/lit/ - Literature

>>14535631
The most based post I've read in a long time.

>>14535631
>Jesus was one of the most wonderful people to have ever existed
Why? All he seems to have done was to perform magic, talk about how he is gonna throw people into hellfire and how his father sent him.

If you do not believe he was literally God then he was just a mentally ill magician.

>>14535655
No Anon I think you got that wrong. I think the historical Jesus affirmed life on earth and affirmed suffering while transcending the values of its time all while preaching the importance of compassion and love. And although I do not believe that he died for our sins, I do have seen with my own eyes that the believe in this man did lead people to salvation. People I thought were otherwise forever lost.

>>14535631
There was no historical Jesus, as he never existed.

http://sidneyrigdon.com/vern/Reuchlin.htm
The True Authorship of the New Testament

The New Testament, the Church, and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso) 1 family, who were Roman aristocrats. The New Testament and all the characters in it -- Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys all the disciples, apostles, Paul, and John the Baptist -- are all fictional. The Pisos created the story and the characters; they tied the story into a specific time and place in history; and they connected it with some peripheral actual people, such as the Herods, Gamaliel, the Roman procurators, etc. But Jesus and everyone involved with him were created (that is, fictional!) characters.

Repeatedly, religious-minded Judaean zealots were staging insurrections against the Herodian rulers of Judaea who were Piso's wife's relations. Piso wished to strengthen his wife's family's control of the Judaeans.

The Pisos searched for a solution to the two problems. They found it in the Jewish holy books, which were the foundation both for the rapid spread of the religion and for the zealots' refusal to be governed by Rome's puppets. The Pisos mocked, but marveled at, the Jewish belief in their holy books. Therefore, they felt a new "Jewish" book would be the ideal method to pacify the Judaeans and strengthen their inlaws' control of the country.

About the year 60 A.D., Lucius Calpurnius Piso composed Ur Marcus, the first version of the Gospel of Mark, which no longer exists. He was encouraged by his friend Seneca 5a and assisted by his wife's kinsman, young Persius the poet.


The Jesus figure which Piso creates is a composite. He inserts redrawn elements from Joseph in Egypt and other Jews of the Bible; elements from Essenic writings; and characteristics of various pagan gods.

>>14535699
>pseudonym
>self published
>literally who website
>no sources
ok

>>14535631
Yeah, his message was really meant for his fellow Hebrews, it is cultural appropriation for non-Jews to follow Him.

>>14535730
He literally says that the covenant shall be open to the nations because of the Jews insolence

>>14535814
When? After he called that dirty whore of a goyim(his words not mine) a dog for no other crime than being a subhuman slave race non-chosen person(again his words not mine)?

>>14535691
What a retarded head cannon you have.
The other annon is right if you don't believe he is God he quickly becomes carzy magician

>>14535833
Let me check my notes.

>“When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those inside the city must leave it, and those out in the country must not enter it; for these are days of vengeance, as a fulfillment of all that is written. Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress on the earth and wrath against this people; they will fall by the edge of the sword and be taken away as captives among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
Luke 21:20-24 NRSV

>>14535833
>Bear fruits worthy of repentance. Do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
Luke 3:8-9

>>14535691
Why do you think that? What line of reasoning brought you to that conclusion? Or is it only a feeling? Do you know that this is so, or do you only sense that it is so?

>>14535833
In Isaya and Jeremiah Ezekiel

>>14535891
He's lying. He is a Christian. This is a common sort of Christian "apologetics" where they larp about not being Christians and then pretend that they've arrived at the idea that Jesus was objectively a good teacher without literally believing in the dogmas of Christianity.

It's the sort of thing that is meant to get peoples foot in the door.

>>14535924
What if I have this thought as an atheist even? Why do you need to assert a certain pattern to everything? It seems like you are the dogmatic one here.

>>14535631
new age rebellious boomer mentality "i'm too superior to believe in a religion". Accept he was God and ressurected.

>32 Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven.
>33 But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.

