Friday, April 23, 2010

Paul, aka Saul of Tarsus the Pharisee - A False Apostle, Infiltrator, and Subverter: Satan's Apostle who has deceived millions unto their destruction!









Introduction

The issue of Saul/Paul is something I have been seriously considering for several years. It has been a difficult process of questioning and re-examination of deeply held beliefs. So it is not something I now write about rashly or flippantly, without consideration or careful study -- but rather soberly, and as respectfully as I can articulate.

Having been brought up in "mainstream Christianity", you are conditioned to believe that the "Bible" is infallible. I understand, therefore, that for a "mainstream Christian" to question the apostleship of Paul seems unthinkable, and even perhaps "blasphemous."

And while it is true that YHWH's word is infallible, we must understand that the "Bible" is a collection of books assembled by men. Catholics and Protestants disagree, for instance, as to what books are canon scripture -- with Catholics including the "Apocryphal" books, and Protestants excluding them.  The task, then, is to sift truth from error, and determine which writings are those of genuine prophets of YHWH, and which are not.

To any serious truthseeker and one who truly wishes to obey YHWH, I urge you to not immediately reject the possibility of this based on preconceived beliefs or an emotional response, but rather to stop and examine the issue rationally and logically, as it is of critical importance.

The evidence is overwhelmingly against Paul being a genuine "apostle." This can be conclusively proven from examining the Scriptures, and the writings of Paul himself, for anyone who has "eyes to see" and "ears to hear" -- that is, anyone who cares to use their eyes and hears, and not shut them up in order to perpetuate their preconceived views.

While Paul's writings contain much truth and the appearance of truth, the most sophisticated and dangerous false teaching mixes the truth with lies in this manner. Consider why Yahshua the Messiah would warn his followers so strongly against false prophets and the "leaven" (ie, doctrine) of the Pharisees, saying that many would be deceived, and the deception so strong that almost the "very elect" would be deceived.

The following is an outline of some of the strongest arguments/evidences against the apostleship of Saul/Paul.



Saul/Paul was not one of the Genuine 12 Apostles - His claim to being an "Apostle" is blatantly false and self-avowed

Saul/Paul was NOT one of the original 12 Apostles, and was not the replacement for Judas. Matthias was chosen by the remaining 11 Apostles as the replacement (Acts 1:26).

The Gospels and Book of Revelation makes clear that there are only 12 apostles:

Revelation 21:14 "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

Yet Saul/Paul over and over in his epistles claims to be an "apostle."




Who was Saul of Tarsus, aka "Paul"? A Pharisee, persecutor and murderer of the followers of Yahshua the Messiah

Saul of Tarsus was a leading Pharisee (and proclaimed "son of a Pharisee" - Acts 23:6), who lead the persecution of Yahshua and his followers. He was present at the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58).

Yahshua strongly warned against the leaven/doctrine of the Pharisees. Based upon all of the evidence against Saul/Paul (outlined below), it is apparent that Saul/Paul decided that overt persecution of Yahshuah's followers was not the best tactic to destroy them, but rather covert infiltration and subversion. So he transformed from a persecutor and murderer of the Messiah's disciples into an infiltrator and deceiver who sought to attack the true message of the Gospel from within by masquerading as an "apostle."

Consider this hypothetical: What if well known Satanist and persecutor and murder of Christians (like a Charles Manson type figure) were to one day suddenly claim to have had a "miraculous" conversion to Christianity, and now claims to be an "Apostle"?   What would you make of such a man? Would you be at least a little suspicious of his claims?  Should he go to prison, perhaps face the death penalty for his crimes? What if this person was not punished for his crimes, and allowed to roam society as a free man spreading his new version of Christianity?  And, incredibly, this person goes on to have his writings included in the Bible!  And it doesn't stop there.  He is then somehow elevated to the title of "greatest Apostle", even though he never was one of the true 12 Apostles! 

Also, remember that Saul/Paul was not trained by the disciples, the men who walked, talked, and lived with the Messiah. He claimed to have received his knowledge from "revelations." He was not recognized by the true apostles as a genuine apostle. Paul claimed that title for himself.


Warnings Against False Prophets and the Leaven/Doctrine of the Pharisees:

1 John 4:1 "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

Matthew 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

Matthew 16:6 "Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."

Matthew 24:24 "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

 Matthew 23:13 "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

Matthew 24:4-5 "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many."


Note that Yahushua says that MANY will be deceived, not just a few, and that even the "very elect" would almost be deceived. 






Under what authority should the writings of Saul/Paul be considered "canon law" and included in the Bible?

The book we call the "Bible" was put together by the decisions of men.  And specifically, largely by a council put of the Roman Catholic Church assembled by the Roman Emperor in the 4th century AD.  Saul of Tarsus was not one of the 12 true Apostles.  Why, then, should the words, opinions, and letters of Pharisee Saul of Tarsus carry any more weight than any other self-professed follower of the Messiah?  And Paul didn't even himself claim to be writing down "law" or "words coming from God."  He was merely writing letters to those whom he had proselytized.  Can we, similarly, take letters that Billy Graham or Rick Warren wrote, and in 100 years put them into the Bible as well?






Most importantly, Saul/Paul teaches against keeping the Law of YHWH, teaching that the Law is a "curse", "the Law has been abolished", "We are no longer under the law", a nebulous doctrine of "salvation by grace through faith", and an "easy fix" salvation of "confession and belief only"

Saul/Paul's own writings clearly demonstrate that he taught a completely different doctrine than that of Yahshua. Saul taught against keeping the commandments of YHWH, saying that the "law is a curse", "we are no longer under the law", and "the law has been done away with" --and instead teaching a doctrine of "salvation of grace by faith", and an "easy fix" salvation of "confession and belief only." Yahshua the Messiah, on the other hand, taught that one must "do the will of the Father" and obey His commandments in order to obtain eternal life.


Yahshua teaches that only those who obey the Law of YHWH will be saved:

Matthew 19:16-21 "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, 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."

Matthew 7:21-23 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."



Pharisee Infiltrator Saul/Paul taught that the Law of YHWH was a "curse", and a nebulous doctrine of "salvation by grace through faith":

Galatians 3:10-14 "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit."

Romans 6:14 "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace."


Here in his letter to the Ephesians, Saul teaches that the Messiah "abolished the law of commandments":
Ephesians 2:15 "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;"



Yet Yahshua the Messiah said:

Matthew 5:17-20 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."



Saul teaches that all one has to do in order to be "saved" is "believe and confess":

Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."


