Ihedinobi3:

Yes it was. Was the Lord Jesus in the Grave for a literal 72 hours, not one second more or less? No. But the Bible did not say that He would be. It only said that He would be in the Grave for three days and three nights. That was counted differently in that culture than it is today. Even today, though, we are hardly so hard and fast about these things. Today we say, "I spent the whole day there just waiting to see him," and fully expect the person we're talking to to understand that we were not counting the seconds to make sure that it was exactly 24 hours.

The point of the three days and three nights was to emphasize that the Lord Jesus's Body would not "see corruption," that is, it would not decay. Decay was culturally accounted back then to begin from the fourth day (see John 11:39). The Lord was to be in the grave long enough for it to be clear that He was truly dead, but not so long that His Body, which was sinless, would begin to decay. Again, this is a cultural thing, since, with our scientific obsession with precision today, we sometimes consider a body to begin to decay right from the moment of death. But if we were to be absolute, then decay starts even while we are alive whenever cells die and are not replaced in our bodies.

In the time that the Lord lived, a day was counted if a part of it was experienced, so although the Lord rose from the dead early in the morning of the third day, the fact that He was still in the tomb by the third day made it a complete three days for Him to be dead.

Sometimes, the Scriptures do use "precision counting" sometimes to make a point. For example, in Revelation 11:9, the two witnesses are said to be dead for three days and a half. This is deliberate because it is a symbol for the three and a half years of the Great Tribulation that follow their death. Otherwise, day counts in the Bible follow the culture of the day.

This is a good point, but I want to expand on it a bit. Now, as noted, the argument is that the "three days and three nights" is in error, as a Friday burial and Sunday resurrection doesn't meet the criteria of three full days and three full nights. There are two ways to explain this. The first is your argument, which is that time was counted differently. Indeed, the Jews counted part of a day as the full day. See, for example, the Jerusalem Talmud 9.3, available here, which also asserts that "a day and a night" counts as one span. Thus, Friday would count as a "day and a night" as it was part of a day, as would Sunday, to the people at the time. Thus, three days and three nights, even if our modern timecounting would not see it as such.

One objection is that it shows some disagreed on this point. For example, the above quoted Talmud shows Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Eleazer asserting that part of a span counts as a span, and that a "day and a night" constitute a span. However, it notes that Rabbi Aqiba "does not treat part of a span as the whole of it" and counts as day and night as two separate spans But the fact some disagrees isn't relevant here. The point is that at least a good number of Jews believed that "A day and a night constitute a span, and part of a span is equivalent to the whole of it." Therefore Friday burial, and Sunday resurrection counts Friday and Sunday as a "day and a night" even if it is not a full 24 hours, giving us "three days and three nights."

An alternate explanation is to simply reject the traditional Friday/Saturday/Sunday timeline and to assert that the burial occurred on Wednesday.

sonmvayina:


which prophesy?

Presumably Matthew 12:40, when Jesus says: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

gabbyabbey:

My friend, It was God himself that commanded Arron and his two sons to be putting on trousers, because prior to that time there was nothing like trousers.
And everywhere in the Bible where trousers were been mentioned it is only referred to men,
In English Bible it was called breeches which is the old use of trousers.
Read Exodus 28:42; 39:28; Leviticus 6:10; 16:4; Ezekiel 44:18
God bless you

The problem with is that while it is only men who are referred to in those verses, it is only levitical priests who are being referred to. If this is supposed to mean that it is only for men, then by that logic it is only for levitical priests.

Further, from my understanding, "undergarments" is a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew word in question than "breeches" is (which is why later translations use "undergarments" there).

I have to confess I have some doubts on this. So this seems to be the original article about this:
https://barnabasfund.org/us/appeals/god-miraculously-delivered-them-you-can-help-them-read-his-word

Certainly, if 72 people all attested to this (well, 64, as 8 of them died before the rescue), that is strong evidence for it. But beyond the article's claims itself, no proof is given of this; observe the lack of details. No method of contacting these people to verify these claims is provided, and there is no video testimony to prove their existence. It is not stated when or where this took place and no names are given. It is not even stated who got this information and wrote up this article. And then the whole thing is just a pretext to try to get people to donate to the group that posted the article.