>>14535924
No, I am Catholic, and such a thing isn't Christian. Jesus cannot be held as wonderful for his wisdom unless he is God incarnate, which is of course the essence of his teaching. A man who would deny Christ's divinity in order to make him more acceptable is against Christ. Like Peter when he places himself between Christ and Cross, such a man is Satan. It is the death and resurrection of God that is to be believed in and sought after. It is only by communion with such a God that Man has any hope. It is evil to put what is lesser above what is greater, and therefore it is evil to preach the wisdom of Jesus against the divinity of Jesus.

>>14535833
>The woman said to him, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet. Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him.
John 4:19-23 NRSV

>>14535950
Imagine thinking it is evil to admire a person for their wisdom from an unbiased point of view...

>>14535814
The gospels were written by xtians to conform to the goyisch version of the religion. There is no actual literary evidence for their existence before about 190 a.d. when they are first referred to by xtian writers. If they had existed before then xtians would have talked abôut them. They did not. Q.E.D.

>>14535958
>Unbiased
No such thing, we all interpret the world true a certain paradime

"i dont believe in instituted religion"
"im spiritual not religious"
"jesus was just a wise man"

FUCKING BOOMER MENTALITY SHUT UP YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. STOP EXPRESSING YOUR SENTIMENTS FOR YOUR OWN GOOD.

>>14535958
>Whoever is not with Me is against Me, and whoever does not gather with Me scatters

INSTEAD OF TRUSTING THE VERY SOURCE OF THE JESUS YOU PREFER TO TRUST IN YOUR DISTORTED HEAD CANNON

>>14535964
>is no actual literary evidence for their existence before about 190 a.d.

FALSE. JUSTIN MARTYR AND OTHER CHURCH FATHERS ALREADY QUOTE THE NEW TESTAMENT BY THE YEAR OF 150.

>>14535699
And what of the primary sources referencing Jesus?

>>14535958
God is worthy of all worship. It is evil to intentionally give him anything less. It is the first commandment and the end of all justice.

>>14535964
>>14535833
Matthew was almost certainly written in the first century
>When Jesus heard him, he was amazed and said to those who followed him, “Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Matthew 8:10-12 NRSV

The Pharisees and the scribes, who's children authored the Talmud hated Christ, hated those who walked with him, and put him on a cross. The bible can't be clearer that the Jews who rejected Christ will be punished, and anyone (jew or gentile) who walks with God will have eternal life. Just read a fucking book for once.

>>14535979
Patience and prudence brother. Charity desires conversion, not condemnation. Turn your zeal upon yourself.

>>14535964
One of the dumbest post yet

If Jesus was such a wise teacher, why didn't Paul cite him even once in his letters?

>>14535964
And even if the gospels were written 100 years later what difference does it make? Was there some sort of grand heresy against a now completely lost doctrine that retroactively opened the church to gentiles? Where is your evidence that the Christian were ever exclusionary towards pagans?

>>14536040

Because Paul is the anti-Christ.

>>14536040
>>14536122
Ignoring that you're replying to yourself, what is your actual support for this argument? What does Paul write that you think is the most opposite Christ?

>>14535691
>some crazy wannabe cult leader in the desert affirmed life
Come on now, at least believing he's the son of God makes him important

>>14535699
Too dumb to even warrant a refutation.

>>14535691
Based. Our world needs more people to live like Christ. Stop pretending life is meaningless and truth only comes from science. Christ isn’t the only path either.

>>14536287
Stop pretending that Christ didn't die for your sins. Stop pretending that salvation can have any other meaning than that put forward by Christ and preserved by the Catholic church.

>>14536243

Inferring Original Sin and Atonement from each other even though neither are present in the life and death of Jesus Christ, or either Testament for that matter, extending the borders of the Pharisaic to swallow everything else under the pretense of abolishing them.

>>14536243
I posted the question (first post) not the answer. It's a sincere question.

>>14536336
>Adam sinned, and therefore all men will die
>By my blood, I will take on your sins and give unto you eternal life
I'm not sure anything could be more consistent and explicit than Original Sin and Atonement. There is no idea more present in the Old Testament than the idea of unachievable justification, and no idea more present in the New Testament than justification by sanctification in Christ. Do you know of anything in either testament which contradicts this teaching?