If that is all that is required, do not devils and sons of devils intellectually acknowledge that Yahshua is the Messiah and that he was raised from the dead? What differentiates the wicked/unsaved from the righteous/saved, is that the saved obey the commandments of YHWH.



Romans 13 - Saul/Paul teaches that we must obey the laws of men, ie government - Laying a trap for YHWH's people to obey Anti-Christ Beast System unto their destruction

Saul/Paul infamously writes in Romans 13 that we should always obey the government:

Romans 13:1-13 "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority?"


Really? Even butchers like Stalin, Lenin, and Mao? -- as they outlawed Christianity, and ordered their citizens to deny God and become atheists?

This is an extremely dangerous and Satanic teaching.  How about if/when the final Anti-Christ power comes and commands Christians to take the "mark of the Beast"? Should we blindly obey the government then? According to Saul/Paul, "yes."





Damning "smoking gun" evidence against Saul/Paul - Paul admits to Timothy that all in Asia have rejected him - In Revelation, Yahushua commends the Ephesians for rejecting false Apostles

In Paul's second letter to Timothy, believed by many scholars to contain some his last recorded words, he makes a statement which is devastating to Paul's claim to apostleship:

2 Timothy 1:15 "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me;"


At that time, the term "Asia" referred to the area of modern-day Turkey. This is confirmed in the Book of Revelation, written to the "seven churches in Asia" (Revelation 1:4).

Ephesus, of course, was a city where Saul/Paul had attempted to win converts (see Paul’s letter to the Ephesians).

The fact that many Israelites in Asia opposed Saul/Paul is corroborated in the book of Acts where men from Asia accuse Paul of teaching against the Law, and bringing an Ephesian friend into the temple:

Acts 21: 27-29 "And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place. (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)"


Now, examine what Yahshua the Messiah says to the Church at Ephesus in Revelation Chapter 2:

Revelation 2:1-2 "Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars"


Stop and consider the significance of this. Saul/Paul, the self-proclaimed "apostle", admits ALL of those in Asia, including the Ephesians, had rejected him. Then Yahshua commends the Ephesians for rejecting false apostles! If you have ears to hear and eyes to see, are you seeing/hearing this? Could it be much more obvious?

Here are the facts, paraphrased:

Paul to the Ephesians: "I am an apostle of Yahshua"
The Ephesians to Paul: "No you're not."
Yahshua to the Ephesians: "Well done!"





More notable examples of false teachings from Saul/Paul

These are just a few examples, in the interest of brevity. There are many many more similar examples of twisted doctrine, misquoting of Old Testament scripture, etc.

1. In 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 Paul states that eating meat sacrificed to idols is acceptable, stating:

"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." (1 Corinthians 8:8)

This, of course, directly contradicts the law of the Old Testament, and is condemned by the Messiah in Revelation 2:14.




2. Paul directly contradicts Yahushua the Messiah on how to pray. 

In Matthew 6:5, the Messiah says to not pray as the "hypocrites" (ie, Pharisees), who openly pray in the synagogues and at the corners of streets, but rather to do it in your closet where only you and the Father known what you are talking about.   Paul, on the other hand, says is 1 Timothy 2:8 "I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting."  And remember, Saul/Paul was a Pharisee!  So no wonder that he instructed people to pray as the Pharisees do. 



3.  Saul/Paul Boastfully Claims He Was The "Father" of His Followers

Yahushua:

Matthew 23:9 "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."


Saul/Paul:

1 Corinthians 4:15 "Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel."


4. Saul/Paul Twists Teaching of Yahshua - Says "All the Law is Summed In a Single Command"

This may seem a small/insignificant difference, but it's clearly not:

Yahshua:

Matthew 22:34-40 "But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."



Pharisee Saul of Tarsus:

Galatians 5:14 "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."


5.  Paul teaches that each man can do as he pleases in regards to YHWH's laws regarding diet, the holy days and feasts, and the Sabbath.

Colossians 2:16: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days"

Is it possible, then, that Paul was integral in "changing the Sabbath" to Sunday, rom the 7th day of the week as commanded by YHWH in the Old Testament? 






The Problem with Saul/Paul's claim of "conversion" on the road to Damascus - Contradictory accounts

Saul/Paul claims to have been "converted" on the road to Damascus (on his way to arrest Christians), but there are problems with this claim. There are three separate accounts of this "conversion event" in the Book of Acts, and they contradict each other, demonstrating that Saul is lying about it. Secondly, the Scripture says that "at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established" (Deuteronomy 19:15 ), yet Saul never gives us the names of the witnesses to this "conversion event." Like his claim to "apostleship", we are left to take his word alone.

Account #1:

Acts 9:1-7 " And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."
Note in account above that the author of Acts (Luke, a companion of Paul) says that the men traveling with Saul stood there speechless, they heard the sound, but did not see anyone. Also note here that the voice only tells him to arise and go into the city and THERE it shall be told him what to do.


Account #2 (Saul/Paul speaking to the Jews in Jerusalem):

Acts 22:1-9 "Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 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."
Note in account above that Saul/Paul says that the men traveling with Saul did NOT hear the sound, but saw a light, contradicting the account above from Acts, Chapter 9.


Account #3 (Paul before King Agrippa):

Acts 26:12-18 "Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. 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. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me."
Here, Paul claims that the voice told him these things he was to do THERE ON THE ROAD. This is a clear departure from the other accounts of the event. The stories cannot be reconciled. At least one is not true.








Passage in 2 Peter purportedly supporting Paul's teachings must be fraudulent

Those who support the doctrines of Saul of Tarsus especially like to cite a passage in the book of 2 Peter as some of their "strongest evidence" to support the claim that Paul a true follower of the Messiah and even an "Apostle".

First of all, it must first be noted that the authorship of the book of 2 Peter is disputed, with many questioning whether the Apostle Peter is the true author.

Putting that issue aside for a second, let's take a look at the passage concerning Paul.

2 Peter 3:15-16

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


Take special notice of the phrase "also the other scriptures" in the passage.  Now, assuming Peter actually wrote this book, would he actually refer to the writings of Saul/Paul as "scripture", indicating it was on the level of the words/writings of the Old Testament prophets and the Messiah?  If Peter actually wrote this, this presumably would have been written while Saul/Paul was still alive.  Do you see the problem?  Typically, you wait until the death of a supposed or self-professed prophet before "canonizing" their writings.  You have to test and try a professed "prophet" to see their whole body of work, and determine whether what they say is true and comes to pass or not.

