Here lies Paul the Apostle in his tomb, still waiting for Jesus to return with a trumpet call and resurrect him after 2,000 years. Sad.

You'll be burning in hell soon, you know that right? enjoy

You got btfo so bad in the other thread that you decided to make this, nice.

>>17808367 (OP)
Lol

>jewgod claims to drive away all demons
>gives Paul a demonic entity
>Paul accepts it like a cuck instead of pointing out the obvious failed promise and lie of this god

>>17808658
You do realize that this only makes sense to your own schizophrenic and delusion-riddled mind, right?

>>17808663
>resist the devil and he WILL flee from you
>umm achyually god will send you unremovable demons despite promising otherwise earlier

>>17808671
Again this form of schizoyap only makes sense to a severely deluded mind such as yours, maybe try talking to a real person about religion you'll find out they don't think like this.

>>17808699
>no argument

>>17808700
Correct, I'm not arguing

>>17808706
Yep because you can't defend anything

>>17808367 (OP)
Didn't he literally kill Christians when he was a Pharisee? One of the very first Christian martyrs who became a saint died at his hands.

>>17808531
Christcucks screech about hell like autistic retards flailing in a padded room, convinced their imaginary torture pit means anything to people with a functioning brain. “You’ll burn forever!” they whine, like a seething school shooter fantasizing about revenge on everyone who laughed at them. It’s the ultimate cope—a limp-dicked, powerless faggot’s way of pretending he has some cosmic authority when in reality, he’s just another pathetic wage slave rotting in mediocrity. They can’t win arguments, they can’t defend their beliefs, they can’t even convert people—all they can do is shriek about some cartoon-tier afterlife that exists only in their broken, servile minds. Hell isn’t real, but their desperation sure as fuck is.

Nobody fears their inbred retard cult’s punishment fantasy because nobody outside their incest-ridden trailer park takes it seriously. The idea that some divine Jew-on-a-stick is going to tantrum and throw people into a fire pit for eternity like a cosmic toddler proves Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a fucking mental illness. If hell was real, they wouldn’t need to spam their empty threats like a battered housewife trying to convince herself her husband still loves her. But they do, because deep down, even they know they got played. That’s why they repeat the same retarded script—not because they believe it, but because they’re too fucking weak to face the fact that they’ve wasted their entire lives kneeling to an imaginary sky kike who isn’t coming to save them.

>>17808985
Yeah, he freely admits this.

>>17808671
Your rod and your staff comfort me.

>>17808721
The truth does not need to be defended. It just is.

>>17809036
You are gnashing your teeth.

>>17809083
Yep which is why my point stands undefeated

Paul had a demonic entity despite your jewgod promising to drive out every demon lol

>>17808985
>>17809038
According to Acts he was present as a young man at the stoning of Stephen, and he approved of it though he didn't participate. It also says he threatened Christians and had them thrown in prison. It never says he actually killed anyone. And all of his letters are ambiguous about how he persecuted the church -- whether there was actuallly physical violence involved. Historically speaking it may be a tale that got bigger over time, just as it has now with people thinking he unambiguously, personally killed Stephen.

>>17809103
Acts 26:10-11:
>“I not only locked up many of the saints... but when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them.”
So, maybe didn't personally kill them, but he was still complicit in their deaths.

>>17809094
Literally nobody knows what the fuck you're talking about. You're shouting schizo head canon and declaring it as fact.

>>17809119
If you believe Acts

>>17809127
Is there a reason I shouldn't?

>>17809129
https://ehrmanblog.org/the-book-of-acts-is-not-reliable-the-negative-case/
>Every time you compare what Acts has to say about Paul with what Paul has to say about himself, you find discrepancies, just as you find discrepancies internally whenever Acts recounts the same event more than once. As valuable as Acts may be as an interesting story about the first years and decades of the early Christian movement, the reality is that the book of Acts is not historically reliable.

