Why did Paul get cucked out of relevance by Peter?

Paul is the most important person in the creation of Christianity. Yes, more important than Jesus.

But, Paul is the creator of Christianity.
The character of Yeshua was appropriated by Paul of Tarsus, who proceeded to build a large fiction around him. It is most likely that almost everything Jesus says in the Bible is an invention that can be traced back to Paul, save for a tiny few phrases that might have a kernel of truth.

But in any case, Paul is the most important person of Christianity - he is its founder.

>>1699842
>>1699874

This. Paul was the person who turned Christianity from an apocalyptic Jewish cult into the gentile-friendly religion that ended up taking over the world. He's responsible for turning Christianity into a religion. By comparison, Peter didn't do very much. For a person who didn't even know Jesus, Paul accomplished (and is regarded for) much more.

>>1699842
>>1699874
>>1700016
Is this b8?

>>1700023
No, it's widely accepted historical fact. Paul is the person who created Christianity. No biblical scholar would disagree with that.

>>1699821
>cucked out of relevance
so what does this mean? was Paul married to relevance and then Peter had sexual relations with his relevance? did Paul walk in on Peter fucking his relevance?

>>1700044
No it's Islamic pseudohistorical fanfic

>>1700044
Pretty sure people that believe in God would disagree with the notion that a MAN created Christianity.

>>1700059
>muh mudslime conspiracy
see below
>>1700073
Paul did not created Christianity, but Christianity before Paul was a Jewish sect who forced people to observe kosher, forced them to circumsize. Paul argued against that, and transformed Christianity into a less judaic and more gentile friendly religion.

Not a total diversion per se, but religion of Jesus and religion of Paul are different in a lot of ways. Paul literally argued with ther fucking brother of Jesus about how his way was right and theirs was wrong. Because "muh jesus appered to me in a vision and not to you, hence I have more authoritah". Its in his letters, go read them.

Ofc If you are a Christian you would believe in Paul. You might say that Jesus did appeared in a vision and really guided Paul and thats your right. But to claim post Paul Christianity is extactly the same as pre paul Christianity is absurd. He really pissed a lot of Christians.

Also mind you that Paul was not alone in his endavours. He was not the single guy who claimed you dont need to chop your dick off and not eat pork. At the end of the day his side won.

>>1700083
>>muh mudslime conspiracy
???
>rest of the post
(You) obviously have no knowledge of early church history.

>>1700090
Do correct me please.

>>1700092
Nah, research it yourself, tool.

>>1700102
Not him but you're a huge tard

>>1700102
>u wrong
>wrong where?
>nah i wunt tell u just wrong

Here I am thinking you would post some sources,books to check out. I was not trying to challenge you, I am genuinely curious about it. But It seems you are just triggered and want to have last word in `u wrong,no u` debate without any context.

Again I might be wrong, who knows, but will not bother to read your shitposting. If you are genuinely curious and want to refute go read Paul. Start with the Galatians.

I'm off, I'll give you the boasting rights of having the last (you)

>>1700083
>2016
>there are still judaizers

wew lad

>>1700083
>forced to observe kosher

"What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."

- Jesus of Nazareth

>>1700083

So Paul was a fucking sellout? Just like in the Beatles.

>>1700123
But it´s true, the disciples cling to judaism no matter what

>>1700132
Then how come they performed miracles on the sabbath?

How come they associated with sinners and tax collectors?

How come the Jewish authorities wanted to destroy them?

>>1700051
Underrated post.

>>1700128
really makes you think

>>1700137
There were rival sects of Judaism which disagreed on the specifics and did not like each other very much.

Very few non Christian historians or theologians would dispute the idea that Paul transformed Christianity. If you want to argue they are wrong because bible or church tradition that is fine but your outside the scholarly mainstream, and in my opinion should not be taken seriously

>>1699842
>>1699874
>>1700016
Catholics, everyone.

>>1700106
>>1700115
>spoonfeed me pls
>>1700160
(You)

>>1700175
Most catholic propaganda portrays peter and Paul in lock step,supporting Rome's claim of having the univeral pontiff

>>1700137
>>1700123
The gospels are all based on Pauls christianity

>>1700180
>(You)

The truth will set you free.

>>1700186
"Pauls Christianity" is redundant
Please go away Mohamet

>>1700188
Work sets you free

>>1700191
>Works
That doesn't sound very Pauline

>>1699874
Paul was trying to reform Judaism to bring gentiles in, he never intended to found a new religion.

>>1700190
In the modern context it is, since only Pauls version survived, the original church diedwith the destruction of jerusalem. The point is that the new testament is a description of Pauls version of the religion, and the half of it he didnt write himself is based on his opinions

File: image.jpg (715KB, 905x1006px) Image search: [Google]

715KB, 905x1006px

>>1700205
Fucking Judaizer
Can't your cult stay dead?

>>1700212
What the hell are you on about?

>>1700214
This poster thinks because some bishops in the 2nd 3rd and 4th centuries disagreed with these ideas that means they are wrong

>>1700218
So you admit your a judaizer

>>1700228
I would have to believe in Judaism or messianic Christianity to be a judaizer so no.

>>1700234
But you implied you thought circumcision of gentile converts was right

>>1700236
More than one poster who disagrees with you here

>>1700236
No one has implied that as far as I can tell. The closest anyone came is pointing out the the original church supported circumcision while paul did not

>>1700247
>the original church supported circumcision
But that's not true

>>1700236
I get what your saying. I think Jesus would have disagreed with most of the prominent Church fathers, perhaps even disdained them.

But the idea that Jesus is the Jewish messiah makes no more sense than the idea he was son of God, though he might have at least believed he was the former.

>>1700250
If it wasnt an issue of contention, it wouldnt have been such a big point in Paul's writings

>>1700250
Paul talks about his arguments with them in his letters. Its in the bible (I think)

A christian church existed before Paul joined it, and its teachings were very different from what Paul eventually taught

>>1700254
Jesus' nature as either a created or divine being is a big point in Athanasius' writing
Therefore no one before him believed in the deity of Christ, and Athanasius' Took part in a conspiracy to artificially insert the concept of the Triune God into Christianity

>>1700266
You clearly know nothing of how doctrinal controversy occurred in Christianity
Pauline vs Judaizing is just the first. There has never been an official position one way or the other until a council ended the controversy. The council for the controversy in question is described in Acts 15.

>>1700279
I'm not sure what your point is

>>1700282
My point is the church before Paul was neither for nor against circumcision until the judaizer controversy

>>1700293
The whole term "judaizer" implies they were not Jewish in the first place. it was Paul and his Ilk "dejudaizing" in the first place. We know for a fact their were Christian communities who fiercely rejected this.

"No official position" is quite questionable. It seems the Church in Jerusalem had a position of the conversion of new Christians to Judaism.

>>1699874
Achmed pls

>>1700552
Schlomo pls