The fact that none of this information which could have been used to verify the story is given makes me very skeptical of this.

bereanway:
Let's start with these three Bible passages. Deuteronomy 22:5, Deuteronomy 22:9, Deuteronomy 22:11. In Deuteronomy 22:5, it says "A woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man wear that which pertains to a woman". In Deuteronomy 22:9 "Thou shall not sow thy vineyard with diverse seeds, lest the fruit of the seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of the vineyard be defiled". in Deuteronomy 22:11, it says "Thou shall not wear a garment of diverse sorts, as of woolen and linen together".

Now, Deuteronomy 22:5 is against a woman putting on a man's wear, vice versa. But if you look at Deuteronomy 22:9 and Deuteronomy 22:11, you discover that those who are bragging about Deuteronomy 22:5 may not be keeping the law of Deuteronomy 22:9 and 11. This makes them hypocrites. Will you tell me that a born again Christian that is a farmer does not plant or has never planted diverse seeds in his farm, garden or vineyard? or will you tell me that no born again Christian has never won woolen and linen together? it may have happened. So using this chapter to argue about trousers, makes Christians hypocrites, because they may not keep other laws in the chapter.

I'm not sure of that argument. One cannot say that the Deuteronomy laws are entirely done away with, as by that logic things like incest are suddenly okay. While some of the rules in Deuteronomy/Leviticus are of the ceremonial variety, meaning they are considered by most Christians to be no longer applicable (there are a few that argue Christians are supposed to follow all of those rules, but we're not talking about that viewpoint), but there are also moral laws. There are also civil laws of Israel, which obviously are no longer applicable either. Anyway, the fact that Deuteronomy 22:5 has something that 22:9/22:11 do not, the statement that it is an abomination, indicates that it is a moral law rather than a ceremonial one.

That said, there is a different problem I've long had. Now, there are two possible interpretations of Deuteronomy 22:5. The first is that it means there are some articles are clothing that are exclusively for men, and some that are exclusively for women. What qualified as such do not change. The second is that it's meant more culturally, that what qualify as men or women's clothing depends on the culture, and what counts as women's or men's clothes can vary depending on time and location.

Clearly, those who favor the idea that women cannot wear trousers must accept the first interpretation. The question then becomes, do trousers count under this rule? There are two problems I see with this idea. First, at the time these rules were given, trousers would have been an unknown concept to the Israelites--they simply hadn't been introduced yet. Which would mean that upon the later introduction of trousers, they were instantly and irrevocably considered a man's garment somehow.

If this was the case, however, we come to an issue: If, for the last 2500 or so years (the amount of time trousers were known), trousers were considered a man's garment in Christianity/Judaism, why is it I've seen no one advance this view ever point to anything prior to the last century or two? Surely, there would have been various "what people should wear" writings throughout history that would specify men's clothing is to be trousers and to cite Deuteronomy 22:5 in favor if this were the case. Maybe such things do exist, but I've yet to see anyone point to them. Their absence is very conspicuous and a major hole in the claim that trousers were and are only to be worn by men.

ABCthings:
What was that for You quoted two of my post and said nothing.

Quoting someone else's post while adding nothing of your own is normally a way of expressing agreement, or more specifically implying "you said everything I wanted to, so I have nothing else to add."

Then again, there were two posts quoted, and when that happens, it can be used to imply there was a contradiction of the two. I'm not sure which one was being used here.

I assume we're talking about premarital virginity. Yes, as long as male virginity is also emphasized.

sonmvayina:
Read those passages again, this time in context.. Isaiah already told you who the king was in his subsequent verses.. Isaiah 9%6 is about a king who the government will be on his shoulders.. And in his reign, there would be peace... He is referring to king Hezekiah.. His was mighty councillor, and a prince of peace.

https://www.restorersofzion.org/RT_answers_antim_Tanach-passages.htm#8

An especially pertinent portion:

