Was Paul A False Apostle And Were His Writings Correct?

[Artful Revealer]

I stand corrected.

 

[Lady]

I stand corrected.

I had a feeling you were being facetious in your answer to Koncrete!

 

[KoncreteMind]

Paul

So now that Paul is out the window, nobody has stopped sinning once being in Christ? Im asking this based off what you originally stated just to be clear.

Even 3,000 years after Moses it's unclear what the Law is. Is it the Ten Commandments? Is it all of the 613 laws as numbered by the Talmud? Is it everything from Exodus to Deuteronomy? Is everything in there from Moses? Or have things been added by the lying pen of the scribes? If so, which ones?

Eh? I thought that only applied to the Tabernacle during Exodus, not when they reached the promised land.

Right before they entered the land God told them to NOT sacrifice anywhere they desired but that He would designate a place for them to offer it. This is after the laws of sacrifice in exodus and leviticus was given so if we put two and two together, the designated place would be the temple, and the Levites would be the ones to actually sacrifice the animals. Law means instruction as I've already explained. And the "instruction" is explained here:

Deuteronomy 8:3
He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD.

God's instructions are throughout the bible, not just the 613 the Jews want to outlign, or the 10 that ome churches like to over-emphasize.. Theres some things Jeremiah talks about that Moses did not. And some things Daniel talks about, that Jeremiah did not. And so forth and so forth. So to the Israelites, they werent expected to just live by the first 5 books verbatim and thats it. But to use that as a foundation or a measuring stick for every "messenger" that came to them proclaiming to be from the Most High. Many prophets expounded on things that were established before their time. Thats why Isaiah said:

Isaiah 8:20
20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

If people say Paul taught us to not follow the law, or that we didnt have to, or the worst that I've heard some christians say, that it brings DEATH, then they're saying that not only Paul, but they themselves that believe it have no light in their beings. Thats going by this above, which is of course according to the Hebrews from which "Christ" came and said he only came to. Some people, like Muslims for instance, do not believe the account of the Hebrews fully, so their stance makes sense to me. They dont believe it or all of it. I dont understand this coming from people who say they believe 100% of the bible

Do you mean Jesus celebrated Passover because of the Last Meal? That's no indication Jesus followed the law. Not at all. The Word of God saves the world, it renders things Christian, ie. Good. This is important. Christ or God does not destroy, He transforms bad things into good things. Passover was the celebration of YHVH "passing over" the houses of the Jews to CRUSH the Egyptian firstborn. Christ changed the meaning of Passover forever (except for Jews), from a holiday commemorating an evil and vindictive act against a people into the day where we commemorate the Resurrection of Jesus who died for the sins of humanity.

What other Hebrew laws did Jesus observe?

You call it vindictive while I call it justice or an eye for an eye so I guess its all perspective. And you say he sat down with Hebrews celebrating the Passover only because it was his last meal. But then theres the feast of tabernacles he observed as well. Then theres quote after quote he had that came from Hebrew prophet after Hebrew prophet. Then theres the fact that he says the Hebrew prophets, who were only sent to Hebrew people (and were only for Hebrew people according to you) spoke of HIS coming and would have wished to have been present while he was alive to hear the things he was speaking. But to you, this can all happen, and he still be talking about some other god that he never explicitly mentions until he has the elite dig up the nag hammadi library. I mean I cant act as if I didnt use to believe similarly though so I do see where you're coming from. But biblically speaking its incorrect and makes no sense.

The problem with you saying Jesus changed the passover is that you dont get that from his words. So just as I've asked in this thread to christians, who am I believing if Jesus himself didnt say anything of changing the law of the Passover? If the foundation of our faith is in his words, where is the support for these things in his words? Thats the question no one wants to answer because they know theres no support for these things, biblically at least, in from his words.

 

[KoncreteMind]

That's if your of the belief these fishermen actually wrote the scriptures. Not many scholars do.

Again, I dont put 100% trust in scholars when it comes to these subjects. Its not hard to research that they're hiding and have been hiding truths from the general public so Im not sure why people always want to limit corruption to certain sects of society but then act as if others are sacred from being touched, especially a subject as important as this. But I think christians would disagree with you on that point of them not writing the scriptures. Its not really that important to me because its more about the Spirit of the texts than which specific person wrote what. I assume thats why Baruch recorded for Jeremiah, Luke for Paul, and Silvanus (allegedly) for Peter.

You can just compare it to Latin in the 20th century Church, still used in liturgy but no one outside the Church used it. Same for Greek and Hebrew.

No I dont think it can be compared to Latin because during that time, were they still following Latin customs passed down generation to generation? Probably not or their language wouldnt have died. Were they passing down stories of Latin men, who they held so dear to them that they instituted the stories of these men into their DAILY lives and the way they interacted within themselves, families, and communities? But I mean if you say that scholars say it wasnt written by the Hebrew men the tiles say they were, then I mean it could have been originally written in any language.

 

[Artful Revealer]

So now that Paul is out the window, nobody has stopped sinning once being in Christ? Im asking this based off what you originally stated just to be clear.

I'm not God, so I don't know.

Right before they entered the land God told them to NOT sacrifice anywhere they desired but that He would designate a place for them to offer it. This is after the laws of sacrifice in exodus and leviticus was given so if we put two and two together, the designated place would be the temple, and the Levites would be the ones to actually sacrifice the animals.

Alright, but it was pretty common for Israelites to go to the Temple to have things sacrificed by their priests, yes? Yet there's no account of Jesus going to the Temple to do that or have it done. When He did go it was to lecture the very priests who did the sacrifices. If following the Torah was important and probably what Jesus wanted people to keep doing, how come we have no account whatsoever of Jesus performing a ritual so important the Torah had dozens upon dozens of laws dedicated to it?

