News outlets have been a little too eager to claim 33 casualties despite the precise noumber being unknown.
The story sounds suspicious. This isn't such a high building. Jumping out and breaking bones is preferable to burning alive.
If it's going to follow into internet censorship it's pretty much given it's the same shit as with shootings and gun control.

>>3465
I think it is definatly an inside job/false flag. I don't think japan has to do censorship they just adjust the npc levels in the water and people self censor. Lol jk. But its probably not a vie for censorship as much as it is the elite toying with the public and usign this as human sacrifice in the form of a false flag. Im not sure what anime studio it was i remember this it was around last week. Very strange you see this kind of thing often the 33 trapped chilean miners stuck in a mine. They love that number.

>>3612
It could be that it was a deception and not the actual ancestor. Being beamed from saturn to mess with the redhead.

>>3585
Then in this case, Paul wouldn't have qualified for "apostleship" in the sense that the other 12 apostles were, but was an "apostle" in again his own certain criteria.
Hence why he was called the "apostle of the gentiles".
>It doesn't say that at all, in fact. It doesn't even mention he was there at all.
<The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well
It does.
>I think have differing interpretations of this entire passage. My way of seeing it is that Paul called the law a curse and that you can be saved just with faith and works are an extra benefit. That is wrong. This is why I brought up James 2:20
And here, I answered it as I did in the Judaiser general. Anti-Law Pauline Christians and pro-Law anti-Pauline Christians (like you) go with the Law as a curse, but in reality it isn't a curse.
Basically, FAITH is what saves you, while works go along with faith. Many Pauline Christians themselves still don't understand this.
>How do we know he is telling the truth. If it is only Pauls statements I believe they are untrustworthy
Since it's a revelation, of course the only men that know about it are Paul and Jesus.
As for Paul's legitimacy, just compare him to the other Christian "teachers" mentioned in Acts (written by Luke) and the early church's historical records. Simon Magus, Nicholas (founder of the Nicolaitans) etc., all were rejected and rebuked yet Paul stayed.

>>3586
>It does
Ok maybe in english but in the original greek it is written differently.
2 Timothy 1:18
"may grant to him the lord to find mercy from the lord in that day, and for as much as in Ephesus he served better. You know it."
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/2_timothy/1.htm
That's the link you used correct? either way this is slightly different as it states that onesiphorus was preaching in Ephesus and Paul himself wasn't there. The only person who claimed to be an apostle and preached in ephesus that we know of in scripture is Paul.

Also I know this is sort of unrelated. But have you noticed the similarites of Saul from the old testament and Saul from the new testament.
>Both were against a decendant of David. Jesus and well David himself
>Both were from the tribe of Benjamin
>Both were named Saul.
>Saul was replaced by David as king and Paul tried to be an apostle.
Just a little nod.

Also why did James question Paul about trying to get rid of the mosaic law. Wny would James have the need to question Paul if he never preached against the law
Acts 18-24

>>3587
>That's the link you used correct? either way this is slightly different as it states that onesiphorus was preaching in Ephesus and Paul himself wasn't there. The only person who claimed to be an apostle and preached in ephesus that we know of in scripture is Paul.
Perhaps, but Jesus in Revelation talks of multiple false apostles in Ephesus. Paul is just a single apostle on the other hand.
>Also I know this is sort of unrelated. But have you noticed the similarites of Saul from the old testament and Saul from the new testament.
Why do you think he was named Saul? Because he was from the tribe of Benjamin.
>Also why did James question Paul about trying to get rid of the mosaic law. Wny would James have the need to question Paul if he never preached against the law
James questioned Paul because Paul said that circumcision wasn't necessary for gentiles under the New Covenant. Even Peter came into conflict with Paul about this, and Paul writes about it in Galatians, incident at Antioch. Of course however this doesn't abrogate circumcision as a whole (he circumcised Timothy)
>"Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 13And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 15But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 16Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away."
Again, same thing with Galatians. He isn't saying the Law is abolished, just that Christ atones for the sins/transgressions of the Law that we all inherently have. Not til heaven and earth pass shall one jot pass from the law.
>Well the first thing we see him do is support the stoning of stephan. Not exactly a stunning representation of christian morale. However that was before his conversion and we saw earlier that James questioned Paul.
Also the apostles questioned Paul when he first came to them. But it isn't the same as Simon Magus (a Samaritan convert who taught sorcery and wealth) or Nicholas (whose followers, the Nicolaitans are hated by Jesus himself as said in Revelation). Not much questioning going on with Paul, and he was accepted.
>also I see you don't do that Yeshua/Yahshua thing. I think that is stupid myself tbh
It's common among Hebrew Roots movements, but I don't just to keep to standards, since Jesus's name was always transliterated in foreign languages. He even spoke Latin to Pontius Pilate.
It isn't wrong though that the root word for Jesus is technically Joshua. I've heard a man, a Gnostic claim that Jesus is actually the Greek word for healer, or related to Jason. This is nonsensical since "Jesus" in the Septuagint is actually used to refer to Joshua the man who conquered Canaan.