"[The claim that it was Hezekiah] is wildly off the mark when compared with the testimony of Tanach. The "child born to us" would carry "the authority on his shoulder", would "increase authority and peace without end", and finally would establish the throne and the kingdom of David "with justice and righteousness, from now until eternity" (including verse 7, 6 in Heb). It was indeed the position of Rashi that Hezekiah had fulfilled all this, although Rashi was forced to downgrade "from now until eternity" (מֵעַתָּה וְעַד־עוֹלָם) to the lifetime of Hezekiah. But even during Hezekiah's days, he suffered ridicule of his authority (2 Chron.30:10), interruptions to his peace (2 Chron.32), a devastating illness that nearly killed him (2 Kings 20), followed by a miracle that caused him a pride problem (2 Chron.32:24-26). He himself knew that his descendants would lose the throne and serve the king of Babylon (2 Kings 20:18, Isa.39:7). Last but not least, Hezekiah's own son, Menashe, was the farthest from "justice and righteousness" of any king of Judah; he corrupted Israel even more than the nations G-d had destroyed (2 Kings 21:9, 2 Chron.33:9), and according to the Talmudic sages (Sanh.90a) he has no portion in the world to come."

Another source covering similar ground:
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/antianti.html#five

Isaiah till already told you who the server to is in verse 41:8-9."iseael my servant, Jacob my chosen, as well as in chapter 45...there is no ambiguity there.. The suffering servant is Israel. Read it in context to the end for it is a discuss that started in 52:12..remember when Isaiah wrote there was no chapters or verses...

The problem with the idea that it's a prophecy concerning Israel rather than the Messiah is that Jews long believed it was a Messianic prophecy. It's true that some held to the idea it could apply to other things in addition to the Messiah, but the idea that it isn't a Messiah prophecy at all is actually a relatively recent phenomenon. Again, see here:
https://www.restorersofzion.org/RT_answers_antim_Tanach-passages.htm#7

"Suffice to say that even as late as the 16th century, those who completely denied the tradition of the suffering Messiah in Isaiah 53 were considered heretical. Here is a representative comment, by Rabbi Eliyyah de Vidas, author of Tana d’ be Eliyyahu (1575), attributing the teaching to Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai:

The meaning of the words “bruised for our iniquities” [Isaiah 53:5] is that since the Messiah bears our iniquities, which produce the effect of his being bruised, it follows that whoso will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities, must endure and suffer for them himself.
(Quoted and sourced in The 53rd Chapter of Isaiah according to Jewish Interpreters, A. Newbauer and S.R. Driver, p.xl; see also the abridged reprint of this work [Jerusalem: Keren Ahvah Meshihit, 2011], p.214)"

Other pages concerning this:
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/antianti.html#thirteen
http://christianthinktank.com/bad53.html
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/sigalg01.php#is53

sonmvayina:


Amos 3 :7..says "God does nothing without first revealing it to his prophets"... Now my question is which of the prophet from Abraham to malachi did God reveal the idea that he had a son and secondly he was sending him to earth for humans to execute him as sacrifice for sin?... I need old testament quotes...

There is not a singular verse that explicitly expresses all of that, but there are various verses which, especially with the benefit of hindsight, together form such a picture scattered throughout the Old Testament.

The most obvious instances, of course, are the messianic prophecies of Isaiah 9:6 and Isaiah 53. The former refers to a son being born who shall be called (KJV) "Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Well that sure sounds like God. Isaiah 53 is self-explanatory.

sonmvayina:


How is that different from my grandfather death?

Your grandfather wasn't the Son of God.

sonmvayina:


Who ordered it.. Was it God's plan?..

It was the Romans/Jews who ordered the execution itself but it was certainly within God's plan.

But he commanded us "thou shall not kill"...

"Murder" is a better translation than kill. It's not perfect either--the Hebrew word in question doesn't have a perfect English equivalent--but it matches the modern meaning of the terms more accurately.

Why should he be expecting a human sacrifice?

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

sonmvayina:
Death was God's pronouncement on man, if Jesus was God, why did he have to?

If by why did he have to you mean what was the purpose of it, then the answer was that Jesus died in order to allow man to be reconciled to God again.

Is this parody? It feels like a parody, where someone is making fun of how some people see hidden signs everywhere.

But in case she is actually being serious, she is making the same error about the Number of the Beast (666) that some others do. The Number of the Beast is not three 6's. It is the actual number six hundred and sixty-six. So finding a case of three 6's (and I would say "this thing looks sort of like three instances of the the Hebrew symbol for six!" hardly qualifies as finding such a case) means nothing, as three 6's combined results in 18.

newsynews:
On how she was able to spend 990 years with Satan, Evangelist Funmilayo quoted Bible verses to prove it.