And as I mentioned in another article, you have to ask yourself under what authority would one consider the letters and writings of Paul to be "canon scripture".  What makes Paul any different from any other self-professed follower of the Messiah all down through history?  Similarly, can we take the letters and writings of, say, Billy Graham or Rick Warren and put them in the Bible too?  And what about even while those men are still alive? Preposterous.

Therefore, we can conclude that this passage is fraudulent.  Either Peter was not the author of this book....or if he was, this particular passage regarding Paul was inserted by someone else or altered by the translators.  Either way, Peter most certainly would not have said these things about Paul.







Other Notes

-Saul/Paul's false teachings (eg, "rapture" doctrine) have lead to much of the doctrinal confusion, schisms, and infighting among Christians over the last 2,000 years.

- In his letters, Paul is recorded several times responding to people who at that time were questioning and denying his claim to "Apostleship".  For example, in 1 Corinthians 9:1-2 Paul states: "Am I not an apostle?  Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?  Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?  Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you!"  And in 1 Timothy 2:7 Paul states: "Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not)".  Why the need to emphasize that he is "not lying" when claiming to be an apostle?  And remember, as outlined above, that the Messiah praised the church at Ephesus in Revelation 2:1-2 for rejected Paul as a false apostle. 

-As evidenced by much of the New Testament, there was actually a bitter feud between Saul/Paul and the genuine 12 Apostles.  The Book of James is actually a refutation of the false teachings of Paul, where it states "Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead" (James 2:17), and that "A person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)  This directly contradicts the teaching of Paul in Ephesians 2:15 stating "No one is justified by the law".

- Saul/Paul was an Edomite "jew", who claimed to be a "kinsman" of the Herodians (Romans 16:11).  Thus, Saul was of the Satanic bloodline, and of the "generation" (race) of "vipers", that the Messiah described the jewish Pharisees of in Matthew 23:33.




Conclusion

To summarize the important points:

1. Yahshua the Messiah taught that we must obey the Law of YHWH in order to inherit eternal life.

2. Pharisee infiltrator and false Apostle Saul/Paul taught against obeying the Law of YHWH, saying "the law is a curse", and "we are no longer under the law" [Romans 6:14]. He even taught that Yahshua had "abolished the law and commandments" [Ephesians 2:15]. Saul taught an "easy fix" salvation of "salvation by faith" and "if you believe and confess you will be saved" [Romans 10:9]. As a result, most of the Pauline mainstream "Judeo-Christian" churches reject the laws of YHWH in favor of Saul's "easy fix salvation" doctrine.

3. While teaching against the Law of YHWH, Pharisee Saul takes it one step further and teaches that we must obey the laws of men and governments no matter what (ie, obey the Satanic/Beast/AntiChrist controlled governments of the world) [Romans 13:1-13], laying a trap for the people of YHWH unto their destruction.










Other Articles of Interest:

- Yahshua the Messiah was not a 'jew'
- Yahweh Prohibits Race-Mixing and Commands Racial Purity and Segregation
- The Flood of Noah Was Not Worldwide
- The myth of the "brotherhood" of humanity; Adam not the first man, but father of only the white race
- Racial origin of the "Jews"; not Israelites, but descendants of Khazars, Edomites, Canaanites, Cain, and ultimately Satan
- The real sin in the Garden of Eden - Not eating an apple, but seduction into sexual sin - Cain the biological offspring of Satan
- Bible does not say that Earth is only 6,000 years old, only that Adam & Eve created 6,000 years ago - Life existed in previous ages, then destroyed
- The Pagan-Babylonian Origin of Easter
- MUST READ: "Blueprint for Bondage" by Scott D. McQuate




63 comments:

Anonymous said...

I will give this article a fair hearing, but I must point out one error here:

Here in his letter to the Ephesians, Saul teaches that the Messiah "abolished the law of commandments":

Ephesians 2:15 "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;"


Paul is not actually advocating the abolishion of THE LAW, but rather the ORDINANCES (sacrifices and rituals).

There is more I could write here, but time does not permit. When it does, I would like to discuss this further.

I will state here that there are many statements made by Paul which were clearly misunderstood. Paul, for example, taught a RACIAL message; meant only for Israelites. Both through mistranslation and deliberate obfuscation, Paul has been made out to be a universalist when nothing could be further from the truth.

JamesTheJust

Anonymous said...

Once a Khazar always a Khazar.

Lone Wolf said...

"I will state here that there are many statements made by Paul which were clearly misunderstood. Paul, for example, taught a RACIAL message; meant only for Israelites. Both through mistranslation and deliberate obfuscation, Paul has been made out to be a universalist when nothing could be further from the truth."
-----------------

James, whether Saul/Paul taught a message exclusively for racial Israelites or was a universalist is just one issue among many.

What about all the other questions on Saul/Paul?

What about the fact that he was not one of the original 12 apostles, yet claimed to be an "apostle"? Or how he was a jewish Pharisee who persecuted the followers of Yahshua? Or how he taught against keeping the commandments of YHWH, in favor of an "easy fix" salvation of "belief" and "faith" only (eg, Romans 10:9). Or how he taught blind obedience to government in Romans 13?

Anonymous said...

I won't even tolerate this CRAP. St. Paul is the very REASON the West, the Reformation, the USA, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the legal system of Anglo-Saxon law EXISTS!

To try and 're-invent' the Bible, is the great fallacy of Protestants. Devoid of the true Spirit of grace, and without a pastorate/priesthood - even that of Christ, which is an ORGANIC transmission of Apostolic Succession- you are set adrift, with 'itching ears' ready to hear any and all vagaries of the old heresies. This is a grievous heresy, and I would beg of you for your reader's sake, to remove this garbage from an often brilliant site.

- Fr. John
www.thewhitechrist.wordpress.com

Dublin Mick said...

There was a large body of Khazars in the mideast at time called Edomites with a code of laws under the Sanhedrin. There was no such thing as Judaism at that time and Jesus referred to himself as a Judean.

Judaism was formed after the time of Jesus. It is all a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

Lone Wolf said...

"There was a large body of Khazars in the mideast at time called Edomites with a code of laws under the Sanhedrin. There was no such thing as Judaism at that time and Jesus referred to himself as a Judean."

Modern-day Rabbis admit that the religion of "Judaism" is directly traced back to the religion of the Pharisees.

At the time of Yahshua, I believe the religion of the Pharisees was referred to as "the tradition of the elders." Later this oral tradition was "codified" and written down by Rabbis into what is now known as the Talmud.

And the religion of the Pharisees, Talmudic Judaism, is directly traced back to Babylon, which is why the official title of the Talmud, the most "holy" book in Judaism, is the "Babylonian Talmud."

