Pauline Christianity

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏ
I've taken a serious interest in early Christianity over the last two years - probably for obvious reasons. I've done some deep dives, and thought I'd come up for air to share them here. You can get as mad as you want at the conclusions, but I'd like to see someone actually address the claims I'm making, if they seriously disagree with them.

It seems that you have two competing schools of Christian thought at odds with one another at the very beginning of the organized Christian faith. They can roughly be divided into two schools: the Pauline school v the Peterine school. Or also known as the Athens school v the Jerusalem school.

The Pauline camp is of particular interest to me. It's hagiography goes something like this: St. Paul, the founder of Christianity ==> Mark, the first gospel writer (who dunks on Peter) ==> Luke, who continues the mystical trend (the gospel version we have is edited to hell and back though) ==> Marcion, who compiles the first Christian canon, and who condemns the OT and Yahweh and the kikes generally.

This school is clearly the gentile-centric one. They immediately find themselves in conflict with the jew-centric Jerusalem school of Peter and James. Galatians 2:11–13 says:
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
Paul also condemns circumcision by saying that while Peter and James have their knives out, they should just keep cutting until they cut their own dicks off for all the good that it will do them lol: Galatians 5:12 says:

"As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"

This is part of a larger gentile/jew conflict in the early church and the rejection of the Old Testament and Mosaic Law by the gentiles.

Peter's school goes on to found a more priest-centric, Levitical/Pharasitical-style approach to Christianity. And Paul, sadly, eventually gets buried in the sands by the time that the Nicene Council rolls around about 3 centuries later. It reminds me of Paul Altreides subsequently being rejected by his own Fremen after returning from his desert wandering as The Preacher. In fact, St. Paul is almost certainly the source of inspiration for Herbert's writing.

Marcion, the most popular and erudite Pauline proponent, gets buried centuries after his death by Tertullian, a suspect North African polemist who has an ax to grind against Greeks and who openly pledges his allegiance to the Jerusalem school:

"What indeed hath Athens to do with Jerusalem?"

Tertullian goes so far as to condemn those who claim that the anti-Christ will come from a synagogue and says instead that he will come from a church ie. he was running cover for the kikes. You get this a lot in Church history - suspect Judaizers and Judaizing trends that periodically pop up here and there and try their best to subvert and deflect and carry water for the Jews. Tertullian hated Greeks so much that he was the first to start using Latin for rites instead (raising questions about whether Latin is a real language or not...) and eventually joined a doomsday Pentecostal cult and died a loathsome heretic babbling about the imminent end of the world. Good riddance.

Anyways, I could go on at length about the Pauline school, but the key takeaway is this: they rejected most of the Old Testament, they favored a mystical approach to Christianity as opposed to a strictly confessional one, they hated Pharisitism and were the ones sounding the alarm about Jewish plots and schemes, and they were the inheritors/continuers of Greek philosophy/thinking/practices.

Their way of thinking about Christ and God is really quite different from what we now associate with all current Christian denominations' conceptions except partially the Orthodox, who are the more heavily Pauline-influenced branch.
 
Last edited:

Enwar

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»
I don't understand how people come to ideas like this, man. Paul quotes the Old Testament more than Jesus does. The people telling the Galatians to get circumcised weren't Peter and James, they were most likely Pharisees like in Acts 15. In that same chapter, both Peter and James make it clear that they don't believe the Gentiles should be circumcised. Unless you just want to claim that Acts is illegitimate, in which case we have no reason for accepting Paul as anything but a random guy who wrote letters, and we would therefore be left with Peter from the Gospels anyway.

Mark doesn't "dunk on" Peter, it's common Christian understanding that Mark's gospel is literally Peter's gospel; that is, that Mark's gospel is Peter's version of events. You got it backwards. Luke is the Gospel closely affiliated with Paul, since Luke was Paul's companion. Paul even quotes Luke as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18 ("The labourer is worthy of his reward").

Once again, no one in early Christianity claimed that Gentiles were required to follow the Old Testament. There was no gradual rejection of it. We all know what Paul says about it, since he talks about this subject in almost every letter that he wrote, but here is what Peter says about it.

"7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." Acts 15:7-11

Finally, Marcion was a faggot.
 

Coltraine

America First
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ–
I wish I had more time in my average day to get into studying the early history of the Church in the way that I am already sure the subject itself demands. This is one of those subjects that you really do have to spend two or three (or more) years getting to know the characters and the context and all the little dialectics which make up the different arguments in the theology itself and how that evolved over time.

I mean, I'm no dummy on this subject. I know more than the average normie or even than the average American Christian probably, but I'm still far from being able to respond to the OP here in any well thought out and constructive manner. Maybe you can recommend me some books @Roy Batty.