She quoted Bible verses, but she didn't "prove" it because she got their meanings wrong. She claimed Matt 17:11-13 and Matthew 11:12-14 back up John the Baptist being a reincarnation of Elijah, which is misinterpreting it; it is a statement that John was essentially a new Elijah, not that he actually was a reincarnation of Elijah. In fact, when asked if he was Elijah, John the Baptist explicitly denied it (John 1:21).

Of course, even if she was correct with those verses, it would only prove that for the specific case of John the Baptist, and would do nothing to prove that it could apply in general or to her in particular. Indeed, for someone who supposedly has been living on Earth for hundreds of years via reincarnation, she certainly shows no signs of it. For example, shouldn't you be able to speak a lot of different languages as a result of being brought up in those different countries? Then again, that claim of hers is so obviously silly perhaps I shouldn't even bother analyzing its problems.

budaatum:

Love "the option. Just thought I had that already. I can go church on Sunday and exercise it or set up a direct debit from my bank.

Well, I believe the advantage of having it deducted automatically is one of convenience, you can just set it up and not have to manually figure out anything else.

In regards to bank accounts, is it possible to do that with a bank account, set it up so that a particular percentage of your salary gets automatically re-routed somewhere else? It might be, but I'm not sure. I suppose that does require you get your salary deposited directly into your account to work, though.

At any rate, I thought it should be noted that he issued this clarification. One can judge for themselves how genuine it was.

This is a story from about a year ago... and leaves out Lwanga's later clarifying remarks. Lwanga said that he was misquoted and misunderstood:

https://www.newvision.co.ug/new_vision/news/1491848/meant-about-tithing-salaries-cyprian-lwanga

“When I talked about involving government, I did not mean Central Government introducing a tax and collecting it under its institutes like URA, but I was referring to all those in position of governance who are in charge of paying people’s salaries to assist those who would like to support the Church, have their tithe deducted from their salaries and forwarded to the Church,” he explained.

He gave the example of countries like Germany and Italy where similar systems are put in place to support the Church mission. In the Church, nobody is forced to pay his or her tithe, it is not the Church’s policy to force anyone to contribute to the needs of the Church and its mission.

He appealed to each faithful’s conscience to be fair and just, in supporting the activities of local church via contributions.

“The Bible makes the purpose of tithing very clear!” he warns.

So according to him, what he was asking was that the government give people the option of automatically having some percentage of their salary donated to their church if they wanted.

Vulcanheph:
Op You can relax, there is nothing wrong with You, You have just started becoming enlightened and You have come to see religion as a whole For What it truly is...... Go and read the book titled "the da vinci code" and you will get my point.

The Da Vinci Code's claims about the history of Christianity are thoroughly inaccurate, which would normally be forgivable as it's a fictional novel, but Dan Brown claims those aspects to be true. Problem is, Dan Brown (the author) is utterly incapable of doing proper research, which leads to not only the monumental errors in The Da Vinci Code, but other cringe-inducing errors of fact in his other novels about all sorts of other things.

Furthermore, even if its facts were accurate, you'd still have the awfully big problem that The Da Vinci Code is really poorly written anyway.

So, I'm curious. To argue that Deuteronomy 22:5 in the present day disallows women to wear trousers, one must assert that trousers are perpetually only a man's clothing at any time in any place. If this is indeed the case, one would expect there would have been early statements of it by Christians. But all anyone seems able to point to are statements made in the last century or two. True, that was when more women started wearing trousers so there was greater reason to talk about it, but as far as I can tell there's complete silence on the point prior, which doesn't seem to support the idea that pants are always considered a man's clothes and thus women are forbidden by Deuteronomy 22:5 to ever wear them.

So here is a question. What is the earliest time anyone in the history of Christianity that someone specifically stated that a women wearing trousers is an inherent violation of Deuteronomy 22:5? Anyone know?

Dollarseeker:
Christmasdon
No you got it wrong...its a wrong interpretation by u. the Catholic church permits women to preach from the alter of God and even go as far as allowing Rev sis to sa mass...except the Eucharistic part which is meant for a priest/bishop.

