So Paul was a con artist, right?

Mockery and derision as to be expected from the likes of you.

You ought to know that with the LORD all things are possible.

>what is interpolation?

Wouldn't be the first time.

Refutation, neighbor. The guy didn't even have a cursory understanding of the Tanach. He couldn't even tell the difference between חיט on one hand and טומה on the other. The idea of him winning a dispute with an educated Pharisee is laughable.

Unbelief.

After 2K years, who has more disciples Paul or the Pharisees?

>Unbelief.

No shit, you want a pat on the back?

>After 2K years, who has more disciples Paul or the Pharisees?

Since when was the number of adherents a measure of the 'realness' of a religion? Out of all of human history, in only a fraction of it have Christians been the majority.

>After 2K years, who has more disciples Paul or the Pharisees?

>I will resort to argumentum ad populum instead of offering a refutation.

In the epistle to the Romans, chapter 7, why does he constantly shift his metaphor around? The law binds as long as you live, but then he talks about a relationship of someone who hasn't died but their husband did, presumably to draw in the whole Jesus died and came back.

Could he do no better?

They're not in a majority now. Plurality, but when you add in all the Hindus and various Chinese religions, you've got almost half the world right there.

Paul was trying to win converts and the Pharisees were trying to discredit him. The fact that to this day the Apostle's message continues to successful spread the Gospel to the ends of the earth is as a convincing refutation of the Pharisees as I can imagine.

>Paul was trying to win converts and the Pharisees were trying to discredit him.

Paul evangalized to the Gentiles, remember? He didn't make converts among places where the Pharisees held sway.

Paul often made a fool of himself for the sake of his audience. However when we look at the fruit that his words have borne it is clear that he was empowered by the Holy Spirit.

>The fact that to this day the Apostle's message continues to successful spread the Gospel to the ends of the earth is as a convincing refutation of the Pharisees as I can imagine.

Right. By that reasoning, most world religions today are also of divine origin, since they all had to overcome hurdles to establish themselves.

Idiot.

>but when you add in all the Hindus and various Chinese religions
Which are even less like the Pharisees.

Paul resolved the dispute regarding Jews and Gentiles sharing meals within the church. He was tremendously influential over Hebrew believers.

>By that reasoning, most world religions today are also of divine origin
They are.

>After 2K years, who has more disciples Paul or the Pharisees?

How do you know this isn't just another period of captivity for the Jews sent down by God?

I merely cited that example to illustrate how foolish the Pharisees look in hindsight.

It is a period of captivity for them and they will remain captive until they allow Jesus Christ to set them free.

How do you know that isn't just a test of their faith? To see if they'll continue to stick by the laws as laid down by the living God?

Also, are you just a troll or are you a legit fundie? If the latter, do you ever actually subject your ideas to serious scrutiny and entertain the possibility of being wrong?

Orthodox Jews continue to practice the law, so they don't look all that foolish. Even in the Bible, Jews existed in a world that was mostly not Jewish.

I'm saying it is a test and they have been found wanting.

Jesus is the Christ, the Holy One of God.

By not answering my third and fourth questions, I'll assume you're a troll.

And they will always remain outsiders and outcasts until they accept the Christ the LORD has given them.

This prophecy has been fulfilled:

>You will become a thing of horror, a byword and an object of ridicule among all the peoples where the LORD will drive you.

- Deuteronomy 28:37

Assume whatever you'd like.

In which book?

That prophecy was already fulfilled by the Babylonian captivity and is most likely a post-captivity interpolation.

His second epistle.

And continues to be fulfilled to this day.

I dunno, it looks like God is done punishing the Jews.

No
youtube.com/watch?v=VRI8nLuwn-A

Textbook hubris.

What was that line where Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees for tempting him for a sign, and he pointed out that they'd take the every way the sun rose or set as a sign there'd be a storm tomorrow? It seems applicable to your behavior here.

That's funny because the verses that come to my mind are the ones about Jesus calling the Pharisees vipers and serpents.

Might I suggest you talk to your doctor about thorazine?

>Implying the Gospel authors can even tell the difference between Pharisees and other groups like the Sadducees.

Might I suggest you to repent and believe in the Christ who died for you?

Yeshuah died for his own rabble-rousing and flouting of Roman law.

