Pious fraud
Pious fraud is a term applied to describe fraudulent practices used to advance a religious cause or belief by the early christian church and followers of christianity. This type of fraud may, by apologists, be explained as a case of the ends justify the means, in that if people are saved from eternal damnation then it's perfectly fine to tell a few fibs and perform some magic tricks. This is line of argumentation is prone to Outcome bias. To draw a non-religious comparison - pious fraud could be compared to a parent using the threat of Santa withholding presents, or delivering a lump of coal, if Santa should hear that the child in question has been naughty.

It may at times be difficult to differentiate pious fraud, which requires intent to deceive, from delusion and ignorance. Such a decision must be based on a case-by-case evaluation of the claims being made, the persons making the claims, and certainly the intent behind the claims.

Determining intent
Intent is the primary method of differentiating pious fraud from regular fraud, but is itself murky. Peter Popoff, a televangelist with an astonishing ability to extract money from true believers, had repeatedly been exposed for using decidedly natural approaches to enhance his "miracles". In one notable example, James Randi learned that Popoff was using a hidden earpiece in to which his wife was broadcasting information on the stricken people who attended his revivals in the hope of being cured.

If Popoff is a pious fraud, then it appears that he earnestly believes that the basic message of the gospels is that God's decision as to whether or not worshippers enter Heaven is primarily based on how rich they made their preacher. It may however be possible that Popoff simply enjoyed having nice houses and cars, and found a large group of people who were gullible and desperate enough to help make this happen.

Even when there is no financial incentive, pious frauds may gain fame and adoration among believers for being special enough to have been chosen to witness or perform a miracle.

Given that miracles (of Christian "men of God" typically come with little evidence to support the temporary suspension of the known laws of the universe, miracles are a rich source of pious fraud for the christian "men of God". This not to say that all miracles are by default fraud;many (of the christian "men of God" can be attributed to delusional behaviour or ignorance, but some stand out as being particularly questionable.

Padre Pio was reputed to have experienced the stigmata - the appearance of wounds on the body that mimic those inflicted upon Jesus during his crucifixion, yet the wounds always appeared in private, and there are suggestions that Pio was using acid to inflict the wounds upon himself.


Modification and misattribution of scripture
Many books of the New Testament are named for what uninformed believers take to be the names of the authors, yet biblical and historical scholarship indicate that the gospels were written by unknown authors and ascribed to disciples and similarly important figures in Christianity. Other books of the New Testament, traditionally ascribed to important figures, are also shown to be later additions or misattributions.

There's an obvious advantage in attributing a work to a famous name, since texts purporting to document the life of Jesus certainly carry more weight if its claimed that they were written by a drinking buddy of Jesus.

Alterations over the years also provide signs of changes being made to deal with scriptural contradictions and to reduce or emphasise points and beliefs important to the writer. Paul strongly emphasised the message that salvation was available to all - including gentiles, while the some gospels portray Jesus as being sent solely for the "lost sheep of Israel", such as in Matthew 15:21-28, yet St. Paul's writings favour discarding Jewish tradition - such as the requirement to effectively become a Jew before becoming a Christian, in favour of offering salvation to gentiles - describing himself as "the apostle of the gentiles" in Romans 1:13.

It is also notable that the nature of Jesus changes throughout the Bible. Early gospels, such as Mark, portray Jesus more as an annointed man than a being of divine origin - in a similar sense to previous "sons of god" such as King David. In John 1:1-15 Jesus is described as being the embodiment of logos - present with God at the beginning of all things, through whom the world was created. Mark lacks an account of the virgin birth - which other authors included in their gospels. A messiah of human origin, although annointed by God, is more consistent with Jewish tradition, so the divine aspects may have appeared in an attempt to appeal to the demographic that prefers its messiahs to be of divine origin.