Eh? The Catholic Church doesn't allow women to preach the homily/sermon during mass, that is only allowed for the Priest or Deacon, both of which are male-only offices. Now, women do sometimes perform the reading of the biblical passages, or leading the congregation in a song, but that hardly qualifies as "preaching" in my opinion.

Unless you're referring to them doing so outside of the mass itself, but that's a whole different thing.

budaatum:

There might be unrest if he loses the 2020 election. I can't see his ego accepting one term.

I doubt this will be any worse than the "unrest" that happened from him winning the 2016 election.

sonmvayina:


That is what they told you... But we actually know more than that... Well, the gospel stories comes from ancient tales about marduk... Marduk is the son of Enki..

As far as I can tell, the supposed "similarities" are so vague they are essentially worthless.

It was at the council of Nicea that Athanasius said he was both God and man and thereafter a history was forged for him....

Jesus being both God and man was agreed upon by both Athanasius and Arius, the two sides in the dispute; there was no argument concerning that fact. And before then, Jesus being both God and man was stated by many Christian writers. Heck, forget extrabiblical testimony, it's stated in the Bible itself (most notably John 10:30), which was written well before Nicaea (as evidenced by physical manuscripts of it existing beforehand). The idea it was Athanasius who came up with this idea is absurd.

The Messiah God promised the jews is a mortal man like me and you

Where does it explicitly state this? Or perhaps more accurately, where does this explicitly state this in a way that does not work with Christianity? Jesus, while divine, was a "mortal man" in the sense that he was born, grew up, and was killed.

he is coming to rule In an earthly Kingdom and a peaceful world..

Which will occur after the Second Coming.

God never said he was coming to die for sins

Isaiah 53. And before anyone says "but that's a prophecy about Israel, not the Messiah" I should note that it being a messianic prophecy was an interpretation that the Jews themselves held--even for centuries after the birth of Christianity. It wasn't until long afterwards that it became the Jewish interpretation that it referred specifically and solely to Israel.

as God has already given a solution to the problem of sin in the old testament read 2nd chronicle 7 :14

2 Chronicles 7:14 is referring to forgiving the collective sin of the nation of Israel, not individual sins of individual people.

Dnatruth:



That's an outright lie that on an airplane you don't feel wind turbulence and the motion of the plane.

I never said you don't feel wind turbulence (though that's only occasional, and that fact is also irrelevant). I said you don't feel the motion of the plane, which is true.

Too complicated a subject for me to really weigh in on, but I want to correct this:

daddymummy:
and how he subsequently made christianity the official religion of the Roman emperor.

Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion. He simply legalized it in the Edict of Milan. It was a later emperor, Theodosius, who made it the official religion in the Edict of Thessalonica, given over 40 years after Constantine had died.

sonmvayina:
Emperor Constantine did not convert to Christianity.... Emperor Constantine created it himself... He wanted a single religion for his empire... He called together the council of nicea, it was that council that created Jesus and Christianity....

Utter nonsense. Christianity existed for centuries prior to Constantine and Nicaea. Nicaea did not "create" Jesus and Christianity, its actual purpose was to resolve what was known as the "Arian Controversy", a dispute about whether Jesus was eternal or not (there was not, as some will claim, disagreement on whether Jesus was divine--both sides agreed on this). But everyone agreed on the other basics of the faith, i.e. the life of Jesus, the Bible, etc. This council did not "create" Jesus and Christianity.

It's misleading to claim Canada "legalises" sex with animals. First off, what actually happened was their Supreme Court asserted that the laws prohibiting bestiality were too vague and as a result some such acts were actually legal. Second, since then (the article you post as if it's new is from 2016!), Canada passed a new, more clear law on the subject as part of a law concerning animal cruelty. So contrary to what this topic claims, bestiality is currently illegal in Canada.

Some information found here:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/animal-protection-bill-c84-bestiality-1.5181494

From that article:

"Parliament has passed a new law cracking down on animal cruelty that will list those convicted of bestiality on Canada's national sex offenders registry.

Bill C-84 also changes wording in the Criminal Code to clarify that bestiality involves any contact for a sexual purpose between a person and an animal. The Code's existing definition is understood to focus on penetration as the essential element in an act of bestiality."

I believe that while dreams may be a spiritual event in a few circumstances, they normally are just a natural occurrence.

