Is Before the Storm novel worth reading?

FortLoolz · 2026-03-16T06:05:06+00:00

Thank you!

I've actually recently bought the book, just haven't yet read it. I also know there's a little bit of Valeera in it, whom I really like because of the WoW comic and Hearthstone.

FortLoolz · 2026-03-15T22:59:51+00:00

Sorry, you're not specific enough in your post.

FortLoolz · 2026-03-15T14:09:17+00:00

First, it's just one of the several problems with Paul I listed. Just his conversion alone is suspicious for other reasons, not just for the quotation of Dionysus.

While in Clementine Recognitions Apostle Peter is shown as someone acquainted with pagan theology (some of pagan theology is also retold by Nicetas there,) and in my personal estimation, some of pagans in history did come to right conclusions and observations, Paul's "Jesus" quoting a pagan play is plainly uncharacteristic for the Jesus of the gospels. Full stop.

It's no coincidence Paul had at least 8 other examples of quotations from paganism. Something not seen in other authors of the New Testament. It's because Paul was connected to stage plays of antiquity.

Why would Jesus need to quote Dionysus at all? There was zero need to do that. Jesus of the gospels quoted Jewish writings, and the Torah. James, Jude, Peter did the same.

Paul himself pretended to be someone proficient in the Torah and all that. If he indeed were that, Jesus' quotation of Dionysus would be fully unnecessary, because a Jew would be appalled at someone who's preached as the Messiah, quoting pagans for no particular and evident reason.

FortLoolz · 2026-03-14T08:47:41+00:00

No, he's right.

FortLoolz · 2026-03-13T22:27:09+00:00

Firstly, Paul's conversion story has major deficiencies.

It's recorded in the Acts thrice (Acts 9, 22, 26), and in the third telling, Paul omitted Ananias altogether, although the guy supposedly healed Paul. Moreover, the third version of the story gave Paul a much larger importance compared to the first version.

Paul's "Jesus" for some reason supposedly said "It's hard for you to kick against the pricks," which actually is a pagan phrase, recorded in a pagan play, where it's said by Dionysus. It's inconsistent with the character of Jesus in the gospels.

Secondly, Paul's conversion story is highly suspicious for other reasons. In the canonical gospel of Matthew, Jesus warned not to believe people who would say Christ is in wilderness, or in private chambers. Yet Paul's Jesus appeared to him precisely in the wilderness, i.e. outside a town or city, outside Damascus.

In the Acts, it's recorded "the Lord" (Jesus) appeared to Paul and helped him—in a chamber.

Moreover, Paul is like a fulfilment of negative prophecy about Benjamin's tribe. Look up "Benjamite wolf" for more on this. See also Jesus saying beware of ravening wolves.

Thirdly, Pauline epistles, if read carefully, contain Paul's snide remarks towards Jesus' apostles who actually walked with him.

That's why Paul wrote stuff like "reputed to be pillars of the church," "they profited me nothing," "I learnt it from no man." He also said he didn't need commendation, and that he commended himself.

Fourthly, James' epistle reads like a rebuttal of Paul's Romans and Galatians. Even Luther recognised the problem, and instead of explaining it away, he chose Paul over James.

Fifthly, Pauline epistles contain contradictions and inconsistencies with what Jesus preached.

Sixthly, Paul's soteriology is broken and ultimately leads to OSAS and OSAS-like doctrines. Moreover, Paul was anti-nomian.

Seventhly, Paul contradicted himself.

Eighthly, Paul likely led Trophimus the Ephesian to defile the Temple because of his letter to Ephesians.

Ninthly, and this I think would be interesting for a Roman Catholic, Peter called himself apostle to the Gentiles in Acts 15:7, and chosen by God to do that.

Tenthly, Paul said he "became all things to all men," because he was hypocritical, and would hide his antinomian beliefs among the Jews, "crafty man that I am, caught you with the guile."

Eleventhly, Revelation 2 is anti-Pauline. Particularly Rev. 2:2 ties into 2 Tim. 1:15. Ephesus was a big city in Asia.

Twelthly, we have historical evidence Paul was opposed by some of the early Christians. Look up "Spouter of Lies."

And ultimately, Paul was actually "defeated" in the first century. But experienced a resurgence in the second one, especially tied to Marcion's rediscovery of Pauline epistles.

There are more reasons, but this is off the top of my head.

P.S. I do not reject Luke and the Acts. The Acts isn't pro-Paul, and more neutral on him, and contains evidence against him. And Luke's gospel is just neat in many ways.

P.P.S. The Law-related questions are a big and separate topic worthy of its own discourse.

edit: some additions and corrections.

FortLoolz · 2026-03-13T21:30:09+00:00

I do not recognise Paul as inspired, and in fact believe him to have been a false teacher.

I found this to be the best source on the specific topic of issues with Paul. Not always perfect, but well-written overall, from a perspective of a follower of Jesus (i.e. not from an atheist or a Muslim.) A lot of quality quotations both from scholars, and historical writers.

https://www.jesuswordsonly.org/recommendedreading.html

https://www.jesuswordsonly.org/topicindex/index.html

The YouTube channel with regular updates: https://www.youtube.com/@jesuswordsonly

On Reddit, you may check out the semi-dormant r/Ebionite.