Lone Wolf said...

"St. Paul is the very REASON the West, the Reformation, the USA, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the legal system of Anglo-Saxon law EXISTS!"

How is that? Saul/Paul taught blind obedience to governmental power and "authoritites" in Romans 13...in direct contradiction to the spirit of the Reformation, the formation of the USA, the Bill of Rights, etc.

The freedom obtained in the West was accomplished in spite of the teachings of Saul/Paul, who would have us be slaves of the governments of the Beast System.

"This is a grievous heresy, and I would beg of you for your reader's sake, to remove this garbage from an often brilliant site."

I am determined to seek the truth, no matter where that may lead. I have considered the issue of Saul/Paul carefully, and there is just too much damning evidence against Pharisee Saul.

The truth (on any matter) can withstand scrutiny, questions, and investigation.


On a general note, the fact of the matter is that most people are deceieved when it comes to important religious, political, economic, etc issues. Does not the Bible attest to that?...that "The Beast" deceives the whole world?

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)

In order to find the truth, we must question the "popular", "established", and "mainstream" positions, views, and practices.

Lone Wolf said...

By the way, here is what follows in Matthew Chapter 7 after the quote above...

Matthew 7:13-23...

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."



The english world "iniquity" above is translated from the Greek "anomia", which essentially means lawlessness:

anomia an-om-ee'-ah from 459; illegality, i.e. violation of law or (genitive case) wickedness:--iniquity, X transgress(-ion of) the law, unrighteousness.


So...what false prophet(s) was Yahshua warning of that would deceieve MANY?

And is not Yahshua warning that these false prophets would teach against the law of YHWH?

What false prophet(s) taught that YHWH's law was "done away with", and taught against keeping of the Sabbath, attempted to change it to Sunday and change times and laws, etc, etc?

Anonymous said...

The Jewish name for god is represented by the tetragrammaton יהוה (YHVH) translated as Yahweh, or Jehovah. The significance of God's name is repeatedly emphasized throughout the scriptures.

When dissected in the Hebrew, the true definition of Jehovah (Yah-Hovah) is revealed. "Yah" (#H3050) means "god". "Hovah" (#H1942) translates to "eagerly coveting, falling, desire, ruin, calamity, iniquity, mischief, naughtiness, noisome, perverse, very wickedness."

Jehovah is the god of wickedness, Satan.

Lone Wolf said...

"Hovah" (#H1942) translates to "eagerly coveting, falling, desire, ruin, calamity, iniquity, mischief, naughtiness, noisome, perverse, very wickedness."

Jehovah is the god of wickedness, Satan."

-------------------

I have read this as well. Thus, pronouncing the name of YHWH as "Jehovah" is incorrect, and is an attempt by Jews to corrupt the true name of the Creator -- or more precisely, to have people actualy use a name for Satan.

YHWH is the true name of the Creator, but it is corrrectly pronounced as "Yahweh" or "Yahuwah", best I can determine.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the debate in the comments and for sharing your scholarship Lone Wolf. As a novice Biblical scholar who was raised in an atheistic household (at least you got the watered down version...) hearing all of the logical arguments is the only way to the truth of YHWH.

Lone Wolf said...

^Thanks. It's good to know at least one person has found this post enlightening.

BradOfJah said...

This article is absolutely true. It takes a lot of study to prove it, but Yah's true followers will see the truth.

Paul/Saul is SINGLE HANDEDLY completely responsible for all the apostate, Sunday-keeping churches of today - they ALL quote Paul as the basis for their non-conformance with the law of Yahweh.

I know there are many who, as I do, follow the serpent seedline understanding (Finck et al) that believe Paul is a true christian, but I believe they are very much in error on this one.

Paul's writings detract from the law and give everyone an excuse to not follow the law - and then all Yah's men fall all over themselves trying to explain that Paul 'really meant this ...' and 'really meant that ...', when he really meant what he actually said.

Acts 10 tells us that Peter (not Paul) was told by Yahweh to go to the Gentiles (the lost white race), yet Paul claimed this was his mandate, when clearly it wasn't!!

Paul is an imposter, just as this and many other articles around the net indicate. I feel that the sooner we all adopt this truth, the sooner we get this thing over and get on with the kingdom!!

Lone Wolf said...

^thanks for the comment Brad

wayneman said...

Paul taught that the old self had to die with Christ, and through belief in His resurrection, we too can walk in a powerful new life, which is the Spirit of God dwelling within us. Christ in us is the only one who can keep the Law/10 commandments. Our old nature cannot keep it successfully. But you have to have eyes to see, to get this great revelation. See Romans 6: 1-6...Rom. 7 is paul's testimony of when he was a lost man without the Spirit...v. 5--'when we were in the flesh'... I have much more on this on my websites, yahwehisthesavior.com and immortalityroad.wordpress.com wayneman

Stephen said...

Thank you for this interesting article and fascinating blog, which I just discovered last night.

After referring a number of people to your site, one of them challenged your assertion that Paul was referring to the Ten Commandments when he said we were no longer "under the law". As this article

http://www.cogwriter.com/paul.htm

unequivocally shows, Paul repeatedly stated that we were to obey ALL of YHWH's commandments. There is just not the slightest doubt about that, after reading this article. What Paul was probably referring to by the old "law(s)" that no longer applied were the Levitical priesthood laws, such as the need for circumcision and animal sacrifices in order to be saved.

I'm not ready to pronounce judgment on Paul just yet, but I do feel that you have been grossly unfair to him regarding his stance on the Ten Commandments. So much so that you should consider retracting this article entirely, as it could seriously discredit the other splendid work you've done here.

Lone Wolf said...

^Thanks for your comments Stephen. I looked at the website you posted.

As I mentioned in my article, Saul/Paul does teach much truth in his letters/epistles. However, this is how the most deceptive false teaching operates, by mixing about 90% truth and 10% lies.

So, you can find passages in Paul's letters where he teaches that we are to obey the law. But you can ALSO find many passages where he teaches against keeping the law.

This is the origin/introduction of confusion and "double-mindedness" into the Bible. It is very very dangerous.

I will continue to think and re-think the issue of Saul/Paul. But as of this time, the evidence, as I see it, is overwhelmingly against Saul/Paul.

Anonymous said...

The most detailed study of this MOST IMPORTANT topic is by Douglas Del Tondo in his two books, 'Jesus' Words Only' and 'Jesus' Words on Salvation'.

The extraordinary contradictions concerning Paul’s absolutely key Damascus road experience:

Acts 9 says Paul fell, and his companions stood. Acts 27 says they all fell. Acts 9 says the companions heard the voice, but Acts 22 says they didn’t hear the voice

Anonymous said...