>>14536343
Well, if it's a genuine question, I encourage you to actually read Paul. He cites Jesus throughout, by name and by reference. Notably, in his First Letter to the Corinthians, he quotes Jesus at the Last Supper, emphasizing the importance of the paschal sacrifice and the meaning of Eucharistic communion.

>>14536359

I'm not sure anything could be more consistently and explicit than the birth of the United States of America. There is no idea more present in the Old Testament than the idea of unachievable civilization, and no idea more present in the New Testament than manifestation of destiny by sanctification of Christ. Do you know of anything in either testament which contradicts this teaching?

>>14536372
Paul never cites the 'wise sayings' of Jesus of Nazareth. Even when he says something that overlaps with one of Jesus' teachings from the gospel, he never says "As Jesus said, ..." followed by a quote or paraphrase. By the way, the same applies to the epistles of the James, Peter, et al. They never quote Jesus as if he were a man who walked the earth dispensing divine wisdom or aphorisms, as depicted in the gospels.

>>14536391
So no, then.

>>14535699
Epic Anon accidentally demonstrates how Christ fulfilled types prefigured by the Old Testament Saints whilst arguing he never existed. Christ wins again

>>14536394
Because Jesus didn't come to say wise things. He came to redeem mankind. The letters are concerned not with teaching people wisdom, but with regulating the customs and practices of the early church. They are written with the understanding that those who receive the letters are already familiar with the Gospels. All of the letters are addressed to specific groups of people who have already met with and been baptized by the Apostles. Their whole intent is to interpret and correct. Why would he say "and Jesus says"? Jesus said it, and they know he said it, so it is only necessary to repeat it. When Jesus quotes Psalm 22 on the cross, he doesn't go "As the Psalmist says...," he simply says it. It is not true because of who said it. Jesus is not wise--he is, as God, the source of wisdom. Things are not true because he says them, but because he wills them. Paul writes to people who believe. Why do you demand that his words are intelligible to those who do not believe? Christ already gave himself. What more could be found in Paul?

>>14536444
See, this is the kind of weak answer that drives people to mythicism.

>>14536453
Jesus is God. Whether you deny his divinity by asking of him only wise things or by saying he did not exist at all hardly makes any difference. If you look to the Bible for anything but Christ's divinity, you will find nothing but a dry and empty book.

>>14536453
You have to believe in order to see and see in order to believe. It’s not complicated. God is everywhere present. You are like the Pharisee asking for a sign when the signs are everywhere present.

>>14536403

Generally speaking, axioms have no rebuttals as such, particularly, but any axiom can just as easily replace another so they have neither sufficient justification to begin with, absolutely. Try to prove my America thesis wrong if you are not convinced. Moreover, I'd hate to be accused of "philosophizing" by a dogmatist; the issue has been addressed by otherwise vanilla Christians:

>https://peteenns.com/5-old-testament-reasons-original-sin-doesnt-work/

>>14536529
So, even though he tries to dismiss the sentiment as not affecting his judgement, he openly acknowledges that it goes against his feelings of fairness that God would act in such a way. According to modern philosophy, a man can easily seperate such feelings from his thinking. Of course, traditional exegesis has always warned against this and argues strongly that where one has contrary sentiments, one ought to submit to tradition until the tradition is understood. Turning from there, we see that he at no point actually addresses the traditional arguments. At no point does he engage with any historical teacher. The only counter-arguments he offers are actual straw-men, which he dismisses without a drawn-out argument. But to treat fairly, I'll address his first point, which is all that is needed.

He says that sin is not one of the curses. Which is fine. No one says it is one of the curses. No, sin is a corruption. Sin is distance from God. This is shown directly in two ways. Immediately after eating the fruit, Adam and Eve see that they are naked and hide themselves from God. That is the essence of Sin. Second, they are thrown out of the Garden--that is they are removed from the direct presence of God by God. First they try to remove themselves, and then God removes them. Eden, of course, is then guarded at the Eastern gate (an essential mystical symbol) so that no man may eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Life. How could it be more explicit that by Adam and Eve's sin, all men are doomed to die, except if they live in Christ--the new East--who is the Tree and Fruit of Life?

