Pauline Christianity

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿
I think your last reply is enough to understand where you're coming from. Let's clarify your position and my position and then let's just agree to disagree after this.

This is the whole point of the argument, is your god really omnipotent and over all creation and worthy of being worshipped and the title of God.
Paul's God didn't create Creation. Or at least he is not running the show now.

Paul says that this is a fallen prison world not much different from Salusa Secundus ruled by evil daemonic angels who set up cursed rules for us to follow and elevate the worst of us at the expense of the best. Again, you are judging Pauline Christianity by the parameters of Petrine Churchianity.

Just confirm yes or no whether you understand the following: Paul's God does NOT promise any material rewards like Yahweh does. He only promises the kingdom of heaven and the salvation of one's soul. This may come at the cost of one's life. One might lose all one's material possessions and even be tortured to death for following Paul's God. Phil. 3:7-8:

But whatever former things I had that might have been gains to me, I have come to consider as loss for Christ's sake. Yes, furthermore, I count everything as loss compared to the possession of the priceless privilege (the overwhelming preciousness, the surpassing worth, and supreme advantage) of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord and of progressively becoming more deeply and intimately acquainted with Him. For His sake I have lost everything and consider it all to be mere rubbish (refuse, dregs), in order that I may win (gain) Christ (the Anointed One).
So, if your question is, who can give me more stuff and power in this material world if I worship him, ie. you're a prosperity gospel type, then yeah, Yahweh is your guy. Follow his Law, have Jewish blood, and be materially rewarded. Galatians 2:19:
For I through the Law have myself died to the Law and all the Law's demands upon me, so that I may live to and for God. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life I now live in the body I live by faith in the Son of God, Who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
But what you wrote here really gets to the heart of your worldview. Because you still can't differentiate between Yahweh and the Agnostos Theos, I went to the liberty of editing your text to make it clearer, so that we can get to the heart of our dispute:

Again, if PAUL's GOD is limited, if PAUL's GOD is not in control, than I see no reason to worship PAUL'S CHRIST no matter how well intentioned he might be. If PAUL's GOD did not set the laws of the created order and they originated elsewhere, than his laws about how I should live in the created world aren’t really laws they are just suggestions. If PAUL's GOD didn’t create the material world than there are some things that are just out of his hands and purview. It’s seriously analogous to a man suggesting you worship him even though there are some things he just can’t do for you.
Your position is starting to become clearer. As I understand it, based on what you wrote, which I cited above, you would reject Paul's God and the message contained in Paul's ministry because there are just "things he can't do for you" in this world. In other words, you want to worship the god that rules this world that we are in now, because that is more relevant to you and your life.

Give us a yes or no, so that we can finally put a bookmark in the discussion and move on to other topics.
 

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿
Finally, a fair critique:

Like I said, if a Marcionite decides the most spiritual thing was going pure spirit and killing himself than there isn’t any guidance from above telling him not to if that’s his subjective experience. If a Marcionite decided the ultimate evil was bringing another soul into the material world maybe he should just cut his balls off. Marcionism does share a very negative view of the material world after all which is why the sect pretty much went full gnostic eventually.
The only problem is that this isn't the Marcionite position. But it is the position of sects that have been called gnostic. Gnostic is a catch-all slur to label a wide range of early Christian beliefs that were declared heretical over the centuries. But group suicides are common enough and one doesn't have to be a gnostic or a Marcionite to engage in them. The Zealots group-suicided at Masada, assured that their demon-king was coming soon with a legion of angels to smash Rome and that they'd be raised like zombies to crush the legions. Jones and his followers drank the Kool-Aid. Koresh was the Lamb of God and seemed to expect that the End Times were upon him and his followers (or so the DEA says). The druids burnt themselves alive on the eve of Rome's invasion of Ireland. Examples abound.

If you disagree strongly with what I said there than you are implying that heresy can exists even for Marcionites but without Gods revealed world its really an impossible knot to untangle.
I don't really know what this is supposed to mean. But "God's word" appeared to Paul, bro. He didn't read it anywhere. Paul didn't have a Bible. Do you understand the implications of what I am saying here? We had illiterate monks throughout history becoming Christ. They achieved Theosis - Christlikeness. "God's word" doesn't have to be in a sacred book.
 
Last edited:

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿
After thinking about Marcions god a little bit and seeing how incompetent and limited he is my faith in normal Christianity is actually stronger and I’m convinced the God of Abraham and his descendants is way more powerful and credible.
This is actually a very honest confession. Worshipping the God of the Jews, Yahweh, because he seems to have the upper hand.

It's also peak NPC, no? Picking sides based on who you think is going to win. Truth is not a concern to people like this. Everything that this golem has said ITT was done with this assumption in the back of his mind. So the scriptural showdown was just an empty formality because it's not about truth for people like him.

It's about power. (or just the illusion of it because these people are in the same sinking boat as the rest of us lol).

Sadly, people like this are the majority in society.
 
Last edited:

Watchful Sentry

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿
Paul's God didn't create Creation.
Paul:

"Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers . . . and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: . . . Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are One. This is Christianity 101.

Paul says that this is a fallen prison world not much different from Salusa Secundus ruled by evil daemonic angels
No, he doesn't. Where are you getting this from? None of these terms or themes exist anywhere in the Bible.

Paul's God does NOT promise any material rewards like Yahweh does.
Paul, again, disagrees:

"Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are your's; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are your's; And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's." - 1 Cor 3

The entire world is the inheritance of Christians, via Christ, to whom Christians belong, who in turn is God the Father's. For clarity, that's ALL material rewards.