I already have a lot of texts on Christian history, but it's still a weak area for me just because I've put higher priority on other areas of history over the last few years. I have been re-reading E. Michael Jones' new trilogy on the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit once again recently. And there's just chapter after chapter in that book confirming what OP is saying about Judaizers and those already within the fold of Christianity who are placing higher precedence and even primacy upon the Old Testament rather than the New. And of course this always leads to terrible results for Euros whereas for the Jews it's nearly always good times indeed. But I'm much more familiar with the Medieval era in Christian history than I am the early days, but hopefully some day I will rectify that.

I did go through a period however where Marcion's main idea of eliminating the OT definitely appealed to me, but since that time people on this very forum have sort of talked me out of it or at least talked me out of endorsing those beliefs in a public or propagandistic manner. I still have fairly strong feelings on that, although at the same time I'd not want to rock the boat internally- so to speak. And the way I see it is that Christianity proper has so many different problems today that the whole issue involving Marcionite thought or "Positive" Christianity has to be pretty low on the to-do list. And addressing that issue now days would probably cause more problems than it would solve anyway. Most likely, it would just drive the many Christian sects which are still left today into more sectarian schism- which I've always thought is one of the main problems itself with modern Christianity.

With all that said, I'm glad the thread was created. I'll follow it definitely, but probably not comment too much after this. I'll just defer to those who know this material better than I do. I like what I've read so far though especially in regard to the dialectic between the Athens and the Jerusalem schools of thought in the beginning. I'll have to give this some more thought on my own time.
 
Last edited:

antirelativist

Well-known member
Old World Underground
⏰
I used to be very anti-Paul. Now I'm not entirely sure that we have an accurate accounting of Paul and his works. My entryism into initially wanting to reject Paul was the fact that he was clearly in contradiction with the old testament. This of course was when I viewed the bible in a sort of modern American protestant KJV centered worldview.

When I learned about Marcion I found it intriguing enough to dig into and eventually decided to read up on "gnostic" christianity as the catholic heresiologists called it. There is definitely a ton of completely unrelated stuff that gets thrown under that umbrella. If you sort through it though, you get a very interesting and different picture of early christianity that is decidedly not jewish. It paints a picture of christianity as part of a long tradition of indo-aryan religion instead of the next evolution of the jews. In fact, you find the position that the jewish god of the old testament is the devil himself. It brings a lot of seemingly foreign concepts into the fold like reincarnation and a concept of salvation that is kind of bizarre from the churchian viewpoint we all know.

If anyone is interested in this topic, I would recommend avoiding commentary materials from "scholars." They tend to lump everything together ever accused of being gnostic by Irenaeus and every religious authority that followed. This includes a lot of whacky stuff that quite frankly has nothing to do with the vein of early christianity we are discussing. These people get into claims reminiscent of modern accusations that Hitler was a gay pedophile animal hater with one ball that never had sex because he thought it was jewish. What you want to do is read some of the Nag Hammadi stuff. I would recommend starting with the Apocryphon of John. It is a dense read, but I find it to be the most complete writing that seems to lay out the metaphysics and cosmology of these early christians. Make sure to poke around through multiple translations because they are all over the place honestly.

Apocryphon of John (I just picked one of the translations randomly):

I recommend reading the items under Codex II in particular:

The reason this is interesting is that it is a subject which the catholic church attempted to effectively erase from history, and believed they were successful in doing. It paints a dramatically different potential image of early christianity and it quite frankly makes more sense than some of the jewish concepts going around in churches today. It also fits in with a lot of taboo archaeology topics and gives a much clearer picture on what is going on with some of the occult mysticism that seems to always survive through history.

inb4 people calling me a heretic
 

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏ
I did go through a period however where Marcion's main idea of eliminating the OT definitely appealed to me, but since that time people on this very forum have sort of talked me out of it or at least talked me out of endorsing those beliefs in a public or propagandistic manner. I still have fairly strong feelings on that, although at the same time I'd not want to rock the boat internally- so to speak. And the way I see it is that Christianity proper has so many different problems today that the whole issue involving Marcionite thought or "Positive" Christianity has to be pretty low on the to-do list.
Yeah, I feel you. But Pauline/Marcionite thinking would certainly help us resolve a whole host of issues. Just off the top of my head:
  • The legitimacy of Vatican and the gay anal pope
A lot of saps actually believe that they have to listen to everything that the Pope and Rome says otherwise you go straight to Hell. This is a serious spook in many White and Italian people's minds that could be addressed.
  • Every single problem associated with the OT
With no Torah, you no longer have to believe that the world is 6k years old, for example. I was talking to devout church-going Christians and I was shocked to learn that they still insisted that their members believe this claim.