Lastly, axioms can be easily rebutted, and I didn't even give you an axiom. Axioms are often not rebutted, however, because axioms anchor the debate. It is by agreeing to certain axioms that dialogue is possible. If the axioms are debated, then the dialogue will be without scope, and a conversation about the taxonomy of ducks will devolve into a debate about the semiotics of spoken language.

>>14535964
There's fragments of John we have that are older than that, try harder.

>>14536658

CLEARLY, the meaning of Adam and Eve seeing themselves naked is the Native Americans realizing their doom when facing armored Europeans. Them being thrown out of the Garden OBVIOUSLY means the Natives' shattered isolation, being banished from the reality they knew.

>>14536960
Do you know what sin is?

>>14536693
Wrong.

>>14537010
P52 is almost certainly before 190.

>>14537136
Paleographic dating is a very shaky 'science'. It depends on a whole raft of assumptions, some theological and some cultural. P52 is from a codex, which in itself suggests a later composition. Paleographically, it is consistent with having been written anywhere from the early 2nd century to the early 3rd century. But more importantly, we already know that various gospel pericopes were in existence by the middle of the 2nd century (including the diminutive content of P52). That's not in question. What is not in evidence is the existence of entire gospel narratives called "the Gospel of John", "the Gospel of Mark", etc. Irenaeus is the first to refer to such compositions by name.

>>14537301
Codexes existed in the first century, and it does not necessarily follow that Christian writers would take up the use of codexes later, rather than early. This is both a function of costs, tastes, and attitudes. The codex seems to have evolved out of more temporary and personal mediums of documentary and notary writing. Given the conditions of the early Church, it is more than reasonable to think that they would have taken up the use of codices as early as they were knowledgeable and capable. Given their certain and significant presence in Alexandria, a much earlier date is quite believable. Further, while we have no existing records of those names before St. Irenaeus, it is rather absurd to think that he used those names without expectation that the readers would understand. After all, he does not direct Against Heresies to the common person, but to clerics and learned men; additionally, he refers specifically to the Church as a single and identifiable body carrying the tradition of the Apostles. As we know now from the Library of Nag Hamamdi, the gnostics St. Irenaeus spoke against clearly preached of other gospels than the ones Irenaus said belonged to the Church. You must consider that none of these documents exist in a vacuum; they are not simply physical artifacts, but pieces of information which must also be taken into account. P52 is clearly a Codex fragment, meaning that it exists within an entire book; the text found on it is consistent with later copies of the Gospel of John; the lines present on the front side are proportionally distant from the lines on the back side only if the missing text is the text which elsewhere is included between the passages. Consider also that evangelion is used by Irenaeus not as title, but as descriptive. Further, in Against Heresies, Irenaus argues for the Church saying that it is unified in its teachings, in its writings, and in its sayings, making all this publicly available, whereas the gnostics are secretive and in disagreement even with each other. Again, the Library of Nag Hammadi supports this description, and the later unity of scripture that allows for a single Canonical bible centuries later reinforces the idea that the early church was very careful about preserving the gospels across languages and mediums.

The version of events you propose--that the authorship of the Bibles was developed later--is the version which requires more evidence. You suggest something which is not demonstrated by any evidence. Rather, you use the fact that each parcel of evidence for the accepted narrative is insufficient on its own to suggest that an unevidenced narrative is true instead.

https://www.biblequery.org/Bible/BibleCanon/EarlyChristianNTGridReferences.html

List of NT quotations by the church fathers. Synoptics were probably written around 60-70

>>14535631
>the historical Jesus

>>14537569
Couple of random points before I respond
1) I'm not the anon who started this conversation. I only entered the fray at >>14537301. So I don't necessarily agree with the other(s) in the chain.
2) Carbon-dating would make a huge difference for the dating of early Christian artifacts. Christian manuscripts are the only important manuscripts that are excluded from scientific examination. Paleography is fine for enabling probabilistic guesses, but you never know whether someone centuries later is simply aping an archaic style (out of reverence, or whatever) until the object is examined chemically.