Paul's God
Paul is refuting what you say here. Seems to be a consistent theme:

"As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." - 1 Cor 8

How much clearer can Paul be? There is only one God. He expounds there are other "so called gods", which is exactly what you are suggesting, and clarifying beyond any doubt, in reality, there is only one God. Paul says you are wrong.

This is also a second witness from Paul that "all things", which would include creation, are of God the Father.

you would reject Paul's God and the message contained in Paul's ministry
Someone is definitely rejecting Paul's message and his God. Have you ever studied Christianity? Or actually read Paul's writings?

Paul didn't have a Bible.
Wait for it- Paul again:

"All scripture [Old Testament] is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" - 2 Tim 3:16

Pauline Christianity . . . Marcionite position
Cool cult, bro. Maybe Pauline is a nice gal. I'm not a fan of what Macron's done to France, but if he's got Pauline in some kind of position that's their business, and at least he's not hugging on male niggers anymore. If you guys want to be a cult- more power to you. Believe what you want. I believe Paul over what you guys pretend he's saying.
 

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿
"Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers . . . and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: . . . Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"
You're quoting Colossians. For 200 years, scholars have begun to doubt that Paul wrote these. But even so, here's what Bible.wiki, a fringe and cultish conspiracy website, says the gist of Colossians is about:

In particular, Paul warns against erroneous teachings being taught in the church[2]: vain philosophy, legalism, the worship of angels, and asceticism
They're right. Here's what he says about worship of angels in that same epistle that you seem to like: Colossians 2:18-19

18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind.
I have already proven what Paul's view of angels are. I have proven that he claimed Moses spoke with these angels. I have proven that he believes fallen angels rule this world. Do the math here.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are One. This is Christianity 101.
>you are a heretic.

Tiresome. So tiresome.
No, he doesn't. Where are you getting this from? None of these terms or themes exist anywhere in the Bible.
I used an obvious Dune reference and metaphor. You should read more books.
"Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are your's; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are your's; And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's." - 1 Cor 3
Maybe it is you who should read Corinthians because Paul spends a good chunk of it raging at his congregation for drifting back into worldly concerns. Here is what you selectively omitted:

Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly?
And right before your quote:

18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”[a]; 20 and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”[b] 21 So then, no more boasting about human leaders!
Here's the standard interpretation that you can readily find from most mainstream churches about Corinthians. It's literally my position:

Now, though, Paul says the fact that they are saved does not mean he can call them spiritual people. They are not living as spiritual people. They are still living as if they were of the flesh. Paul compares them to a person stuck in infancy, who should have matured enough by now to be ready for the solid food of deeper Christian teaching. Instead, they're still on a newborn's all-milk diet. This is not an entirely unique problem, as the writer of Hebrews chastised his readers for a similar weakness (Hebrews 5:11–14). Instead of living in the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit and according to God's wisdom about spiritual things, the Corinthian Christians are still behaving as if they were mere, unspiritual human beings (1 Corinthians 3:1–2).

Paul's evidence of this is the issue he brought up in chapter 1. The church in Corinth is divided. Some claim to follow Paul and others Apollos and still others Peter.
Wow. So fringe. So cult-like. So crazy.

Paul telling people to stop thinking about worldly issues and start thinking about higher spiritual things. AND! As a bonus! Paul EXPLICITLY states that there is a leadership conflict within the Christian community between his teachings and Peters.

Ladies and gentleman, what more do you need as proof of my claims?
 
Last edited:

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿
Wait for it- Paul again:

"All scripture [Old Testament] is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" - 2 Tim 3:16
The pastoral letters were written later by an anonymous writer probably 100 years after Paul - he is referred to as "The Pastor."

He does indeed have favorable things to say about Moses and the OT, which Paul spent his whole career railing against.
 

Dr Livci

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
Just confirm yes or no whether you understand the following: Paul's God does NOT promise any material rewards like Yahweh does. He only promises the kingdom of heaven and the salvation of one's soul. This may come at the cost of one's life. One might lose all one's material possessions and even be tortured to death for following Paul's God. Phil. 3:7-8:
And Christ promises us material rewards? Yes I understand that your god doesn’t promise material rewards either but the point is the Christian God can provide blessings in any way he wants, yours apparently literally can’t. The point is about what actually constitutes a real God worthy of veneration in the 1st place. Just how many limitations are you prepared to concede before you conclude you are just dealing with a non omnipresent being with serious limitations that promises you rewards in another life just nothing in the meantime because he literally can’t help you?

You have mentioned theosis multiple times, do you know that the whole point of theosis is to start experiencing paradise in this life on this earth? There are accounts of especially ascetic Orthodox monks to whom even wild bears and wolves are obedient. You may dismiss this if you please but with in my paradigm they fit perfectly and I believe them. Man is his natural state that is close to God, as he was before the fall has authority over animals. When he sinned he lost this authority but through theosis and asceticism men can start to regain this state in the here and now, in the material world. This isn’t about stupid things like money or whatever. Its about returning to paradise, and this journey starts in this world and that is possible because God is sovereign over all creation including the material world. Consider to that this kind of very disciplined asceticism actually requires turning away from the desire for material rewards, these monks whom even bears and wolves obey obviously aren’t rich, materially powerful and influential men. Achieving this state actually requires disdaining these things and focusing solely on Christ, but the object they are pursing, achieving a foretaste of heaven in this world requires that God have authority over the material world.

