Thank you for coming /his/, it's about time we came together to discuss some of the recent discussions we've had regarding our faith. I want to thank James, the brother of our Lord, for offering his church here in Jerusalem to host this council. I also want to thank our brother Luke for adding this to his upcoming documentary — Acts.
Now, as per Peter's request, Barnabas and I would like to clarify some things. I know the Pharisees who follow our way claim we are letting these Gentiles have orgies in our churches, worship pagan gods and disrespect the law of Moses. Let me tell you, none of this is true. All we are trying to say is, it's okay for the gentiles to eat pork and keep their foreskin intact.
This does not at all mean we approve of buttfucking little boys, incest, exploiting the poor or whatever else the pagans at /b/ and /pol/ do. Jesus would obviously not approve of any of these, but the superficial stuff doesn't matter. And I should know, I was a Pharisee.
I will now open the floor for questions.
>>401624
MOVED: That the speakers report be rejected for lacking a recommendation.
Here's a question for you: read Genesis 17 lately?
>>401663
I am well versed in the patriarchs. But circumcision came after the promise to Abraham and therefore the promise does not depend on it.
>Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness.Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.So then, he is the fatherof all who believebut have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
Yes, brother, how did Moses get out of receiving an ass-whooping from God just by having his son's freshly cut foreskin thrown at his feet?
So when're you gonna stop bitching about the "very special so-called apostles in Jerusalem", like you did in 2nd Corinthians Chs. 11-13?
Are you still mad Peter and James excommunicated you?
>>401704
We must remember the role of circumcision, the covenant with Abraham which Moses was in had circumcision as a SIGN of it. If Moses' uncut dick went into Egypt and he performed signs of YHWH he would profane his name. Our god would not allow that. We have come to see that Jesus is the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham and the sign of circumcision no longer functions as such.
>>401718
>So when're you gonna stop bitching about the "very special so-called apostles in Jerusalem", like you did in 2nd Corinthians Chs. 11-13?
All these fuckers think because I'm getting fucked left and right by everyone means God doesn't approve of my ministry. These damn Pharisees are so obsessed with other people's dick I wish they'd just chop their balls off so they can't reproduce anymore.
>Are you still mad Peter and James excommunicated you?
Peter is so flakey. He pretends to be PC about gentiles in churches, but then I caught him in Galatia marginalizing them and eating exclusively with Jews. James spends all his time with Jews in Jerusalem and has no idea what the struggle is like or how to adapt to multiculturalism
>>401624
How dare you draw a line between the commandments we keep and the ones we don't? Did not the Lord reveal to Moses, that not one word be added or subtracted? Did not Jesus affirm it by saying not a jot or tittle be ignored until heaven and earth pass away?
Who gave you the right to say some of God's law is important but others aren't?
And another thing, "Paul". Who are you exactly? You say you were a devoted Pharisee, but I've seen your letters, you always use the Septuagint and not a Hebrew Old Testament. And all of your buddies are Sadducees. What exactly are you up to?
>>401847
>>401847
I'm not denying the commandments. I'm saying they have found fulfillment in Jesus, the Christ and therefore are not needed. All commandments now come from Christ, the Torah of love and the Spirit.
I truly was a high-ranking Pharisee, just ask Gamiliel.
I use the LXX because many of our Hebrew brothers have become hellinized. I still recite the shema in Hebrew. The Septuagint is simply for reaching the Gentiles and hellenized Jews.
>>402053
>I'm not denying the commandments. I'm saying they have found fulfillment in Jesus, the Christ and therefore are not needed. All commandments now come from Christ, the Torah of love and the Spirit.
Oh, so then Heaven and Earth passed away? Seem to have missed that one.
>I truly was a high-ranking Pharisee, just ask Gamiliel.
Then why did you get authority from a Sadducee High priest to illegally persecute people? What kind of Pharisee were you?
>I use the LXX because many of our Hebrew brothers have become hellinized. I still recite the shema in Hebrew. The Septuagint is simply for reaching the Gentiles and hellenized Jews.
Then why did you repeat its translation errors, for instance, in your letter to the Corinthians? Surely, you learned that Isaiah 25:8 is לָנֶצַח, "forever" and not לָנִצֵּחַ, in victory.
>>402105
You are thinking to linearly. With the Messiah's resurrection preceding the resurrection of the whole world, we are forced to conclude that the future as burst upon us in the present. Some things will happen in the future still (e.g. our bodily resurrection), but some things are happening prematurely (our spiritual resurrection).
And if course I got permission from the Sadducees! Rome has set them over the Temple. We have no choice, but to go through their channels, though we try to subvert them at every turn.
Lastly, the LXX is a faithful translation. The Rabbinics are legalists clouded in their thinking by their own traditions and rejection of the Nazarene Messiah.
>>402176
>You are thinking to linearly. With the Messiah's resurrection preceding the resurrection of the whole world, we are forced to conclude that the future as burst upon us in the present. Some things will happen in the future still (e.g. our bodily resurrection), but some things are happening prematurely (our spiritual resurrection).
I thought we weren't supposed to use the demonstration of miraculous power to prove whether or not someone's message was to be followed. You do remember your Deuteronomy, don't you?
>And if course I got permission from the Sadducees! Rome has set them over the Temple. We have no choice, but to go through their channels, though we try to subvert them at every turn.
Gamaliel didn't ask for permission from the Romans to try, and if necessary, execute people. You know, since they've let the Sanhedrin do its thing; but then again, the Priests haven't run the Sanhedrin for about 200 years.
>Lastly, the LXX is a faithful translation. The Rabbinics are legalists clouded in their thinking by their own traditions and rejection of the Nazarene Messiah.
No it isn't, which is why I specifically picked a verse that doesn't have theological implications. "In victory" is just simply wrong, and doesn't make sense for a bunch of predictions as to how everything will change for good once the End Times hit.
Do you even know Hebrew?
Yo guys! Where u at? I wanna make some biz!
