Romans 4:1-8
>What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
>For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
>For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
>Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
>But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
>Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
>Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
>Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
So much for Catholicism. Oops!

>>17833709 (OP)
>pic
horrifying

>>17833709 (OP)
You don't care about that. You're just seething because they're brown.

>>17833714
a more tragic portrayal of how far from the path of salvation that the church has fallen could not likely be conceived

>>17833714
>You're just seething because they're brown.
No, it's just fun to point out to make losers like you cry. I have no problem with shitskinned Catholics getting saved. I just gave the gospel to one yesterday, he doesn't speak ten words of English. But let's face it: Brown skin, low literacy, and sub-human IQs go hand in hand with Catholicism.

>>17833718
>>17833719

>>17833709 (OP)
>Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world

>35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’

>37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’

>40 And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did it to me.’

Jesus had a differenti idea; sola fide neve was and will never be

>>17833724
I guess you are trying to slander me by saying I share the views of this loser or of Christogenea.org. Make no mistake: Those freaks teach damnable heresy and PERVERT the word of God. The evidence is right here:
https://christogenea.org/CNT/first-epistle-john
Care to guess what I'll say next? If you said "They removed 1 John 5:7" then DING DING DING; You're correct!
Question: Why are you slandering the elect? Assmad brown Catholic, perhaps?

>>17833736
https://www.enjoyhell.com

>>17833738
That's for heretics that believe in sola fide

>>17833709 (OP) Pay attention:

It is okay to be born into a religion.
It is not okay to die in one.

Humans must evolve.
Religion helps in the spiritual path, but God is beyond religion, beyond words, beyond thoughts.

This will not be forced. You naturally will advance in level.

>my religion is better than yours
Only an atheist would make such statement. True religious people know that no religion is better than another. They all have love (God) in their core.

>>17833742
>That's for heretics that believe in sola fide
:/

>>17833748
Spewing forth lies comes quite naturally to you. I think we can all guess your spiritual parentage. Enjoy Hell.

>>17833709 (OP)
>But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
>Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
>Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Galatians 6:7-9
Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow. If you sow to your own flesh, you will reap corruption from the flesh, but if you sow to the Spirit, you will reap eternal life from the Spirit. So let us not grow weary in doing what is right, for we will reap at harvest time, if we do not give up.

Romans 2:6-8
"He will repay according to each one’s deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life, while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but injustice, there will be wrath and fury."

1 Corinthians 3:6-8
"I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and each will receive wages according to their own labor. For we are God’s coworkers, working together; you are God’s field, God’s building."

I'm tempted to ask, "Will the real Paul please stand up?"

>>17833772
Tick tock.

>>17833737
>noooo that's not me
>starts seething about "browns"
Hi William.

>>17833772
Why did Paul tell completely contradictory things to the different people he was writing to? Was he just pulling it out of his ass the whole time?

>>17833828
You just have a profound poverty of attention. Have fun burning. You fully deserve it.

>>17833834
I like your website.

Catholicism is actually based. I love the Pope. Stephen Anderson, IFB and King James Bible are actually cringe btw

>>17833840
Thanks!

Picrel, me. Argentinian + N&C Asian. Lifetime Roman Catholic.

White nationalist Timmy can seethe. I fully support whiteboi disposal.

>>17833845
Sorry, is this supposed to be a flex? Why did you post a candid with such a strong purple light on you? Are you, perhaps, ashamed of the shit hue of your skin?

>>17833857

Ashamed? No.

Saved? Yes.

Cry some more? Yes.

You're just seething because I've definitively debunked one of your satanic religions (Shintoism).

>>17833864

>>17833828
IIRC It's mostly agreed upon by academics that at least a few of Paul's letters are forgeries (1&2 Timothy, Titus) and that there are at least two later interpolations into his not-totally-forged letters (The bit about "women should be silent" in 1 Corinthians 14 and the bit about "Jews displease God and oppose everyone" in 1 Thessalonians 2).

So, as said, my temptation whenever I come across Paul appearing to disagree with himself is to say that maybe one side represents a later interpolator, since that seems to be a thing that was happening.

>>17833869

I'm not a schizo, dipshit.

I think you're just mad because all of the overwhelming historical evidence I've provided that completely shatters a Satanic beacon holding back 3m people from salvation.

Lol.

>>17833873
You're so screwed. :)

>>17833874
>I'm not a schizo, dipshit.
Yeah, you are. I'm not a Shinto Jap, I'm a white Christian. You're a Papist shitskin. Any questions?

>>17833878

No, you're a White Satanist. You're a naive pawn at best and a downright demon at worst. I've seen plenty of seethe come my way (especially from my secret admirer) after exposing Shintoism for what it is. Taoism is next on the chopping block, and I'm going to keep debunking pillars of Satanism until I'm banned.

>>17833883
debunks? you mean those crackpot pseudohistory threads youve flooded /his/ with in a vain attempt to convince anyone your religion is worth more than some homeless guy's turd?

>>17833884

Pseudohistory involves: misinterpretations of evidence; poor quality evidence; intentional omission; exaggerated remarks; etc.

My threads contain none of that.

Cope. Drink moar semen.

>>17833873
One thing I suspect about the real Paul is that he believed the Jewish law didn't need to be followed mainly because it wasn't given by God, as is potentially discernable in Galatians 3 (where the law is perhaps attributed to angels and a mediator instead of God), in Galatians 4, (where observing "special days, months seasons, and years," part of the law, is associated with being enslaved to "beings that by nature are not gods" and "weak and beggarly elemental principles/spirits,") and in Colossians 2, (where dietary rules are referred to as "simply human commands and teachings."

But that idea was unacceptable to whoever was preparing his letters for assimilation into the growing orthodoxy, so they "fixed" it by making Romans especially confusing and then putting Romans in front, while the other letters got a milder treatment with just a few large interpolations and not so much in-depth editing. Maybe Romans was chosen because the people doing the corruption were most closely connected to the church in Rome and they had the only or at least most copies of Paul's letter to the church in Rome, while the other letters were not mainly/exclusively in their possession, and so would be harder get away with editing too heavily.

>>17833724
ah yes, illiterate brownoids worshiping idols in a church is exactly how jesus intended for his people to receive salvation...

>>17833883
Blacklisted. Have fun burning.

>>17833772
See the following:

"Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:"
- Philippians 1:6

"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."
- Philippians 2:13

>>17833878
>>17833932
Retarded /pol/tranny

>>17833904

THIS.

>>17833709 (OP)
>I-Is th-that A STATUE? Being CARRIED? By PEOPLE? AAAAAAAAAGH! I'M GOING INSANE SAVE ME KING JAMES BIBLE AAAAAAAEEEEEYYYYYYY!

>>17833873
Another possibility which I consider to be about equally likely is that precisely what Paul means by certain words has somehow been misunderstood for a long time. "Justified" "saved" "works" "faith" "reckoned as righteous" ...maybe all of those had subtly different meanings to Paul than what we tend read into them. Right now I'm reading up on something called the 4QMMT manuscript which apparently uses some of Paul's terminology and according to some people might imply something novel about what Paul actually meant, though I'm still reading about it so I'm not sure.