So, if your question is, who can give me more stuff and power in this material world if I worship him, ie. you're a prosperity gospel type, then yeah, Yahweh is your guy. Follow his Law, have Jewish blood, and be materially rewarded. Galatians 2:19:
See what I just wrote. The question is about what constitutes a God to begin with, paradise isn’t about money it’s about being one with God. My God says I can start that journey now in this life, and that’s only possible because he has authority here not some bad demiurge.

The only problem is that this isn't the Marcionite position
Okay, fair enough but you have to admit that while Marcionism and Gnosticism aren’t totally analogous they do have very, very close presuppositions. Can you explain how they are different exactly because I while see the difference in the narrative I don’t see the differences in the implications of the narrative when you have no scripture you trust to fall back on.

But "God's word" appeared to Paul, bro. He didn't read it anywhere. Paul didn't have a Bible. Do you understand the implications of what I am saying here? We had illiterate monks throughout history becoming Christ. They achieved Theosis - Christlikeness. "God's word" doesn't have to be in a sacred book.
Come on man, Paul’s vision was real but he certainly wrote many things intending for people to read them. He didn’t just assume God would appear to you out of nowhere like he did to him. These monks who couldn’t read were certainly told about the contents of Paul’s writings by people who could read. You are basing your entire religion on what you claim are Paul’s legitimate opinions, and Paul wrote them down assuming they would be disseminated. If Marcion and Paul had your opinions why did they bother writing anything?

And again these Monks who couldn’t read had entire chapters of scripture memorized...they could quote scripture better than modern literate people. The point isn’t about literacy really it’s about accurately passing on Gods word. If you have this word written down somewhere that sure does help a lot. Like I said in the post that so offended cultural commissar ancient Christian Worship was several times a week and revolved around liturgy, liturgy contains reading from scripture. In this way the written word of God was passed on to people who couldn’t read. But in order to make sure the correct message is being passed along you do need some copies of the word somewhere.

t's also peak NPC, no? Picking sides based on who you think is going to win. Truth is not a concern to people like this.
😂😂 the whole point of comparing our paradigms and seeing which ones make sense is specifically to get at what’s more likely to be true. Dude, you are telling me a being that has no authority or influence in the material world is a god. How can that be true? And tbh what business of mine is it anyway if the bad god and good god are having a quarrel? Perhaps my power relative to them is like an ants power vs the suns but it would still be silly in my opinion for an ant to worship the sun. I want to be dead certain that what I’m worshipping is actually God, that’s my primary concern because I will only settle for God. We are speaking of our souls here aren’t we? If your god is limited, what guarantee can you give me that he actually is able to save my soul besides that’s what you claim Paul thought? As incredible and powerful as a sun is compared to a flee the sun still can’t save the flees soul or raise the flee from the dead come the day of resurrection.

I need some kind of sound reason to trust my soul to God, and the Orthodox Christian God just seems more up to the job than Marcions.
 
Last edited:

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿
I need some kind of sound reason to trust my soul to God, and the Orthodox Christian God just seems more up to the job than Marcions.
Where in the Torah does Yahweh promise you eternal life? Nowhere. Please prove me wrong. Yahweh never once mentions heaven. The deal is that you follow Yahweh's commandments in this world, provide blood sacrifices, and you will get rich, live longer and have many slaves. In exchange, your soul goes down to Sheol after you die. And it is not a nice place.

If your god is limited, what guarantee can you give me that he actually is able to save my soul besides that’s what you claim Paul thought?
Christ was whipped, scourged and crucified. I suppose he was "limited" by your definition.
You have mentioned theosis multiple times, do you know that the whole point of theosis is to start experiencing paradise in this life on this earth? There are accounts of especially ascetic Orthodox monks to whom even wild bears and wolves are obedient.
You do get magic powers if you do the monk thing correctly, yes. But the powers are from Paul's God via the Holy Spirit and are referred to as the Charismatic Gifts. They include levitation, seeing the future, remote viewing, animal control, glowing, among other things.

To get there, you have to learn spiritual techniques. It's been referred to by some scholars as 'Christian Yoga' but I'm sure the monks would take offense at that term. There is nothing about "a paradise in this life" though, I have no idea where you got that from. The monks have to die to this world. Then, they eventually have to totally surrender their own ego and will, to pour it out as if it were the contents of a cup to then let Christ pour back into its place. At that point they achieve Theosis and become literally Christ-like. I suppose you could say that they get a hint of the paradise to come, and the assurance that they will be able to walk the Royal Path after death and make it past the clutches of the rulers of this world, and into Heaven. But that's about as good as it can get in the Orthodox mystical tradition.

revolved around liturgy, liturgy contains reading from scripture
That statement betrays total ignorance of early Christian tradition. The first proof of a written liturgy that we have is from the 9th century. It was called the Liturgy of St. James:

The earliest Eucharistic liturgy (The Liturgy of Saint James ) with roots in Jerusalem is quite late from a manuscript perspective (9th century) but may reflect late 4th/early 5th century practices of Jerusalem intertwined with those of other Eastern Christian areas.
But here's something interesting about the Jerusalem schools liturgies:

The Judeo-Centricity of Early Christianity

  1. For about the first 10 years of Christianity, it was almost exclusively composed of Jewish converts.
  2. The early Christians were in the habit of attending temple daily.1
  3. The early Christians continued celebrating in the Synagogues alongside the Jews on the Sabbath for several years in some places.
  4. Up to nineteen years after Christ’s resurrection, new converts to Christianity, generally speaking, had to convert to Judaism before becoming Christian. Namely, they were to be circumcised, to eat Kosher, and to follow the Mosaic Law. The Jerusalem Council was called to settle this controversy in 49 AD2
  5. St. James, the bishop of Jerusalem, while the temple was still standing was in the habit of wearing the priestly robes, entering the temple, and offering intercessory prayer on behalf of his flock.3
The Domesticity of Worship