Thomas Jefferson (the principal author of the United States Declaration of Independence and third President of the United States of America) and His Views on the New Testament

Jefferson considered much of the New Testament of the Bible to be false. He described these as "so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture".[34] He described the "roguery of others of His disciples", [35] and called them a "band of dupes and impostors" describing Paul as the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus", and wrote of "palpable interpolations and falsifications".[35] He also described the Book of Revelation to be "merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams".[36]

From his careful study of the Bible, Jefferson concluded that Jesus never claimed to be God.[37] While living in the White House, Jefferson began to piece together his own condensed version of the Gospels, omitting the virgin birth of Jesus, miracles attributed to Jesus, divinity and the resurrection of Jesus. Thus, primarily leaving only Jesus' moral philosophy, of which he approved. This compilation titled The LIFE AND MORALS OF JESUS OF NAZARETH Extracted Textually from the Gospels Greek, Latin, French, and English was published after his death and became known as the Jefferson Bible.[6]

In 1803 Jefferson composed a syllabus of the comparative merits of Christianity. He let only a few see it, including Benjamin Rush in 1803 and William Short in 1820. When Rush died in 1813, Jefferson asked the family to return the document to him. In the syllabus, Jefferson outlines what he considers to be some of the advantages of Jesus' teachings. In the 1820 letter to Short, he makes it clear that he disagrees with some of those teachings.[3][38]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_religion#Jefferson.2C_Jesus.2C_and_the_Bible

"Letter from Thomas Jefferson On Pious Fraud and Common Law"

Letter from Thomas Jefferson
Letter To Dr. Thomas Cooper - Monticello, February 10, 1814
_To Dr. Thomas Cooper_
_Monticello, February 10, 1814_


DEAR SIR, -- In my letter of January 16, I promised you a
sample from my common-place book, of the pious disposition of the
English judges, to connive at the frauds of the clergy, a disposition
which has even rendered them faithful allies in practice. When I was
a student of the law, now half a century ago, after getting through
Coke Littleton, whose matter cannot be abridged, I was in the habit
of abridging and common-placing what I read meriting it, and of
sometimes mixing my own reflections on the subject. I now enclose
you the extract from these entries which I promised. They were
written at a time of life when I was bold in the pursuit of
knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever
results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their
way. This must be the apology, if you find the conclusions bolder
than historical facts and principles will warrant. Accept with them
the assurances of my great esteem and respect.