Also, you no longer have to defend Yahweh and the Jews' rampage through the middle-east. Scholarly analysis of the Bible from the last 200 years likes to dunk on the claims in the books, forcing Christians to defend historical inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Dropping that baggage might help considering that people like Dawkins literally made a career out of making fun of the megalomania and blatant errors present in the OT.
  • Circumcision
Paul is pretty clear on that, but because Protestants are Old Testamentarians, they still mutilate their kids, which is horrible.
  • Zionism
There's a lot of talk about Israel and Zion in the OT. This used to be re-interpreted by the Church as a metaphorical Israel and a metaphorical Zion. Fundamentalists, helped along by Jews, simply readopted a literalist interpretation of the text. You could just nip the problem in the bud by dropping the Jewish national founding myth and sticking to the New Testament (and dropping the apologist Matthew).

But you're probably right that Christians would resist this tooth and nail.

That being said, there are about 20,000 denominations of Protestantism in the US, right? And the Catholics are defacto split into their own camps as well thanks to Vatican II. Orthodox are also deeply split - Ukraine has at least 4 Orthodox denominations that I am aware of, as an example. And the national churches are always squabblign with one another. Armenians and Antiochians are considered heretics by the Russians, as an example, and the Greeks are disliked by everyone for their progressive reforms.

The point is that there isn't really a unified Christianity to worry about fracturing, if we're being honest.
 
Last edited:

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏ
Unless you just want to claim that Acts is illegitimate
Acts came 50-80?? years after Paul's letters, retard. Yeah, they did some whitewashing and some "can't we all get along guise???" kumbaya bullshit and this isn't even disputed that this was the purpose of Luke-Acts, because its so blatant. It's literally the consolidated and ironed out official history of the early church (at least a first step at it anyway).
Mark doesn't "dunk on" Peter, it's common Christian understanding that Mark's gospel is literally Peter's gospel; that is
But that's wrong. Just because the Church "understands" it to be so doesn't make it so. And Peter is routinely portrayed as a buffoon multiple times in Mark. You people just spin it to say, "look, I'm a retard too, Peter is so relatable to me, he's like Ricky from Trailer Park Boys or something!" even though it's obvious that Mark is taking shots at Peter for denying Christ, for not trusting Christ and for saying stupid shit.

Once again, no one in early Christianity claimed that Gentiles were required to follow the Old Testament.
Paul literally comes to Jerusalem [error: Antioch, although Paul does go to Jerusalem on separate occasion] and finds James and Peter doing just that. He gets in their faces and tells them to knock it off. Paul, a Roman citizen, then gets hounded by the rabbis for the rest of his life, even being defended by legionaries from Jewish assassins.

AGAIN PAY ATTENTION HERE SLOW ONE:

Paul's letters came FIRST. That means they have historical primacy. Acts came LATER. That means Paul>Luke-Acts. In PAUL's letters, he's talking about a Judaizing trend from the Jerusalem church. In ACTS, which was the corporate press release statement that came decades later, this is smoothed and glossed over.

You are just spitting out the established narrative and not addressing any of my claims ie youre being an NPC faggot.
 
Last edited:

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»
Escaped True Master
The point is that there isn't really a unified Christianity to worry about fracturing, if we're being honest.
good job hoi Ioudaioi!

The Jewish Persecution of Christianity
August 04, 2021/ Rev. Giuseppe Oreglia di Santo Stefano
Parts II and III of a Six-Part Series which appeared in CiviltΓ  Cattolica in 1886 by Fr. Giuseppe Oreglia di Santo Stefano
Born in Bene Vagienna on 27 March 1823, and older brother of Cardinal Luigi, Fr. Giuseppe Oreglia di Santo Stefano was among the founders of the well-known and prestigious magazine of the Italian Jesuits, La CivilitΓ  Cattolica, founded in Naples in 1850. A literary genius and one of the most brilliant Jesuit polemicists of the 19th century, he wrote for forty years in the well-known magazine, of which he was also editor from 1865-1868, devoting himself to contemporary news, books and polemics with liberal and anti-clerical magazines. Remaining faithful to the fourth vow of the Society of Jesus, namely fidelity and direct service to the Pope, he identified Freemasonry as the true enemy of the Church. Starting from these convictions, which continued to mature after his transfer to Rome in 1871, he began a series of studies on the Freemasons, their rituals and statutes and their relation to Judaism and Jewish Kabbalah. In his later years, at the insistence of the doctors, he left Rome and moved to Chieri in search of a better air for his health. On the evening of October 29, 1895, Fr. Giuseppe quietly passed away in the Torinese city, where, on August 10, 1842, as a nineteen-year-old boy, abandoning the world to follow Christ, he had been welcomed as a novice in the Society of Jesus.
PART II

the universal conspiracy devised by the Jews throughout the world against Christianity immediately after the death of Jesus Christ.