God's instructions are throughout the bible, not just the 613 the Jews want to outlign, or the 10 that ome churches like to over-emphasize.. Theres some things Jeremiah talks about that Moses did not. And some things Daniel talks about, that Jeremiah did not. And so forth and so forth. So to the Israelites, they werent expected to just live by the first 5 books verbatim and thats it. But to use that as a foundation or a measuring stick for every "messenger" that came to them proclaiming to be from the Most High.

If you "follow a law", you have to know what the law is, right? If you stop before a red light you do that because you know it's the law, or if not because you see everyone else do it. But around 30AD, the Law already existed in book form for about 300 years in both Hebrew and Greek. It had already been corrupted by the lying pen of the scribes as Jesus said. We have the law of God, the law of Moses without God's inspiration, and laws added by priests and elderly. How do you know which laws are which and how would the Israelites have known which are which when they had complete faith in and obedience to a book Jesus already accused of having been corrupted?

If people say Paul taught us to not follow the law, or that we didnt have to, or the worst that I've heard some christians say, that it brings DEATH

Well, sorry to break your heart, but Paul is clear about that. The letter kills. Apart from the Law sin is dead, because you wouldn't know sin without the Law. The Law thus makes sin come alive and thus brings death (spiritually). You'd think sin was already there without the Law, but how can you know what sin is if no one tells you it is sinful? Like a baby chewing on a lego not knowing it is bad for him.

The Law brings death; the Law is death; and, as mentioned before, Christ does not destroy anything - He won't destroy the Law - He transforms everything into something good. Christ makes the Law come alive through His spirit and frees people from the curse of the Law, which brings wrath.

In fact, the necessity to bring the Law before the Israelites, the lego-chewing babies, says more about their particular sinfulness rather than their chosenness of virtue. You wouldn't tell grown-ups not to chew on legos. Rethink the meaning of "LOST tribes of Israel". I'll elaborate in the next response.

then they're saying that not only Paul, but they themselves that believe it have no light in their beings. Thats going by this above, which is of course according to the Hebrews from which "Christ" came and said he only came to.

A couple has 12 children. One of them is a real pain in the ass, complete rascal who doesn't listen once. Who are the parents gonna set apart to talk to? The kid with a problem? Or the 11 others? Key in "lost tribes of Israel" is LOST. They were lost, so they needed to be set apart and talked to. Just look at the world today. The Israelites are a true cancer upon the world (sorry, Israelites, it's not personal). If you think you can fight them out of their position of power, good luck. However you look at it, the Jews have always been at the core of the state of the world and the world is very dependent upon the spiritual state of the Jews. If you want to play fire with fire the world will burn. Jesus did not fight fire with fire. His mission was to convert them, not because they were God's chosen, but because it was necessary in order for the world to be Christianized.

Some people, like Muslims for instance, do not believe the account of the Hebrews fully, so their stance makes sense to me. They dont believe it or all of it. I dont understand this coming from people who say they believe 100% of the bible

That doesn't include me. And it shouldn't include you either, given the fact the Torah had already been corrupted according to Jesus.

You call it vindictive while I call it justice or an eye for an eye so I guess its all perspective.

BS. Only a twisted, sadistic, vindictive being would punish the firstborn for sins of the elder. This isn't a matter of perspective.

And you say he sat down with Hebrews celebrating the Passover only because it was his last meal. But then theres the feast of tabernacles he observed as well.

Hebrew customs. If Jesus was an Indian he probably would've performed the rain dance, it isn't very relevant. What laws did He follow?

Then theres quote after quote he had that came from Hebrew prophet after Hebrew prophet. Then theres the fact that he says the Hebrew prophets, who were only sent to Hebrew people (and were only for Hebrew people according to you) spoke of HIS coming and would have wished to have been present while he was alive to hear the things he was speaking. But to you, this can all happen, and he still be talking about some other god that he never explicitly mentions until he has the elite dig up the nag hammadi library.

You have a problem with this, not I. I am perfectly capable of acknowledging the existence of Hebrew prophets. The owner of a vineyard sent his slaves to the farmers and they were beaten and slain. Who's the owner? Who are the slaves? You'll find the answer in the Torah, but you won't understand it without the Gospels.

Moreover, I also believe in prophets that are not Hebrew and who didn't go to the Hebrews. How about you?

The problem with you saying Jesus changed the passover is that you dont get that from his words.

Much better, you get it from 2,000 years of Christian history. Do Christians celebrate YHVH passing over the Jews to crush the Egyptian firstborn? No, what a morbid thing to celebrate. Who changed that? QED.

So just as I've asked in this thread to christians, who am I believing if Jesus himself didnt say anything of changing the law of the Passover? If the foundation of our faith is in his words, where is the support for these things in his words? Thats the question no one wants to answer because they know theres no support for these things, biblically at least, in from his words.

Why would He have to say that? His mission was to convert the Hebrews. And He succeeded (largely)! Thousands upon thousands of Jews came to Christ and no longer celebrated the Judaic passover, but the Christian one.

Again, I dont put 100% trust in scholars when it comes to these subjects. Its not hard to research that they're hiding and have been hiding truths from the general public so Im not sure why people always want to limit corruption to certain sects of society but then act as if others are sacred from being touched, especially a subject as important as this. But I think christians would disagree with you on that point of them not writing the scriptures. Its not really that important to me because its more about the Spirit of the texts than which specific person wrote what.