_Common-place Book._
873. In Quare imp. in C. B. 34, H. 6, fo. 38, the def. Br. of
Lincoln pleads that the church of the pl. became void by the death of
the incumbent, that the pl. and J. S. each pretending a right,
presented two several clerks; that the church being thus rendered
litigious, he was not obliged, by the _Ecclesiastical law_ to admit
either, until an inquisition de jure patronatus, in the
ecclesiastical court: that, by the same law, this inquisition was to
be at the suit of either claimant, and was not _ex-officio_ to be
instituted by the bishop, and at his proper costs; that neither party
had desired such an inquisition; that six months passed whereon it
belonged to him of right to present as on a lapse, which he had done.
The pl. demurred. A question was, How far the _Ecclesiastical law_
was to be respected in this matter by the common law court? and
Prisot C. 3, in the course of his argument uses this expression, "A
tiels leis que ils de seint eglise ont en _ancien scripture_, covient
a nous a donner credence, car ces common ley sur quel touts manners
leis sont fondes: et auxy, sin, nous sumus obliges de conustre nostre
ley; et, sin, si poit apperer or a nous que lievesque ad fait comme
un ordinary fera en tiel cas, adong nous devons ces adjuger bon
autrement nemy," &c. It does not appear that judgment was given. Y.
B. ubi supra. S. C. Fitzh. abr. Qu. imp. 89. Bro. abr. Qu. imp. 12.
Finch mistakes this in the following manner: "To such laws of the
church as have warrant in _Holy Scripture_, our law giveth credence,"
and cites the above case, and the words of Prisot on the margin.
Finch's law. B. 1, ch. 3, published 1613. Here we find "ancien
scripture" converted into "Holy Scripture," whereas it can only mean
the _ancient written_ laws of the church. It cannot mean the
Scriptures, 1, because the "ancient scripture" must then be understood
to mean the "Old Testament" or Bible, in opposition to the "New
Testament," and to the exclusion of that, which would be absurd and
contrary to the wish of those |P1323|p1 who cite this passage to
prove that the Scriptures, or Christianity, is a part of the common
law. 2. Because Prisot says, "Ceo [est] common ley, sur quel touts
manners leis sont fondes." Now, it is true that the ecclesiastical
law, so far as admitted in England, derives its authority from the
common law. But it would not be true that the Scriptures so derive
their authority. 3. The whole case and arguments show that the
question was how far the Ecclesiastical law in general should be
respected in a common law court. And in Bro. abr. of this case,
Littleton says, "Les juges del common ley prendra conusans quid est
_lax ecclesiae_, vel admiralitatis, et trujus modi." 4. Because the
particular part of the Ecclesiastical law then in question, to wit,
the right of the patron to present to his advowson, was not founded
on the law of God, but subject to the modification of the lawgiver,
and so could not introduce any such general position as Finch
pretends. Yet Wingate [in 1658] thinks proper to erect this false
quotation into a maxim of the common law, expressing it in the very
words of Finch, but citing Prisot, wing. max. 3. Next comes
Sheppard, [in 1675,] who states it in the same words of Finch, and
quotes the Year-Book, Finch and Wingate. 3. Shepp. abr. tit.
Religion. In the case of the King _v_. Taylor, Sir Matthew Hale lays
it down in these words, "Christianity is parcel of the laws of
England." 1 Ventr. 293, 3 Keb. 607. But he quotes no authority,
resting it on his own, which was good in all cases in which his mind
received no bias from his bigotry, his superstitions, his visions
above sorceries, demons, &c. The power of these over him is
exemplified in his hanging of the witches. So strong was this
doctrine become in 1728, by additions and repetitions from one
another, that in the case of the King _v_. Woolston, the court would
not suffer it to be debated, whether to write against Christianity
was punishable in the temporal courts at common law, saying it had
been so settled in Taylor's case, ante 2, stra. 834; therefore, Wood,
in his Institute, lays it down that all blasphemy and profaneness are
offences by the _common law_, and cites Strange ubi supra. Wood 409.
And Blackstone [about 1763] repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew
Hale, that "Christianity is part of the laws of England," citing
Ventris and Strange ubi supra. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield
qualifies it a little by saying that "The essential |P1324|p1
principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the
case of the Chamberlain of London _v_. Evans, 1767. But he cities no
authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the
opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his
faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory
on us as a part of the common law.


Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the
beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of
Prisot's, or on one another, or nobody. Thus Finch quotes Prisot;
Wingate also; Sheppard quotes Prisot, Finch and Wingate; Hale cites
nobody; the court in Woolston's case cite Hale; Wood cites Woolston's
case; Blackstone that and Hale; and Lord Mansfield, like Hale,
ventures it on his own authority. In the earlier ages of the law, as
in the year-books, for instance, we do not expect much recurrence to
authorities by the judges, because in those days there were few or
none such made public. But in latter times we take no judge's word
for what the law is, further than he is warranted by the authorities
he appeals to. His decision may bind the unfortunate individual who
happens to be the particular subject of it; but it cannot alter the
law. Though the common law may be termed "Lex non Scripta," yet the
same Hale tells us "when I call those parts of our laws Leges non
Scriptae, I do not mean as if those laws were only oral, or
communicated from the former ages to the latter merely by word. For
all those laws have their several monuments in writing, whereby they
are transferred from one age to another, and without which they would
soon lose all kind of certainty. They are for the most part extant
in records of pleas, proceedings, and judgments, in books of reports
and judicial decisions, in tractates of learned men's arguments and
opinions, preserved from ancient times and still extant in writing."
Hale's H. c. d. 22. Authorities for what is common law may therefore
be as well cited, as for any part of the Lex Scripta, and there is no
better instance of the necessity of holding the judges and writers to
a declaration of their authorities than the present; where we detect
them endeavoring to make law where they found none, and to submit us
at one stroke to a whole system, no particle of which has its
foundation in the common law. For we know that the common law is
that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their
settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper
legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta,
which terminates the period of the common law, or lex non scripta,
and commences that of the statute law, or Lex Scripta. This
settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But
Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the
conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken
place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here,
then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law
was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. If it ever was
adopted, therefore, into the common law, it must have been between
the introduction of Christianity and the date of the Magna Charta.
But of the laws of this period we have a tolerable collection by
Lambard and Wilkins, probably not perfect, but neither very
defective; and if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of
that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to
prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so
far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of
it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common
law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the
introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion
could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet
Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close
of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of
adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges
and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a
part of the common law. Another cogent proof of this truth is drawn
from the silence of certain writers on the common law. Bracton gives
us a very complete and scientific treatise of the whole body of the
common law. He wrote this about the close of the reign of Henry
III., a very few years after the date of the Magna Charta. We
consider this book as the more valuable, as it was written about fore
gives us the former in its ultimate state. Bracton, too, was an
ecclesiastic, and would certainly not have failed to inform us of the
adoption of Christianity as a part of the common law, had any such
adoption ever taken place. But no word of his, which intimates
anything like it, has ever been cited. Fleta and Britton, who wrote
in the succeeding reign (of Edward I.), are equally silent. So also
is Glanvil, an earlier writer than any of them, (viz.: temp. H. 2,)
but his subject perhaps might not have led him to mention it.
Justice Fortescue Aland, who possessed more Saxon learning than all
the judges and writers before mentioned put together, places this
subject on more limited ground. Speaking of the laws of the Saxon
kings, he says, "the ten commandments were made part of their laws,
and consequently were _once_ part of the law of England; so that to
break any of the ten commandments was then esteemed a breach of the
common law, of England; and why it is not so now, perhaps it may be
difficult to give a good reason." Preface to Fortescue Aland's
reports, xvii. Had he proposed to state with more minuteness how
much of the scriptures had been made a part of the common law, he
might have added that in the laws of Alfred, where he found the ten
commandments, two or three other chapters of Exodus are copied almost
verbatim. But the adoption of a part proves rather a rejection of
the rest, as municipal law. We might as well say that the Newtonian
system of philosophy is a part of the common law, as that the
Christian religion is. The truth is that Christianity and
Newtonianism being reason and verity itself, in the opinion of all
but infidels and Cartesians, they are protected under the wings of
the common law from the dominion of other sects, but not erected into
dominion over them. An eminent Spanish physician affirmed that the
lancet had slain more men than the sword. Doctor Sangrado, on the
contrary, affirmed that with plentiful bleedings, and draughts of
warm water, every disease was to be cured. The common law protects
both opinions, but enacts neither into law. See post. 879.


