[Partisan Gunslinger]

Your posts are completely illogical. The Pharisees Jesus encountered told Jesus they were of Abraham but their ancestry were never slaves. Jesus agreed with them. That means they were Edomites. Edomites were never slaves, all the Israelites were. In your scenerio, whole tribes of people would have to disappear for no reason, and of course they didn't because we know Jesus encountered non-Jew Pharisees, and we know Levites and Benjamites had a right to be there in God's plan.

The temple incident was the only recorded time Jesus used violence. That should get your attention but it flies right over your head. It's an example of what will happen at the second coming. Judgment starts at the pulpit. Are you going to be in a church that is good in Jesus' eyes, or in a church that receives violence?

The descendants of Caiaphas and his Edomite ilk fled from Jerusalem from the Romans in 70AD, lived in four cities near the Sea of Galilee for a time, moved over to the two Jewish universities in Babylon and became exilarchs. The ancestors of Charlemagne brought one of these exilarchs, a direct descendant of Caiaphas, to Narbonne to give the Jews there encouragement to fend the Muslims back from France. More exilarch families moved from Babylon to Narbonne. The exilarchs expanded their influence into Lyon. Charlemagne was crowned emperor by the pope and there was very close cooperation between Charlemagne and his exilarch allies, and the Catholic Church. Could it be the Catholic Church hierarchy is now composed of descendants of Caiaphas and his fellow Edomite liars and murderers of Jesus? With the communist turn the Catholic Church has taken, something is definitely not right.

But go ahead and ignore truth and logic, twist yourself into a pretzel trying to weasel yourself out of the unlearned errors you post in about every paragraph and keep supporting the commie pope, his commie hierarchy in Rome, and his tool, the Catholic laity that hasn't caught on yet.

[vladimir998]

“Your posts are completely illogical.”

No, actually they are completely logical.

“The Pharisees Jesus encountered told Jesus they were of Abraham but their ancestry were never slaves. Jesus agreed with them. That means they were Edomites. Edomites were never slaves, all the Israelites were. In your scenerio, whole tribes of people would have to disappear for no reason, and of course they didn’t because we know Jesus encountered non-Jew Pharisees, and we know Levites and Benjamites had a right to be there in God’s plan.”

If they were Pharisees, they were Jews. Period. Your fanciful interpretation has no grounding in reality.

“The temple incident was the only recorded time Jesus used violence. That should get your attention but it flies right over your head.”

No. It has nothing to do with what gets my attention or not. Logically, the example you keep erroneously pushing doesn’t have anything to do with the topic at hand. The money changers were not pagans. Jesus was not in a pagan temple, but in the one and only JEWISH Temple.

“Are you going to be in a church that is good in Jesus’ eyes, or in a church that receives violence?”

I’ll be in the only Church He ever established - the Catholic Church.

“But go ahead and ignore truth and logic, twist yourself into a pretzel trying to weasel yourself out of the unlearned errors you post in about every paragraph and keep supporting the commie pope, his commie hierarchy in Rome, and his tool, the Catholic laity that hasn’t caught on yet.”

You just got done talking about “The ancestors of Charlemagne…exilarchs, a direct descendant of Caiaphas… Babylon to Narbonne… and the Catholic Church…. fellow Edomite liars and murderers of Jesus…” and you’re telling me my posts are illogical?

None of what you posted, NONE OF IT, in any way shows Jesus or St. Paul interrupted pagan worshipers in their own pagan temples.