You'd make it alot easier on yourself if you go by what general scholarship agrees to and await evidence or scholarship that comes with a different opinion. You can try to put the conclusions of the academic world into a different perspective and sometimes that can lead to very alternative conclusions in itself. But you're making it way too hard for yourself and the people you converse with when you can at every turn say "I don't agree with the scholarly consensus".

I agree with your final part though. The content of the texts are more important than their authorship. People who rely too much on the identity of the authors basically admit they don't understand the content.

No I dont think it can be compared to Latin because during that time, were they still following Latin customs passed down generation to generation? Probably not or their language wouldnt have died.

Firstly, "Latin customs" aren't cultural. You don't pass Latin customs or traditions, you pass on Roman customs or Christian customs. Hebrew can refer both to the language as the culture of the Hebrew people. Secondly, the Hebrew language had also died and was already dying during the time of Christ.

 

[KoncreteMind]

I'm not God, so I don't know.

Yea kinda peculiar that we cant point to ONE person who is in christ and not sinning anymore dont you think? When billions of people would say they're in christ and many here would as well.

Alright, but it was pretty common for Israelites to go to the Temple to have things sacrificed by their priests, yes? Yet there's no account of Jesus going to the Temple to do that or have it done. When He did go it was to lecture the very priests who did the sacrifices. If following the Torah was important and probably what Jesus wanted people to keep doing, how come we have no account whatsoever of Jesus performing a ritual so important the Torah had dozens upon dozens of laws dedicated to it?

The Levites are the ones who handled sacrifice at the temple. Not pharisees/scribes who were the ones running the temple during the time of Jesus. So you're incorrect in saying he was lecturing the very priests who did the sacrifices.

If you "follow a law", you have to know what the law is, right? If you stop before a red light you do that because you know it's the law, or if not because you see everyone else do it. But around 30AD, the Law already existed in book form for about 300 years in both Hebrew and Greek. It had already been corrupted by the lying pen of the scribes as Jesus said. We have the law of God, the law of Moses without God's inspiration, and laws added by priests and elderly. How do you know which laws are which and how would the Israelites have known which are which when they had complete faith in and obedience to a book Jesus already accused of having been corrupted?

Well, sorry to break your heart, but Paul is clear about that. The letter kills. Apart from the Law sin is dead, because you wouldn't know sin without the Law. The Law thus makes sin come alive and thus brings death (spiritually). You'd think sin was already there without the Law, but how can you know what sin is if no one tells you it is sinful? Like a baby chewing on a lego not knowing it is bad for him.

What Paul meant by the letter kills is exactly what you said about people putting faith and obedience in a BOOK, and not the SPIRIT behind the book. But the thing is the bible in majority was written to and for Israelites. So if you're not going to approach the book from their perspective, you'll never understand whats what. And the "for and to Israelites" part is proven when Jesus said he came ONLY to the house of Israel and sent his disciples at first ONLY to the house of Israel.

IF you could show Jesus saying what you say Paul says, then you'd be closer to "breaking my heart". And you wouldnt even be breaking my heart if that was the case because truth is truth and I want to follow it even if its something COMPLETELY opposite to what I believe now. But as for now, I dont care what man says about the faith God told Israel they were to have. So if you say "this MAN said different" I'll just laugh it off and say its irrelevant to an Israelite what a man says. They only go by what God says. And God spoke to them in the OT, then (allegedly) sent his son in the NT who came and did similarly to as they were taught in the OT. Thats enough for me to say "yea I should probably do similarly".

The Law brings death; the Law is death; and, as mentioned before, Christ does not destroy anything - He won't destroy the Law - He transforms everything into something good. Christ makes the Law come alive through His spirit and frees people from the curse of the Law, which brings wrath.

Thats like saying if the law didnt ever come we would have lived for ever and/or went to heaven and/or entered the kingdom. Which is a conclusion you're free to come to of course, but isnt exactly biblical.

In fact, the necessity to bring the Law before the Israelites, the lego-chewing babies, says more about their particular sinfulness rather than their chosenness of virtue. You wouldn't tell grown-ups not to chew on legos. Rethink the meaning of "LOST tribes of Israel". I'll elaborate in the next response.

A couple has 12 children. One of them is a real pain in the ass, complete rascal who doesn't listen once. Who are the parents gonna set apart to talk to? The kid with a problem? Or the 11 others? Key in "lost tribes of Israel" is LOST. They were lost, so they needed to be set apart and talked to. Just look at the world today. The Israelites are a true cancer upon the world (sorry, Israelites, it's not personal). If you think you can fight them out of their position of power, good luck. However you look at it, the Jews have always been at the core of the state of the world and the world is very dependent upon the spiritual state of the Jews. If you want to play fire with fire the world will burn. Jesus did not fight fire with fire. His mission was to convert them, not because they were God's chosen, but because it was necessary in order for the world to be Christianized.

That doesn't include me. And it shouldn't include you either, given the fact the Torah had already been corrupted according to Jesus.

BS. Only a twisted, sadistic, vindictive being would punish the firstborn for sins of the elder. This isn't a matter of perspective.

They were called lost because they went astray from the ways God gave them and for it they were scattered/splintered. The ones you're speaking of are cancers, but they're not Israelites. Revelation 2:9 tells us that. So if you want to say that THEY are more sinful than any other nation, well that could definitely be argued. But they are not Israel so until we address that, we'd just be talking about two different "Israels".