In regards to this claim:
"Earth revolves around the sun at 66,600 mph
Curvature of one square mile: .666 ft.
Earth tilts at: 66.6º
Still think it’s all a coincidence?"

Even if these numbers are accurate--and the claim regarding Earth's tilt is not, it's about 23 degrees--this would mean nothing. Trying to connect this to the Number of the Beast is showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Number of the Beast is. This misunderstanding results in all sorts of crazy theories regarding it, the above included, which is why I wish to address it.

The Number of the Beast is not three 6's in a row. It is the value of six hundred and sixty-six (this is more obvious in the original Greek text of Revelation due to the way the Greeks wrote numbers back then). The numbers 66,600, 0.666, and 66.6 have the values of sixty-six thousand six hundred, six hundred sixty-six thousandths, and sixty-six and six tenths respectively. None of those are a value of six hundred sixty-six, as is required for the Number of the Beast.

Whatever the Number of the Beast is a reference to, it involves the actual numerical value of six hundred sixty six, not numbers or symbols that happen to have three 6's somewhere in them.

Ola17:


Barring air turbulence, you hardly ever notice movement sensations in most large commercial aircrafts traveling at up to 900km/h. The feeling most times, is like you are relaxing in your sitting room.

Yes, exactly. If you are traveling at the same speed as your surroundings, then it doesn't matter how fast you're going--it'll feel normal. Anyone who's ever traveled on an airplane can easily attest to the fact you can be going at that kind of speed and not feel it at all.

There is at one point where you feel the motion, which is when the airplane is taking off or is landing, because its speed is changing while doing so (speeding up when leaving, slowing down when landing). But when the speed is constant--as it is with the Earth's rotation and movement through space--you don't notice the motion because everything else is moving with you at that same speed, even if that speed is extremely fast.

ayo84:
The Romans have been described, by many European historians themselves, as being a very sexually perverted and depraved society. According to many historians, the Romans commonly practiced mass orgies, sodomy, homosexuality, man - boy pedophilia relationships, incest, beastiality etc... These are the people that wrote the Bible in 325 A.D.

If that is the case, then why in the world did they have the Bible include prohibitions on those things?

This is to say nothing of the rather obvious fact that the Bible was written well before 325 AD, given that we have manuscripts of it that predate 325 AD.

Yet another problem with your argument--it's impressive how many errors you've made with this, actually--is that you post about the various depraved things Roman Emperors did... but all of the emperors you list were from the first century AD. What relevance does this have to the fourth century, which is when you allege the Bible was written? Indeed, by that point the Romans were moving away from the things you describe in large part because of the increasing influence of Christianity.

This claim is so silly that the rest can just be dismissed out of hand.

albassawy:
Saul changed his name to Paul, because everyone had heard of Saul, and was afraid of him

Saul didn't change his name to Paul any more than Simon changed his name to Peter.

I believe Antipas is Stephen.

How? Antipas, according to Revelation 2:13, was put to death in Pergamum (Pergamum was located in the western portion of modern-day Turkey). Stephen appears to have been stoned in or around Jerusalem.

Paul bragged about consenting to his death

Acts 22:20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.

In what way does that constitute "bragging"?

Did the Apostles accept Paul?

Many Christians think that the Apostles, and disciples of Yahshua accepted Paul, both as a Christian, and an Apostle, but this is untrue

Acts 9:26 “And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple”.

How about we read on and see what happens in Acts 9:27-28?
"But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem."

albassawy:
Paul correcting Peter

Peter was chosen by Yahshua to lead his “church,” what authority does Paul have to “oppose him to his face” and call him a hypocrite, and correcting a person who personally knew Yahshua and his teachings? While at the same time stating “I have become all things to all men” imitating whatever people he finds himself among? (1 Corinthians 9:22)

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/petevspaul.php

Paul says “Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness” (ROMANS 10:4) and calls Israel ignorant for seeking righteousness by doing God’s law (ROMANS 10:3)

No, he called Israel ignorant for not knowing the righteousness of God and thereby not submitting to it, which occurs over and over in the Old Testament.

Paul claimed he himself was the son of God (Galatians 1:16)

No he doesn't. The mention of "reveal his son in me" means that the son was revealed to Paul, not that Paul was revealed to be the son (indeed, the Greek word for "in" can also be translated as "to", i.e. "reveal his son to me".)