Is Paul the Thirteenth Apostle?
Jesus: “Truly, I say to you.. you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt19:28) . The New Jerusalem: “On the twelve foundations were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Rev21:12+). Jesus “called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority..” (Matt10:1). He says to his disciples, ‘you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning’ (John15:27). After Judas Iscariot’s demise, the apostles elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts1:26). The apostles had Jesus’ authority to elect Matthias. Has Paul taken his place? Is Paul, the unquestioned father of the evangelical church of today, now at the head of the twelve? If not, why not, in view of his decisive contribution? Or is he the ‘thirteenth apostle’?

Anonymous said...

The ‘2 Peter’ supposed counter-argument
This epistle from “Simon Peter” appears to confer ‘official approval’ on Paul: “Our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand..” (3:15+)

But Robinson in his book Redating the New Testament says “The one thing on which virtually everyone is agreed, is that 1 and 2 Peter cannot have been written by the same hand.” The Jerusalem Bible says “2 Peter seems to date from after Peter’s death” - the underlined portion of the quote in the paragraph above assumes all Paul’s writings had been collected and assembled in ‘scripture’. But this did not occur until after Peter’s death. The five-volume Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible notes that “Both internal and external evidence show with cumulative force the impossibility of ascribing the letter to Peter, the disciple and apostle.. No theory of secretarial aid can explain the differences in style and thought between 1 Peter and 2 Peter.”

Anonymous said...

Albert Schweitzer, winner of the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize, called "one of the greatest Christians of his time," philosopher, physician, musician, clergyman, missionary, and theologian in his The Quest for the Historical Jesus and his Mysticism of Paul:
"Paul.. did not desire to know Christ.. Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded. . . . What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus?.. The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority.. The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it."

Anonymous said...

Rudolf Bultman, famous modern theologian, in his Significance of the Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul:
"It is most obvious that Paul does not appeal to the words of the Lord in support of his views. When the essentially Pauline conceptions are considered, it is clear that Paul is not dependent on Jesus. Jesus' teaching is - to all intents and purposes - irrelevant for Paul."
Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and author of the Declaration of Independence
"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus." (Letter to William Short)
Jeremy Bentham, famous English philosopher, in his Not Paul But Jesus:
"It rests with every professor of the religion of Jesus to settle within himself to which of the two religions, that of Jesus or that of Paul, he will adhere."
Soren Kierkegaard, in The Journals:
"In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther. in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down, making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ"

Anonymous said...

Helmut Koester, theologian:
"Paul himself stands in the twilight zone of heresy. In reading Paul, one immediately encounters a major difficulty. Whatever Jesus had preached did not become the content of the missionary proclamation of Paul. . . . Sayings of Jesus do not play a role in Paul 's understanding of the event of salvation. . . . Paul did not care at all what Jesus had said. . . . Had Paul been completely successful very little of the sayings of Jesus would have survived." (The Theological Aspects of Primitive Christian Heresy)
The theologian Ernest Renan:
"True Christianity, which will last forever, comes from the gospel words of Christ, not from the epistles of Paul. The writings of Paul have been a danger and a hidden rock, the causes of the principal defects of Christian theology." (Saint Paul)
Carl Jung, famous Swiss psychiatrist, in his essay A Psychological Approach to Dogma:
"Saul's [Paul's] fanatical resistance to Christianity. . . . was never entirely overcome. It is frankly disappointing to see how Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in."
Ferdinand Christian Baur, eminent theologian, in his Church History of the First Three Centuries:
"What kind of authority can there be for an 'apostle' who, unlike the other apostles, had never been prepared for the apostolic office in Jesus' own school but had only later dared to claim the apostolic office on the basis on his own authority? The only question comes to be how the apostle Paul appears in his Epistles to be so indifferent to the historical facts of the life of Jesus. . . . He bears himself but little like a disciple who has received the doctrines and the principles which he preaches from the Master whose name he bears."

Anonymous said...

Will Durant:
"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ. . . . Through these interpretations Paul could neglect the actual life and sayings of Jesus, which he had not directly known. . . . Paul replaced conduct with creed as the test of virtue. It was a tragic change." (Caesar and Christ)
Robert Frost, Pulitzer prize for poetry in 1924,1931,1937 and 1943:
"Paul - he's in the Bible too. He is the fellow who theologized Christ almost out of Christianity. Look out for him." (A Masque of Mercy)
Martin Buber, most respected modern Jewish philosopher
"The Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount is completely opposed to Paul." (Two Types of Faith)
Kahlil Gibran
"This Paul is indeed a strange man. His soul is not the soul of a free man. He speaks not of Jesus nor does he repeat His Words. He would strike with his own hammer upon the anvil in the Name of One whom he does not know." (Jesus the Son of Man)
Bernard Shaw:
‘There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the characteristic utterances of Jesus’; ‘The conversion of Paul was no conversion at all: it was Paul who converted the religion..’ ‘It has made Paul the eternal enemy of Woman.’ ‘In fact, no sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon sin of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus.’’ There has never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of the limitations of Paul's soul upon the soul of Jesus.’ (Preface to the play Androcles and the Lion, p82+, Penguin edition)

Anonymous said...

Is Paul’s description of the Cretans inspired?
Paul: “One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said ‘Cretans are always liars..’ This testimony is true.” (Titus1:12+) These two sentences carry within them a logical impossibility, which we are encouraged to believe is ‘inspired’ - if Cretans are always liars, and one of them claims ‘Cretans are always liars’, this is contradictory and cannot be true. Oops! It also contradicts the presumed universalist, non-discriminatory teaching of Paul.

Anonymous said...

Paul’s contradictions relating to Timothy’s circumcision:
“Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him..” (Acts16:3) Compare this with “I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole Law” (Gal5:2+). Oops!

R.R. said...

This I've wondered for years like WHY does Saul/Paulus' conversion story contradict itself 3 times in Acts, then one more time in Galatians; and WHY does Saul/Paulus quote the Bacchae of Euripides exactly before questioning before Festus in Acts 26:24 with one of his contradicting conversion tales nutting up in some Dionysian frenzy talk and Festus says quote:

Acts 26:24 "And as he (Saul/Paulus) spoke for himself Festus said with a loud voice, thou art beside thyself, much learning doth make thee mad."

So Festus had to yell to shut Saul/Paulus up and he must have been in Pagan Dionysian frenzy quoting the Pagan Mysteries of the Bacchae of Euripides that only a Roman educated would understand like a Code as those Plays were also Mystery Rites of Eleusis in Theatre... and wasn't Tarsus the Center of the Mithra Cult in Asia Minor too???