With that said, bibilically speaking you could point to the sinfulness of the Israelites, and be correct. But I hope you also take note that there hasnt been ONE righteous nation before God. If Im wrong, which one is it? As sinful as the Israelites were, how much more is the UK? Or America? So the "sinfulness" or "prodigal son" angle you're coming from, Im not seeing it. Because what makes Israel, more sinful than say, Greece? Or Rome? Egypt? Or those to aforementioned nations that are in power today? Israel wasnt any worse than these nations on the surface so what gives? As well, I dont think that God comes to "convert" people through means of pretending. In fact, Paul called out Peter and maybe John for doing just that.

 

[KoncreteMind]

Hebrew customs. If Jesus was an Indian he probably would've performed the rain dance, it isn't very relevant. What laws did He follow?

You have a problem with this, not I. I am perfectly capable of acknowledging the existence of Hebrew prophets. The owner of a vineyard sent his slaves to the farmers and they were beaten and slain. Who's the owner? Who are the slaves? You'll find the answer in the Torah, but you won't understand it without the Gospels.

Moreover, I also believe in prophets that are not Hebrew and who didn't go to the Hebrews. How about you?

You keep saying what laws did he follow when I've already answered. Passover? Check. Feast of Tabernacles? Check. Sabbath? Yes, he said he's lord over it. But he never said to NOT follow the law of Moses. Plain and simple really.

Your position is one of confusion. Where God comes to earth and pretends to follow one thing but wants us to follow another. Where he quotes the words of the false god but wants us to worship some other god. And now you're saying the prophets are from the true God? Or maybe your position has changed since last forums, if I have your position correct that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that appeared to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Noah, David etc... wasnt actually GOD, then from the outside looking in, it just looks like you're making excuses. As far as non Hebrew prophets, who would be one? I mean God can use whoever He wants so Im not going to say He's limited to using any one group of people for any specific purpose, but who would be the "non Hebrew prophet"?

Much better, you get it from 2,000 years of Christian history. Do Christians celebrate YHVH passing over the Jews to crush the Egyptian firstborn? No, what a morbid thing to celebrate. Who changed that? QED.

Why would He have to say that? His mission was to convert the Hebrews. And He succeeded (largely)! Thousands upon thousands of Jews came to Christ and no longer celebrated the Judaic passover, but the Christian one.

And for it they were scattered and practically destroyed. Then again, you probably think the synagogue of Satan is the same as the people Jesus came to which would be incorrect. If you connected the true Israelites with Jesus, you'd see that they were practically destroyed after Jesus left. Why would they be left as they were, if "thousands upon thousands" did what was right by coming to "christ"?

You'd make it alot easier on yourself if you go by what general scholarship agrees to and await evidence or scholarship that comes with a different opinion. You can try to put the conclusions of the academic world into a different perspective and sometimes that can lead to very alternative conclusions in itself. But you're making it way too hard for yourself and the people you converse with when you can at every turn say "I don't agree with the scholarly consensus".

I want the truth. I dont want to make it easier on myself. If I did, I'd say that another man did the hard work so I didnt have to or another man was punished in place of my guilty self. But instead of doing that (that which Jesus didnt suggest might I add) I rather accept responsiblity for myself and look for the truth in research and prayer. And I dont really think Im that far off from the truth based on that. Scholars have agendas and are paid off. Not all of course, but its like yall believe in the elite, till it reaches a certain sect of society (say like science or now the bible) and all of a sudden they have a hands off approach to things? I dont believe that. I mean you say "go with the consensus" but in the past if we did that, wouldnt we be wrong in saying the earth is flat according to you? That was a consensus at one point but even knowing what you (think) you know now, would you go back and say to them "go with the consensus till there is a consensus that the first consensus is wrong"? Instead of telling people to take the truth into their own hands and seek it out themselves? Thats on you of course. The bible tells people to place trust in God and not men and Paul said the wisdom of men is foolishness to God (paraphrased).

I agree with your final part though. The content of the texts are more important than their authorship. People who rely too much on the identity of the authors basically admit they don't understand the content.

Firstly, "Latin customs" aren't cultural. You don't pass Latin customs or traditions, you pass on Roman customs or Christian customs. Hebrew can refer both to the language as the culture of the Hebrew people. Secondly, the Hebrew language had also died and was already dying during the time of Christ.

You cant say "Hebrew language died and was already dying" at the same time. Either its dead or its dying or its alive and well. Cant be any of the two at the same time.. But again my position on the scriptures in the NT being written in Hebrew was based on the fact that scholars say that Hebrew men wrote it. At least christians ones do. And then theres James who wrote to the 12 tribes of Israel, but wrote to all of them, some of which werent even around places that spoke Greek, in Greek? Again, its doubtful. I dont care what the church says about the earliest translations we have, because again, they have an agenda and have been paid off. But like we both agree, though we definitely disagree on the message we are to take out of it, WHO wrote it is irrelevant.

 

[rainerann]

Technically, we do practice Passover. It's called Easter and we celebrate the death and resurrection of Christ, which is the fulfillment of the law concerning the Passover. Personally, it would seem that it would be easy to change the name. However, this would create conflict with the Jewish community so it is probably better to leave it alone for now. Either way, the celebration of the death and resurrection of Christ is the fulfillment of the law of the Passover.

 

[KoncreteMind]

Technically, we do practice Passover. It's called Easter and we celebrate the death and resurrection of Christ, which is the fulfillment of the law concerning the Passover. Personally, it would seem that it would be easy to change the name. However, this would create conflict with the Jewish community so it is probably better to leave it alone for now. Either way, the celebration of the death and resurrection of Christ is the fulfillment of the law of the Passover.

Jesus said nothing about easter to be honest so why would I follow that over what he did mention/observe (Passover)?