879. Howard, in his Contumes Anglo-Normandes, 1.87, notices the
falsification of the laws of Alfred, by prefixing to them four
chapters of the Jewish law, to wit: the 20th, 21st, 22d and 23d
chapters of Exodus, to which he might have added the 15th chapter of
the Acts of the Apostles, v. 23, and precepts from other parts of the
scripture. These he calls a _hors d'oeuvre_ of some pious copyist.
This awkward monkish fabrication makes the preface to Alfred's
genuine laws stand in the body of the work, and the very words of
Alfred himself prove the fraud; for he declares, in that preface,
that he has collected these laws from those of Ina, of Offa,
Aethelbert and his ancestors, saying nothing of any of them being
taken from the Scriptures. It is still more certainly proved by the
inconsistencies it occasions. For example, the Jewish legislator
Exodus xxi. 12, 13, 14, (copied by the Pseudo Alfred [symbol omitted]
13,) makes murder, with the Jews, death. But Alfred himself, Le.
xxvi., punishes it by a fine only, called a Weregild, proportioned to
the condition of the person killed. It is remarkable that Hume
(append. 1 to his History) examining this article of the laws of
Alfred, without perceiving the fraud, puzzles himself with accounting
for the inconsistency it had introduced. To strike a pregnant woman
so that she die is death by Exodus, xxi. 22, 23, and Pseud. Alfr. 18;
but by the laws of Alfred ix., pays a Weregild for both woman and
child. To smite out an eye, or a tooth, Exod. xxi. 24-27. Pseud.
Alfr. 19, 20, if of a servant by his master, is freedom to the
servant; in every other case retaliation. But by Alfr. Le. xl. a
fixed indemnification is paid. Theft of an ox, or a sheep, by the
Jewish law, Exod. xxii. 1, was repaid five-fold for the ox and
four-fold for the sheep; by the Pseudograph 24, the ox double, the
sheep four-fold; but by Alfred Le. xvi., he who stole a cow and a
calf was to repay the worth of the cow and 401 for the calf. Goring
by an ox was the death of the ox, and the flesh not to be eaten.
Exod. xxi. 28. Pseud. Alfr. 21 by Alfred Le. xxiv., the wounded
person had the ox. The Pseudograph makes municipal laws of the ten
commandments, 1-10, regulates concubinage, 12, makes it death to
strike or to curse father or mother, 14, 15, gives an eye for an eye,
tooth for a tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning,
wound for wound, strife for strife, 19; sells the thief to repay his
theft, 24; obliges the fornicator to marry the woman he has lain
with, 29; forbids interest on money, 35; makes the laws of bailment,
28, very different from what Lord Holt delivers in Coggs _v_.
Bernard, ante 92, and what Sir William Jones tells us they were; and
punishes witchcraft with death, 30, which Sir Matthew Hale, 1 H. P.
C. B. 1, ch. 33, declares was not a felony before the Stat. 1, Jac.
12. It was under that statute, and not this forgery, that he hung
Rose Cullendar and Amy Duny, 16 Car. 2, (1662,) on whose trial he
declared "that there were such creatures as witches he made no doubt
at all; for first the Scripture had affirmed so much, secondly the
wisdom of all nations had provided laws against such persons, and
such hath been the judgment of this kingdom, as appears by that act
of Parliament which hath provided punishment proportionable to the
quality of the offence." And we must certainly allow greater weight
to this position that "it was no felony till James' Statute," laid
down deliberately in his H. P. C., a work which he wrote to be
printed, finished, and transcribed for the press in his life time,
than to the hasty scripture that "at _common law_ witchcraft was
punished with death as heresy, by writ de Heretico Comburendo" in his
Methodical Summary of the P. C. p. 6, a work "not intended for the
press, not fitted for it, and which he declared himself he had never
read over since it was written;" Pref. Unless we understand his
meaning in that to be that witchcraft could not be punished at common
law as witchcraft, but as heresy. In either sense, however, it is a
denial of this pretended law of Alfred. Now, all men of reading know
that these pretended laws of homicide, concubinage, theft,
retaliation, compulsory marriage, usury, bailment, and others which
might have been cited, from the Pseudograph, were never the laws of
England, not even in Alfred's time; and of course that it is a
forgery. Yet palpable as it must be to every lawyer, the English
judges have piously avoided lifting the veil under which it was
shrouded. In truth, the alliance between Church and State in England
has ever made their judges accomplices in the frauds of the clergy;
and even bolder than they are. For instead of being contented with
these four surreptitious chapters of Exodus, they have taken the
whole leap, and declared at once that the whole Bible and Testament
in a lump, make a part of the common law; ante 873: the first
judicial declaration of which was by this same Sir Matthew Hale. And
thus they incorporate into the English code laws made for the Jews
alone, and the precepts of the gospel, intended by their benevolent
author as obligatory only in _foro concientiae_; and they arm the
whole with the coercions of municipal law. In doing this, too, they
have not even used the Connecticut caution of declaring, as is done
in their blue laws, that the laws of God shall be the laws of their
land, except where their own contradict them; but they swallow the
yea and nay together. Finally, in answer to Fortescue Aland's
question why the ten commandments should not now be a part of the
common law of England? we may say they are not because they never
were made so by legislative authority, the document which has imposed
that doubt on him being a manifest forgery.