Briefly, as demands something that is already known, we saw in the previous article (see CW March 2021) how the Christians did not persecute the Jews but instead the Jews have persecuted Christianity from the beginning, trying no less wickedly than foolishly to suffocate it in the cradle, striking it to death in the very person of its divine founder. Let us now see with what malignant ferocity and fraudulent cunning, immediately after the death of Jesus Christ, the Jews, neither persecuted nor provoked, took to persecute the first disciples, plotting against them not only in their Synagogues but throughout the pagan world, that universal conspiracy of slaughter and slander of which the Church of that time to ours has always been victim, more or less according to the greater or lesser Jewish influence in the world.

On this universal Jewish conspiracy against the nascent Christianity touches very briefly but very clearly the anonymous writer of the Letter to Diognetus written in the first century by a contemporary of the Apostles. He says, in fact, at the end of Chapter 5 that: β€œ[The Christians] are assailed by the Jews as foreigners.” But of the cunning with which this war was devised, St. Justin martyrβ€”called the Philosopher in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jewβ€”narrates to us curious details.
Picture9.png


For other nations (he writes in no. 17) have not inflicted on us and on Christ this wrong to such an extent as you have, who in very deed are the authors of the wicked prejudice against the Just One, and us who hold by Him. For after that you had crucified Him, the only blameless and righteous Man,β€” through whose stripes those who THE JEWISH PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANITY Parts II and III of a Six-Part Series which appeared in CiviltΓ  Cattolica in 1886 by Fr. Giuseppe Oreglia di Santo Stefano "And when day was come, some of the Jews gathered together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying, that they would neither eat, nor drink, till they killed Paul." July/August 2021 / 19 approach the Father by Him are healed,β€”when you knew that He had risen from the dead and ascended to heaven, as the prophets foretold He would, you not only did not repent of the wickedness which you had committed, but at that time you selected and sent out from Jerusalem chosen men through all the land to tell that the godless heresy of the Christians had sprung up, and to publish those things which all they who knew us not speak against us.

What were those things, that is, those calumnies, which the envoys from Jerusalem spread throughout the world against the newly born Christianity, becomes clear from what St. Justin adds in no. 108:

Yet you not only have not repented, after you learned that He rose from the dead, but, as I said before you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilaean deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven. Moreover, you accuse Him of having taught those godless, lawless, and unholy doctrines which you mention to the condemnation of those who confess Him to be Christ, and a Teacher from and Son of God. Besides this, even when your city is captured, and your land ravaged, you do not repent, but dare to utter imprecations on Him and all who believe in Him. Yet we do not hate you or those who, by your means, have conceived such prejudices against us; but we pray that even now all of you may repent and obtain mercy from God, the compassionate and long-suffering Father of all.

With that general label of unholy sect, of which is held disgraceful and prejudiced opinion by all because it practices wicked and nefarious crimes, according to which the Jews lied among the pagans against the Christians, St. Justin wanted to indicate precisely that which the Pagans then believed of us, because of the Jews, as is revealed by Tacitus and other writers; that is, that we were atheists, stained ourselves of all infamy at our feasts, fed on children, adored the head of an ass and all the rest of which is full of the pagan and sacred literature of the first centuries

These testimonies of St. Justin, seen no more than a century after the fact of the Jewish conspiracy against nascent Christianity, are repeated shortly after by Tertullian in no. 14 of Book 1 Ad Nationes:…
 

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏ
If you sort through it though, you get a very interesting and different picture of early christianity that is decidedly not jewish. It paints a picture of christianity as part of a long tradition of indo-aryan religion instead of the next evolution of the jews. In fact, you find the position that the jewish god of the old testament is the devil himself.
Yep. That's exactly why it appealed to me as well.

Here's Moses with horns. Inb4 its a "medieval mistake". Cope all you want, but I'm just going to straight up say it: something ghoulish is going on here.

horned-god-moses-7.jpeg

And no, the average peasant or lord had no idea what was going on with the OT and still mostly doesn't.

Latin and a closed clergy kept them from having access to the texts. The minute literacy began to spread, along with the printing press, problems with Churchianity began to multiply and spread, leading to disaster after disaster like the religious wars.

This is a serious problem worth considering and addressing.
 

anti-barabas-ite

Work stuff through in your brain...UNVAXXED
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ– πŸ’»
Escaped True Master
Yep. That's exactly why it appealed to me as well.

Here's Moses with horns. Inb4 its a "medieval mistake". Cope all you want, but I'm just going to straight up say it: something's ghoulish is going on here.

View attachment 63936

And no, the average peasant or lord had no idea what was going on with the OT and still mostly doesn't.

Latin and a closed clergy kept them from having access to the texts. The minute literacy began to spread, along with the printing press, problems with Churchianity began to multiply and spread, leading to disaster after disaster like the religious wars.

