attacked all your points and fucked them.

Come on now you appealing to Chat GPT to save your ass now and it failed miserably, HOW IS Allah an unitive one (TAWHID) if he had the eternal tablet as the Quran is His speech but the Quran isn’t Allah but its intrinsic to him? Explain elaborate in that and is Allahs attributes == to his essense? What’s the relationship of the attributes to one another and to Allah do they possess their own Asieity and are they dependent on each other. Btw whatever you answer to this I’ll destroy you and show you Allah MAKES NO SENSE AND IS A FALSE GOD

Continue to pray to Allah who prays for Mohammed (praying to who? Only god knows ) continue to worship Pazzuzu/Baal Hamoun the demon god and kiss the black stone you stone licking PAGAN fuck.

@PsychoH @notsocommonthumb @Averagecel @Thebuffdon I’m raping him

You keep on making baseless claims without giving me sources, fuck your idol worshipping

Nigga did the chat GPT lmfao

It was universally accepted amoung the apostolic branches of Christianity aka the FIRST and INLY Christian’s the ones that can trace their lines back to the Apostles beliefs.

Idc what some random group with 0 apostolic succession says their illegitimate they can’t even give anybody one reason why we OUGHT to trust or believe them. This is why Protestantism is also false due to this reason alone.


You still use the Ebionites with your CHATGPT ass ok well the Ebionites as I said denied miraculous birth, they venerated the crucifixion and believed that GOD HIMSELF dived down and went into Jesus during his baptism in Luke. They say that GOD LEFT JESUS VESSEL before he was crucified SO THEY WERENT EVEN MUSLIM. They also as I said according to sura 61:16 WERE NOT SUPERIOR NOR DOMINANT, so once again your own theology cucks you faggot


My claim is substantiated that yes PAULS writings are legit and YES they are accurate historical documents on what early Christian’s believed in . No ambiguity in this, because I don’t give a specific date and time doesn’t mean anything this is a event that took place 2k years ago be sensible and besides at that time period literature was written about people decades after the event was done for 2 reasons, 1 most people were illiterate so things were generally transmitted orally before being put to pen and 2 the cultural style was to write about the deeds and important parts of the life after the passing of the person.

Alexander the Great did you know his campaigns and saga was ONLY WRITTEN DOWN DECADES AFTER HIS DEATH PROVING MY POINT.

The gospel of James is fake because James could only write in Hebrew and Ahrimaic, IT DATES TO THE 2nd CENTURY SO JAMES WOJLD HAD BEEN LONG DEAD BEFORE IT WAS WRITTEN James died in 62 CE, Gospel of James was written in 150-200CE by a Nutjob like Mohammed the pedophile and has no continuity with the other gospels proving it was a fabrication. But your Mohammed also used this book and the infancy gospel of Thomas lmfao stupid Abdooolah. No circularity was used the historians, theological origins as well as the traditions of the early church point to the modern Christian beliefs being in line with what was practiced back then esp as we have attention from Ignatius (Peters Deciple) and Polycarp(Johns deciple) both of which confirm the Christian beliefs and were taught by the apostles themselves.

I have evidence you have. NOTHING, and not a single strawman was used I attacked all your points and fucked them.

Come on now you appealing to Chat GPT to save your ass now and it failed miserably, HOW IS Allah an unitive one (TAWHID) if he had the eternal tablet as the Quran is His speech but the Quran isn’t Allah but its intrinsic to him? Explain elaborate in that and is Allahs attributes == to his essense? What’s the relationship of the attributes to one another and to Allah do they possess their own Asieity and are they dependent on each other. Btw whatever you answer to this I’ll destroy you and show you Allah MAKES NO SENSE AND IS A FALSE GOD

Continue to pray to Allah who prays for Mohammed (praying to who? Only god knows ) continue to worship Pazzuzu/Baal Hamoun the demon god and kiss the black stone you stone licking PAGAN fuck.

@PsychoH @notsocommonthumb @Averagecel @Thebuffdon I’m raping him

First of all I want to say that you keep on making baseless claims without proof, you ignored my proof showing that it wasn't just some "random group with no evidence to trust them" but that these groups, which I proved were widespread In opion, critiqued the faggot Ignatius and when he couldn't counterargument he started asspuling shit, yet you still accept this fuckers writings

1) You still haven't said anything about the early Christian groups, like those addressed by Ignatius (e.g., Trallians, Smyrnaeans), who rejected the crucifixion.
Those are enough to show that crucifixion and resurrection and shit wasn't "widely accepted" as I showed you that their opinion was actually the wide spread one.
You say that "Only Christians tracing their lines back to the Apostles are legitimate.", apostolic succession is important but it doesn't make everything without false just because you say so you retard

2. You say Ebionites are irrelevant because their beliefs do not fully align with Islam, my point isn't about theological alignment but about historical diversity. Their rejection of the crucifixion and their connection to Jewish-Christian traditions show that you're not fucking right about universal agreement on the shit you claim today in early Christians, just because your fucking saint you believe in said it doesn't make it the right one, there were other groups who were widespread in opion