 

[Todd]

Technically, we do practice Passover. It's called Easter and we celebrate the death and resurrection of Christ, which is the fulfillment of the law concerning the Passover. Personally, it would seem that it would be easy to change the name. However, this would create conflict with the Jewish community so it is probably better to leave it alone for now. Either way, the celebration of the death and resurrection of Christ is the fulfillment of the law of the Passover.

Ezekiel 44: 23 they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean. 24And in controversy they shall stand in judgment; and they shall judge it according to my judgments: and they shall keep my laws and my statutes in all mine assemblies; and they shall hallow my sabbaths

The Church has failed to teach the difference between the Holy and the profane. That is why the church still uses the name Easter, which is the westernized version of the name of summerian goddess Ishtar. It's also why "Christian" Churches still have easter bunny egg hunts. Why in the world should Christians follow traditions born out of pagan fertility rituals to celebrate the resurrection of Christ?

 

[floss]

So now that Paul is out the window, nobody has stopped sinning once being in Christ?

THE POPE

 

[rainerann]

Ezekiel 44: 23 they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean. 24And in controversy they shall stand in judgment; and they shall judge it according to my judgments: and they shall keep my laws and my statutes in all mine assemblies; and they shall hallow my sabbaths

The Church has failed to teach the difference between the Holy and the profane. That is why the church still uses the name Easter, which is the westernized version of the name of summerian goddess Ishtar. It's also why "Christian" Churches still have easter bunny egg hunts. Why in the world should Christians follow traditions born out of pagan fertility rituals to celebrate the resurrection of Christ?

I agree with you. I avoid all those things and always have. However, that doesn't change the fact that the practice of Easter is the fulfillment of the Passover because it is the celebration of the resurrection of Christ, and that calling Easter the Passover is going to upset the Jewish community.

Also, not every church does Easter egg hunts. I think my favorite Easter was the year a church I went to a long time ago set up a walk with different stations that represented when Jesus was taken to the cross. This was followed by a service where we each were given mini boxes filled with symbolic pieces of the Passover meal. That was my favorite Easter. Most, churches I have gone to will do special resurrection day services, not Easter egg hunts. Eater egg hunts are continued as an secular American tradition, not usually as a church tradition. Most of the Easter egg hunts are generally conducted by people who are not religious and don't really think it matters what you do on Easter.

The church doesn't always fail to teach the Holy and the profane either. People fail in their responsibility to read the scriptures that teach the difference. The church does not replace personal responsibility especially in a country that has the freedom to purchase and read the Bible without fear of consequence.

 

[Daciple]

Same question as Koncrete: What is the Law of Moses? The Ten Commandments or the entire collection of 613 mitzvah? Most of your rebuttal is based on assuming I equate the Ten Commandments to the law of the Devil, which I don't. I agree that the Law (ie. the Ten Commandments) exposed sin, as Paul claimed.

I was assuming that you followed the Religion you stated you belonged to, supposedly being a Marconite, but if you were to actually follow this then you would actually believe that YHWH the God who did give Moses the 10 Commandments, who lead the Children of Israel out of bondage including the the event that is known as Passover, is then you would believe that the Devil aka YHWH in Marconite Gnosticism gave the 10 Commandments.

The Marcion Gnostics felt that all books associated with the Old Testament were actually opposite tales of truth. The Marcionists held maltheistic views of the Hebrew God.

These views led to teachings from the Marcion Gnostics that claimed that the Old Testament God was inconsistent, jealous, wrathful and genocidal. These Gnostics also claimed that the world created by such a God was defective, thus any God that would create such an environment had to be malicious.

http://www.gnostic-jesus.com/gnostic-jesus/Early-gnostics/Marcionism.html

The Old Testament God was the source of evil.

However, Marcionism and Gnosticism do share some tendencies. Firstly, both religions share the idea that the creator of the material world and the True God are not the same deity. Both Gnostics and Marcionites claim that that the creator of the material world was a malign demiurge. This view contributes to a maltheistic worldview, in that both the Gnostics and Marcionites believe that this material world is a place of suffering. In addition, both sects reject materialism. Naturally, this idea parallels the previous view of a world of suffering. Because nothing in this material world contributes to any good, there should be no attachment to material objects.

Both sects also believe that the True God (not the God of the Old Testament) sent Jesus as a spiritual entity to save humanity. Thus, Jesus’ role in history and religion is not one of the Jewish Messiah; rather, Jesus is a revealer and deliverer of the requirements of salvation.

Marcion believed Jesus was the savior sent by God, and Paul the Apostle was his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and the God of Israel. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament. This belief was in some ways similar to Gnostic Christian theology; notably, both are dualistic, that is, they posit opposing gods, forces, or principles: one higher, spiritual, and "good", and the other lower, material, and "evil" (compare Manichaeism). This dualism stands in contrast to other Christian and Jewish views that "evil" has no independent existence, but is a privation or lack of "good",[2] a view shared by the Jewish theologian Moses Maimonides.[3]

Marcionism, similar to Gnosticism, depicted the God of the Old Testament as a tyrant or demiurge

However, his attacks on the canon of Scripture forced the Christian church to defend the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures.

