what is ebionite judaism?Why should christians abandon paul and follow the torah?

[yandex99]

ebionite judaism is basically jesus words only,if paul contradicts jesus on salvation,justification etc then paul is a false prophet.

I enjoin you to look up the parable of the publican and pharisee which 100% contradicts paul,as repentance is a work according to jonah.

john said the definition of sin is what breaks the commands of the law.the whole law of christ thing is just a fabrication of paul.


I will be posting more resources for christians to consider in nthis thread.

also paul allowed eating idol meat,which revelation condemns.

 

[NotaChadyet]

Sure if you wanna fuck a 3 year old both the talmud and torah permits it

 

[yandex99]

Sure if you wanna fuck a 3 year old both the talmud and torah permits it

ebionite judaism 100% rejects the talmud and mishna and pharisaical judaism.

 

[svarddre]

No salvation outside the church

 

[NotaChadyet]

ebionite judaism 100% rejects the talmud and mishna and pharisaical judaism.

Rabbis from certain orthodox streams promote talmud more than torah saying citing interfaith purposes

 

[Brus Wane]

Wouldn't this entail gentiles adherents to snip their foreskin off?

That's a bridge too far

 

[John6Enjoyer]

ebionite judaism is basically jesus words only,if paul contradicts jesus on salvation,justification etc then paul is a false prophet.

I enjoin you to look up the parable of the publican and pharisee which 100% contradicts paul,as repentance is a work according to jonah.

john said the definition of sin is what breaks the commands of the law.the whole law of christ thing is just a fabrication of paul.


I will be posting more resources for christians to consider in nthis thread.

also paul allowed eating idol meat,which revelation condemns.

Even if Paul was a false prophet it wouldn't make ur position correct bc Christianity doesn't hinge on Paul as a tenet.

And jesus sent paul too so if paul is incorrect so is Jesus.

 

[Sub5kang]

Sure if you wanna fuck a 3 year old both the talmud and torah permits it

 

[NotaChadyet]

View attachment 4018009

stop noticing goyim

 

[yandex99]

Even if Paul was a false prophet it wouldn't make ur position correct bc Christianity doesn't hinge on Paul as a tenet.

And jesus sent paul too so if paul is incorrect so is Jesus.

the 'jesus'that paul saw was the exact false demonic entity that jesus warned about not to follow in the desert,which paul saw there

 

[yandex99]

Wouldn't this entail gentiles adherents to snip their foreskin off?

That's a bridge too far

no,we follow only the sabbath and avoiding idol meat,meat with blood in it, fornication and follow ten commandments.

the resident alien(Ger toshav)has much less burden than a israelite.

 

[yandex99]

Jesus' Words Only - Jesus' words as the sole inspired portion of the New Testament Scripture - by Douglas Del Tondo.

Jesus' Words Only - Jesus' Words as Primary Focus for Christians - by Douglas Del Tondo

www.jesuswordsonly.org

 

[John6Enjoyer]

the 'jesus'that paul saw was the exact false demonic entity that jesus warned about not to follow in the desert,which paul saw there

What? If Paul took over Christianity then Jesus must've been wrong. He said no one will triumph over the Church. So if Jesus is wrong then Paul triumphed over the Church. But we see this to be an unsubstantiated statement of yours bc u can't prove Paul is a false prophet.

Acts 9:4 "Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

Here jesus mentions Paul.

Acts 9:13-16:
"13 “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. 14 And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.”

15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

Paul (previously named Saul) used to persecute Christians for their faith. But he was filled with the Holy Spirit so that he can proclaim the message of the Gospel before the world. I believe that ur eisegeting things into the Bible which is already dishonest in of itself and since ebionitism didn't even evolve to become mainstream Christianity I think it fails to be a 'Catholic' (universal) Church. This is a testament to the falsehood of ur position my friend.

 

[yandex99]

What? If Paul took over Christianity then Jesus must've been wrong. He said no one will triumph over the Church. So if Jesus is wrong then Paul triumphed over the Church. But we see this to be an unsubstantiated statement of yours bc u can't prove Paul is a false prophet.