This is a serious problem worth considering and addressing.
Numbers 12:1
12 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

moses not /ourguy?!@
 

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏ
The reason this is interesting is that it is a subject which the catholic church attempted to effectively erase from history, and believed they were successful in doing. It paints a dramatically different potential image of early christianity and it quite frankly makes more sense than some of the jewish concepts going around in churches today. It also fits in with a lot of taboo archaeology topics and gives a much clearer picture on what is going on with some of the occult mysticism that seems to always survive through history.
If the church was really interested in better understanding Christ and his message, you'd think they'd jump at the Nag Hammadi find and would be enthusiastic about it, send their top scholars to parse through and disseminate the new finds within the church.

But no. Either radio silence or scorn heaped on the finds, some of which may predate gospel of Luke and John and Acts. To say nothign of the subsequent church tracts that came later.
 

Enwar

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»
Acts came 100 years after Paul's letters, retard. Yeah, they did some whitewashing and some "can't we all get along guise???" kumbaya bullshit and this isn't even disputed that this was the purpose of Luke-Acts, its blatant.
No, Acts did not come "100 years" after Paul's letters. You're claiming that Acts was written in the middle of the second century, which is a completely ridiculous claim that no scholar on earth believes. Christian scholars in general assert that Acts was written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, since that was the most important event in that general region in centuries by far, and Acts doesn't mention it at all. If Acts was written in the second century AD, it is guaranteed that the writer would have written about it extensively.

This same line of argumentation is used to prove that all the Gospels were written before the same event. Jesus says that the temple would be destroyed, and no Gospel writer even mentions that it actually was, indicating that they did not live to see it happen.

Your purported "purpose" of Luke-Acts having been written makes no sense, and I want you to point to a legitimate scholar who believes it. In any case, though, you're going to have to explain why Paul affirms the legitimacy of Peter multiple times in 1 Corinthians, and affirms that Jesus appeared to him first in 1 Corinthians 15:5.

Finally, you're going to have to explain why I should see Paul as an Apostle at all if the book of Acts is illegitimate. If Acts is not legitimate, only PETER and the other eleven Apostles are true Apostles, unless you think the Gospels aren't real either.

But that's wrong. Just because the Church "understands" it to be so doesn't make it so. And Peter is routinely portrayed as a buffoon multiple times in Mark. You people just spin it to say, "look, I'm a retard too, Peter is so relatable to me, he's like Ricky from Trailer Park Boys or something!" even though it's obvious that Mark is taking shots at Peter for denying Christ, for not trusting Christ and for saying stupid shit.
You clearly have no respect for ancient Christian teachings that go back much further in time than your understanding does. Every Gospel portrays not only Peter, but every Apostle, as being ignorant of the true purpose of Jesus' coming. Peter is not pointed out as unique in this regard, except in the fact that his love for Christ and hasty personality made him do more stupid things. This is how it is in every Gospel. You apparently don't believe in Mark or Luke, so I'll only reference Matthew and John. In Matthew, Jesus tells Peter, "Get behind me, Satan!" like He does in all the other Gospels. Peter denies Christ three times in Matthew, and cuts off the ear of Malchus. Peter does the latter two things in the Gospel of John as well. Mark was not uniquely written by an associate of Paul in order to make Peter look bad. You literally just made this up, like everything else you said.

Paul literally comes to Jerusalem and finds James and Peter doing just that, retard. He gets in their faces and tells them to knock it off.

AGAIN PAY ATTENTION HERE SLOW ONE:

Paul's letters came FIRST. That means they have historical primacy. Acts came MUCH LATER. That means Paul>Luke-Acts.

You are just spitting out the established narrative and not addressing any of my claims ie youre being an NPC faggot.
Once again, you're showing your ignorance of the Scriptures, even on the most basic level. Paul didn't come to Jerusalem, Paul was in Antioch, and Peter came to Antioch. This shows that you didn't even read the passage that you're referencing, Galatians 2, before referencing it. Now, let's read what happened and make some conclusions:

"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation." Galatians 2:11-13

Peter ate with the Gentiles before associates of James came to Antioch, but he stopped doing so when these people came. Clearly, the reason why is that Peter was intimidated by James, who apparently was still partial to the idea of Jews and Gentiles eating separately. You have to understand that all these men were Jews, who had only recently come to accept Gentiles into their communion. Jews during the Rabbinical period didn't eat with Gentiles at all, and these men were slowly separating themselves from that culture.

So Peter himself had nothing against eating with Gentiles, he just felt peer pressure when James' associates came in, who still had that prejudice. Paul says that he confronted Peter about this to his face. He, being the Apostle to the Gentiles, had long before gotten rid of this prejudice.

Paul even says that Peter lived after the manner of the Gentiles in this same passage.