• The teachings of Marcion (d. c. 160), which featured a sharp disjunction between the “God of wrath” of the OT and the “God of love” of the NT and the view that Christ never became flesh. In Marcionism, Christianity replaces Judaism.3
• "Thus far our discussion seems to imply that Marcion makes his two gods equal. For while we have been maintaining that God ought to be believed as the one only great Supreme Being, excluding from Him every possibility of equality, we have treated of these topics on the assumption of two equal Gods; but nevertheless, by teaching that no equals can exist according to the law of the Supreme Being, we have sufficiently affirmed the impossibility that two equals should exist. For the rest, however, we know full well that Marcion makes his gods unequal: one judicial, harsh, mighty in war; the other mild, placid, and simply good and excellent."4
• "Irenaeus writes in Against Heresies (1.17.2 ), “Besides this, he [Marcion] mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most clearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father."5
• "He argued that there were two gods—a creator and a redeemer. The former was the god of the Old Testament, who was evil and capricious. The latter was the god of love and redemption, whom Jesus Christ revealed."6

https://carm.org/what-is-marcionism

The depiction of YHWH is the epitome of Evil in Marcionism, you can try and tell me/us that He isnt the Devil, but regardless of the title you choose to place upon Him your belief system, YHWH is essentially the Devil in Gnosticism, all forms, including Marcionism. Of course we know you have made up your own Religion, so I guess to you YHWH isnt the Devil, but yet you say this about Him:

Only a twisted, sadistic, vindictive being would punish the [Egyptian] firstborn for sins of the elder.

This same being is the being that gave the 10 Commandments, that instituted the Passover and all the other things recorded in the Old Testament.

"If I broke my hypothetical contract it wouldnt be fulfilled would it? It would be destroyed and I would be culpable for whatever penalty would be due me for breaking the contract."

Because you do not owe your sin / debt to the debtor who will fulfill the contract in your stead, but to someone else. God's grace / pardon makes the fulfillment of that contract/your debt/sin redundant. He does not have to fulfill your contract so your debt to Him is paid, because He can simply forgive you if you repent (sincerely). It would make alot more sense if God did what He did (sacrifice Himself) to repay the debt you owed to someone else. I'll leave it to you who that someone else is, but realise that you have merchants in the spiritual world too. They deal in souls and sin is their currency.

No it does not, it is a legal exchange, just as the Law of Moses given by YHWH the Devil in your theology, reveals to us our Sin based on the legal contract made in the Old Covenant. Its the same as there being a Law that I broke that I am guilty of, if I stand before a Judge in Guilt and the Sentence is life in jail or a million dollars, then some restitution must be made in order for me to be freed from the breaking of the Law. God/YHWH the only True God, is a righteous God and thus must have Justice for the breaking of the Law, so HE not some god above Him, but He sent Christ into the World to pay off the debt by living up to the Law, being perfect, which is absolutely necessary in accordance of the Law created by YHWH and then making the Sacrifice for our Atonement, just as was established by YHWH via the Old Covenant.

The coming of Christ as recorded in the Word of God make zero sense unless we understand the Old Testament or I guess if you do what you and your boy Marcion do which is cut up the Bible and reject everything that doesnt fit your preconceived religion, because no one would come away with this if they simply read and accept the Word of God.

Not gonna go into detail for the remainder since it's too long. Most of it you can put in the perspective of Jesus' mission to convert the Jews rather than Jesus being the apotheosis of Judaism and it will still stand. Try it.

Interesting you wont even acknowledge all the Scriptures which out right refute your made up religion that Jesus isnt the fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures and the utterly illogical position that the Devil would be out here making prophecies of the coming of Jesus to fulfill the things He set in motion...

 

[Daciple]

Good exercise is to compare the Gospel of Luke used by Marcion with the final print that ended up in the New Testament.

Marcion redacted everything, nothing was added, this is affirmed in every historical text that we have concerning Marcion. The New Testament was written and finished dozens of years prior to Marcions existence...

 

[Daciple]

The suffering of hell has a purpose to cleanse and purify.

Scripture that shows the Lake of Fire is to cleanse and purify one of Sin please.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

I mean I dont see any type of being cleansed from Sin or Purified for Sodom and Gomorrha, just everlasting destruction...

 

[Daciple]

Do you mean Jesus celebrated Passover because of the Last Meal? That's no indication Jesus followed the law. Not at all.

Really? Why would Jesus specifically say He is going to partake and prepare for the Passover then?

Luke 22:8 And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.

What other Hebrew laws did Jesus observe?

All of them.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

Jesus never transgressed the Law, no one point of it ever, He kept all of it 100%, every Feast, every Sacrifice, every single thing in the Law He kept perfectly.

I mean Jesus did literally say that the Entire Old Testament was about Him, or are you going to admit you are just like the people you are saying ought to hold to Scripture and not pick and choose?

Luke 24:19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.
21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre;
23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.
24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

But lets be more specific, what other things did Christ do in fulfillment of the Law? Well lets see how often did He ask the Pharisees the Law Keepers, what Law have I broken? Do you not think if He had not been at the Temple Sacrificing, keeping the Feasts, and doing all the Law Commands, that these people who are specifically known for judging and condemning others for NOT keeping the entire Law of Moses would have spoken up over and over?

John 846 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

Mark 14:55 And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.

Jesus stood before the Jewish Council and if He was guilty of ANYTHING at all to bring reproach upon His name, for breaking ANY of the Law it would have been brought up here!! But look they found NONE, why? Because He followed the Law 100% every single part of it. He was circumcised on the 8th day, part of the Law right?

Luke 2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord
24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

Its also interesting to note, that according to your religion no one knew who Christ was nor of His comming because He was to reveal a God no one knew at all, but somehow in the Temple when He was being presented to YHWH, we see this:

Luke 2:25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.
26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.
27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,
28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,
29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

Wait what? Jesus was being taken to have Him fulfill the Law, and a man who was devout to YHWH who was waiting on the consolation of Israel, declares that He has seen salvation for THY PEOPLE, Israel. So much for trying to read the Gospels not as Jesus being the apotheosis of Judaism. You have to be willfully ignorant or reject out right Scripture to even think to believe He isnt...