Acts 9:4 "Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

Here jesus mentions Paul.

Acts 9:13-16:
"13 “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. 14 And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.”

15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

Paul (previously named Saul) used to persecute Christians for their faith. But he was filled with the Holy Spirit so that he can proclaim the message of the Gospel before the world. I believe that ur eisegeting things into the Bible which is already dishonest in of itself and since ebionitism didn't even evolve to become mainstream Christianity I think it fails to be a 'Catholic' (universal) Church. This is a testament to the falsehood of ur position my friend.

daniel prophecied the great apostasy of the antichrist that would overcome the saints for a time in the latter days but would be defeated.christianity will 100% send you to gehinnom(hell)!



the neviim(prophets)prophecied the apostacxy of those that worship wooden idols and allow the eating of pork in latter days but would be defeated and destroyed.thats edom/christianity!

 

[yandex99]

Rabbis from certain orthodox streams promote talmud more than torah saying citing interfaith purposes

ebionite judaism is not rabbinical judaism,it's karaite judaism with belief in jesus as the chosen messiah that died o the cross for our justification.

 

[enriquecuador]

No salvation outside the church

You think that??

 

[lastredeemer]

I worship white chads

 

[John6Enjoyer]

daniel prophecied the great apostasy of the antichrist that would overcome the saints for a time in the latter days but would be defeated.christianity will 100% send you to gehinnom(hell)!



the neviim(prophets)prophecied the apostacxy of those that worship wooden idols and allow the eating of pork in latter days but would be defeated and destroyed.thats edom/christianity!

No the Greek word for dream here should be exegeted as revelation. The Prophet Daniel received a vision (revelation) too does that indicate he's a false prophet? I can patently conclude you're committing an equivocation fallacy my friend because we can observe the English word here is univocal while you're simultaneously applying a univical presupposition to another, distinct univical word which changes definitions.

You also haven't proven how Christianity relies on the Apostle Paul yet. We could literally remove Paul from the history of Christianity and assume he never existed, but Jesus would just use another vessel to spread the message of the Gospel. Lest, you'd be implying that truth changes and we see that to be an axiom of falsehood in the capacity of the law of identity because A always equals A. A will never randomly equal Z. So I plausibly say that your argument is futile until you can substantiate this presupposition.

 

[yandex99]

No the Greek word for dream here should be exegeted as revelation. The Prophet Daniel received a vision (revelation) too does that indicate he's a false prophet? I can patently conclude you're committing an equivocation fallacy my friend because we can observe the English word here is univocal while you're simultaneously applying a univical presupposition to another, distinct univical word which changes definitions.

You also haven't proven how Christianity relies on the Apostle Paul yet. We could literally remove Paul from the history of Christianity and assume he never existed, but Jesus would just use another vessel to spread the message of the Gospel. Lest, you'd be implying that truth changes and we see that to be an axiom of falsehood in the capacity of the law of identity because A always equals A. A will never randomly equal Z. So I plausibly say that your argument is futile until you can substantiate this presupposition.

on justification retardnot justified by works but by grace when we 100% are justified by works according to jedsus,and the definition of sin or dead works is that which breaks the law of moses in john.

 

[yandex99]

John's Gospel Predictably Is Negative Too.

With that background, it should not be surprising that the Gospel of John is a follow-up that continues the rejection of Paul. The Jesus of John's Gospel rejects again principles of Paul which the Jesus of Revelation by Apostle John likewise had rejected previously.

However, you cannot easily see the anti-Paul message in John’s Gospel as presently translated. Many are surprised anyone could even think the Gospel of John undermines Paul. However, this is only because of the mistranslation of John’s Greek active tenses as if they were simple present tenses in English. This is compounded by the mistranslation of the word pisteuo exclusively as “believes” when in many places it should have been “keep on obeying.” The latter defect was apparently innocent when first made in the 1520s but since then has become increasingly inexcusable due to improved scholarship. Today, it is an artifact error which is left unchanged due to an unwillingness to translate John to sound anti-Pauline, as explained below.