The Jews allowed Gentiles to participate in their public liturgies at the Synagogue. Gentiles were even allowed to enter the outer courts of the temple.4 But there was a rigorous exclusion of Gentile participation in the sacred home liturgies (such as the Seder meal). Initially Christians had no public liturgy, only domestic liturgy and so the controversies regarding the direct inclusion of the Gentile converts into the Christian Church are easily understood within this context.5
James (and Peter) were the leaders of the Jerusalem Church. They called the Jerusalem Council. They were anti-Gentile. Paul went to war with them. This is isn't even fringe stuff. The church's official position is that the conflict DID INDEED HAPPEN, but that it was all cool actually and it was nothing really, and they kissed and made up afterwards. This is "proven" by Acts and other works that came in the later centuries.

So your claim that Early Christian liturgies were worshipping the OT or keeping Mosaic Law is just false. Perhaps Peter + James leaning congregations did. But there is no way in Hell that Paul or his disciples would have allowed that.
 

Dr Livci

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
Where in the Torah does Yahweh promise you eternal life? Nowhere. Please prove me wrong. Yahweh never once mentions heaven. The deal is that you follow Yahweh's commandments in this world, provide blood sacrifices, and you will get rich, live longer and have many slaves. In exchange, your soul goes down to Sheol after you die. And it is not a nice place.
In the Garden of Eden the possibility of eternal was present in the Tree of Life. As for the OT in general Enoch and Elijah were taken to heaven. We have been over this already.

You do get magic powers if you do the monk thing correctly, yes. But the powers are from Paul's God via the Holy Spirit and are referred to as the Charismatic Gifts. They include levitation, seeing the future, remote viewing, animal control, glowing, among other things.
Wut? Hold up why is the good god giving gifts to Yahweh worshippers? This makes absolutely no sense. The god at war with the demiurge is giving gifts to the demiurges most dedicated disciples? This is pure narrative melt down and what I meant about your paradigm not making sense and not being consistent. You are saying the rotten tree is bearing fruit?

Can you be sure with in your paradigm it’s not the demiurge giving them gifts to dazzle and trick gullible people like me? Are you certain they are from marcions god?

There is nothing about "a paradise in this life" though, I have no idea where you got that from. The monks have to die to this world
The gifts of the Holy Spirit are indeed a foretaste of paradise not it’s fullness obviously. Dying to the world implies the opposite of what you were just saying about just being in it strictly for material reward no? It’s like my paradigm is actually pretty straightforward and you are wrong that people who believe the OT just want material wealth from Yahweh. However your paradigm where Yahweh worshippers are receiving gifts from Yahweh’s enemy needs more explanation. It goes back to what I was saying about the good god doing the bad gods work for him by propping up his religion.

James (and Peter) were the leaders of the Jerusalem Church. They called the Jerusalem Council. They were anti-Gentile. Paul went to war with them. This is isn't even fringe stuff. The church's official position is that the conflict DID INDEED HAPPEN, but that it was all cool actually and it was nothing really, and they kissed and made up afterwards. This is "proven" by Acts and other works that came in the later centuries.
It simply doesn’t follow from the Jerusalem council being settled in Paul’s favor that Paul rejected the OT entirely. If Paul rejected the whole premise of the OT why did he attend a council with OT believers in the 1st place? Going to council and resolving the issue means Paul came to an agreement with OT believers? The council happening in the 1st place and the churches unity being maintained is a proof against you actually. If what you claim is true there should have been a total schism but there was not. The council was about the place of Mosaic law in the religion, it was not a referendum on the OT. Again they were debating if Gentiles needed to observe the Mosiac law to be Christians, right off the bat that implies Paul was debating whether specific practices were still required post Christ. Like Paul accepted the premise but didn’t agree on the details post Christ. Why wasn’t Paul raising the issue of Christ’s divinity because in your scheme he is not of the same essence as the Father? That’s way bigger than dietary practices. Why wasn’t Paul saying ancestral sin is a total myth since the Garden of Eden is fiction? Why wasn’t Paul saying Baptism is invalid because the mystery of Baptism wasn’t revealed by Christ or Paul himself?

I understand that within your paradigm Paul might have said all these things and the Jerusalem school just burned the evidence. However with in my paradigm the Jerusalem council strongly implies Paul coming out on top in a church dispute because it was the will of God. But Paul even showing up is proof enough that it wasn’t a referendum on the entire OT. If that’s the case a victory for Paul would mean the OT is officially out of the church and that would be followed by a total schism, and we have not the slightest evidence for any such thing. If there was a compromise it means Paul compromised with people who accepted the OT....and according to you Paul’s mission in life was burying the OT for good.

Anywhere here is a more useful take about liturgy:
000A849E-36A9-46FE-BF23-C2C7409B71A0.jpeg

It’s a Coptic source but a good basic description:

Justin Martyr was talking about reading the prophets in the second century. What prophets might these be?
 
Last edited:

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿
We have been over this already.
Yep. There's no heaven promised by Yahweh to his followers in the Torah. You can't find even a single quote. Absolutely damning and conclusive.
Wut? Hold up why is the good god giving gifts to Yahweh worshippers?
Hesychast monks are for all intents and purposes what you would deride as a "gnostic." They preach that this is a fallen world ruled by Satan and Paul is their patron saint, for obvious reasons.