>You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

10 reasons why James is better than Paul

1. James actually knew Jesus, and wasn't just an unlikeable cunt inviting himself into a movement
2. James was Bishop in Jerusalem, head of "the mother assembly". Jerusalem was superior to Rome because it was the center of Judaism, the place of the Resurrection, and received a steady stream of Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews who had shit understanding of the Torah, and were susceptible to joining the Christian movement.
3. Jews practiced hereditary succession, even in matters of religious office. Jesus would have no reason to place Peter above James, and the only evidence that Jesus chose Peter as his successor is the NT.
4. Hegesippus affirms James lead the movement after Jesus was killed in his 5-volume history of the early church.
5. Noncanon Epistle of Peter refers to James as "Lord and Bishop of the Holy Church". Non canon Gospel of Thomas also forwards this.
6. Clement of Rome addresses James as "the Bishop of Bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the Holy Assembly of the Hebrews, and all the Assemblies everywhere."
7. Clement of Alexandria: James was "the first as the records tell us, to be elected to the episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church"
8. St. Jerome: James was "immediately appointed Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles"
9. In NT, James is the greatest of the "three pillars" along with John and Peter. He sits as an elder on the apostolic council (Acts 15:13, 21:18)
10. James personally sends envoys to the diaspora Christians in order to do damage control over Paul's teachings (Gal 2:1-14)
11. Peter reports his activities directly to James before leaving Jerusalem (Acts 12:17)
12. Paul repeatedly frustrated his congregation would remain loyal to the church in Jerusalem, repeatedly buttblasted in his letters about this.
13. Paul was forced by James, Peter, and John to publicly renounce his beliefs in 57, by taking part in the strict purification ritual at the temple.
14. Paul basically Luther

I know we are not allowed to have a serious conversation about the origins of Christianity because it triggers Christians but you could at least keep your anti-antisemitism implicit rather than explicit? or even better just go back to /pol/

2nd Peter is pseudepigraphical

>Paul basically Luther

It checks out.

In your opinion.

Furthermore we know from Acts that Peter and James ended up coming around to Paul's position that Gentiles need not be physically circumcised.

>He's actually using Acts as a source.

Acts claims in all apparent seriousness that Paul, a "perfect Pharisee" before seeing Jesus in a vision accepted a commission from the Sadducee High Priest to go persecute Christians. In Damascus.

It's not my opinion, most scholars don't regard it as written by him.

>Furthermore we know from Acts that Peter and James ended up coming around to Paul's position that Gentiles need not be physically circumcised.
Because Paul's secretary said so?

Sure that's correct, if you ignore James' commitment to the Torah up to the very point where Paul was arrested after being thrown out of the ceremony in the Temple, and sent to Rome for trial.

Acts is holy scripture and the point in contention is whether Paul's teachings were accepted among the disciples who new Christ personally and according to holy scripture they did.

Oh well I guess that settles it then. I mean there is no way the bible could be wrong about something.

That's why there was never the incident at Antioch, and Paul never had to contend with preachers reminding Christians in his congregations that fidelity to Christ can only be achieved through fidelity to the Mosaic Law.

I am not surprised to see unbelief regarding scriptural authenticity from contemporary scribes.

Does anyone know how James version of Christianity differed from Pauls? Not accepting Gentiles would be the main thing I presume

This isn't even a rebuttal.

All scripture is God-breathed.

You are a liar.

I rebut the authority of the scribes.

James did accept Gentiles, just they had to convert to Judaism all the way (ie. circumcision) first.

James viewed the Jewish law as necessary for one to believe in Jesus as the messiah. Paul viewed the Jewish law and Temple in Jerusalem to be irrelevant distractions.

James = Salvation comes through faith in Jesus, plus upholding the requirements of Judaism (also known as "works")

Paul = Salvation comes through faith in Christ

I thought 'works' were good deeds, like feeding the poor, etc

No I'm not.

A weak accusation from someone making a weak argument. You should be dismissed.

Those are considered necessary for upholding the requirements of Judaism

>All scripture is God-breathed.

Damn, a perfect god sure sucks at keeping his story straight.

The incident at Antioch is a historical event as recorded by the holy scriptures.

answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/isnt-the-bible-full-of-contradictions/

>answers in Genesis

Nope. Make your own argument you worthless piece of vomit.