Before we go into more detail on John's Gospel, we should realize that the Epistles of John are likewise critical of Paul – when John alludes to false teachers who say Jesus did not come in the flesh, but only appeared to be human. (Paul twice teaches this heretical view of Jesus' nature. Rom 8:3; Phil 2:7 - discussed at this link.) Apostle John's letters also speak of someone who tried joining the apostles at Jerusalem but who would not listen to them, and left the group, proving he was never truly of their group (Paul?). I discuss these subtle references to Paul in my book JWO, entirely free online. See link.

Finally, we now turn to the Gospel of John. This gospel destroys Paul’s salvation doctrine. Surprised? Well, the verb pisteuo is key, but before we prove it means "obey" in key verses, let's note that John in many places emphasizes obedience and doing "good things" for salvation in his Gospel using other verbs meaning obeying. I review this in Jesus Words on Salvation, ch. 26, part 1. See link. This includes John 15:1-10; John 8:51, and John 5:28-29. These passages are echoes of Jesus' words in Revelation 22:14 and Rev. 3:13-16.

Next, John’s Gospel has many present active verb tenses for salvation (e.g., “keep on listening”), while Paul had an aorist (a one time action) for salvation in two places, e.g., “believed” See, e.g., Romans 10:9. For detailed discussion, see JWO Chapter Eight. For proof Paul in Romans 10:9 mistranslated Isaiah 28:16, see this link. Present active tenses are the OPPOSITE of aorist tenses in Greek. I believe John is doing this deliberately – praying for inspired recollection of every statement from Jesus that undermines Paul’s aorist --'One time belief' -- salvific statements. See Appendix to JWO.

Lastly, the Greek verb pisteuo was rendered by Luther always as “believe” in his 1500s Bible. This influenced many others thereafter to do likewise. However, Luther did not know Greek well enough. And Greek scholars had not yet established a scholarly Greek dictionary. For a milennium earlier, everyone assumed the New Testament was written in Latin. This was because for centuries the Roman Church ignored the Greek texts. But at least by the 1800s if not by 1611, scholars realized that Luther erred. A primary meaning of pisteuo was obey by examining ancient Greek texts. See link. This is in particular true when it is used in reference to a person, e.g., John 3:16, as opposed to about a fact.

In Greek, the word pisteuo as “believe” is the meaning if the preposition EN (meaning in) follows. So pisteuo in its third person form plus en would translate “he believes in.” However, pisteuo in its third person form, present participle active, plus EIS is “he keeps on obeying unto.” The latter is what you find in John 3:16! It is spoken about the one who keeps having eternal life by obeying unto the Son. Id.

"Obey" or "trust" is the primary meaning of pisteuo; "believe" is the unusual meaning.

This is exemplified by Paul himself. For Paul except 2 times uses “pisteuo” (verb) and “pistis” (noun) to mean obey or trust, and faithfulness (synonymous for the term "obedience") respectively, not believe or faith. See link. So even looking at Paul's typical meaning -- proven by virtue of reading the context, the correction to John 3:16 is overwhelmingly compelling.

The obey meaning of pisteuo is clearly what is in John 3:16. It is true throughout most of the Gospel of John. If one starts with part 1 of chapter 26 of Jesus' Words on Salvation and follows the links to all parts of chapter 26, one will see the case unfold certainly and clearly. See link to 26:1.

Based upon the above, Jesus inspired John to write his gospel to rebuff Paul, not support him. Jesus' purpose was the same as was the point of the earlier work of John in the book of Revelation, which in part, did likewise. The earlier book of Revelation too rebuffed Paul. By using active tenses for all kinds of salvation statements in John’s Gospel, e.g., John 10:28-29, “all who keep on listening and following cannot be snatched from my hand," (see link discussion), John’s inspired recollections of Jesus’ statements destroy Paul’s view in 1 Cor.15:1-6, Romans 8 and Romans 10:8-9 that a one time calling on the Lord and a one time belief in the atonement and resurrection of Jesus permanently saves you. See Appendix on Greek in Jesus' Words Only. See also our discussion of John 6:39-40 in this link. See our discussion of John 10:27-29 at this link.