http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/lit/jeff10.htm

Pious Fraud: Adhoc Bible forgery - Paul v.s. Deuteronomy

When reading the new testament, it cannot be avoided but to notice the way its authors used the Jewish Bible in order to support their beliefs and teachings. New testament authors have force fit this books in ways that seem to reflect a deliberately dishonest use of it.

Interesting example of such Ad-hoc misquotation is made by Paul to support his doctrine:

Romans 10:4-11
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who has faith.For Moses says that the man who does the righteousness which is of the law will get life by it.
But the righteousness which is of faith says these words, Say not in your heart, Who will go up to heaven? (that is, to make Christ come down
Or, Who will go down into the deep? (that is, to make Christ come again from the dead But what does it say? The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart: that is, the word of faith of which we are the preachers:
Because, if you say with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and have faith in your heart that God has made him come back from the dead, you will have salvation:
For with the heart man has faith to get righteousness, and with the mouth he says that Jesus is Lord to get salvation.Because it is said in the holy Writings, Whoever has faith in him will not be shamed.

Deuteronomy 30:10-14
If you give ear to the voice of the Lord your God, keeping his orders and his laws which are recorded in this book of the law, and turning to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
For these orders which I have given you today are not strange and secret, and are not far away.
They are not in heaven, for you to say, Who will go up to heaven for us and give us knowledge of them so that we may do them?
And they are not across the sea, for you to say, Who will go over the sea for us and give us news of them so that we may do them?
But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, so that you may do it.


Paul the ex-Pharisee, who became a proponent of the salvation by faith doctrine, clearly says that faith in Christ is the end of the law for righteousness. To support his teaching, he offers a quote from the book of Deuteronomy.

Reading Deuteronomy in context (the same context that Christian complain that septics does not read) it becomes revealing what the misquoted passage really was about.
In Deuteronomy, the word which is near, in the mouth and heart, is the word of the law given by God of Israel. This law is written in the book of law, the Torah, the Jewish Bible.

The really interesting part about this passage in Deuteronomy is the part that Paul omitted intentionally, because it did not fit his doctrine. 

Comparing the misquotation of Paul with the real passage, it all becomes obvious:

Deuteronomy 30:14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, so that you may do it.

Romans 10:8 But what does it say? The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart: that is, the word of faith of which we are the preachers:

that Deuteronomy 30:14 says that the word which is near in the mouth and hearth is, i.e., the Law, the Torah which was given through Moses; that's the context in which this verse is written. This verse states, as quoted: "the word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart, SO THAT YOU MAY DO IT.

If Paul would had quoted this verse the way it was originally written, it would have destroyed his teaching that salvation was not by works, because Moses insisted on obedience to the Law as a means of salvation, contrary to Paul's teaching which stresses faith in his gospel, faith in Jesus and what he had done, was the means of salvation. No one can actually claim that Paul did not know, therefore the passage seems misquoted. This is so, because as mentioned before, he was supposedly ex- Pharisee, the keeper of the law.

If the context of Deuteronomy 30 remains unverified, especially the quoted verse, the Torah seems to back up Paul's words and state that faith in Paul's gospel is the way to salvation. But this is far from what this passage does. In fact, it explicitly contradicts Paul's teaching.