What other Laws did Jesus keep specifically?

Luke 2:41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.

Well there He is celebrating Passover, like He did EVERY YEAR, including the year He was crucified.

What does Paul say about Christ and the Law?

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

He also specifically tells others to follow the Law, not just the 10 Commandments either but the rest of it, as seen here:

Matt 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Jesus tells people to follow the Law of Moses, telling them to do whatever the Pharisees bid them, and then we see here that He calls the Law of Moses the Commandments of God, and the Word of God, while also including commands that are not in the 10 Commandments.

Jesus followed the Law of Moses all of it, only someone who redacts huge portions of the Bible would ever possibly think He didnt...

 

[Daciple]

Alright, but it was pretty common for Israelites to go to the Temple to have things sacrificed by their priests, yes? Yet there's no account of Jesus going to the Temple to do that or have it done. When He did go it was to lecture the very priests who did the sacrifices. If following the Torah was important and probably what Jesus wanted people to keep doing, how come we have no account whatsoever of Jesus performing a ritual so important the Torah had dozens upon dozens of laws dedicated to it?

Well just proved that He did all of that, if He didnt then the Pharisees would have accused Him in their Council and guess what they didnt...

It had already been corrupted by the lying pen of the scribes as Jesus said.

I must of missed this in the exchange where did Jesus say the Law was corrupted by the lying pen of the scribes? Because I see Jesus declaring more about the Talmud than the Bible. Also I see Jesus using the Scriptures calling them Scriptures and pointing Himself out to others in the writings.

You'd think sin was already there without the Law, but how can you know what sin is if no one tells you it is sinful?

Because its written in our hearts, you know like Paul said:

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

We all stand guilty before the Lord, Jew or Gentile, one who knew the name of Christ or not, because YHWH put the Law in our Heart and we created our own Laws based on His Laws then break them... We know we Sin, we know what Sin is, and we know we are Guilty..

Sin was there before the Law of Moses was written down..

The Law brings death; the Law is death;

The Law is also Holy and Good!!

Rom 3:3 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

The Israelites are a true cancer upon the world (sorry, Israelites, it's not personal). If you think you can fight them out of their position of power, good luck. However you look at it, the Jews have always been at the core of the state of the world and the world is very dependent upon the spiritual state of the Jews. If you want to play fire with fire the world will burn. Jesus did not fight fire with fire. His mission was to convert them, not because they were God's chosen, but because it was necessary in order for the world to be Christianized.

I agree that the Pharisees, the people who took the Religion of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Moses and then corrupted it by adding their own ideologies, specifically the Ancient Mystery Religions aka Kabbalahism, or the Christian version of the Ancient Mystery Religions, Gnosticism, are a plague. They worship the god found in Gnosticism who truly is the Devil, who perverts the Truth and is a Liar, who calls Evil Good and Good Evil. Who tries to make himself above YHWH the One True God and paints Him as an Evil Ignorant Lesser god that enslaves humanity, telling his followers to follow him to be set free from YHWH the One True God.

Jesus came to fulfill the Religion of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and Moses and as YHWH predicted since He would be rejected, then His Sacrifice would allow both the Jew and the Gentile to become adopted as Sons of YHWH. Israel was Indeed Gods Chosen People, the People by which He choose to reveal Himself thru, to establish the Law through, to set His method of Holiness and Redemption thru, He sent Jesus thru the people of Israel. They rejected the Savior and He brought Wrath upon them removing Israel physically and spiritually until He Christ Returns to bring in His Kingdom.

Moreover, I also believe in prophets that are not Hebrew and who didn't go to the Hebrews. How about you?

Who?

Do Christians celebrate YHVH passing over the Jews to crush the Egyptian firstborn? No, what a morbid thing to celebrate. Who changed that?

Umm yes Christians celebrate Passover, in Christ, in which the Blood of the Lamb was applied to the door post so that Death will Passover us, Your exegesis is unsound at best...

Do you know anything at all about Passover? How all of it, from the way the meal is prepared, to how its eaten, to the way its ended, all of it is literally a sign of Christs Death Burial and Resurrection. I can not for the life of me grasp how you can believe that YHWH who gave the command for Passover would inadvertently be literally prophesying the coming of Christ from which He doesnt know or understand.

Idk maybe you need to study Christ in the Old Testament better, but here is some information if you or the other readers care to understand how literally everything about Passover was created to be the foreshadowing of Christs Death Burial and Resurrection:

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Holidays/Spring_Holidays/Pesach/H4C_Passover_Seder.pdf

That site is amazing, it goes over every single step of the Passover and lays out one by one how EVERYTHING is all about Jesus. It makes no sense to believe that the Evil God of the Jews, would teach the Evil Jews to do every single thing in their Festival, to proclaim a different gods Messiah. The Truth makes much more sense, which is YHWH created His Holy Days to specifically point to the Savior He would send thru the Jews...

Also what else does Moses redemption of Israel from Egypt symbolize? It symbolizes that YHWH is more powerful than all the false gods that Egypt worshiped showing Himself as the One True God as opposed to their false gods, including the Death of the First Borns...

http://www.stat.rice.edu/~dobelman/Dinotech/10_Eqyptian_gods_10_Plagues.pdf

 

[Todd]

Scripture that shows the Lake of Fire is to cleanse and purify one of Sin please.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

I mean I dont see any type of being cleansed from Sin or Purified for Sodom and Gomorrha, just everlasting destruction...