To accept this conclusion about Jesus' purpose behind John's Gospel, unfortunately requires some diligence to read the Greek dictionaries referenced in the linked pages on the webpages previously cited.

A concordance will not help because it does not claim to be a dictionary, but instead is a list of what English word was used to translate a Greek word in the source bible. For example, a KJV Concordance like Strong's is not a dictionary. Instead, Strong's is a listing of how in 1611 each Greek word was translated into English by the KJV. Strong himself was not even a linguist in Greek. But it was not a necessary skill. All he was doing was providing an index between the KJV's choice and the Greek root word it reflected.

Here are some proofs to help dislodge traditional misconceptions that Strong's can be used as a dictionary:

The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, generally known as Strong's Concordance, is a Bible concordance, an index of every [English] word in the King James Version (KJV).... ("Strong's Concordanc," Wikipedia)

"Strong's Concordance is ... not a lexicon/dictionary (and thus is not a reliable source for the meaning of a lexeme in a specific context)...." ("Strong's Is Not A Lexicon/ Dictionary," Bible Hermenuetics.)

"I have had such a problem explaining to some people that Strong is showing 'how the words ARE translated' but that doesn't mean that the words should or can be translated that way. (Id., fn. 2.)

"James Strong was NOT a Linguist that understood Biblical Languages. Though James Strong was a professor, he was NOT a professor in Greek or Hebrew, and was not fluent in these languages, he received nothing but a summary introduction education in these languages. And his credentials as a Doctorate of theology are only honorary;....'" ("THE PROBLEM OF USING STRONG’S CONCORDANCE " (2016), Faith Bible Ministries.)

"This great misunderstanding [about what Strong's represents] has created more false doctrine in churches because [it does...] not give us the exact meaning of God’s will concerning that word as seen in Greek or Hebrew word studies." Id.

"Strong’s is never meant to be preached from. It is meant to locate passages in the Bible if you know only one word in that passage,...." Id.



Thus one can see that a KJV “concordance” approach being pushed today as the last word -- from 1611 -- suits a strategy to not appear dishonest if you assert that a 'dictionary' omits pisteuo can mean “obeys" "comply," etc. They lay out the concordance as a dictionary. It can fool you if your pastor or teacher does not tell you this is a misuse of Strong's. Your teacher makes you think it is a dictionary, but it is not. Thus the editors of such a concordance can continue to omit “obeys” / "comply" as a meaning of pisteuo even though there is no excuse any longer to think "pisteuo" means only "believe." Strong's can be republished forever with no update because it only claims to list the English word used in 1611 in the KJV for a Greek word.

I also wish to suggest that the modern perverse misuse of Strong's is on top of an original perversion in the KJV itself. For the proof that the KJV translators already knew Pisteuo meant obey when used in reference to a person, e.g., John 3:16, is due to the fact they translated correctly A+Pisteo as "be disobedient." See 1 Peter 2:7. Hence, the KJV translators had to know PISTEO without the A -- a negative prefix -- had to mean "obey" when spoken in reference to a person. They had to know you can "believe" in a fact (one use of PISTEUO), but you "obey" a person (the other use of PISTEUO).



With that now cleared away, we can realize the Book of Revelation, John's Gospel and John's Epistles erased Paul. They did away with his anti-law, eat-meat sacrificed to idols, and faith-alone doctrine. Renan tells us that from the 100s to the 300s, Paul had no following among the orthodox Christian groups:

After his disappearance from the scene of apostolic struggles we shall find him soon forgotten. His death was probably regarded by his enemies as the death of an agitator. The second century scarcely speaks of him, and apparently endeavors to systematically blot out his memory. His epistles are then slightly read, and only regarded as authority by rather a slim group.* His partisans themselves greatly weaken his pretensions." He leaves no celebrated disciples. Titus, Timothy, and so many others, who, as it were, constituted his court, disappear without renown. (Renan, St. Paul (1875) at 327 (excerpted at our link.)





