Here's something to consider for those of you that are not religious or on the fence.
🗣️ DISCUSSION 💬
Logically either all religions are either false or only ONE is true since they conflict.
If one is true and the world is being run by evil that is lying to us then that true religion would be disproportionally attacked while false ones would be left alone or encouraged.
I can only think of one religion that is attacked above all others.... Christianity.
If it's being attacked / misrepresented by the people trying to enslave / kill me then it must be a threat to them / their plans.
Ergo you should examine Christianity.
Your argument is a bit strange. Please, do tell me what the contents of the dead sea scrolls have to do with the New Testament?
https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/scrolls-content?locale=en_US
Perhaps you want to take an unbiased look at Nag hamadi collection. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/the-nag-hammadi-codices/
This exactly proof my point.
Where did I mention the New Testament in regards to the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Dead Sea Scrolls verify the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament has not changed since before the birth of Christ. The Masoretic Hebrew texts were passed down from generation to generation along with the Koine Greek New Testament.
The Vatican used texts which were edited into classical Greek by the Alexandrians as the basis for their Latin Vulgate translations. These edited manuscripts were used as the basis for the majority of the modern Bibles, sadly.
The Alexandrians were from Egypt, and the discovery of the Nag Hammadi codices provide proof the reason they edited the Bible into classical Greek was as a way to support their Gnostic belief system. The verses they changed remove the divinity of Christ and support their teaching he was a "corrupted lower deity."
I have to raise my hand and say: I did mention the New testament.
Now it gets really strange, as you are responding to yourself. I have been in quite a number of discussions. To see this devolve into a maze akin to Kafka is quite interesting. Even as a forum strategy.
Which means that my previous posts still stand uncontested ,which I intend to have repeated here in full by means of linking.
first post: https://greatawakening.win/p/141FFHeCBh/x/c/4OTNC9ivmGy second post. https://greatawakening.win/p/141FFHeCBh/x/c/4OTNC9mLVnb
OK, and my point is the Old Testament has been verified to be the same document as it was over 200 years before the birth of Christ.
It just so happens those verified Old Testament texts have also been passed down along with the Koine Greek New Testaments.
There are 2 Bibles on this planet. The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Koine Greek New Testament which was the real deal, and the versions translated into classical Greek by the Alexandrian scholars. The latter are the versions on which all "modern" Bibles are based on, and there's an agenda behind that as well.
And, from your first post, Pontifex Maximus is Latin and not Biblical in the slightest. it's the Roman Catholic Church that falsely claims it's descended from the apostle Peter. The Bible clearly states Jesus is the chief cornerstone and the rock on which the church is built. It also states Peter is a pebble in comparison if you go to the original Koine Greek.
Yes, I gathered that much, thank you for your confirmation. Yet, that was not the topic under discussion. You were responding to my New Testament description which is completely non-sequitur, and we can simply park it somewhere in the fridge.
If there is no volition for you to respond to my NT posts, then that is ok. As I said, they stand.
I write exactly this:
What you will notice is a exposition on the deification of Julius Ceasar to the rank of god while he was a pontifex maximus, the main bridge builder. I was using that as an example to highlight the fact that more people in this world in the past have been called god. I even mentioned Moses.
You queried of me:
To which my final conclusive remark was: No, I am not claiming Jesus is not God. But neither am I claiming he is.
There is in my posts no claim that the pontifex maximus is of biblical origin. All I asked is whether or not such epitaphs would befit Christ, since he is the only way. without him there is no eternal life. This is what you belief, is it not? Then looking at it from a model point of view: you are on one side of the divide, God on the other, and Jesus made the crossing possible, hence: the bridge.
Hence, the argument you provide, argues a point never raised, and in terms of the discussion of little use.
Whether it descended from Peter .... I am sure it did not. Although, it has been some time when I looked into these matters, I was under the impression that the claim is the Bishop of Rome was given this title by a very young Roman emperor, because as a Christian, it did nothing for him, and it seemed to be better parked at the pope's desks.