re: We should listen when mooslums tell us who they are and their goal!

didn't realize texas gov. was a democrt

quote:

---

Historically I would likely be tortured until I gave a fake confession and then burned to death.

---

500 fricking years ago you fricking imbecile

Best arm yourself. They coming

quote:

---

Actually, by Peter’s own words

---

Many scholars view Second Peter as pseudepigraphical.

quote:

---

Did you read it? Do you not understand why it explains the misconception?

---

I did, but it's just proof that Paul doesn't respect the original disciples or anything else because he was locked in a bitter political power struggle with them.

those who were held in high esteem

those leaders contributed nothing to my message.

It's just Paul desperately trying to claim equal authority as them.

So if things were unified, why is Paul publicly insulting the leaders of the Jerusalem church in a circular letter?

Why does Paul say the original disciples contributed nothing to his gospel if it's the same message?

And why did you ignore the verses after where he goes to talk about territory between and Peter?

You quote verses to me that support my position for some reason. Paul even explains why he is defensive before it, and is just trying to say "All are equal in Gods eyes" as a means of downplaying the actual disciples.

And he tries to carve up a map of territory after due to the disputes.

When James and others got upset with Peter about eating with people, Paul gets upset and starts publicly insulting peter.

In a nutshell:

Paul claims the people from Jerusalem are spying on him (that's James, Peter etc). Paul tries to divide things into 2 separate territories. He attacks Peter in verse 11.

I mean it's all a plea for authority.

And then you mention Acts, which is a book that just tries to gloss over all this crap.

quote:

---

In written form but they certainly existed before they were in written form. You can start with Acts 2:36–38

---

Yes, in written form. They were oral before.

quote:

---

There's the Dan Brown garbage. "Oh there were these OTHER poor suppressed Christians but their writings were destroyed by those power monger Pauline people. If they had survived, Christianity would look so different today." It's been historically refuted for a long, long time.

---

Are you claiming they didn't exist?

quote:

---

Sure. He was still wrong about consubstantiation and James. Pretty much every Christian knew it and that's why Bibles still have James in them

---

Because it had been there for over 100 years. He did manage to push it to the back of the bible for a while, but it didn't last.

But the point was that he wanted it to be removed and the reason why.

quote:

---

You have absolutely no biblical evidence of this.
And if the church Fathers thought Paul’s writings were blasphemous, they wouldn’t have included his writings in the official canon of scripture.

---

Of course they didn't think it was blasphemous, it was long after the Pauline doctrine had taken. Hundreds of years later and after the other sect was wiped out.

Rome mandated the Pauline doctrine.

quote:

---

Did he threaten to behead you if you oppose it?

---

He threatened to take away my God given rights.

I'd rather be beheaded.

quote:

---

This is true. But, the problem with Christians is when they don’t follow Christ’s teachings. The problem with Muslims is when they do follow Muhammad’s teachings.

---

Seems about equal to me honestly. Given Christians believe they just need to declare Christ is King and they are saved.

If Christianity was actually about following Jesus, then I would agree with you. They don't really teach that; it's just lip service to the idol of Jesus.

Where I give Christians, the advantage is the overall culture. But that's come from progress, not the religion.

Have you read any of the Bible or the Quran?