Something about Saul/Paulus smells funny like gefilte fish... but how was he born a Free Citizen of Rome if not a Royal of Benjamin like his ancestor Saul 1st King of Israel? His boast in Phillipians 3:4-6 where he says flat out that he was Hebrew of the Hebrews meaning a Royal of Benjamin and descendant of corrupt Saul. That's how he could be in the Sanhedrin at young age and Saul/Paul was the rich young Ruler that boasted to Jesus his following Laws from birth and Jesus told him to sell his property and follow him and he refused so Jesus said it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God and the rich young ruler left and Saul/Paulus was that man who left hating Jesus and His Followers ever after... he is the ONLY man who qualified to that in the New Testament as young Royal and Sanhedrin Member. Like spoiled rich young Yale Skull & Bones Bushes exactly.

antisocialist said...

Salvation? Jesus makes it so simple. The gospels make it so simple. Paul, on the other hand, complicates and confuses the issue in classic "Babble-on" manner.

The ministry of Jesus begins with John the Baptist preparing Jesus' Way. So what is Jesus' Way of salvation that John the Baptist, Jesus, and Jesus' true disciples made so clear?

BE CONVERTED (believe the good news that salvation has come through Jesus--the Word made flesh, the Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world), REPENT (for violating Yahweh's Law) AND RETURN TO YAHWEH, CONFESS YOUR SINS, BE BAPTIZED FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS IN FAITH AND RECEIVE YAHWEH'S HOLY SPIRIT AND HIS GIFT OF ETERNAL LIFE (a.k.a. "Be born again")

Salvation was spelled out in such utter simplicity that none of Yahweh's sheep could miss it. Enter the Pauline epistles. They provided just the right amount of Satanic, dialectical, psycho-babble to confound even the most astute bible scholars and confuse the simplicity of the gospel. No mere mortal could have accomplished this alone--the writer must have been "inspired," just as he claimed to be.

Reminiscent of the Garden of Eden? Of course. The conspiracy against Yahweh's people is nothing new. Same sh**, different day.

Lone Wolf said...

^
Well said antisocialist.

Interesting on how Saul was "inspired", but by dark forces, not YHWH.

And I wonder who he really heard from in his "vision" on the road to Damascus, (if it really occurred at all).

antisocialist said...

From contemporary Jewish sources we have learned that modern Talmudic Judaism has its roots in the religion of the Pharisees. Paul was a Pharisee. His father was a Pharisee. He never publicly renounced Pharisaism. Even years after his conversion to Christianity, He was still testifying that he was a Pharisee. “But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee…” (Acts 23:6).

Paul claimed to have studied under Gamaliel, the preeminent Pharisee of his day. “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, and I was brought up and educated here in Jerusalem under Gamaliel. At his feet I learned to follow our Jewish laws and customs very carefully…” (Acts 22:3). “I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers” (Galatians 1:14).

According to Paul, he was among the most devoted, most knowledgeable, and strictest adherents of the tradition of the elders (Babylonian Talmudism)—a real rising star. “…So I am a real Jew if there ever was one! What's more, I was a member of the Pharisees, who demand the strictest obedience to the Jewish law. And zealous? Yes, in fact, I harshly persecuted the church. And I obeyed the Jewish law so carefully that I was never accused of any fault” (Philippians 3:5-6). Incidentally, Paul doesn’t make mention of faithfulness or obedience to the Law of Moses in any of these discourses.

According to the bible, Paul was “blinded by the light” on the road to Damascus that fateful day. This would seem to be proof that it wasn’t Jesus he met up with. Jesus came to give sight to the blind, not blindness to the seeing. “The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple” (Psalm 119:130).

Three days later, “something like scales” fell from Paul’s eyes. Why would Jesus put serpent-like scales on someone? Did Jesus ever use serpentine strategies to gain disciples? Interestingly, Paul later went on to blind someone himself, as recorded in Acts 13. Apparently, as a fanatical adept of this ancient secret society, Paul was not only highly educated in their traditions and rituals but well-versed in their cabbalistic sorcery, too.

The apostles wanted to replaced Judas, but Satan had already hand-picked his own man for the job: the Pharisee of Pharisees.

“Nevertheless, crafty fellow that I am, I took you in by deceit.”—Paul (2 Corinthians 12:16)

Lone Wolf said...

^Excellent points antisocialist. Although I have studied Saul/Paul in depth, some of the points you made are new to me. Thanks very much for posting.

antisocialist said...

Lone Wolf, your blog site is very informative and helpful. I was so glad to discover it this week! You appear to be humble and teachable, as your articles and link choices suggest. Keep up the good work!

P.S. You don't seem at all like a WOLF. Aren't you really one of Yahweh's own SHEEP? :)

Lone Wolf said...

^Thanks for the compliments antisocialist.

When I chose the name 'Lone Wolf', I did so not to reflect upon the wolf/sheep distinction in the Scripture, but rather referring to the 'Lone Wolf' strategy of 'leadeless resistence' to the Jews' 'New World Order' agenda.

I can change my username at any time, though. So I may consider changing it.

antisocialist said...

Was Paul a false apostle? We’ve been asking the wrong question. The answer to this question bears little consequence in the lives of Yahweh’s people. The vital question we must ask ourselves when listening to any teacher—whether a known apostle or any another disciple—is this: “Do his or her teachings agree with the doctrines of Jesus?”

The true doctrines of Jesus are what’s really at stake here, not the title or status of a man. Peter was a confirmed apostle, but Jesus actually called him, “Satan,” when he violated His doctrine. Titles mean little to Jesus. What matters to Jesus is obedience to His doctrine—His Father’s will.

Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On judgment day many will tell me, “Lord, Lord, we prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.” But I will reply, “I never knew you. Go away; the things you did were unauthorized. (Matthew 7:21-23)

Paul was not authorized to institute doctrine for Yahweh’s people, but neither were the twelve apostles, His brothers, His mother, or any other disciple for the last 2000 years. There are no prophecies in scripture telling of anyone to come after Jesus authorized to establish church structure, leadership hierarchy, ecclesiastical rules, spiritual guidelines, or religious statutes. There was no sanction given to any follower of Jesus to add to, edit, or repeal the commandments, sayings, and doctrines of Jesus.

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you….” (Matthew 28:18-20)

antisocialist said...

Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him…. (2 John 1:9-10)

Jesus left His disciples clear instructions on what to preach. As a matter of fact, they were all given the very same doctrine to preach. No one was elevated above another with some sort of “extra special” gospel for an “extra special” group of people. Every disciple of Jesus, yesterday, today, and forever, has been given the permission and power to preach in agreement with the finished work of Jesus Christ—no more, no less. It is finished.

I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them…. (John 17:4, 8)

And He said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me. (Luke 24:44)

Lone Wolf said...

The vital question we must ask ourselves when listening to any teacher—whether a known apostle or any another disciple—is this: “Do his or her teachings agree with the doctrines of Jesus?”

Agreed antisocialist.

Yahushua taught us to obey the commandments and do the will of the Father. Simple as that.

Anonymous said...

Je veux juste dire que c'est un super blog vous êtes arrivé ici! J'ai fait le tour de pas mal de temps, mais a finalement décidé de montrer mon appréciation de votre travail! Thumbs up, et continuer!

Anonymous said...

thanks amigo! great post!

Anonymous said...

"I won't even tolerate this CRAP. St. Paul is the very REASON the West...EXISTS! ...without a pastorate/priesthood - even that of Christ, which is an ORGANIC transmission of Apostolic Succession- you are set adrift...."

- Fr. John

Hmmm. Truth be told, Paul's monologues on his new church structure and authoritarian leadership hierarchy are the very REASON Fr. John's church EXISTS. Without Paul, we'd be hard pressed to find a biblical basis for such a Nicolaitan organization.

milar said...

I think you are right, you cannot be murdering one day and then a saint the next, what would they do to such a one today? aint no difference yesterday or today on that one. jews subvert and paul was a jew,. he subverted in the best way as from what i observed of many christian sects is they quote paul all the time as a matter of jesus and paul never even met him and is a butinski and a railroading interloper and his writings are better used as toilet wiper or to observe how the wnd is moving by tossing in the air.

Rufus said...

Fascinating article. I was raised as a Catholic, following the Franciscan model. My father was raised in the Dominican tradition - a somewhat stricter form of Catholicism. I have pondered for much time over the impact of Paul on Christianity. The term 'Paulism' has been used to describe the pervertion of the original message, and I consider that justifiable. Thank you for posting this article and placing the spotlight on an oft ignored and contraversial subject. Food for thought indeed.

Lone Wolf said...

^No problem Rufus. The subject of Saul/Paul was one of those that I really felt compelled to "sound off" on. Good to know that it raised some issues/thought for you.

Anonymous said...

hey brother...u r strongly mistaken and misled...Paul has been commended by Peter himself in his epistles...furthermore...if he really was an infiltrator, do u think a man would go to the point of dying for something which he knew was a lie....Paul died for the gospel...and that beyond any doubt proves that he was genuine

Anonymous said...

this page is bull#$%*..
simple as that...
what a bunch of satanic garbage..
GOD HAVE MERCY....

Anonymous said...

It is pretty common knowledge among researchers that Paul was simply a traitor and infiltrator.

WaitaMinute said...

Lone Wolf:
There is a schism among Christian Identists about the true nature of Paul. Many of the "Paul Bashers" are motivated by their aversion to the Catholic Church and its false teachings, which are unjustly blamed on the so-called "Jew" Saul/Paul. I'll admit that at one time I, too, held similar views that you seem to.

If you are willing to keep an open mind on this subject, you should consult the Identist website, christogenea.org, where you'll find an enormous amount of factual information about why the "Paul Bashers" have been mislead by poor translation errors and the lack of historical understanding.

Here's a good starting point where many of the misconceptions about Paul are addressed:

http://www.christogenea.org/content/2-corinthians-chapters-12-13-final-and-paul-bashers-judaizers-part-1-yahwehs-covenant-people

Yahweh Bless

Anonymous said...

wonderful points altogether, you just gained a new reader. What would you suggest in regards to your post that you made some days ago? Any positive?
xyzrxyz.2011

Diogenes said...

I have agreed with this for years now. Paul was a mouth, an "intellectual" and could not communicate in the straightforward way that the truth requires. He did say that the Law had not been done away with, but the entire chapter that he wrote that in is so convoluted that burnt again Christians have made it their dogma that the Law has been done away with because he was so loquacious.

The truth is, who knows better how to lead someone into breaking the Law than a doctor of the Law, which Paul was. His BS is what makes organized Churchianity the joke that it is today. They follow Paul, not the Messiah and suffer every curse that violating the Law brings upon the sons of Adam. The Creator said

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
And in one of those examples where Paul spoke “some” truth:

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Lone Wolf said...

^Thanks for the comment Diogenes. Always good to heard from others who know the truth.

Anonymous said...

brinkka2011 says: Ive been meaning to read this and just never obtained a chance. Its an issue that Im very interested in, I just started reading and Im glad I did. Youre a excellent blogger, 1 of the finest that Ive seen. This weblog undoubtedly has some information on topic that I just wasnt aware of. Thanks for bringing this stuff to light.

Anonymous said...

brinkka2011 says: Considerably, this post is really the sweetest on this notable topic. I harmonise with your conclusions and will thirstily look forward to your incoming updates. Saying thanks will not just be sufficient, for the phenomenal clarity in your writing. I will directly grab your rss feed to stay informed of any updates. Admirable work and much success in your business dealings!  Please excuse my poor English as it is not my first tongue.

Lone Wolf said...

^thanks brinkka2011

Anonymous said...

Congratulations on having 1 of the most sophisticated blogs Ive arrive throughout in some time! Its just incredible how much you can take away from a little something simply because of how visually beautiful its. Youve put collectively a great blog space great graphics, videos, layout. This is unquestionably a must-see blog!
http://vimax.bligoo.fr/

Anonymous said...

I love when people whose eyes and ears are opened expose Paul for what he his. Think back to what Yahushua said in John6:70 "Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a DEVIL!" The devil entered into Judas Iscariot to betray Yahushua. Technically, the 11 apostles were never given permission to choose a replacement for Judas. They decided this amongst themselves. Yahshua's 12th apostle, the devil, still retains that title. It was the devil who sought out Paul as a tool for his purposes. Yahuwah allowed this as a test of who his true people are. He planted the tares, Paul's epistles, amongst the wheat, HIS word. I know the wheat and tares have other symbolic meanings as well, but this is one of them too. Those following Paul's teaching have no allegiance to Yahushua. Plus Paul was a kinsmen of Herod, the Edomite scum.
http://www.jjraymond.com/religion/pauldescendantofherod.html

Good article, keep on with the truth.

Lone Wolf said...

^thanks for the comments

Anonymous said...