>>17809135
>Acts 26:10-11
Richard Carrier also has a massive page arguing for it, if you're willing to give any credit to him: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/23447

>>17809135
Richard Carrier also has a massive page arguing for it, if you're willing to give any credit to him: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/23447

>>17809135
An interesting read, but what it says about Acts 17 and Romans 1 I don't agree with.
Acts 17 has:
>The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent
Ehrman is arguing that Paul is outright calling the Athenian pagans "ignorant", which would fit his Romans contradiction, but it feels more like it's saying "The times before, where before Christ was fully known, were the times of ignorance, and God was patient, but now it's time to repent". He's not necessarily even calling the pagans "ignorant" here, just that now Christ's word has come and emphasizes that they now have to repent.

In Romans 1, he's flat out saying "God made himself discernible since the creation of the world, through fury and the invisible presence. There's no excuse.", but "no excuse" doesn't mean "the people didn't deny it". Just look at Moses tribe where they were going "Is God even with us?!" despite everything done for them.

So, it feels like Paul is using diplomacy for the Athenians, but not specifically calling them "ignorant". He believes they know better, but still wants to change their minds.

>>17809286
I honestly cannot understand the arrogance and mental gymnastics required to presume that every other nation around the world would somehow grasp and then willfully deny that the creator of the entire universe is an Iron Age storm god who had fits of rage about pigs and mixed fabrics.

>>17809295
That's adorable, you're a smart cookie and so precious in your self-assurance. By the way, why are they finding urns full of children bones with Baal symbols near them? You know, the very same Baal that God was rallying against in the Old Testament and has been testified for throughout the ages? I guess it must all be fanfiction, huh.

>>17809286
I see what you're saying on that point, but I think ehrman's strongest point is probably
>When Paul himself talks about his conversion in Galatians 1 he insists that after he had his vision of Jesus he did not – he absolutely and positively did not (he swears to it!) – go to confer with the other apostles in Jerusalem. Not for years. And what happens when Paul converts according to Acts 9? What is the first thing he does after he leaves Damascus? He makes a beeline to Jerusalem to confer with the other apostles. In Acts he does precisely what he himself swears in Galatians 1 that he didn’t do.

Also I personally don't think Paul even wrote that bit of Romans 1, so it's a an irrelevant comparison either way to me, but I'm really deep in the conspiracy rabbithole on this.

Also coincidentally a scholar name Robyn Walsh just put out a brief video relevant to the topic an hour ago, and she's on the side of Paul not actually having persecuted the church anywhere near as severely as he's depicted.
https://youtu.be/KwXZqTB6rDU

>>17809309
I'm not denying that they killed their children in ritual sacrifices and needed a set of laws to stop being as evil and insane as they were, but that doesn't mean a donkey spoke or ancient Cananites tried to butt fuck a sexy angel.

>>17809341
The thing is, there's not a specific timeframe for when Paul actually goes to Jerusalem as depicted in Acts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but:
>When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him, but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket. And when he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples. But they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple.
So, it could easily be an narrative ommission, because it doesn't specifically said "Paul immediately went to Jerusalem" it just says "And he went to Jerusalem". If you see the scripture as divinely written, then the two would compliment each other to fill in the gaps and let the other fill in the details, which is what Paul does in Galatians:
>“I did not go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.”
So, it's kind of the same thing with my Romans-Acts call-out, because I'm seeing it as Ehrman is applying the view that the narrative is all cohesive and one happens immediately after the other, but the text doesn't "dead to rights" say "Paul immediately went to Jerusalem".

Also, we should consider the fact that Acts was written AFTER Galatians, so why include what Paul had already said had happened? It's more of an argument to say that there wouldn't be such blatant discrepancies considering Acts came after Paul completely.

>>17809423
* it just says "And when he went to Jerusalem" I meant to say.

>>17809348
A donkey did speak. God does more wonderful things than that.

>>17809423
>>17809423
Even allowing for the possibility that Acts just omitted Paul immediately leaving for Arabia and glossed over that, after he returned to Damascus, he spent three years there before going up to Jerusalem, arguably there's a discrepancy between their stories even earlier in the narrative, because Paul says, "when the one who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the gentiles, I did not confer with any human." whereas Acts does have him immediately conferring with the Christian Ananias who supposedly restored his sight, and "For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus."

But if that were true, it would totally go against the point of Paul explaining what he did after his conversion, which is to show that he didn't go to any other Christians who might have confirmed his ideas about the gospel or who might have taught him anything. He wants to emphasize that he got his gospel directly from Jesus, and that was good enough for him to start preaching it entirely on his own.