>>3588
>But Jesus in Revelation talks of multiple false apostles in Ephesus. Paul is just a single apostle on the other hand.
This doesn't mean that Paul isn't being talked about in revelation. That is like me doing this their are multiple false doctrines in christendom. Catholicism is just a single doctrine on the other hand. That doesn't suddenly make Catholicism not a false doctrine that's ridiculous.
>Why do you think he was named saul?
I'm pretty sure the tribe of Benjamin had more names than "Saul"

>Again same things with galatians
How do you explain "for unto this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done awau in Christ. That is literally smacking your head with a bible saying that moses laws were abolished when Jesus said contrary. You're doing mental gymnastics.

>James questioned Paul because Paul said that circumcision wasn't necessary for gentiles under the New Covenant. Even Peter came into conflict with Paul about this, and Paul writes about it in Galatians, incident at Antioch. Of course however this doesn't abrogate circumcision as a whole (he circumcised Timothy)
Actually funny thing with this. In acts 15 that was talking about circumcision. Peter and James were actually for restricting circumcision. They also say you are saved by grace in christ. However Paul states the opposite numerous times. This led to James confronting him about it in acts 21. Not to mention in acts 15 the attitude towards Paul was different. They were actually rather positive with him. It's only after he begins his ministry that they begin to question him.

Jesus actually mean's God's salvation. Joshua means God is my salvation.

>>3589
>This doesn't mean that Paul isn't being talked about in revelation. That is like me doing this their are multiple false doctrines in christendom. Catholicism is just a single doctrine on the other hand. That doesn't suddenly make Catholicism not a false doctrine that's ridiculous.
Perhaps, but you can't say for certain it's talking about Paul, since it actually refers to multiple such false apostles. Perhaps Paul was the exception.
>I'm pretty sure the tribe of Benjamin had more names than "Saul"
Of course, but Benjaminites would've prided Saul as a name as it was used for a king of their tribe.
>for unto this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done awau in Christ
Again, the Law is a way God instructed us to live. To avoid sin. Jesus's atonement pays for our sins. This is what Paul is talking about, not that the Law of Moses was abolished.
>mental gymnastics
Justifying the consistency of Romans 7:12 isn't mental gymnastics.
>Actually funny thing with this. In acts 15 that was talking about circumcision. Peter and James were actually for restricting circumcision. They also say you are saved by grace in christ.
Acts 15 was most likely after the Incident at Antioch (otherwise the timeline would be very inconsistent), which is where Paul called out Peter regarding circumcision.
>However Paul states the opposite numerous times. This led to James confronting him about it in acts 21.
Perhaps, however with the Incident at Antioch and the later Epistles Paul's view on circumcision was consistent with Peter's in Acts 15.
>Jesus actually mean's God's salvation. Joshua means God is my salvation.
True, but both are translated the same in Greek. Hence they have to differentiate between Joshua and Jesus, and this carried on to the Vulgate (partially translated from Hebrew), and then to the KJV.

Couldn't agree more. Still more people need to wake up.

>>2915
You're going to be a minority soon.

Greetings! I Bookmarked the chan. Very nice and I have seen mewch mentioned here and there it appears to be active. I'm happy to see that /fringe/ is still alive.that board encouraged study and research and was a good resource for people i remember the mega.nz book packs and all of that. glad to see more people are waking up to this.

>>2923
/fringe/ is gay and so is mewch, now fuck off this board