Paul was never recognized as an apostle by the real apostles, disciples OR Yahshua

Exactly how you have determined this is unclear. The term "apostle" simply means one who is sent on a mission, which Paul was. Therefore, an apostle.

Granted, the Bible also uses "apostle" to refer more specifically to the Twelve Apostles, a distinction that is probably best served by capitalizing Apostle for them, but using a lowercase apostle to refer to the more standard version of the term. Paul was an apostle but not an Apostle.

Paul was never repentant for being the greatest persecutor of Christians at that time! He even boasted about it! Over and Over

He mentions it, certainly (it's sort of a thing that is important), but when does he "boast" of it? You give no examples outside of the earlier one which was not boasting. Indeed, we find the opposite in 1 Corinthians 15:9:
"For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."

Paul declared he was teaching another Gospel of which he himself was the Father

Citation needed.

Paul said God’s law was a Curse. Yahshua and God said it was a blessing. Who’s lying?

Specific verses being cited, please.

Yahshua Said: Keep the Sabbath (Mark 2:27),

Not what he actually says.

Paul Said: Circumcision is not necessary (Romans 2:26) that is going against what the Christ said in Luke 2:21

Jesus didn't "say" anything in Luke 2:21. It records he was circumcised, but exactly how that is a contradiction to Romans 2:26 is unclear. Particularly as Luke 2:21 occurred under the Old Covenant and the whole point of Christianity was the establishment of the New Covenant which does not require circumcision.

Paul declares it’s ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols
” For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than THESE NECESSARY THINGS: That you ABSTAIN FROM MEATS offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled and from fornication…”(Acts 15:28:29)
” But I (Yahshua) have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a STUMBLING BLOCK before the children of Israel, TO EAT THINGS SACRIFICED TO IDOLS ”
(Revelation 2:14)

1 Corinthians 8
4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
8. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
10. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

Paul ISN'T saying it's okay to eat meat sacrificed to idols! He's condemning the practice! All he's doing in 1 Corinthians 8:10 is to give an explanation for the prohibition, which is the confusion it can create in other believers (later, in 1 Corinthians 10, he also asserts that it can make you a participant with demons). Reading this as him allowing people to eat things sacrificed to idols is to miss Paul's entire point.

Where exactly did he say this?

The original post is mostly too goofy to really bother responding to, but I did want to note something regarding the Number of the Beast.

blueAgent:
The Babylonians were the first to use triangles to represent their gods, since this gods where 3equal but 1 god then a logical representation of this gods was a triangle with 3 equal parts  and sides.
Remember mathametically the sum of the angles in a triangle must equal 180°, for 3 equal but 1 god means 180/3=60°
Since A=B=C then 60°=60°=60°
Thus you have your 666.

How do you get 666? From three instances of 60 degrees? That's not 666, that's 180. Or is the claim that because you found three 6's in the form of three 60's that makes 666?

Sorry, but that doesn't do it. It isn't three 6's that make the Number of the Beast: It is the specific numerical value of six hundred and sixty-six (this is more obvious in the Greek text). You do not get to that value with three 60's.

Furthermore, the Number of the Beast is identified in the Bible as either "the number of a man" or "humanity's number" (depending on how you translate it). Triangle angles are neither of those things.

So what is the Number of the Beast? Most likely a reference to Roman Emperor Nero, who was a persecutor of Christians. "Nero Caesar" in Aramaic adds up to 666. Notably, a few early manuscripts of Revelation have 616 rather than 666. Now, this could be just a simple scribal error. But there is another possibility as to why it was 616. An alternate way of writing Nero's name in Aramaic causes it to add up to 616, and Nero's name in Latin adds also up to 616.

But whether or not the Number of the Beast referred to Nero, it certainly doesn't refer to anything involving the degrees in a triangle.

Sunnick:
Jesus was a great man and is name, teaching and miracles spread round the world very fast.... but apart from the Bible where in history was this documented.

There are a number of problems with this question--specifically, the presumptions it rests on.

First, "apart from the Bible." The Bible (New Testament) isn't just one source... it's 22 different sources that have at least 8 different authors. That is not unreasonable attestation. There are other Christian writings from around that period that were not included in the Bible, such as the First Epistle of Clement.