I will restore their fortunes, both the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters, and I will restore your own fortunes in the midst of them, As for your sisters, Sodom and her daughters shall return to their former estate Eze 16:53,55

 

[KoncreteMind]

THE POPE

Lol oh yes, how could I have forgotten

 

[Daciple]

I will restore their fortunes, both the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters, and I will restore your own fortunes in the midst of them, As for your sisters, Sodom and her daughters shall return to their former estate Eze 16:53,55

You think this has something to do with showing that Hell or the Lake of Fire is there to purify and remove Sins? Please explain how this passage shows such a doctrine.

I dont believe you understand what these Text are actually saying, and when understood in context it is literally the opposite of what you are declaring. You also nicely skipped a verse which puts those two verses into context. Actually lets quote more of the Text so the full context can be explained properly, its always easy to remove a verse or two and make it say whatever we want. I can cherry pick Jesus and make Him hateful and spiteful and horrible, but we know that would be quoting Him out of context, like we see here, because this when read in context doesnt say anything Good about Sodom and in fact is speaking of the harsh Judgement to come upon Israel. It definitely proves nothing to do with your ideology, if anything rejects it...

Ez 16:46 And thine elder sister is Samaria, she and her daughters that dwell at thy left hand: and thy younger sister, that dwelleth at thy right hand, is Sodom and her daughters.
47 Yet hast thou not walked after their ways, nor done after their abominations: but, as if that were a very little thing, thou wast corrupted more than they in all thy ways.
48 As I live, saith the Lord God, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.
49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
51 Neither hath Samaria committed half of thy sins; but thou hast multiplied thine abominations more than they, and hast justified thy sisters in all thine abominations which thou hast done.
52 Thou also, which hast judged thy sisters, bear thine own shame for thy sins that thou hast committed more abominable than they: they are more righteous than thou: yea, be thou confounded also, and bear thy shame, in that thou hast justified thy sisters.
53 When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, then will I bring again the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them:
54 That thou mayest bear thine own shame, and mayest be confounded in all that thou hast done, in that thou art a comfort unto them.
55 When thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate.
56 For thy sister Sodom was not mentioned by thy mouth in the day of thy pride,
57 Before thy wickedness was discovered, as at the time of thy reproach of the daughters of Syria, and all that are round about her, the daughters of the Philistines, which despise thee round about.
58 Thou hast borne thy lewdness and thine abominations, saith the Lord.
59 For thus saith the Lord God; I will even deal with thee as thou hast done, which hast despised the oath in breaking the covenant.
60 Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant.

So in context what does your cherry picked verses mean? Do they mean Sodom and Samaria will be restored? No...

(53) Shall bring again their captivity.—This is not a promise of restoration to Israel; but, on the contrary, is an expression of the utter hopelessness of their punishment in the strongest possible form. The “bringing again of captivity “does not, indeed, necessarily mean a return from exile (into which Sodom had not been carried); but, as explained in Ezekiel 16:55, a return to the former estate, that is, a state of happiness and prosperity. In the case of Sodom this was manifestly impossible; and even in the case of Samaria it would, if accomplished, lack any historical identification. Sodom and her daughters (the surrounding cities) had perished with all their inhabitants many ages ago, leaving no descendants behind. Restoration was, therefore, obviously impossible; and by conditioning the restoration of Jerusalem on an impossible thing, it is meant to be most strongly denied.

to be a threat; and if you consider the difference between a temporal and spiritual restitution, and the difference between an entire and partial restitution, it will be evident. Sodom and Samaria never were restored to that state they had been in, nor were the two tribes ever made so rich, mighty, and renowned, though God brought some of them out of Babylon; and yet were these words promissory, both Sodom, Samaria, and the two tribes would have been restored. The words seem to confirm irrecoverably a low, afflicted, despised state, as the future condition of the Jews for ever in their temporals.

Then; then, not before: this doth not preclude a future full restitution, but is an argument that concludes against the consequence, but a negation of the antecedent, as if it were said, If ever Sodom and Samaria may hope, then thou mayst hope for a restoring to thy former glory; but Sodom and Samaria never shall, therefore neither thou, O Jerusalem, and deluded Jews. And this may have respect to the false prophets, who deceived this people with promises of deliverance from being made captives, or of sudden restitution of all to them.

This he speaks in comparison seeing that he would restore Jerusalem when Sodom would be restored, that is, never: and this is meant of the greatest part of the Jews.

The only possible way to view this as anything positive is to Spiritualize it, but in doing so it does nothing to show Hell is place that one can escape or is for purifying purposes:

; but rather this is to be understood of the calling of the Gentiles, comparable to Sodom for their wickedness, as the great city of Rome is, Revelation 11:8; and of the calling of God's elect among the ten tribes, scattered up and down among the Gentiles, by the preaching of the apostles; and when the fulness of the Gentiles is brought in then will follow the conversion of the Jews, and all Israel will be sawed, Romans 11:25; for it is certain those sisters, Sodom and Samaria, were to be restored, and received into the church, and given to her for daughters, Ezekiel 16:61; thus the conversion, of the Gentiles is signified by bringing again the captivity of Moab and Ammon, in Jeremiah 48:47.

All from http://biblehub.com/commentaries/ezekiel/16-53.htm

So clearly this doesnt justify your position, any other verses you would like to produce to justify one can escape Hell, or that its only there to purify Sins?

When I read the Word of God, I accept what it says concerning Hell and it says there is no way to move out of it:

Luke 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

But please show me more verses that support your ideology...