Conclusion
Mark Smith in 2016 rejects the Jesus' Words Only principle. He argues that Christians must also follow Paul, and not Christ alone, because he finds no sermons from the apostles to prove Paul is not to be followed. See this link.



However, we have better proof than sermons. We have prophecies of the Lord Jesus subtly placed as messages to arrive at the right time, and in the right dose when we need it most. These messages are in the two APOSTOLIC Gospels and the Apostolic book of Revelation.

First, we have already seen that Jesus inspired Matthew with a Gospel that has numerous subtle but yet plain criticisms of Paul. See Anti-Paul Passages in Matthew.

Second, we saw above the same is true regarding the only other apostolic Gospel: the Gospel of John, and all his other writings, including the Book of Revelation.

Finally, if you need one more apostle, and you agree Second Peter is written by Apostle Peter, it is highly negative about Paul, especially in 2 Peter 3:15-18. For this very reason, Calvin in the 1500s -- a pro-Paul advocate -- sought to have Second Peter rejected as non-canonical. See our article Second Peter's Reference to Paul.

END

STUDY NOTES

The Greek of the Book of Revelation is less grammatical than the Greek of the Gospel of John. However, the reason likely stems from the fact Revelation was written while John was in prison on the island of Patmos, and John did not have any literary help to prepare the final manuscript. However, the Gospel of John was in a community of Ephesus where many helpers could supply assistance in writing grammatical Greek. This supports the inference that Revelation is closer to 100% John's thought with no well-meaning changes by the editors who helped with the Gospel of John.


The website PatmosPaperscom makes a valid point about this issue in its article entitled the Authorship of Revelation:

But more importantly, when Revelation was written, John was in exile on the Isle of Patmos. He had no scribes or literary helpers there to assist him in writing. John was an uneducated Jewish fisherman who had never taken a college class in Greek composition. When the Lord appeared to him on Patmos the apostle was instructed to record what he was seeing (Revelation 1:11), so he apparently scribbled out the vision as it was being shown to him (Revelation 10:4).

We have reason to believe, on the other hand, that in the writing of the Gospel of John at Ephesus after his release from Patmos, the apostle may have had one or more literary helpers. It may have been one such scribe who in John 21:24 wrote, "And we know that his [John's] testimony is true."





Every Christian writer until the middle of the 3rd century, whose works are extant today and who mentions the matter at all, attributes Revelation to John the apostle. Examples include:

Justin Martyr at Rome (c. A.D. 100 - c. 165; Dialogue With Trypho 81)
Irenaeus at Lyons (c. A.D. 130 - c. 202; Against Heresies iv. 20. 11)
Tertullian at Carthage (c. A.D. 160 - c. 240; On Prescription Against Heretics 36)
Hippolytus at Rome (died c. A.D. 235; Treatise on Christ and Antichrist xxxvi)
Clement of Alexandria (died c. A.D. 220; Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? xlii).

 

[CorinthianLOX]

Wouldn't this entail gentiles adherents to snip their foreskin off?

That's a bridge too far

 

[John6Enjoyer]

on justification retardnot justified by works but by grace when we 100% are justified by works according to jedsus,and the definition of sin or dead works is that which breaks the law of moses in john.

That's an ad hominem fallacy dude. That's a way to lose credibility.

Look at this citation and see the intellectual tradition we should be engaging in:
> "a. As was just remarked, scholastic disputations proceed by way of strict syllogisms. At times, it may be necessary to put a question or to ask for an explanation. But as a rule, syllogism follows syllogism ; for the syllogism is the simplest, clearest and most cogent form of argumentation.
> b. Let each disputant take the other's words in exactly the same sense in which they were first uttered. Twisting an opponent's words to one's own meaning, is foreign to scholastic disputation.
> c. __**Let modesty and charity reign throughout. No sarcasm, no superior airs, no abusive language, no derogatory remarks. Above all, no shouting or thumping of tables ; it is a battle of wits, not of voices or fists.**__
> d. Both disputants are seated. In some places, however, it is customary for the defender to stand while announcing the thesis to be defended, and for the objector while making his counter-assertion." — `ABCs of Scholastic Philosophy, Pg. 33, General Rules`

By the way you attacked Protestantism, namely, sola fide which is a strawman of what I believe. Us Orthodox Christians believe in synergism where we are justified by our faith and works which are sanctified and made valid in God's grace.