"14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" Galatians 2:14

This was clearly not a pattern of behavior of Peter's. In this very same chapter, Paul calls Peter an Apostle and pillar of the church.

"7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles: )

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision." Galatians 2:7-9

And no, Paul's letters did not come first. The life of Jesus came first, which was recorded in written form, in the four Gospels, 10-20 years after Christ ascended. John was written much later, though. Acts, however, was not written much later.

The best part of what you're saying though is that Paul's letters have "historical primacy" over Acts as though this is some significant thing, when his letters don't even contradict Acts.


I used to believe that the Catholic Church was wrong for not letting the commoners read the Bible, but now I realize that crap like this is why they did it. There are simply too many ways to come to ridiculous conclusions. I myself did the same for a few years.
 

antirelativist

Well-known member
Old World Underground
⏰
Yep. That's exactly why it appealed to me as well.

Here's Moses with horns. Inb4 its a "medieval mistake". Cope all you want, but I'm just going to straight up say it: something ghoulish is going on here.

View attachment 63936
You should read the Egyptian historian Manetho's account of Moses. Another interesting case of the original records being almost entirely destroyed.

The tldr is that a foreigner named Osarseph was exiled to an abandoned Hyksos city along with a bunch of other foreigners. He claimed to go into the desert and meet the entity Set, whom he decided to worship as god. He changed his name to Moshe and led a red terror of sorts on egypt for a few years doing heinous, typically jewish things. Eventually the egyptians rallied an army and chased them all out of egypt back to canaan where they claimed their people were from.

Apparently all of the original writings of Manetho on this topic were lost in the Library of Alexandria. The primary surviving source is a criticism of Manetho by Josephus where he quotes and paraphrases some of the story attempting to argue against its truth. If you ctrl+f for "osarsiph" here you can read it: http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html

It smells suspiciously like an ancient case of jews being jewish to me. Doesn't seem much different than what we have seen in recent generations with jew-led terror uprisings. Of course followed by yet another expulsion and jews kvetching for eternity that they were herded into showers by the evil enemies of god.
 

Enwar

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»
You are a retard with worthless opinions who doesn't know the first thing about the subject you are opining about.
I wrote a mini-essay and then you take one single sentence I wrote out of context, and then use it to claim that I don't know what I'm talking about. I said that Paul's letters didn't come first, the life of Jesus did. Am I wrong about that? Then I said that the life of Jesus was preserved through oral tradition, and then written down later, most likely before 70 AD, since the Gospels don't mention the events of that year.

But in any case, I know that, over time, as you continue to study the Scriptures, your opinions will become more correct on this issue, and on others. I used to believe many outlandish things as well; in fact, I believe less things overall than I used to back then. As the years pass, we all realize that there are more things that we can't be certain about than there are that we can be certain about.
 

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏ
But in any case, I know that, over time, as you continue to study the Scriptures, your opinions will become more correct on this issue, and on others. I used to believe many outlandish things as well; in fact, I believe less things overall than I used to back then. As the years pass, we all realize that there are more things that we can't be certain about than there are that we can be certain about.
Aren't you the guy who made a post crying about how you had a wank or scored with a slampig and were afraid that you were going to hell because of it?

You are not objective about this topic in any way shape or form and it comes across in your posts. Also, you are clearly not emotionally stable. I don't hold it against you, seeing as these are trying times, but you should simmer down when the adults are talking and hold your tongue in the future.

EDIT: yeah, you are the guy who showed up asking for the forum to pray for you because you lost your virginity. This is not normal, and I can't take you seriously.
 

Enwar

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»
Aren't you the guy who made a post crying about how you had a wank or scored with a slampig and were afraid that you were going to hell because of it?

You are not objective about this topic in any way shape or form and it comes across in your posts. Also, you are clearly not emotionally stable. I don't hold it against you, seeing as these are trying times, but you should simmer down when the adults are talking and hold your tongue in the future.

EDIT: yeah, you are the guy who showed up asking for the forum to pray for you because you lost your virginity. This is not normal, and I can't take you seriously.
Once again obfuscating.

Firstly, I was not afraid I was going to hell. I was simply expressing some ideas that were in my mind concerning Hebrew 10:26, the wording of which would scare any true believer in Christ to the core. Based on your understanding of the Scriptures, which seems to not come from the Bible itself but instead from auxiliary and questionable sources, I doubt that you've ever even read that verse at all.

Secondly, I didn't "score", in the traditional sense. That's as deep as I'll go into that subject.

Thirdly, yes, I am emotionally stable. Everyone feels guilt at some point or another, and to claim that a person is not emotionally stable in general because they were upset about something is stupid.

Fourthly, your condescension ("simmer down when the adults are talking") falls completely flat on its face when I just ran circles around you three times. Refute what I wrote and then try to talk down to me.