Paul even talks about Theosis: Galatians 2:19-20:
For I through the Law have myself died to the Law and all the Law's demands upon me, so that I may live to and for God. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ (the Messiah) lives in me; and the life I now live in the body I live by faith in (by adherence to and reliance on and complete trust in) the Son of God, Who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
They were almost wiped out by a Judaizing latin who accused them of being gnostics ie heretics, but this time around, they were successfully defended in court by the brilliant Gregory of Palamas. Some times the good guys win, I guess.

Can you be sure with in your paradigm it’s not the demiurge giving them gifts to dazzle and trick gullible people like me? Are you certain they are from marcions god?
There are false powers granted by Satan, yes, and monks have to learn prelest or spiritual discernment by awakening the 'eyes of the soul' ie the Noos/Nous within them to be able to tell which is which.

I understand that within your paradigm Paul might have said all these things and the Jerusalem school just burned the evidence.
I showed you the evidence of 1) the conflict existing 2) Paul's position vis a vis Peter 3) Paul calling the OT a curse and rejecting Moses. You just pretend that I haven't.
The council was about the place of Mosaic law in the religion, it was not a referendum on the OT.
That's exactly what it was.
Justin Martyr was talking about reading the prophets in the second century. What prophets might these be?
Justin Martyr was talking about reading the Jewish prophets. He's explicit about it.

He's not /myguy/ so its basically the same as quoting James at me and saying look, these people were into OT Law. Yeah, I get that. But see here's the thing. There are two schools...

BUT WAIT! He was a neoplatonist. So check this out:
Screen Shot 2021-09-12 at 2.22.40 AM.png

Was he a "gnostic" too?

Why wasn’t Paul saying ancestral sin is a total myth since the Garden of Eden is fiction? Why wasn’t Paul saying Baptism is invalid because the mystery of Baptism wasn’t revealed by Christ or Paul himself?
Paul doesn't say that the Garden of Eden is BS and I never claimed this. He would maintain that it was a metaphor for a higher plane of existence. This comes up in his discussions of Adam. He says Christ is like Adam, but better, because while Adam was basically a higher sort of entity, he fell to corruption, whereas Christ rose to the challenge and defeated temptation. If anything, Paul likes the metaphor of Adam.

Paul also doesn't say baptism is invalid. Where did I claim this? For God's sake, learn how to write gooder, trying to parse through what youre saying is like extracting teeth, I don't understand what you mean a solid half of the time.

a victory for Paul would mean the OT is officially out of the church and that would be followed by a total schism
The Jews at the time were expecting an earthly, worldly savior from the line of David that would lead them into battle against Rome with 12 legions of angry angels at their backs.

Paul explicitly refuted this claim and said that this was BS. And what ended up happening? Israel was razed to the ground by Rome. The Temple was destroyed. The Jerusalem Church was rightfully declared a terroristic organization and shut down. Their leaders were rounded up and executed.

Paul was proven to be 100% right. He sided with Rome and his school won round 1.

Mark immortalized this victory with his gospel in which the Romans are portrayed in a very sympathetic light as opposed to Peter and James, who Mark takes great joy in mocking by point out that they:
1) ABANDON Christ, leaving the Roman legionnaire to be the one to realize that Christ was the son of God, NOT one of the Apostles.
2) DENY Christ, three times in Peter's case
3) Get called out for being Satan by Christ, explicitly - (remember the "get behind me, Satan!" quote? Now remember who Jesus said it to. Yeah.)
4) DOUBT Christ, on the stormy sea.
4) And who are constantly depicted as DOLTS who can't figure out what Jesus is saying, and don't even realize who he is, even though the laypeople around Jesus recognize him many times, in start contrast to Peter and James.

I'm easing into a discussion of Mark next.
 
Last edited:

Yang Wen-Li

Thousand Year Galactic Anime Reich
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
Actually yeah that was a good point Dr Livci brought up earlier, if life in this world is rather a curse than a blessing, then isn't it wrong to have children and bring their souls into this cursed world?
 

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿
Actually yeah that was a good point Dr Livci brought up earlier, if life in this world is rather a curse than a blessing, then isn't it wrong to have children and bring their souls into this cursed world?
I think you should perhaps ask the question: what purpose could our being here in a fallen, material world serve?

And this isn't me being all wise master of hidden 33rd level gnostic knowledge or whatever you seem to think I'm doing, it's literally me trying to get you to think about these metaphysical questions in a different way.

Could you come up with an explanation for why a good, higher God would allow us to be trapped in this world? I think that if you thought about it for a moment, you'd come up with a similar answer to what early Christians did, because there's logic and intuitive coherence to their beliefs and model of the universe.
 

Yang Wen-Li

Thousand Year Galactic Anime Reich
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
I think you should perhaps ask the question: what purpose could our being here in a fallen, material world serve?

And this isn't me being all wise master of hidden 33rd level gnostic knowledge or whatever you seem to think I'm doing, it's literally me trying to get you to think about these metaphysical questions in a different way.

Could you come up with an explanation for why a good, higher God would allow us to be trapped in this world? I think that if you thought about it for a moment, you'd come up with a similar answer to what early Christians did, because there's logic and intuitive coherence to their beliefs and model of the universe.
Well yeah, I could come up with answers to your question. I have a few in mind after thinking about it for 5 seconds but it's just complete speculation.

I could say that the point of us being here is as a challenge to test your soul to see if you're worthy of returning to that pre-Genesis state, but that's pure speculation. It also brings more questions if you believe that as true, and the answers I could come up with for them would just be more speculation.
 