>If you see the scripture as divinely written
If you insist on seeing the scripture as divinely written, then you might always be able to come up with ways to harmonize discrepancies, just like how the discrepancy between Matthew and Acts regarding what Judas did after his betrayal are harmonized. Did Judas immediately become seized with remorse, return the money to the priests, and hang himself, or did he personally use it to buy a field and then fall headfirst and exploded in it? I know people have found ways to argue that the two stories are perfectly compatible, but it isn't at all persuasive to someone who doesn't already take the infallibility of scripture as an axiom. Without that axiom, if something looks like a contradiction, a reasonable would assume that it probably is a contradiction, that the two authors had conflicting ideas about what happened.

>>17808367 (OP)
To be honest, I think the historical Paul or his followers lied about his Pharissiacal credentials. Or at least wildly embellished them to make him look like the arch-Jew to his gentile audience when he was just some dude in reality.

>>17809516
>because Paul says, "when the one who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the gentiles, I did not confer with any human." whereas Acts does have him immediately conferring with the Christian Ananias who supposedly restored his sight, and "For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus."
I don't see it as a contradiction, because Paul makes it a point to glorify God above all else. While he omits the naming of Ananias, he doesn't preclude her, because Paul was a man who acknowledged God being the ultimate being of salvation. When he says "I didn't confer with any human" he's saying "No human was responsible for my ultimate salvation", and he'd be right. Humans are just instruments to be used by God, because ultimately the power didn't come from Ananias, it came directly from God. Paul has a picky way of putting people, even himself, out of the picture when it comes to God.
2 Corinthians 12:2-4:
>“I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows—was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.”
Paul is 100 percent talking about himself, but explicitly refrains from even naming himself in such a heavenly happening. He has a tendency to frame God above all else in divine tellings, even in the exclusion of naming himself. Ananias would be no different.

>>17809516
>Did Judas immediately become seized with remorse, return the money to the priests, and hang himself, or did he personally use it to buy a field and then fall headfirst and exploded in it?
Matthew 27:6-7:
>“The chief priests picked up the coins and said, ‘It is not lawful to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.’ So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners.”
Judas never bought the field himself, it was from the priests he tried to pay with his "blood money". In a sense, Judas did buy the field, but he never intended to. Not exactly a contradiction, unless Acts deliberately said "Judas gave the money to specifically buy the field". As for the "headlong and explosion" you could see it as "falling headlong" (falling straight down from a rope with your head obviously being the point of death) and "exploding onto the field" which could possibly mean Judas hung himself from a high up tree and exploded like a melon after crashing to the ground, hence "Field of Blood"

>>17809635
>>17809639
I'll repeat what I said earlier.
>f you insist on seeing the scripture as divinely written, then you might always be able to come up with ways to harmonize discrepancies
But the ways will not be very persuasive to people who don't already take as an axiom that scripture must be infallible.

>>17809639
>it was from the priests he tried to pay with his "blood money"
He didn't try to pay them, he gave them back the same money they gave him to betray Jesus.

>>17809681
I have been harmonizing the discrepancies, though? If you want to give a rebuttal, I'm all ears. It's important to hash things out with others to reach an ultimate truth, not to debate so you can go "I win, you lose".
>>17809689
>Matthew 27:3
“When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders.”
And they rejected it and bought the field Judas would hang himself in.

>>17809695
>I have been harmonizing the discrepancies, though?
Your proposed harmonization involves some very impressive redefinitions of words
>When he says "I didn't confer with any human" he's saying "No human was responsible for my ultimate salvation"
Any ordinary Christian could say that, so there'd be no point for Paul to use it as part of an argument vindicating himself as an apostle!
So I don't think you're willing to honestly consider the possibility that there could just be a confilct between the stories, and so there's not much discussion to be had. It'll just be you insisting that actually it everything fits together perfectly no matter what, when anyone without blind faith goggles would think otherwise.