Finally, fornication is a sin, and I did it in the worst way possible. I asked the forum to pray for me because that is a normal thing that Christians do when they are down. I didn't "need" the forum to pray for me, I wanted them to. Something was on my chest, and I let it out. I have guilt over my sin which is normal and healthy for a Christian.

You can't take me seriously because if you did, you would have to change your ridiculous views concerning Peter, James, Marcionism. If you are a true believer in Christ, you will eventually change your views in any case, in order to line up with orthodox Christian beliefs anyway. The Old Testament is the Word of God, Peter is an Apostle, and you are wrong about this subject on the most fundamental level. Anyone can read what I wrote and conclude that.

This marks the fourth circle that I ran around you.
 

Mistaf

ℑ𝔫𝔱𝔒𝔯𝔒𝔰𝔱𝔦𝔫𝔀 𝔗𝔦π”ͺ𝔒𝔰 π”—π”―π”žπ”³π”’π”©π”’π”―
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
Interesting book I read on the topic of how the OT could be interpreted.

 

marcion

TheVeryFirstBible.org
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
"As to Tertullian, I have nothing else to say except that he was not a man of the church." - St. Joseph
 

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏ
Interesting book I read on the topic of how the OT could be interpreted.
Solid book. I do have a critique though.

Laurent does raise the point that there is a lot of stolen material in the OT, but he doesn't follow this train of thought to its logical conclusion. Namely that while the Jews' Yahweh material has been spliced over top the Northern Kingdom/Caananite Elohim material, there might be some good stuff in the Elohim material worth salvaging. I'm saying that there's a case to be made for keeping the Elohim material. After all, it's where we get our angels from with Micha-el and Gabri-el even Isra-el and the rest being reinterpretations of El's servants. Also, there appears to be genuine divine/mystical experiences recorded in the prophets' books.

Most KJV fans don't understand that there are two different gods who are being referred to in the Bible. Yahweh was originally conceived of as being like Set or Melkor/Morgoth from the Silmarillion. An evil god who was in rebellion against the all-father.

Proof from Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is one of those rare biblical passages that seemingly preserves a vestige of an earlier period in proto-Israelite religion where El and Yahweh were still depicted as separate deities: Yahweh was merely one of the gods of El’s council! This tradition undeniably comes from older Canaanite lore.

When the Most High (’elyΓ΄n) gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated humanity, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of divine beings. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.

There are two points to take away from this passage. First, the passage presents an apparently older mythic theme that describes when the divine beings, that is each deity in the divine counsel, were assigned and allotted their own nation. Israel was the nation that Yahweh received. Second, Yahweh received his divine portion, Israel, through an action initiated by the god El, here identifiable through his epithet β€œthe Most High.”
The passage in question:
When the Most High (’elyΓ΄n) gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated humanity, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of divine beings. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.
In other words, Yahweh chose to make the Jews his weapon of choice.

Further reading if interested.

Many people will no doubt be shocked by this because in their bibles they have LORD or Lord instead of El/Elohim/YHWH. If they had the original names, they'd realize that there are many places where God is referred to as El - the Caananite deity - and other places where its Yahweh - the Jews' demon.

This is to say nothing of the Agnostos Theos or the Unknown God that Paul preaches to the Greeks about and claims to follow.

From Acts 17:22-31:

Paul stood in the middle of the Areopagus, and said, β€œYou men of Athens, I perceive that you are very religious in all things. 23 For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: β€˜TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ What therefore you worship in ignorance, this I announce to you. 24 The God who made the world and all things in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, doesn’t dwell in temples made with hands, 25 neither is he served by men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself gives to all life and breath, and all things.
Clearly not talking about Yahweh here is he?
 
Last edited:

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏ
He claimed to go into the desert and meet the entity Set
In the Yahweh to Zion book, the author makes a convincing case that Yahweh is a reinterpretation of Set. The evidence continues to pile up in favor of his argument, yeah.
 

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏ
Apparently all of the original writings of Manetho on this topic were lost in the Library of Alexandria. The primary surviving source is a criticism of Manetho by Josephus where he quotes and paraphrases some of the story attempting to argue against its truth. If you ctrl+f for "osarsiph" here you can read it:
Josephus was a liar and the literal caricature of a no-good, rotten, scheming kike. He was clearly part of the Zealot rebellion against Rome and then changed sides and wrote Wars to get on everyone's good side and run cover for the rabbis so that Rome left them off the hook and went after the smaller fish instead. We have to read between the lines of what he wrote.
 

Coltraine

America First
Old World Underground
πŸ‘‘
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»πŸ₯“πŸ’»β›ͺοΈπŸ–
Solid book. I do have a critique though.