Isaiah 64:6
"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."

 

[yandex99]

That's an ad hominem fallacy dude. That's a way to lose credibility.

Look at this citation and see the intellectual tradition we should be engaging in:
> "a. As was just remarked, scholastic disputations proceed by way of strict syllogisms. At times, it may be necessary to put a question or to ask for an explanation. But as a rule, syllogism follows syllogism ; for the syllogism is the simplest, clearest and most cogent form of argumentation.
> b. Let each disputant take the other's words in exactly the same sense in which they were first uttered. Twisting an opponent's words to one's own meaning, is foreign to scholastic disputation.
> c. __**Let modesty and charity reign throughout. No sarcasm, no superior airs, no abusive language, no derogatory remarks. Above all, no shouting or thumping of tables ; it is a battle of wits, not of voices or fists.**__
> d. Both disputants are seated. In some places, however, it is customary for the defender to stand while announcing the thesis to be defended, and for the objector while making his counter-assertion." — `ABCs of Scholastic Philosophy, Pg. 33, General Rules`

By the way you attacked Protestantism, namely, sola fide which is a strawman of what I believe. Us Orthodox Christians believe in synergism where we are justified by our faith and works which are sanctified and made valid in God's grace.

Isaiah 64:6
"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."

well you are a apostate idol worshipper that rejects the torah nonetheless...you are going to go to hell.

isaiah 64:6 is contextual and circumstantial to a specific time.

the book of genesis god tells cain you can overcome sin.paul said we can't.

 

[John6Enjoyer]

well you are a apostate idol worshipper that rejects the torah nonetheless...you are going to go to hell.

isaiah 64:6 is contextual and circumstantial to a specific time.

the book of genesis god tells cain you can overcome sin.paul said we can't.

What? How does any of those insults or labels you threw at me prove anything?

Can you also tell me that Genesis verse so I can see it for myself?

Also I'd appreciate it if you conclude your points so I can give a fair and sufficient response.

"isaiah 64:6 is contextual and circumstantial to a specific time."

So you're entailing that God's ever-blessed holiness changes? Because here the lamentees are expressing how before God, even their righteous works are nothing but filthy rags.

 

[yandex99]

What? How does any of those insults or labels you threw at me prove anything?

Can you also tell me that Genesis verse so I can see it for myself?

Also I'd appreciate it if you conclude your points so I can give a fair and sufficient response.

"isaiah 64:6 is contextual and circumstantial to a specific time."

So you're entailing that God's ever-blessed holiness changes? Because here the lamentees are expressing how before God, even their righteous works are nothing but filthy rags.

ז הֲלוֹא אִם-תֵּיטִיב, שְׂאֵת, וְאִם לֹא תֵיטִיב, לַפֶּתַח חַטָּאת רֹבֵץ; וְאֵלֶיךָ, תְּשׁוּקָתוֹ, וְאַתָּה, תִּמְשָׁל-בּוֹ. 7 If thou doest well, shall it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door; and unto thee is its desire, but thou mayest rule over it.'

 

[yandex99]

What? How does any of those insults or labels you threw at me prove anything?

Can you also tell me that Genesis verse so I can see it for myself?

Also I'd appreciate it if you conclude your points so I can give a fair and sufficient response.

"isaiah 64:6 is contextual and circumstantial to a specific time."

So you're entailing that God's ever-blessed holiness changes? Because here the lamentees are expressing how before God, even their righteous works are nothing but filthy rags.

Paul's Contradictions of Jesus

Paul's Contradictions of Jesus

www.jesuswordsonly.org

editaul also says the torah leads and tempts to sin when psalms says it turns the heart to righteousness.

 

[yandex99]

@SecularIslamist it was paul that made chistianity pagan and leads millions of christians to hell,when they die