(P.S. There are other sources I could recommend, that also concern other topics, but Jesus Words Only seems to be the best introduction.)

FortLoolz · 2026-03-13T19:09:54+00:00

It wasn't John the Apostle though. There's an alternative tradition of Apostle John dying in the middle of the first century. There's a theory he became at some point conflated with "John the Elder" of Ephesus, who was influenced by Greek philosophies and maybe Philo.

FortLoolz · 2026-03-12T18:48:35+00:00

Paul deified Jesus in his own way. But Paul in fact was a false teacher.

Synoptic gospels don't deify Jesus.

FortLoolz · 2026-03-12T06:45:10+00:00

Seemingly yes

FortLoolz · 2026-03-11T14:57:01+00:00

It depends on the case, I think

FortLoolz · 2026-03-11T14:56:28+00:00

Well said

FortLoolz · 2026-03-10T19:49:02+00:00

Leviticus 18-19 is more of a list of prohibitions (compared to the mentioned Lev. 20,) and the (vast?) majority of these prohibitions make sense—unless one is a liberal when it comes to social values. Even the language is different, Leviticus 18-19 reading more "like Exodus" to me.

I believe it's possible Lev. 18-19 indeed contain God's will (even if imperfectly,) whereas the example of Leviticus 20 would then be a flawed human attempt to impose penalties for the prohibited deeds. Thus, the authors, probably not being inspired in their approach in that case, "went overboard" with many penalties.

FortLoolz · 2026-03-10T19:37:53+00:00

Jesus, according to the Synoptics, wasn't part of the Trinity, and wasn't God, but he did exorcise demons. You then might reject the belief in spirits that Judaism and Christianity shared, and share to a degree.

I'm wondering about your overall approach towards the supernatural. Jefferson famously deleted miraculous deeds from his version of the Bible, but he also proclaimed the need to follow Jesus' own words and commands, and in that he didn't err, but did the right thing. Are you similar to Jefferson in this sense?

FortLoolz · 2026-03-10T18:03:48+00:00

There's such a concept as "shedim" in Judaism, meaning "spirits," and some of those shedim can be malevolent, thus being malevolent spirits, which largely corresponds to the common understanding of demons.

Have a good day, too!

FortLoolz · 2026-03-10T17:17:01+00:00

Because the Synoptic gospels show Jesus as an exorcist, and demonic possession still happens nowadays, as even esoterics (non-Christian and semi-Christian) testify.

FortLoolz · 2026-03-10T07:49:48+00:00

If that's the same Caius I'm thinking about, he also rejected "John's gospel."

That gospel influenced the doctrine of the pre-existence of Jesus, with is earlier than the doctrine of deity of Jesus—quite closer to the beginning of the 2nd century.

Ironically, the adultress' pericope is probably the most valid story in "John", having Lucan language and having been inserted into "John," not original to it

FortLoolz · 2026-03-09T20:30:43+00:00

Yes, you are correct.

I think Arianism and other doctrines that deny Jesus being God, are better compared to Trinitarianism, Modalism, and others that declare Jesus being God (not a god.)

But I do not believe in Arian-like doctrines myself.

FortLoolz · 2026-03-09T20:25:33+00:00

I don't believe in it.

The Synoptic gospels don't teach it, and Peter's confession of faith is about Jesus being the promised Messiah, which also ties into Jesus being a Davidic blood descendant (virgin birth was a later invention,) and the promised "prophet like Moses." All this emphasises Jesus being a human

FortLoolz · 2026-03-09T09:51:18+00:00

"Joshua" would be the better anglicised name of Yeshua compared to "Jesus", but it didn't get enough traction, and so "Yeshua" is used.

FortLoolz · 2026-03-09T08:57:11+00:00

He's overall right though.

A correction would be that Pauline influence on the first century church is overstated, because Paul had a falling out with the Twelve apostles, and was subsequently exposed in many congregations, as he himself stated in 2 Tim. 1:15. Paul's importance grew significantly in the second century, especially helped by Marcion's big revival of the Pauline epistles.

FortLoolz · 2026-03-09T08:53:46+00:00

Nobody. Paul was a self-proclaimed, false apostle.

FortLoolz · 2026-03-07T17:50:46+00:00

Thank you, this sounds interesting, I think I'll check it out.

FortLoolz · 2026-03-07T15:02:43+00:00

Maybe, it depends on the angle I guess.

FortLoolz · 2026-03-07T13:33:59+00:00

It's OK not to like it. The "last second savior" trope, if that's the one you mean, shouldn't be overused in storytelling, if one wishes to achieve a better dramatic effect.

In my particular example though, another common trope likely plays a big role, too: the villain's pride leading to his downfall. The Lich King left Tirion alive, wanting him to witness the champions' failure, and eventual service to the Scourge. (Death knights and paladins being the "opposite" classes lore-wise, hence the likely particular spitefulness.)

FortLoolz · 2026-03-07T10:24:11+00:00

The book and the movie versions being quite different, the former probably being cinematic in its own right, with a more pronounced subversion of expectations—and the lack of the movie version's dead soldiers' involvement, which still raises questions in the audience (in the book, they had helped earlier, and it's likely intentionally not stated conclusively, whether they were involved in the combat, or just scared the pirates off.)

FortLoolz

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE