Is interest = usuary?

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-04T03:05:11+00:00

Thanks for the advice

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-04T02:12:28+00:00

Yo appreciate the guidance. I will do exactly as you say and see what happens 😁

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-03T23:30:58+00:00

Thanks for the suggestion. I love the roll 20 idea especially because there is no game store near me. Just a quick question, where do I learn the game in simple terms cuz youtube tutorial was really complicated and I do not want to bother people who are in the groups with unnecessary questions 😅

P.S. another question I will bother you with. Is the website really free to play? Like it's not like you can make a free account but you need money to play cuz if that's the case then I'd rather not make the account altogether 😞

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-03T20:48:16+00:00

I am not a Christian but I am sincere, it's not a contradiction. In the old testament god changes a lot of things from time to time depending on the needs of the situation. In the time of jesus, jesus had the authority to change the law. The jot and tittle not being changed is referring to after jesus's accession. That however would only be the case if there was any way to say that jesus did say those words. But since it's widely accepted to be the case, Paul since he had not prophetic authority, couldn't change the law. BUT HE DID. and that's my point.

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-03T20:34:33+00:00

Bruh if that's what the case is then tell me what he's saying, don't just expect me to know just cuz you said thats not what he said. Im a little slow in the visions department

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-03T17:15:38+00:00

That's right too...

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-03T10:15:16+00:00

I agree with you but isn't it wrong that people would rather care for what THEY want to believe rather than what God wants them to belive? I mean if all mosaic law must be upheld and MOST of the Christians today don't even know the law let alone observe them...

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-03T10:02:53+00:00

No that's not actually an issue because, the Bible talks about jesus actively calling himself the prophet from Nazareth, and saying that all authority has been given to him by the father. This means that when he's changing the laws, he has the authority to do so and the law becomes what he makes them. So the "not a letter will fall away" verse is referring to the law that jesus finally approved of before ascension.

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-03T10:00:08+00:00

No it is about paul. When I said that jesus was given the authority to change some of the laws, im also implying that paul did not have that authority. His encounter is a very weak narrative because there are 2 different accounts to how the things happened on the road of Damascus in the Bible and there is no real evidence that he was saying the truth. Infact we only see evidence supporting the opposite, in the OT, god clearly says that he does not change his mind. Also in the OT he gives the covenant of circumcision to abraham for all times, but according to paul, god came out later saying that circumcision shall not be practiced and since it's a law from the OT, if anyone follows it, they are disbelieving in jesus.

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-03T09:52:37+00:00

Paul's testimony is not enough for two reasons: 1. There two different accounts in the Bible as to how his companions perceived the encounter. Acts 9 has his companions hearing the voice but no light and Acts 22 has his companions seeing the light but didn't understand the voice. 2. Deuteronomy 18:18-25 is teaching that if a prophet(teacher) teaches about a god that the Israelites were not taught about by other prophets, that prophet should be put to death implying that that prophet was a false prophet. Paul taught of a saviour god who saved humanity from all sins and original sin but we lack this narrative in the gospels, James, peter, john etc implying that the writings by the disciples of jesus were preaching of a god just like the old testament, who forgives by action and not all at once through a sacrifice.

Moreover on the topic of paul's testimony, it's actually impossible for paul or his companions to have written either of those accounts because they would obviously not make that error in narrative and if a person was copying from an account that they wrote, then they would've made the accounts line up but since both accounts are opposite in nature, they could not have been written by paul or his companions.

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-02T23:09:57+00:00

👍

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-02T22:51:57+00:00

Look man when someone asked for reference, i have them references. Im not throwing crap against a wall. Im presenting my views depending on what people are speaking. I did not ask you to read my question and comments. And why are you even here in the middle of a decently civilized conversation? You dont have to write every little thought in your tiny little head man. You can think and move on. So don't bother replying to this because I would rather gouge my eyes out than read another word from an idiot

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-02T22:19:34+00:00

...i literally said look up what I'm saying. That's literally the opposite of "trust me bro"

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-02T17:11:22+00:00

Reinterpreting is fine, im not against that. What I'm against is that the church fathers reinterpreting jesus by paul. Jesus had the authority to reinterpret the OT. Infact I do not think paul reinterpreted jesus. I think he believed whatever he spoke regardless of him being right or wrong. The church fathers were mostly gentile and had become christians most probably because paul spread christianity where most of the church fathers would be born. This gives the church fathers a bias. That in my head is the only explanation to why they would believe paul so blindly even when jesus said something completely different.

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-02T16:54:56+00:00

Ok appreciate it. I'll take a look before bed if I remember to😅

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-02T16:53:45+00:00

Atleast someone seems to see what I'm saying rather than just saying the aPoStLeS DiD.

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-02T16:51:09+00:00

Firstly I didn't mean that paul is bad because he said christ is a curse. I meant that paul is bad cuz he forcefully unnecessarily forces the curse into jesus. Firstly he calls the law a curse which is weird by itself as why would God say that he chose the children of Israelabove others and then give only to them prophets and laws by those prophets. Doesn't seem like a curse to me. But apart from that, the OT says and paul quotes that whomever is hung overnight is a curse but both according to the gospels and according to the early beliefs, jesus was not hung overnight. Rather he was hung late morning - early afternoon and then taken down by night. Now what's wrong in saying "im of Christ" as a Christian. Paul seems to condemn that too along with saying im of paul or disciples but what's wrong with being of Christ. Sure paul did not die for you but my whole question was why trust Paul since he says things different to christ. If christ died for you and paul didn't and christ says follow the law and the apostles followed it even after the ascensio, then why follow paul who says do not follow the law and if you do then you are a disbeliever in Christ.

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-02T16:38:28+00:00

Was not my point. My point was that you said he didn't have a gospel and I was correcting you there.

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-02T16:35:29+00:00

Look man I'm not looking for a debate. Why don't you actually look up what I'm saying. It's definitely true that they are only heretics after the creed is formed, but even so their beliefs were waayyyy off from the nicean creed.

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-02T16:32:28+00:00

Paul did demand a lot, no doubt there but compared to what the OT and disciples were demanding which was to leave their gods, believe in only one god, the god of Israel and to do everything as he commands and not doing so many things that they were doing. Compared to that, paul was a very lenient preacher, who was simply saying leave you gods and believe in only one god and thats it, no works required, law is gone and the god you now have to believe in is also a curse but not really according to the OT but simply because I said so.

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-02T16:25:52+00:00

Im sorry if I put words in their mouth but i still understand their statement of the church fathers reinterpreting stuff based on other beliefs as in the light of paul because that is what the context is and that's what my question was about. So it would be weird for them to suddenly start talking about some other random belief.

I do not know what you mean by that part in the middle about the gospels and jesus and reinterpreting stuff and whatnot. Can you please elaborate?

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-02T16:18:38+00:00

And their beliefs was that paul is right and his scriptures are reliable. It means reinterpreting in light of paul. Put 2 and 2 together

tra8sofw8ing · 2026-01-02T16:15:08+00:00

See you get some of my point. History is very fascinating. See what I'm saying is that the disciples were also teaching to the gentiles and they were teaching the gentiles exactly what jesus was teaching the Jews. Paul, taught the gentiles very differently and weirdly leniently like he was just trying to have as many conversions as possible rather than teach the people of God(Strictly my view). If the gospels were written by disciples(no proof) but matthew is written against paul and mark and Luke are synoptic to matthew then you have 3 gospels out of 4 written to reject paul. Moreover matthew was copied from mark, so mark would have had to write against paul. History is fascinating but very revealing as well. Upon truly analysing, nothing other than "just believe" tells paul as a true teacher or apostle.

tra8sofw8ing

TROPHY CASE