>Codexes existed in the first century... a much earlier date is quite believable.
This is all possible and even plausible. But it's not really knowable. And if it's not knowable, faith-driven theologians will have a tendency to makes assessments that are most consistent with scripture and/or established church doctrine.

>Further, while we have no existing records of those names before St. Irenaeus, it is rather absurd to think that he used those names without expectation that the readers would understand.
I agree. My educated guess would be that the four named gospels were published together sometime between Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho" and Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" -- i.e., between 160 and 180 AD (basically, during reign of Marcus Aurelius). Like Trobisch and Tyson, I think this 4-gospel proto-orthodox 'canon' was published in response to Marcion's competing Evangelikon & Apostolikon, published a decade or two earlier. Before Marcion let the cat out of the bag, I think the raw ingredients of the gospels were kept secret within the Church as a kind of trade secret. Most Christians were illiterate, so it didn't really matter that much. But when Marcion published his version, it became accessible to non-Christian Greek intellectuals for the first time, and they started to talk about it. To avoid letting Marcion define 'Christianity', the proto-orthodox Roman church were forced to publish their own canon. It is speculated that Polycarp did much of the work in collecting, organizing and editing the scraps of 'apostolic testimony' into a coherent format.

(cont'd next post)

>>14535631
1. Stop ignoring God.

2. I share the sentiment; one comes to know Jesus as a person closest via the spiritual doctrine that was initiated by him, and directly inspired through his becoming himself in Christ, rather than via the religious canon, or, in this case, via "The New Testament", which reeks of jewish meddling with an initially Christian source; regardless of this, the constant longing for ultimacy & justice that propels Christians is compensed, and introduced, within, zealous judeochristians by the appearence of Jesus Christ himself - through/within visions & dreams - the inspired Love of whom impels them toward virtue, thus countering the deficiency that was/is fomented by the demiourgic church, and saving/helping those clouded noble Souls who need his presence most of all.

There are some claims that P137 is from the 1st century.

Anyway all this is archaelogical debate and surviving manuscripts are, as the name implies, those that survived and were found (!). We have evidence of NT quotation as early as the 100s. >>14537703

Many findings are still to come.

>>14537569
>>14537823 (cont'd)
>As we know now from the Library of Nag Hamamdi, the gnostics St. Irenaeus spoke against clearly preached of other gospels than the ones Irenaus said belonged to the Church.
Yes, and some of those gospels were assimilated into the proto-orthodox canon. Matthew has Ebionite roots, Luke has Marcionite roots, etc. The four-fold gospel was an attempt to re-incorporate supporters of the four largest competing factions back into the fold of the church of Rome.

>Further, in Against Heresies, Irenaus argues for the Church saying that it is unified in its teachings, in its writings, and in its sayings, making all this publicly available, whereas the gnostics are secretive and in disagreement even with each other.
Exactly - with the exception of the Marcionites. The church of Rome saw how successful Marcion was in gaining converts and cultural clout via publishing an 'sourcebook' as it were, so they did they same. It was a smart move, as the other Gnostic groups with their secret writings started to hemorrhage members.

> reinforces the idea that the early church was very careful about preserving the gospels across languages and mediums.
If by 'early church' you mean late 2nd century, then I agree. I don't think things were that organized before c. 150AD.

>The version of events you propose--that the authorship of the Bibles was developed later--is the version which requires more evidence.
I think every version of events requires more evidence. It's really all speculation at this point. Given the evidence we do have, it's hard to accept that the gospels in anything like their current form were in existence in the first century.

>>14537703
>>14537859
>We have evidence of NT quotation as early as the 100s.

The dating of those 'quotations' depend on the dating of the written works in which they are found. There is no evidence of any Christian written document dating to the first century.