>>17809739
>Your proposed harmonization involves some very impressive redefinitions of words
Which "redefinitions" of words have I used?
>Any ordinary Christian could say that, so there'd be no point for Paul to use it as part of an argument vindicating himself as an apostle!
I backed up my argument by giving an example of Paul's exclusion of himself in his own verse in concern with a divine occurrence. Sorry to say, but the burden of proof falls upon you. If you want to bring out further contradictions, feel free, but I think I've put forward a reasonable argument why Acts isn't a direct contradiction.
>So I don't think you're willing to honestly consider the possibility that there could just be a confilct between the stories, and so there's not much discussion to be had. It'll just be you insisting that actually it everything fits together perfectly no matter what, when anyone without blind faith goggles would think otherwise.
I've given rebuttals to your "conflicts" and they've not been anything that's out of the realm of possibility. If you showed me a direct and definitive contradiction that I couldn't possibly refute or had to be forced to give a weak rebuttal to, then I would concede, no problem. I'm not close minded, I consider each and every idea and argument relevant to me. After all, our buddy Paul would want that:
1 Thessalonians 5:21:
>"But test everything; hold fast what is good."

>>17809129
you need reasons to believe, not to disbelieve. all tales are false until checked, although some are not important enough to waste too much time checking them.

>>17809036
Didn't read...I don't talk to future flaming pieces of shit. Let me know how hell is dickhead

>>17808531
>soon
No one's gonna be burning in Hell before Jesus returns, so he's fine either way.

bump

>>17809908
>I don't care what the Bible teaches.
Noted.
>>17808367 (OP)
>>17808658
>>17808671
>>17808700
>>17808721
Tick tock.

>>17809591
You kikes are pathological liars so I don't doubt it.

>>17809341
>What is the first thing he does after he leaves Damascus? He makes a beeline to Jerusalem
There is a time gap between Acts 9:25 and 26 though. Basically the timeline of events at this part of the New Testament is as follows:

AD 35-38: Acts 9:23-25 & Galatians 1:17
AD 38: Acts 9:26-43 & Galatians 1:18-19.

If Acts said something like "Paul never went into Arabia," or "one year later" in Acts 9:26, that would be a contradiction.

All Acts 9:26 says is, "And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, ..." that's it. It doesn't say how much time passed. If it did, and that disagreed with Galatians, you would have a genuine contradiction. But it just doesn't say how much time passed between Acts 9:25 and 26.

>>17809516
You can be physically around someone without conferring with them.

>Did Judas immediately become seized with remorse, return the money to the priests, and hang himself, or did he personally use it to buy a field and then fall headfirst and exploded in it?
He tried to return the money. His act of returning the money indirectly was an act of purchasing the field, since they used it to buy the field. It would also seem to be an entirely inadvertent act. Then after hanging himself, his body fell headfirst and burst open. It's possible the rope snapped or that some other freak accident caused this to happen.

This seems to show how even Judas Iscariot's final act of rebellion, which was to kill himself, was thwarted by God, since Judas Iscariot ended up dying in a different way than he had intended to die.

>>17810576
>His act of returning the money indirectly was an act of purchasing the field, since they used it to buy the field
I find it hard to believe that anyone would say this except as a desperate measure to reconcile this discrepancy. Where else is "You give me money, I give it back, you buy something with it." understood as equivalent to me buying something or acquiring what you bought.

>even Judas Iscariot's final act of rebellion, which was to kill himself, was thwarted by God
Acknowledging your sin and suiciding out remorse doesn't come across as an act of rebellion to me, but I know lots of Christians really hate Judas for some reason even though the whole religion would fall apart without him.

>>17810611
Also, regarding Judas' remorse, that's another discrepancy between Matthew and Acts, since while Matthew shows a Judas who clearly deeply regrets his action, Acts' portrayal by itself would lead the reader to believe that Judas had no remorse. He just "acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness" and then fell down and exploded as if it were a direct punishment from God for shamelessly spending his ill-gotten money.

Some people might assume that Judas should be in hell because Jesus said that it would be better if he hadn't been born at the last supper, but, for an interesting extra-Biblical discrepancy, it seems like according to Clement's letter to the Corinthians (generally believed to have been written some time in the first century) that saying may have originally been attached to Jesus' statement about "those who cause others to stumble."