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿
I could say that the point of us being here is as a challenge to test your soul to see if you're worthy of returning to that pre-Genesis state, but that's pure speculation.
Yep. Pretty obvious and logical. So, the idea that "gnostic" beliefs have to lead to anti-natality and mass suicide doesn't hold up.

Consider the Vikings or any other warrior-culture prioritizing seeking death in battle to go to Valhalla. Did that necessarily have a negative effect on their birth rates? No, of course not.

A father would bring kids into this world because he has confidence and faith in them. That they will rise to the challenge. No different than a father letting his kid enlist in high school wrestling and risking injury to get stronger and prove his worth to the team.

It also brings more questions if you believe that as true, and the answers I could come up with for them would just be more speculation.
Go ahead and ask them, I'm sure we can logick it out together.
 

Yang Wen-Li

Thousand Year Galactic Anime Reich
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
Yep. Pretty obvious and logical. So, the idea that "gnostic" beliefs have to lead to anti-natality and mass suicide doesn't hold up.

Consider the Vikings or any other warrior-culture prioritizing seeking death in battle to go to Valhalla. Did that necessarily have a negative effect on their birth rates? No, of course not.

A father would bring kids into this world because he has confidence and faith in them. That they will rise to the challenge. No different than a father letting his kid enlist in high school wrestling and risking injury to get stronger and prove his worth to the team.



Go ahead and ask them, I'm sure we can logick it out together.
Okay.

Who is testing us?
If it's the unknown God through the Demiurge entity, do they have some sort of agreement? Is that why the unknown entity lets this happen?
If the unknown God isn't, then is it the fathers testing their sons' souls themselves by bringing them into earth?
Is it moral to, as a man, test your son's soul in such a way? What if he fails and his soul is damned to hell whereas if you never brought him into the world he would have remained in the pre-birth state?
What are we before birth? Is it the state that we are meant to seek to return to or is it something else?
Does the principle of a familial soul exist? Does my future son's soul have links to my soul even though he isn't born yet? Or are there no links between our souls at all and a random soul starts living in my son's body once he comes on earth?
Is my future son's soul just floating around doing whatever it is we do in this state and when I knock up some bitch up he gets suddenly taken out of that and put in a mortal shell? If so, aren't I disturbing the peace by bringing him here?
What happens if I never breed?
What if the desire to breed is something put in us by the demiurge to make us want to bring in more souls into his material realm and give them a chance to be cursed for eternity by failing to not find their way back? Is this disprovable?
 
Last edited:

Watchful Sentry

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿
You're quoting Colossians. For 200 years, scholars have begun to doubt that Paul wrote these.
You believe "scholars" within "the last 200 years", whoever they are, as opposed to the religion of Christianity in general, and the greater bulk Christian theologians throughout history. I think everyone gets that. In short, you're promoting some kind of anti-Christian cult:

Cult: a system of religious belief, esp. one not recognized as an established religion, or the people who worship according to such a system of belief:

>you are a heretic.
Yes, you are. In the literal sense of the word. You've taken possibly the most obvious, easily discernible, and universal belief of all professing believers in Jesus, the Holy Trinity, and are actively promoting it as false.

The Holy Trinity is so easily discernible, it's one of the few things all Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox Christians, etc. actually agree upon. Here's the Catholic point of view:

"The mystery of the Holy Trinity is the most fundamental of our faith. On it everything else depends and from it everything else derives. Hence the Churches constant concern to safeguard the revealed truth that God is One in nature and Three in Persons."

They have classifications for the heresy you promote going way back. This is the closest one you fall into:

"Subordinationism Unlike the foregoing, Subordinationism admits there are three persons in God but denies that the second and third persons are consubstantial with the Father. Therefore it denies their true divinity."


Since I've yet to see you even acknowledge the Holy Spirit, you seem to be going for your own category of heresy here.

So, just to recap, so far:

- You're promoting anti-Christian ideas
- You're promoting a cult
- You're an admitted heretic to every Christian faith on the planet

Off to a hell of a start! But it gets better!

I have already proven what Paul's view of angels are. I have proven that he claimed Moses spoke with these angels. I have proven that he believes fallen angels rule this world.
At best, you've put forward your view. A deep dive into the Greek word translated angels tells a different story. You can believe Paul is saying whatever you want, but everything you're saying falls apart under scrutiny. Paul says nowhere that "fallen angels rule the world".

Concerning angelology:

"Development of Angelology. Upon the foundations of Scripture a gigantic structure was reared at the time of the completion of the Talmud."


Demonology and angelology is literally Judaism. It's part of the Old Testament perversion that came out of the Babylonian Captivity. Colossians, and Paul's general preaching against gnosticism, and general false beliefs, including the Talmudic idea of angels, is pretty strait forward.

So, here we can add:

- You agree with Talmudic Judaism in their non-Biblical beliefs about angels. Very Babylonian of you.

Do the math here.
Take your own advice:

"The sum of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting." - Psalm 119:160

The sum of God's word equals truth. Not the difference of what you pick and choose.

I used an obvious Dune reference and metaphor. You should read more books.
I must have been too busy studying the Bible.

Maybe it is you who should read Corinthians because Paul spends a good chunk of it raging at his congregation for drifting back into worldly concerns. Here is what you selectively omitted:

"Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly?"

And right before your quote:

18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”[a]; 20 and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”[b] 21 So then, no more boasting about human leaders!

Here's the standard interpretation that you can readily find from most mainstream churches about Corinthians. It's literally my position:

Now, though, Paul says the fact that they are saved does not mean he can call them spiritual people. They are not living as spiritual people. They are still living as if they were of the flesh. Paul compares them to a person stuck in infancy, who should have matured enough by now to be ready for the solid food of deeper Christian teaching. Instead, they're still on a newborn's all-milk diet. This is not an entirely unique problem, as the writer of Hebrews chastised his readers for a similar weakness (Hebrews 5:11–14). Instead of living in the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit and according to God's wisdom about spiritual things, the Corinthian Christians are still behaving as if they were mere, unspiritual human beings (1 Corinthians 3:1–2).
LOL it is hardly your "literal position" because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

The "milk of the word" is simply basic principles. "Fleshly" behavior is sinful behavior. You have zero concept of the Biblical teachings concerning law and grace.

Again, Paul refutes you:

"For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin." - Romans 7

To be "spiritual", you follow God's moral law! If you are "of the flesh", you are breaking God's moral law and sinning. This theme is 100% consistent through the entire Bible.

Paul's evidence of this is the issue he brought up in chapter 1. The church in Corinth is divided. Some claim to follow Paul and others Apollos and still others Peter.


Again, Paul:

"Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name." - 1 Cor 1

How much clearer can Paul be? No divisions. Christ is not divided. Christians are one body.

It's like you are taking all the mistakes of the early believers of the 1st century Christians, which Paul corrected, but then ignoring Paul's correction of it in favor of making a cult based on those mistakes. Peter concerning Paul:

" . . . just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen." - 2 Peter 3

Peter is describing you here.

Ladies and gentleman, what more do you need as proof of my claims?
Am I the only one who finds it creepy you're quoting a Talmudic, Jew Pharisee now?

"Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.” - Luke 22

It's appropriate the Jew Pharisees made this statement in response to Jesus claiming His Oneness with the Father, which you deny:

"And He said to them, “Yes, I am.” - Luke 22

"God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” - Exodus 3:14

Really channeling your inner Pharisee there.

The pastoral letters were written later by an anonymous writer probably 100 years after Paul - he is referred to as "The Pastor."

He does indeed have favorable things to say about Moses and the OT, which Paul spent his whole career railing against.
Again, false. All anyone has to do is read Paul to prove it. Quite literally anything Paul wrote appealed to the Old Testament, specifically the Mosaic Law and the prophetic books, and again his actual endorsement of the OT stands on its own merit.

Again, you can believe this heretical combo of anti-Christian, quasi gnostic, Jewish and Jehovah's Witness falsehood all you want. That's exactly what it is and what it will always be.

It does serve as a useful example of how Judaism was likely invented during Judah's Babylonian captivity. Somewhere in the 580's + BC, there was a Roy there in the Babylon. Just as Christians are in a quasi captivity today with our government opposed to God and His moral law. Babylonian captive Roy came along and starting saying:

"Pssst. Hey guys. You know that Moses fellow from way back in 1400 BC? Well, in the last 200 years, these "Babylonian scholars" have come out and said that what he said, isn't actually what he said. I know, right? There are all these extra scrolls outside the Bible that really tell the truth of what he said. Ya. According to these "Babylonian scholars" here's actually a whole world full of these angels and demons. You have to add all these Babylonian traditions to Moses if you want to really know the true god!"

Other than being a great example of heresy and the potential roots of Judaism for posterity, and an easy place for Christians of all stripes to practice disproving anti-Christian ideas, I can think of little use for what you're promoting on a website that claims to be Christian.
 

Dr Livci

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
Am I the only one who finds it creepy you're quoting a Talmudic, Jew Pharisee now?

"Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.” - Luke 22

It's appropriate the Jew Pharisees made this statement in response to Jesus claiming His Oneness with the Father, which you deny:

"And He said to them, “Yes, I am.” - Luke 22

"God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” - Exodus 3:14
Ouch.

Jesus making a reference to the Torah which Roy hates in the book of Luke which he theoretically is okay with, to make the case for his being co-substantial with the Father which Roy denies. Brutal.
 

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿
You believe "scholars" within "the last 200 years", whoever they are, as opposed to the religion of Christianity in general, and the greater bulk Christian theologians throughout history. Cult: a system of religious belief, esp. one not recognized as an established religion, or the people who worship according to such a system of belief:
Aren't you a Christian Identity guy promoting your own cult of White Hebrewism? I mean you're the one playing word games with the word "Jew" ITT non-stop.

Also you continually quote James, Peter, and later works like a broken record. These texts are foreign and alien to me as they were to Paul. You would have better luck quoting the Koran in convincing me. Timothy and a large chunk of Colossians was clearly not written by Paul because they contradict his early works and do not hold up to literary analysis. It's not about "believing" scholars vs priests. It's about looking at both sets of claims and deciding which makes more sense.

It's about using one's head, and not just learning to bark out dogma.

You spam huge reams of quotations from these Petrine school Judaizers over and over and over again and think that you've proven something.

Sad!
I can think of little use for what you're promoting on a website that claims to be Christian.
You are a Christian Identity cultist who thinks that the Torah was written by and about Nordics in the Middle East, right? If not, you are at the very least an Old Testamentarian/Protestant ie a heretic in the eyes of Catholics and Orthodox so let's be careful with throwing around accusations here.
 
Last edited:

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿
What if the desire to breed is something put in us by the demiurge to make us want to bring in more souls into his material realm and give them a chance to be cursed for eternity by failing to not find their way back? Is this disprovable?
You're asking me to reveal the inner workings of the demiurge's mind to you. I can't do that. But I think it's clear from reading the Torah and watching the behavior of the Jews that the demiurge wants total dominion over all life on this earth, and he wants to snuff out belief in Christ so that fewer people can escape his clutches.