3) you compare Paul to Alexander the Great, the issue isn't the delay in documentation but the competing narratives, unlike Alexander, whose accounts lack significant internal disputes, early Christianity was rife with doctrinal conflicts, as even Ignatius' letters demonstrate


4. Forgery Allegations: You claim the Gospel of James is "fake" because of its late authorship, using that same dumb fuck Logic many early Christian texts, including some traditionally attributed to apostles, could also be called into question making a bunch of shit false you retard

Regarding surah 61:14 as you keep on ignoring it even after I explain here it is:
The believers are the Muslims, followers of Islam. The superiority is in argument and Proof. These are commentaries by the companions of the Prophet pbuh:

Surah 61:14 ((Ibn Abbas said: when Jesus, peace be upon him, was raised to heaven, they were divided into three groups: a group said: he was God, so he rose, and a group said: he was the son of God, so He raised him to Himself, and a group said: he was a servant of God and a Messenger, and He raised his servant to Him, and the latter are Muslims. Each group of them was followed by a group of people, and the two infidel groups gathered against the Muslim group, and they killed them and expelled them in the land. This was the situation until God sent Muhammad, may God's prayers and peace be upon him, and the believing group in the end prevailed over the unbeliever.))

((Ibrahim, al-Kalby, Zayd ibn Ali and others said: they prevailed means: the truth prevailed in the end, i.e. the argument/proof of the group who believed in Jesus became apparent by Muhammad, may God's prayers and peace be upon him. ))

Surah 3:55 ((Qatada, al-Rabi', Ibn Zayd, al-Hasan and others said: those who follow you means: They are the people of Islam/Muslims who follow Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon them, and their creed his Sunnah. And above/over them means: That is, by argument and proof)

You're the type of nigger to keep on insulting to prove you're right, and you need constant reassurance by your other polytheistic friends or else all this dumb shit that you learned will lead to you realizing that the time you spend here has no fucking purpose you polytheist

 

[xloks]

yes, though I was baptized catholic, I become protestant when I was confirmated

Why

 

[Deleted member 56968]

Why

dad is catholic, mom is protestant,

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

You keep on making baseless claims without giving me sources, fuck your idol worshipping

First of all I want to say that you keep on making baseless claims without proof, you ignored my proof showing that it wasn't just some "random group with no evidence to trust them" but that these groups, which I proved were widespread In opion, critiqued the faggot Ignatius and when he couldn't counterargument he started asspuling shit, yet you still accept this fuckers writings

1) You still haven't said anything about the early Christian groups, like those addressed by Ignatius (e.g., Trallians, Smyrnaeans), who rejected the crucifixion.
Those are enough to show that crucifixion and resurrection and shit wasn't "widely accepted" as I showed you that their opinion was actually the wide spread one.
You say that "Only Christians tracing their lines back to the Apostles are legitimate.", apostolic succession is important but it doesn't make everything without false just because you say so you retard

2. You say Ebionites are irrelevant because their beliefs do not fully align with Islam, my point isn't about theological alignment but about historical diversity. Their rejection of the crucifixion and their connection to Jewish-Christian traditions show that you're not fucking right about universal agreement on the shit you claim today in early Christians, just because your fucking saint you believe in said it doesn't make it the right one, there were other groups who were widespread in opion


3) you compare Paul to Alexander the Great, the issue isn't the delay in documentation but the competing narratives, unlike Alexander, whose accounts lack significant internal disputes, early Christianity was rife with doctrinal conflicts, as even Ignatius' letters demonstrate


4. Forgery Allegations: You claim the Gospel of James is "fake" because of its late authorship, using that same dumb fuck Logic many early Christian texts, including some traditionally attributed to apostles, could also be called into question making a bunch of shit false you retard

Regarding surah 61:14 as you keep on ignoring it even after I explain here it is:
The believers are the Muslims, followers of Islam. The superiority is in argument and Proof. These are commentaries by the companions of the Prophet pbuh:

Surah 61:14 ((Ibn Abbas said: when Jesus, peace be upon him, was raised to heaven, they were divided into three groups: a group said: he was God, so he rose, and a group said: he was the son of God, so He raised him to Himself, and a group said: he was a servant of God and a Messenger, and He raised his servant to Him, and the latter are Muslims. Each group of them was followed by a group of people, and the two infidel groups gathered against the Muslim group, and they killed them and expelled them in the land. This was the situation until God sent Muhammad, may God's prayers and peace be upon him, and the believing group in the end prevailed over the unbeliever.))