...

...

Show me where I said it wasn't.

Pro-tip
>That's why there was never the incident at Antioch, and Paul never had to contend with preachers reminding Christians in his congregations that fidelity to Christ can only be achieved through fidelity to the Mosaic Law.
This was sarcasm refuting your proposal that James, Peter, and the apostles accepted Paul's teachings, and the image in Acts that everyone in the church agreed on everything and always got along.

>historical Jesus

This meme needs to fucking die.

In most likelihood, James didn't see Jesus as a divine, pre-existent being who had died for the "redemption of sins". To James and the Jerusalem assembly, Jesus had been the Messiah and a prophet/great teacher, but still only a man. And while they believed he had been resurrected, they believed it was to showcase his status as the Jewish Messiah, and not - as Paul taught - to show his "conquest over death" or something.

And yes, there were the more obvious things, such as James insisting on adherence to Mosaic law and tradition.

My argument is that I know Jesus personally and the holy scriptures are reliable sources for learning about His life.

Peter and James did accept Paul's teaching because they determined that gentiles did not have to get physically circumcised.

>answers in genesis

>they believed it was to showcase his status as the Jewish Messiah, and not - as Paul taught - to show his "conquest over death" or something.

I remember it being considered probable that they considered the resurrection metaphorical as well, as in he resurrected by his teachings being spread.

>I know Jesus personally

Talk to a shrink.

Do you have a cousin in that line of work?

Nope. I'm just a well-wisher that hates to see you suffer.

Well then from a properly Christian perspective isn't it good that Paul prevailed? Of course Jesus is divine.

Also, the earliest Gospels date from when the Apostles were still alive, or at least some of them were. Mark was written in the 70s, right?

I do it out of love.

That sounds probable. After all, the various Judaeo-Christian sects that developed outside the influence of Pauline Christianity were very varied, and not monolithic.

What is that thing on his forehead?

>Peter and James did accept Paul's teaching because they determined that gentiles did not have to get physically circumcised.
Looks like we've come full-circle in the circular reasoning. I'm not gonna explain to you why Acts shouldn't be used as a reliable source, after we've already discussed that Acts isn't a reliable source, because of its inaccurate and biased portrait of events.

>Also, the earliest Gospels date from when the Apostles were still alive, or at least some of them were. Mark was written in the 70s, right?

Not the guy you're responding to, but yes, most scholarly consensus is that the Gospels were written in the late 1st possibly very early 2nd century for John.

That being said, it's also the general scholarly consensus that none of them were written by Jesus's inner circle, and were probably not written by Judean natives, owing to missteps in things like contemporary Jewish culture or geographical ignorance.

Nicotine patch

A box.

Unbelief.

>Nicotine patch

Wat.

>A box.

Thanks tips. I'd have never figured that out on my own. No sir.

It's called Tefillin in transliterated English, or a phylactery if you want to be really funny sounding to a modern audience. The box is filled with a scroll which contains certain passages of the Hebrew Bible. There's one for the forehead and another for the secondary arm, that Orthodox Jews where when praying on weekdays but not the Sabbath or on holidays.

What autistic psychopath made this?

>Well then from a properly Christian perspective isn't it good that Paul prevailed?

I'm not a Christcuck, but how do you know that it wasn't James that was correct, and that Paul was being deceived (whether he knew it or not) by either his own self or demons?

>Mark was written in the 70s, right?

That's the low estimate. It might have been written as late as 90 CE.

Imagine trying to write down the exact words of someone from 1930 today, but relying solely on hearsay. Bet you'd fuck it up too.

I made it.

>or a phylactery if you want to be really funny sounding to a modern audience

As a D&D player, this really makes me think.

But seriously, thanks man.

Paul basically hijacked Christianity. Who knows what it would've become without him.

Well that answers that.

I think we may have a bonafide crazy person here.

Also Marx has better critiques of industrial capitalism than any of your conspiracytard buddies.

I think the miraculous happenings of Christianity's history bear out Paul's account of Jesus as divine.

Probably

>I think the miraculous happenings of Christianity's history

What the fuck are you talking about, you schizoid?

>If I am a fool, you drove me to it!