I think that this world is worth fighting for.
Does the principle of a familial soul exist? Does my future son's soul have links to my soul even though he isn't born yet? Or are there no links between our souls at all and a random soul starts living in my son's body once he comes on earth?
I don't know. Maybe there's something hidden in early Christian writings about that. Me, personally, I'm interested in researching the concept of "racial soul." Jews claim to have it and so do niggers. This is how they justify "inherited trauma" from the Holocaust or slavery. It's strange that only huwhytes aren't allowed to have a concept of a shared racial soul, no? And what is race if not an extended family, right?

If it's the unknown God through the Demiurge entity, do they have some sort of agreement? Is that why the unknown entity lets this happen?
That's a good question. I already hinted at this, but you have to read up on early christian mystic lore, especially about Sophia, the mother of the Demiurge, and how/why she birthed him. From what I understand, the problem is incorrect love ie Sophia conceived without her husband, the All-Father's approval and is convinced that her bastard will eventually return to the fold and harmony will be restored. In the meantime, we suffer because of a single mum's mistakes. But the All-Father higher God sent us Christ to help us out and to prove that we haven't been abandoned. But there's more to it.
 

Dr Livci

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
Also you continually quote James, Peter, and later works like a broken record
Weren’t you okey with Luke?

Luke 16:

“Abraham said to him, (A)‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, (B)‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, (C)neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’ ”

Jesus specifically saying that if someone doesn’t believe in the prophets and Moses they won’t be persuaded of anything. I know you can and will wave this away as a Jerusalem school fabrication and not real, just like you do with all things in Paul’s letters you don’t like. But don’t pretend it’s just certain books you reject, you reject everything completely because even the books you claim are okay are still full of references that refute you.

Within your position every last book of scripture is suspect and containes deliberate errors. So it’s really slimy when you act like you are extracting the real meaning of scripture than say we aren’t allowed to use any at all because of Jerusalem school editing. You get to arbitrarily pick what you want and reject everything else while aren allowed to use any lol. It’s very a gay way to argue.
 

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿
Within your position every last book of scripture is suspect and containes deliberate errors. So it’s really slimy when you act like you are extracting the real meaning of scripture than say we aren’t allowed to use any at all because of Jerusalem school editing. You get to arbitrarily pick what you want and reject everything else while aren allowed to use any lol. It’s very a gay way to argue.
Why do you insist on arguing though? If you don't want to talk about Pauline Christianity then just leave the thread. You are so stupid that you just keep bashing your head against the same rhetorical wall over and over again to the point that I'm starting to think you're having a mental breakdown. No matter how may time I define my theses and the argument of my post: that early Pauline Christianity is different than the Petrine Christianity that came later to supplant it - you just cannot even.

I quote Paul, but you quote Peter to contradict what Paul is saying. And you don't seem to understand that by doing so you prove my point. If you have to rely on later quotes from Petrine sources to counterpoint my Pauline arguments then you're proving that there's a difference between the two views. It's just insane that you can't see that by trying to BTFO me you are proving an incongruity between the two source materials.

But then I think you do understand and you just pretend that you don't.

Also, you should have the courage to define your position before calling others slimy. So let's do that now.

So everything in the bible, in its totality is the incontrovertible word of God, correct? Yes or no?

If yes, then you must agree that Yahweh was created by El, and Yahweh was given the people of Jacob, correct? Deuteronomy 32:8-9:

When the Most High (’elyôn) 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.
Yes or no? No more weaseling. If "no", then how do you square that with scripture.

So not only is there an El god, but there is a Yahweh god beneath him? Yes or no?

Now, based on his letters, did Paul deny that Moses spoke to God and insist that he spoke to angels instead? Yes or no?

Did Paul, based on his letters, confront Peter and James over the issue of circumcision? Yes or no?

Did Paul, based on his letters, tell Peter that he should chop his own dick off? Yes or no?

Did Paul, based on his letters, say that he saw Christ in a vision, not in person? Yes or no?

Let's see how you weasel out of answering these simple questions. Should be amusing.
 
Last edited:

Roy Batty

Well-known member
Old World Underground
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿
Weren’t you okey with Luke?
No, how could I be?

The charge of heresy against Marcion is that he used a modified version of Luke. If I claim that Marcion was right then I must believe he was using the correct version of Luke, no? So how could I be "okey" with the current version of Luke when I believe that Marcion was working with the correct version of Luke? Basic logic. Too much for you to understand though, clearly.
 

Dr Livci

Well-known member
Cave Beast
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒
Deuteronomy 32:8-9:

This:
8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance,
When he separated the sons of Adam,
He set the bounds of the people
According to the number of the children of Israel.
9 For the Lord’s portion is his people;
Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

This proves wut exactly to advance your thesis?

Anyway are you okay with Corinthians than?

1 Corinthians 10:1-2

For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea

Not really Paul’s words?


Now, based on his letters, did Paul deny that Moses spoke to God and insist that he spoke to angels instead? Yes or no?

Did Paul, based on his letters, confront Peter and James over the issue of circumcision? Yes or no?

Did Paul, based on his letters, tell Peter that he should chop his own dick off? Yes or no?

Did Paul, based on his letters, say that he saw Christ in a vision, not in person? Yes or no?

Let's see how you weasel out of answering these simple questions. Should be amusing.
“I don’t accept any scripture what so ever as valid because it’s all edited and full of lies from the Jerusalem school, now I want you to answer all these things that I claim support my position written in a book I don’t believe in and won’t answers questions about because everything in it that refutes me is a Jerusalem school addition”

Just lol.
 
Last edited:
Top