"Beware of Jewish fables" Titus 1:14

(You)

Fun fact: Paul never really talks about a bodily crucifixion, but a spiritual or symbolic one.

>Rom.6[6] We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.

>Gal.2[20] I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me

>Gal.5[24] And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

The Gnostics maintained that Jesus was not bodily crucified.

Paul also uses gnostic terms such as archons and aeons.

>1Cor.2[2] None of the rulers (archons) of this age (aeon) understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of g

Absolutely no one who has ever actually read Paul could fall for this drivel

>Literally muh feelings
Uh, okay.

Colossians 2:9, friend.

>Colossians 2:9, friend.
>For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,
Uh that verse is relevant to the discussion because...?

...

◄ 2 Peter 3:16 ►
New International Version
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Colossians 2:9 is not incompatible with any gnostic belief that I know of.

god bless saint paul. judaizers will forever hate him.

On the contrary, even.

For in Christ all the fullness (pleroma) of the Deity lives in bodily form,

biblehub.com/text/colossians/2-9.htm

Gnostics believed that the Pleroma was the spiritual world of light whence Christ came.

>Pleroma (Greek πλήρωμα) generally refers to the totality of divine powers. The word means fullness from πληρόω ("I fill") comparable to πλήρης which means "full",[1] and is used in Christian theological contexts: both in Gnosticism generally, and by St. Paul the Apostle in Colossians 2:9 (the word is used 17 times in the NT).[2]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleroma

In other words thanks for proving my point that Paul was a Gnostic ;)

Yeah, Paul is using a Gnostic term to commit what is blasphemy in Gnosticism
Exactly the same as John in John 1
You do know that the incarnation is blasphemy in Gnosticism, right?

Despite many faggots thinking early Christianity was suppose to be some sort of "Judaism 2.0" the fact is early Christianity was very much blurred with Gnosticism, proto-hermeticism and others ect. Christ was very much a mystical figure who taught esoteric things.

In Gnosticism the material is evil. In Gnosticism it is impossible for the true God to take on a bodily form, because it cannot enter the material. This says the fullness (pleroma) of Godhood dwells bodily in Jesus. This is fully incompatible with Gnostic theology.

The New Testament has a clearly Jewish theology and regularly quotes the Old Testament

>blasphemy
What you're trying to do, is that you're using orthodox terminology and logic and then trying to input this to Gnosticism to try (?) to make a point. It doesn't work like that. There was no gnostic creed or central authority figure to anathematize and define what is or what isn't "blasphemy". There were many gnostic sects with many different beliefs about the nature of Christ, kind of like early ante-Nicene Christianity.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, you fail ;)

>The New Testament has a clearly Jewish theology
It has a clearly Greek philosophy as well.
>and regularly quotes the Old Testament
Which doesn't make it Judaism 2.0.

>What you're trying to do, is that you're using orthodox terminology and logic and then trying to input this to Gnosticism to try (?) to make a point
Gnosticism is a term which has meaning because it is united by a number of common doctrines. One ceases to be Gnostic once they depart from these doctrines. One of these is dualism. Paul was clearly not a dualist, as proven by Colossians 2:9
>kind of like early ante-Nicene Christianity
Unsurprising that you also know nothing of the ante-nicene church. Try reading a book.

SeeYou know nothing of Gnosticism or Christianity. Begone satan.

>I share a board with retards like this

>for Valentinius, Christ descended on Jesus at his baptism and left before his death
There goes your entire argument.

Y-you don't agree with me? Read a book (that agrees with me)!

Hilarious.

Forgot source for the Valentinus.

equip.org/article/the-gnostic-jesus/

Still waiting for an actual argument

He's saying a very famous gnostic disagrees with your idea that is incompatible with Gnosticism. Gnosticism is a very broad title which encompasses many beliefs. Including, partially, Saint Paul.

You're embarrassing yourself at this point. You made a claim and I refuted that claim. Then you had recourse to memes.

You're still waiting? Begone to the dept of Hades which you cometh, satan.

>He's saying a very famous gnostic disagrees
And yet provided no such evidence that Valentinus believed that the true spiritual God could enter or did enter creation, instead provided evidence that Valentinus believed that 'Christ' descended on Jesus at baptism and left before death. Considering Christ is essentially gnosis in Valentinianism, this is worthless.
>Including, partially, Saint Paul
Something that he has still failed to demonstrate.
You are clearly underage. Go away, moron.

>Something that he has still failed to demonstrate.
Except he has and

Both of those were refuted

Paul didn't write Titus so we can ignore it.

>that's a blasphemy in Gnosticism
No such thing as a blasphemy in Gnosticism.
>Gnostics can't possibly believe that God entered the material world
Valentinius the famous gnostic believed it.
>molimeme
You sure showed us who the moron and underage child is. But you won't get another (you).

Who did It?

They weren't. You just said a bunch of debunked nonsense about gnostics being forced to subscribe to a particular dogma.

This is your last (You), cherish it, fucktard

Paul

Gave him another one for ya senpai

No he didn't

biblescripture.net/Titus.html

Here, mate.

What are you basing this claim, that Paul didn't write Titus? Do you care to share it with us or are you just going to be autistic about it?

Thanks bros.

catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-Pastorals.htm

One last post, from the Secret Book of John:

I am the Providence of everything.
I became like my own human children.

I existed from the first.
I walked down every possible road.

I am the wealth of the light.
I am the remembering of the fullness.

I walked into the place of greatest darkness and on down.
I entered the central part of the prison.

I entered the middle of darkness,
The inner part of the underworld
To pursue my mission.

I entered the midst of darkness
I came to the deepest part of the underworld.

I raised him up
I sealed him with the light/water of the five seals.
Death had no power over him ever again.

I ascend again to the perfect realm.
I completed everything and you have heard it.”

These things came to John in a mystery.
Instantly the Savior vanished.

Is this retard trying to argue that docetism is a prerequisite for being gnostic?

>2nd generation follower of the Paul movement buzzed on the afternoon's wine decided to sit down and write this.
>Thousands of years later people take it literally.

Probably referred to all the anti-Christian information coming from the Pharisee camp and maybe but less likely some of the Jewish Christian groups.

Daily reminder that Christianity is THE original red pill.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Thanks. This makes me feel confident That Christianity is the true religion. Just look at (((who))) hates it the most.

St. Paul, the Usurper

Amen.