((Ibrahim, al-Kalby, Zayd ibn Ali and others said: they prevailed means: the truth prevailed in the end, i.e. the argument/proof of the group who believed in Jesus became apparent by Muhammad, may God's prayers and peace be upon him. ))

Surah 3:55 ((Qatada, al-Rabi', Ibn Zayd, al-Hasan and others said: those who follow you means: They are the people of Islam/Muslims who follow Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon them, and their creed his Sunnah. And above/over them means: That is, by argument and proof)

You're the type of nigger to keep on insulting to prove you're right, and you need constant reassurance by your other polytheistic friends or else all this dumb shit that you learned will lead to you realizing that the time you spend here has no fucking purpose you polytheist

The Trallians aren’t heretics ignatius was writing to them to remain unified under the bishop and to not fall into doctrinal errors… they were the same type of Christian’s as Ignatus are you retarded ?

The church in Syrmna if you read revelations you’d know this as well btw we’re an utmost beacon of Christian virtue ethics and practice they are praised in the letter for their congregations seriousness in being devout to the faith… and even here they are recognised as such

wtf are you getting at

All of the books written by the apostles and Paul were written by those individual members, so once again you failed. Gospel of Thomas which your faggot prophet used and gospel of James were written over 100 years after the deciples died… are you fucking dumb that’s enough proof they were fake.

I don’t care about your book it’s fake and GAY Islam is gay Mohammed was a faggot who sucked on kids tounges and kissed a man’s belly

“AbdurRahman ibn AbuLayla, quoting Usayd ibn Hudayr, a man of the Ansar, said that while he was given to jesting and was talking to the people and making them laugh, the Prophet (ﷺ) poked him under the ribs with a stick. He said: Let me take retaliation. He said: Take retaliation. He said: You are wearing a shirt but I am not. The Prophet (ﷺ) then raised his shirt and the man embraced him and began to kiss his side. Then he said: This is what I wanted, Messenger of Allah!“

Musnad Ahmad 16245—[Mua’wiya said]: I saw the prophet sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire)“

I already showed you that every evidence states that Jesus was crucified and resurrected I did this in my first comment to you and you want me to repeat myself using sources I already showed you?

Your the one making the Ahistorical claim Jesus wasn’t crucified so your the idiot who had to bring evidence…

Apostolic succession is the way in which we are sure that the teachings doctrine theology etc comes from the apostles without it you have no basis no justification for your beliefs. This is common sense it’s how you Mo Mo pedophile followers verify your SHITdiths from Fagot Muslim and Bitchkhari

I’m correct in that there is universal agreement on the ORTHODOX (correct) Christian doctrine set by the church. That much is displayed by the very chrixh fathers you so ignorantly quote which show “real Christian’s follow this belief and then you have LARPERs who claim to be Christian but are infact heretics who follow this belief backed by 0 apostles and Christ”


Now you twist the scripture like the Jews do in sura 2:78 and 3:78

This is the extent Muslims go to rectify their Ls

Funny isn’t it? If your coping scholars were right then why is the Islamic world a shithole today whilst the west is better why are you typing English in an western country with Christian foundations I thought you said you lot would be uppermost ? So even when you twist scripture like the Jews you guys still get cucked by your own theology

It’s fucking over

Here’s Ibn kathir on 61:14
So, We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, and they became the victorious (uppermost).) through the victory that Muhammad gained over the religion of the disbelievers, which brought the dominance of their religion.'' This is the wording in his book for the Tafsir of this honorable Ayah. Similarly, An-Nasa'i collected this statement of Ibn `Abbas in his Sunan. Therefore, the Ummah of Muhammad will always be prevalent on the truth until Allah's command (the Final Hour) commences, while they are on this path. The last group of them will fight against Ad-Dajjal along with `Isa, peace be on him, according to Hadiths in the authentic collections. This is the end of the Tafsir of Surat As-Saff. All praise and thanks are due to Allah.

lol Islams smaller than Christianity Islams only majority in connected Asian and North African nations and not an international relgion.

Islam dominates one continent

Christianity dominates Africa Europe, South America and Oceania. Your a small green snot cancer stain on the world map surrounded by a Christian sea in all sides. Learn your Place or we will kill you like Isreal

So thanks for proving your books wrong again

Here’s homework for you Abdooool find me this group

One group, Al-Ya`qubiyyah (the Jacobites), said, `Allah remained with us as much as He willed and then ascended to heaven.' Another group, An-Nasturiyyah (the Nestorians), said, `Allah's son remained with us as much as Allah willed and He then rasied him up to heaven.' A third group said, `Allah's servant and Messenger remained with us as much as Allah willed and then Allah raised him up to Him.' The last group was the Muslim group. The two disbelieving groups collaborated against the Muslim group and annihilated it. Islam remained unjustly concealed until Allah sent Muhammad,

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

JFL @PsychoH @notsocommonthumb @Averagecel @Thebuffdon this Islam religion is a fucking mess. The thing is all over the place. The poor bastard thought he fixed the errors in his Quran only for the Tasfir he mentioned to have errors in them regarding why the deciples taught Jesus as god; which group were the so called “Muslim Christian’s” a group the retard still hasn’t shown yet and that Islam will be “Dominant and superior” until the day of judgement.

Like bruh Christian nations were the ones which conquered the world nigga speaks the language of an historical Christian nation

Plot holes everywhere I swear Islams one of the worst written fan fictions ever