Laurent does raise the point that there is a lot of stolen material in the OT, but he doesn't follow this train of thought to its logical conclusion. Namely that while the Jews' Yahweh material has been spliced over top the Northern Kingdom/Caananite Elohim material, there might be some good stuff in the Elohim material worth salvaging. I'm saying that there's a case to be made for keeping the Elohim material. After all, it's where we get our angels from with Micha-el and Gabri-el even Isra-el and the rest being reinterpretations of El's servants. Also, there appears to be genuine divine/mystical experiences recorded in the prophets' books.

Most KJV fans don't understand that there are two different gods who are being referred to in the Bible. Yahweh was originally conceived of as being like Set or Melkor/Morgoth from the Silmarillion. An evil god who was in rebellion against the all-father.

Proof from Deuteronomy:



The passage in question:


In other words, Yahweh chose to make the Jews his weapon of choice.

Further reading if interested.

Many people will no doubt be shocked by this because in their bibles they have LORD or Lord instead of El/Elohim/YHWH. If they had the original names, they'd realize that there are many places where God is referred to as El - the Caananite deity - and other places where its Yahweh - the Jews' demon.

This is to say nothing of the Agnostos Theos or the Unknown God that Paul preaches to the Greeks about and claims to follow.

From Acts 17:22-31:



Clearly not talking about Yahweh here is he?
Have you ever read anything by Russell E. Gmirkin?:


In my opinion his OT explanations make most sense in terms of their actual historical value- which is what I have been way more interested in in the past anyway over the theological stuff in the context of modern or even early Christianity. My basic thinking here was/is that one has to truly know when as well as where the OT was originally written in order to then later on start getting into the why and by whom. Then finally I would try to place this information and its context into early Christianity- although as I've said above already: I haven't really made it to this stage ever or yet myself mainly because of time-constraints.

@antirelativist brought Manetho up above. Anyway one of Gmirkin's main theories is that the original writers of Exodus copied Manetho (and Berosses for Genesis and even Plato for Deuteronomy, Proverbs, and others) rather than the other way around- which is typically what Christian officialdom will claim once backed into a rhetorical corner.

Also, he has the Pentateuch originally being codified and written down finally in the 3rd Century B.C. in Alexandria, Egypt- but absolutely not before.

He fills in a lot of OT contradictions and anachronisms with this theory probably. I've read both of his books, which although expensive, are probably worth their weight in gold if you ask me.
 
Last edited:

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏ
He fills in a lot of OT contradictions and anachronisms with this theory if you ask me. I've read both of his books, which although expensive, are probably worth their weight in gold if you ask me.
I better check this guy out.

It's interesting how people are coming to similar conclusions from different angles. But yes, it seems clear that the Jews stole quite a bit of their material from the Egyptians and the Greeks.

I still have some more takeaways to post ITT in the coming days.
 

marcion

TheVeryFirstBible.org
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏπŸͺ’πŸ‹πŸ»
If you don't mind rooting around a little, FBN has episodes that either touch on or go in depth on just about everything in this thread.

I think you'll find things are a lot clearer (as usual) once you strip the jew angle out - in fact, you're better off skipping the jew story altogether. For quite some time the Marcionite church was larger than even the Catholic church - sadly, Constantine put an end to that with one of his edicts and redistributed all of their property to the Catholics.

But some of it remains...in fact, the oldest inscription in the world bearing the name of Jesus was found in a Marcionite Church.

The inscription is dated 318 A.D. and reads "The Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Good" and is the earliest inscription of Jesus' name in recorded history (Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions, No. 2558, vol. iii. p. 583).

Random observations:

-Neither Luke nor Mark were apostles, in fact neither of them even met Jesus or even claim to have seen anything first hand.

-Luke and Mark were BOTH traveling companions of Paul and later went on to write gospels. This would explain where they got their material - Paul's gospel - the gospel he received directly from Christ in a revelation on the road to Damascus.

-Matthew is probably the most egregious and ham-fisted of all the judaizers. His sole purpose was to give Jesus a fictitious jew back story and it's an effort that continues to this day. For a hardcore academic deep dive on that first Christian bible (that never contained an Old Testament) check out Dr. Jason BeDuhn's material.
 

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
β°β˜•πŸš¬πŸš½πŸšΏ
-Neither Luke nor Mark were apostles, in fact neither of them even met Jesus or even claim to have seen anything first hand.

-Luke and Mark were BOTH traveling companions of Paul and later went on to write gospels. This would explain where they got their material - Paul's gospel - the gospel he received directly from Christ in a revelation on the road to Damascus.

-Matthew is probably the most egregious and ham-fisted of all the judaizers. His sole purpose was to give Jesus a fictitious jew back story and it's an effort that continues to this day. For a hardcore academic deep dive on that first Christian bible (that never contained an Old Testament) check out Dr. Jason BeDuhn's material.
I came to the same conclusions without viewing the material you recommended. We're onto something here.
 
Top