>>17810682
Mark 14:21
For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born.

Mark 9:42
If any of you cause one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea.

Clement to the Corinthians, 46
Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how He said, Woe to that man [by whom offenses come]! It were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about [his neck], and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

>>17810611
>Where else is "You give me money, I give it back, you buy something with it." understood as equivalent to me buying something or acquiring what you bought.
Judges 17:1-4.

>>17810621
>He just "acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness" and then fell down and exploded
Yes exactly.

>>17810682
>that saying may have originally been attached to Jesus' statement about "those who cause others to stumble."
You are probably thinking of two different scripture passages that both exist. Compare the following:

"Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."
- Luke 17:1-2

"The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born."
- Matthew 26:24

"The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born."
- Mark 14:21

>>17810717
>Judges 17:1-4
So, in this story, it seems like a man stole money from his mother, but then he felt guilty and returned it, so she had the silver made into an idol and gave it to him as a gift. “I solemnly consecrate my silver to the LORD for my son to make an image overlaid with silver. I will give it back to you.”

The story certainly has an eerie resemblance to Judas' story from a schizo pattern recognition perspective, but I don't think it's the same because the mother did explicitly have the idol made for her son. Whereas in Judas' story, according to Matthew, the chief priests just took the money and "decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners." which still seems to plainly disagree with Acts' account where Judas himself is said to have "acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness." Matthew doesn't mention the priests giving the field to Judas (Judas owning it would seem to go against its purpose as burial place for foreigners, I'd think.), and Acts doesn't mention Judas receiving a field from the priests. He seems to acquire it directly using the reward for his wickedness.

>>17810796
Calling me a schizo is not doing you any favors, anon. See what it says in Matthew:

"And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in."
(Matthew 26:6-7)

The chief priests decided that they shouldn't accept the money, specifically because they had given it to Judas Iscariot in return for his betrayal of Jesus Christ. The money had been dedicated to that purpose, so they called it "the price of blood" (by the way you left that important detail out of your description for some strange reason).

Since they viewed the money as dedicated, they literally couldn't take it back. So the money was "used" to buy a field, but technically it was Judas who spent the money. It was basically cursed if you want to think of it like that. The situation is the same in Judges since the son wants to give the silver back to his mother, but she says she already dedicated it and refuses to take it back. When he insists on giving it to her, she makes an idol out of it and the idol ends up back in his possession again. It's basically like he can't get rid of it.

I wouldn't mention the similarities if they didn't exist. Since you specifically asked, there you go, anon. If this still confuses you, reading comprehension might seriously be a factor: you seem to leave out key details for some reason all the time, despite each passage being only a few verses long and details are hard to miss.

>Acts doesn't mention Judas receiving a field from the priests.
This makes sense because as was previously explained, he was technically the spender of the silver pieces.
>He seems to acquire it directly using the reward for his wickedness.
Right.

>Matthew doesn't mention the priests giving the field to Judas
Just like the idol, the field became his as soon as he attempted to return the money. The priests never owned it.

>>17809124
If you read the bible you would know
But obviously you just a let church jews control you golem

Paul had two different versions of what happened in the road to Damascus lol

Heard a voice or didn't? Saw something or nothing?

He also urged 1st century christians that they would be raptured. That 1st century christians should not escape slavery or get married because Jesus would be back in their lifetime lol

>>17811035
>Paul had two different versions of what happened in the road to Damascus lol
The men around him heard something that sounded like a voice, but not the voice of the one that spoke to Paul. They saw a light, but not the actual person talking to Paul (Acts 9:7 just says they saw no man; it doesn't say they saw no light). The accounts are consistent on this.

>He also urged 1st century christians that they would be raptured.
They were supposed to be ready for it to happen. "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matthew 24:36).

>>17811053
Nope it's contradictory.

Nope. He gave nonsensical advice to 1st century christians because Jesus immediate return was what they believed

"We who remain will be taken up in the air" Paul was under the impression that he would be raptured in his living body lol

Christians are still holding onto this grift after 2,000 years. Sad.

>>17811248
Not today, Rabbe.

>>17810179
Relishing in the pain of others, and condescending towards them at all cost, is the furthest thing from God I could contemplate.