>>14538076
Brothers, look how the enemies of the faith have appeared as ravenous lions to try and tear us apart. They stalk and wait for one of the flock to falter and then they leap upon him at once. Do not give into these men, they are demons in human flesh, resist them at every turn and seek only God, who shall lead us all along the path of salvation. These Jews are nothing short of the incarnations of the Devil, that is Satan, that old and terrible serpent, himself. Do not drink the Dragon's poison.

>>14538118
Is Catholicism the only way to God?

>>14537823
>faith-driven theologians will have a tendency to make assessments that are most consistent with scripture and/or established church documents
>it's all speculation at this point
Your attitude and position is precisely why the Church is not forthcoming with any documents. You act as though the bias is one way only. The fact is, it's not really speculation. There is an existing organization which has a verifiable tradition of very certain practices attached to very specific and often repeated stories, with littler error. The doctrine put forward by this organization has remained perfectly intact. There is only a 70-120 year window between the people who were present at the time of Christ and the first surviving documents. Everything else is well established. But despite the strong, overwhelming in fact, coherence of the accepted Church tradition, there are still many who insist upon a continual testing of each thing, as though the next test will somehow reveal something essential. For one, carbon-dating is not magic. Whenever these ancient documents are tested, there continues to be debate. The age is never settled; there is instead only a moving of the debate. If the date is confirmed, you will not dramatically change your theory. If the date is moved, it has provided no new evidence for you, but only expanded the realm of uncertainty. Of course, it is fundamentally absurd to rest one's belief in what the Bible says on the venerability of the age of a fragment of the book which is used. When it comes to teachings of science, do you wait for the last study to come in to confirm the precise and final understanding of Gravity? Of course not. You see that it works, and so believe. Either you see the truth of the Gospels, or you do not. And so long as you seek to test it, you will not see it.

>>14538415
Ah, I see we're at an impasse in terms of methodology. Nonetheless, I enjoyed this exchange of perspectives. All best to you and yours.

>>14535631
I'd say it's safer to go for the ideas than for the man itself. Whether or not the guy existed, the ideas within the book (at least some of them, like the golden rule) are of value. Even if his story was just an invention of some scribe, there is a valuable philosophical thought within it. In that case the scribe should be the one that gets the praise.

Same goes to Confucius, Buddha and me, the anon, tho our existence isn't that much disputed. It's not important who we are, but what we say. I like to think of us as the jolly bunch of pacifist philosophers. I can relate to the ones that were born long before me, or even not really born at all.

>>14538159
The only way to God is through the heart, mediated by a noble lifestyle; you will not find God by adhering to any religion/tradition/institutionalized spirituality, and certainly not by subscribing to a branch of judeochristianity, which is a corruption of authentic Christianity.

>>14538572
Interesting answer, but you're a different tripcode.

>>14538625
>but you're a different tripcode.
What do you mean?

>>14538625
>>14538653
Nevermind, I just realized that you were referring to the poster that you replied to.

>>14538653
>>14538677
Yep, I was responding to the views of:
"The Servant !!irRbCPUwNpV" >>14538118

>>14538159
The Catholic Church once was a torch that blazoned with truth and spirit in the darkness, but now it has fallen to the wayside, and its light has been snuffed out. You will find no true refuge there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh-jFBEOC6s&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR2YP_MeUP66aAFrX6D8PiTRwddLKUWZecCUuh9Sm3OTql3AbmAfwWSfpy4

>>14535699
Imagine hating Christianity so much to believe this... peak pseud.

>>14535699
God is cooking up something good for you.

>>14535631
Meh, he was cool. Video related
https://youtu.be/g33-W9t2q2Q

>>14539030
beautiful

>>14539012
OK, so which church is non-satanic? The Presbyterians?

>>14536978

The misery of the Native Americans, wallowing in a world with no technology, no institutions, no rule of law, no capitalism, etc., all of which the United States of America took away.

>>14539012
>Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in Heaven. And, Amen, I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. I will give you the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven; whose sins you bind will be bound in Heaven, and whose sins you loose will be loosed in Heaven.

>>14540184
You don't know? Or are you just pretending ?

>>14535631
Maybe it is a shame what you have made of him as well.

>>14535655
>If you do not believe he was literally God
Nobody believes this except for american protestants...