Perhaps you are specifically asking for non-Christian documentation. But before we answer "where is the non-Christian documentation" we need to note a few things.

First, almost all writings from the first century have been lost. Papyrus only lasts so long, after all. There's a ton of historical documents that we simply don't have access to.

Second, of the documents we do have, would they have a reason to mention Jesus or, if they did, go into much detail? Our primary history and record-keepers were from Rome, who would have cared little about what a lower class preacher off in Jerusalem was doing unless they were trying to raise an army and overthrow the establishment. As for the miracles, reports would have been simply dismissed as Jewish superstition and ignored by the frequently skeptical Romans historians. And this is to say nothing of how few would have much reason to mention Jesus at all--for example, someone writing a biography of Alexander the Great would hardly have reason to mention Jesus!

But despite those considerations, we do have some non-Christian references to Jesus, albeit brief, from Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian.

So the question is really not "where was this documented?" It should be "where in the surviving writings we have that should have mentioned it is it documented?"

Gideon97:
Biblical standards lol. So what is biblical standards? When God commanded the children of Isreal to take the female captives for themselves (sex slaves) .

"Sex slaves" is an assumption that is neither stated by the text and does not mesh with the culture of the time. See here, most specifically the section starting with "Secondly, the accusation that these girls were for “sex slave” purposes contradicts what we know about the culture and about the event.":
http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html

Or that if a woman is raped she has to marry her rapist?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is often misunderstood, in two ways.

First, even assuming it refers to rape--which it may not, as we shall see--in that case, we must consider the culture. Virginity was highly prized and it would be difficult to find a husband if you were not a virgin, which would make it hard to support yourself. Therefore, by forcing the man to marry her (and thus support her financially) could actually be of benefit to the woman.

But is it even referring to rape to begin with? This brings us to the second point. There are two Hebrew verbs being used here, one to mean "grabs" and the other that means "lies with" (i.e. sleeps with). Some translations combine these two into the word "rape" but that is simply an assumption on their part. The NET Bible translation gives a good exposition of it:

The verb (taphas) means “to sieze, grab.” In all other examples this action is done against another person’s will, as in being captured, arrested, attacked, or grabbed with insistence (e.g. 1 Sam 23:26; 1 Kgs 13:4; 18:40; 2 Kgs 14:13; 25:6; Isa 3:6; Jer 26:8; 34:3; 37:13; 52:9; Ps 71:11; 2 Chr 25:23.) So it may be that the man is forcing himself on her, which is what leads the NIV to translate the next verb as “rape,” although it is a neutral euphemism for sexual relations. However, this is the only case where the object taphas is a woman and the verb also also refers to holding or handling objects such as musical instruments, weapons, or scrolls. So it possible that it has a specialized, but otherwise unattested nuance regarding sexual or romantic relations, as is true of other expressions. Several contextual clues point away from rape and toward a consensual relationship. (1) The verb which seems to express force is different from the verb of force in the rape case in v. 25. (2) The context distinguishes consequences based on whether the girl cried out, an expression of protest and a basis for distinguishing consent or force. But this case law does not mention her outcry which would have clarified a forcible act. While part of what is unique in this case is that the girl is not engaged, it is reasonable to expect the issue of consent to continue to apply. (3) The penalty is less than that of a man who slanders his new wife and certainly less than the sentence for rape. (4) The expression “and they are discovered” at the end of v. 28 uses the same wording as the expression in v. 22 which involves a consensual act. (5) Although from a separate context, the account of the rape of Dinah seems to express the Pentateuch’s negative attitude toward forcible rape, not in advocating for Simeon and Levi’s actions, but in the condemnation included in the line Gen 34:7 “because he has done a disgraceful thing in Israel.” This is very like the indictment in v. 21 against the consenting woman, “because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel.” (6) The penalty of not being allowed to divorce her sounds like v. 19, where the man is punished for disgracing his wife unfairly. His attempted divorce fails and he must provide for her thereafter (the probable point of not being allowed to divorce her.) Here too, if his holding her is not forced, but instead he has seduced her, he is not allowed to claim that his new wife is not pure (since he is the culprit) and so he must take responsibility for her, cannot divorce her, and must provide for her as a husband thereafter.