> historical legitimacy dont even start this shit-flinging footnote competition it is not my attestation that these successive texts differ in content, but that they differ in legitimacy.  paul is fraudulent whereas the other aforementioned texts are legitimate, even though they may not be novel in content. paul is a huge vulnerability in that he was designated as the rock to build my church upon, meaning hes the entry point for usurpers of the faith, such as the roman church which controls half of the planet today.
United States