This is a clear showcase of Paul's dishonest use of Jewish Bible

http://pious-fraud..com/2011/07/adhoc-bible-extraordinary-twisting-paul_15.html

Surely you don't really think anyone will read the junk you posted above right 

Salvation According to Jesus V/S Paul

Salvation
According to Jesus:  The rich young ruler asked Jesus how he could find salvation. Jesus answered, "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments ,  If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." (Matt 19:16-21, Mark 10:17-21, Luke 18:18-22, KJV) In other words, obey Torah, and follow Jesus' examples.

According to Paul:  “That if you confess with your mouth Jesus {as} Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.” (Rom 10:9-10, NAS)
Which is it?  Obeying the commandments of G-d and following Jesus, or merely believing in Jesus’ resurrection and confessing him as Lord?  

frosbel:

Surely you don't really think anyone will read the junk you posted above right

that should not bother you.i know you are itching literally wherever you are with this thread that exposes it as it is!!!keep itching you follower and promoter of fraud!!!

EFCC must arrest all of you!!!!

Paul,is undoubtedly the "father of christianity".he is the author of most books of the christian new testament.yet he contradicts Jesus and he also contradicts the old testament.not only that,the supposition that Paul was "inspired" is the probelm of the story.christians accept Paul as a true apostle and someone "inspired" contributing to their "word of God".yet,the accounts they use to justify their belief in Paul were authored by Paul and they are three contradictory accounts:

Acts 9:7
"And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man".

Acts 22:9
"And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me".

Acts 26:14
"And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks".

so which are we to believe:

1.) hearing a voice but seeing no man
2.) seeing the light but not hearing
3.) Paul heard the voice

in Mark Chapter 16,verses 9-20 are relegated as footnote.this is the most starring evidence of pious fraud.

the verses 9-20 speak of the most important event in christianity which is the ascension of Jesus into the heavens and the command of Jesus to preach to all nations which contradicts other reports where Jesus claimed to have been sent only to the children of Israel.it is shocking and heart staggering for a christian to find out that verses 9-20 of mark chapter 16  in all bible versions are relegated to footnote by bible scholars because they are not contained in the earliest bible manuscripts.

you can further this evidence on this,from the below two threads:

"Jesus (pbuh) Only Sent To The Jews And Not To Nigerians-leave Him Alone"!
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-821784.0.html

"Where Is Jesus"?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-739871.0.html

Bible versions relegated verses 9-20 of Mark Chapter 16 to a footnote.then they give the reason why:

[size=18pt]“The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9–20”[/size]
http://niv.scripturetext.com/mark/16.htm


the mysterious question that needs a mysterious answer is definitely why are those verses still kept in the bible?and why do christians still hold that Jesus was taken up or ascended and why do they believe Jesus is for all nations when these verses are not regarded as genuine but forgeries?

this is more of a case like saying:"it is a lie but better to believe the lie than have nothing to believe in"!!!!!

the bible confesses against itself and those who follow it:

Jeremiah 8:8
"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

According to him personally,was Paul inspired or not inspired?


Yes He Was:
2 Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

No! He Was Not:
1 Corinthians 7:12
"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away".

Romans 3:7
“But if the truth of God through my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?”

Philippians 1:18
“But what does it matter? Nothing matters except that, in one way or another, people are told the message about Christ, whether with honest or dishonest motives, and I’m happy about that. Yes, I will continue to be happy.”

2Corinthians 12:16
“But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.“

Hahn, johnydon22

TheFilmmaker:
Hahn, johnydon22

I don't need to read all that to conclude that religion is a fraud

Xbox 360 slim hacked for sale


Xbox 360 slim hack Very neat the game is coming with one wireless pad,power,HDMI cord,Av Cord and downloaded/installed games are on it like FIFA 17,pes 17,army of two, dantes inferno,blur,castlevania lord of shadow,full auto,mafia 2,sniper elite 3,army of two... etc With Complete Accessories CD ROM is working perfectly, you can also use CD with it.Am selling it because I need money......08064242844