Salam
This is a for a discussion between Shia Twelvers (if any left or care to come?).
Abu Hurraira narrated so many hadiths in praise of Ahlulbayt (a) and succession, yet, we hear Shiites character attack him per their scholars, while there isn't really evidence in from Imams (a) condemning him. I even found hadiths praising him from Imam Mohamad Al-Baqir (a). God knows best who this person is. At the end, whether a liar or not, we should not accuse him without knowing.
That said, I don't know if Paul similarly was a good person or not.
That said, my view on succession to Jesus (a), is the one who held the position of his light and the holy spirit after him, was Elijah (a) till Mohammad (s) but he was hidden like Imam Mahdi (a) is today hidden.
However, outward succession in political, social, and even to a degree religious leadership (this should be limited in reliance), was given to Simon (a) by God and Jesus (a) same way four Safirs of Imam Mahdi (a) were picked, but these people are not anointed kings of God nor leaders exalted and chosen by him. They are normal people to take the task of leadership in a limited capacity and guide believers in the affairs that face them.
Simon (a) can make a mistake in teachings though and should be corrected by other disciples or other people, if he does.
Jesus (a) doesn't do a mistake in guiding humans though and his words are all guidance and insights.
That said, Paul came a bit after all this. But the accusations from Muslims is that he taught trinity and twisted Christianity.
I find this an unjust accusation with no basis. What he really emphasized was on TAWASUL through Jesus (a), and interpreted a lot of Gospels and Tanakh and argued to his best ability. Somethings he got right, somethings wrong, but did he deviate from the religion and teach something other then Islam like many Muslims claim?
I don't believe so. I will be providing evidence against these so called accusations, much like understanding Gospels through Shiite hadiths lense: Gospels and Shiite hadiths match up. | Religious Forums
Actually read that thread, and I will be even arguing that Paul was teaching Welayah of Jesus (a) and relying on his light and position as intermediate and means to God (waseela) and explained things mostly properly.
These days people being blind to all the Gospels, accuse Paul, of speaking lies and fabricating trinity, when this has no proof.
I don't believe Paul words are part of Gospel, but they are like a Shiite scholar's explanation of Islam. Some is right, some wrong, but he was not a deviant and liar like so many Muslims claim.
This is a for a discussion between Shia Twelvers (if any left or care to come?).
Abu Hurraira narrated so many hadiths in praise of Ahlulbayt (a) and succession, yet, we hear Shiites character attack him per their scholars, while there isn't really evidence in from Imams (a) condemning him. I even found hadiths praising him from Imam Mohamad Al-Baqir (a). God knows best who this person is. At the end, whether a liar or not, we should not accuse him without knowing.
That said, I don't know if Paul similarly was a good person or not.
That said, my view on succession to Jesus (a), is the one who held the position of his light and the holy spirit after him, was Elijah (a) till Mohammad (s) but he was hidden like Imam Mahdi (a) is today hidden.
However, outward succession in political, social, and even to a degree religious leadership (this should be limited in reliance), was given to Simon (a) by God and Jesus (a) same way four Safirs of Imam Mahdi (a) were picked, but these people are not anointed kings of God nor leaders exalted and chosen by him. They are normal people to take the task of leadership in a limited capacity and guide believers in the affairs that face them.
Simon (a) can make a mistake in teachings though and should be corrected by other disciples or other people, if he does.
Jesus (a) doesn't do a mistake in guiding humans though and his words are all guidance and insights.
That said, Paul came a bit after all this. But the accusations from Muslims is that he taught trinity and twisted Christianity.
I find this an unjust accusation with no basis. What he really emphasized was on TAWASUL through Jesus (a), and interpreted a lot of Gospels and Tanakh and argued to his best ability. Somethings he got right, somethings wrong, but did he deviate from the religion and teach something other then Islam like many Muslims claim?
I don't believe so. I will be providing evidence against these so called accusations, much like understanding Gospels through Shiite hadiths lense: Gospels and Shiite hadiths match up. | Religious Forums
Actually read that thread, and I will be even arguing that Paul was teaching Welayah of Jesus (a) and relying on his light and position as intermediate and means to God (waseela) and explained things mostly properly.
These days people being blind to all the Gospels, accuse Paul, of speaking lies and fabricating trinity, when this has no proof.
I don't believe Paul words are part of Gospel, but they are like a Shiite scholar's explanation of Islam. Some is right, some wrong, but he was not a deviant and liar like so many Muslims claim.