Howdy! This article could not be written any better! Reading through this article reminds me of my previous roommate! He always kept talking about this. I am going to send this information to him. Pretty sure he'll have a great read. Thank you for sharing!

Vatic Master said...

Truthseeker, you just explained to me something I have wondered for most of my life. I grew up as a child in the Catholic Church, and we were never given a Bible in the catholic school that I attended.

We were given the EPISTLES, which was a book of letters written by Paul. And that was what I was forced to study from. So why? Why not the Bible itself? This fully explains it since the church may well be the whore on the beast in Revelations.

Further its a known fact that Paul turned James in, who Jesus appointed to carry his messages and word to the middle east. James was then executed by the Romans, further Paul was half roman and half Agrippa, which was herrods line. Herrod was also part Roman. So, then Paul did his work in the mediterranean.

In doing so he forced new Christians to first become Judeans, and then they could become Christians. In 150 AD "Bishop" Iraneas ordered all nag hammadi libraries burned which included all the writings of the apostles.

Pauls followers were called "paulines" and they were the ones at the nicene conference who negotiated with the pagans to establish the Catholic Church. The early followers of Christ were not allowed to be part of the conference and considering Constantine was a Roman and a Pagan til his death bed, it makes sense he would use Pauls followers and their writings to make his new Testament.

Thanks and keep up your wonderful work in search of truth.

Anonymous said...

As a child I grew up in a Fundamentalist Bible Church In Illinois. The Bible was taken literally in its entirety as the Word of God. Not to be questioned. But even as a child I sensed a difference of heart or love from the writings of Paul with all the other books of the Bible. Now as a man retired I am searching more deeper Truth and must say this makes sense to me and I see logical truth that Paul may very well have been a great liar. I say this going back to my original instinct as a child as well as my continued search for Truth.

Anonymous said...

Saul of Tarsus received the Mark (fangs) of the Beast (KJV lingo) in his hand in ACTS chapter 28, and he shook the Beast off into the fire in a showing of contempt for both Moses (Numbers 21) and Jesus (John 3). Saul was considered a god and received many gifts from the people. He performed many miracles of healing for them in his own power instead of in the Name of Jesus. Jesus warned us in Mark 8 verses 15-21 to Beware the false teaching of the Murderous Benjamite Wolf Pervert Pharisee. That could only be one person (Benjamite Pharisee Saul of Tarsus). So why do Christians not see this? 22,000 + 18,000 warriors from Judah died fighting evil Benjamin who raped Jesus the Concubine to death (The Abomination that Caused Desolation in Israel). That is what Jesus was telling is in Feeding the 4000 and 5000. Very simple math points to 40 Days of ACTS 1:3 and 40,000 warriors killed from Judah fighting Benjamin. Saul saw Satan disguised as an angel of light on road to Damascus because Jesus was in heaven TO STAY ACTS 1:11 put. Jesus does not make Special Appearances. That's what the Holy Spirit is for.

adsdasdadaddasdasdadadas said...

Saul of Tarsus received the Mark (fangs) of the Beast (KJV lingo) in his hand in ACTS chapter 28, and he shook the Beast off into the fire in a showing of contempt for both Moses (Numbers 21) and Jesus (John 3). Saul was considered a god and received many gifts from the people. He performed many miracles of healing for them in his own power instead of in the Name of Jesus. Jesus warned us in Mark 8 verses 15-21 to Beware the false teaching of the Murderous Benjamite Wolf Pervert Pharisee. That could only be one person (Benjamite Pharisee Saul of Tarsus). So why do Christians not see this? 22,000 + 18,000 warriors from Judah died fighting evil Benjamin who raped Jesus the Concubine to death (The Abomination that Caused Desolation in Israel). That is what Jesus was telling is in Feeding the 4000 and 5000. Very simple math points to 40 Days of ACTS 1:3 and 40,000 warriors killed from Judah fighting Benjamin. Saul saw Satan disguised as an angel of light on road to Damascus because Jesus was in heaven TO STAY ACTS 1:11 put. Jesus does not make Special Appearances. That's what the Holy Spirit is for.

Anonymous said...

When we take into consideration GOD'S ENTIRE STORY:

Jacob warning us in Genesis of Benjamin Devouring and Dividing his enemies,
Judges chapters 19-21, The Concubine Story of the Evil Pervert Wolf Benjamites Raping Jesus to Death (like in
Sodom and Gomarrah wanting to rape Jesus),
The emergence of evil King Saul (1 Samuel) from the evil Benjamite 600 man remnant,
King Saul's replacement after 40 years by King David of Judah (The tribe that fought so hard against Benjamin),
Jesus descending from King David from Judah,
Saul of Tarsus coming along from the Benjamite Wolf tribe as a Pharisee Persecutor of Jesus' Sheep,
Paul (Saul) taking on the form of a Benjamite Pharisee Wolf in Sheep's Clothing,
claiming to have had more than one contact with Jesus after Jesus' 40 Days Complete Appearances to his Apostles accomplished
by ACTS 1:11 (Ascension).
Saul (aka Paul) receiving the Mark of the Beast in his hand (ACTS 28) and not dying, and believed by the people to be a god,
Saul receiving many gifts from them, Saul performing many healing miracles for them in his own power instead of in the
Name of Jesus
Paul(Saul) condemning the Israelites in 1 Corinthians chapter 10 for sinning instead of pointing them to the
GRACE of both Moses' and Jesus snake-on-a-pole (Numbers 21 and John 3)
Revelation telling us about the Mark of the Beast in the hand (Snake Fangs - ACTS 28) and the
Mark in the forehead (WWSD - What Would Saul/Satan Do) instead of taking the Mark in the forehead
(WWJD - What would Jesus/Jehovah Do)...

Then GOD'S STORY becomes apparent that WE must CHOOSE THIS DAY WHOM WE WILL SERVE:
Satan/Saul aka Paul (or) Jesus/Jehovah?

Anonymous said...

Bless you brother. I think you're on the right track. Here's a link to a lecture by Rabbi Skobac that might prove helpful.http://youtu.be/gWfOd-6pTNI

Matthew Perri said...

Poem – What is love?

Two men came to Jesus
With different motivations.
They asked Him the same question
Relevant to all the nations:

Which is the Most Important?
The answer was the same.
Jesus did not manipulate
He was not there to play a game.

“Love the Lord your God” said Jesus
as He quoted from The Law –
to fulfill and not abolish
was His purpose, full of awe.

Jesus did not make all Scripture
Into one new great commandment.
He summarized The Law and Prophets
“First and Greatest” and “The Second.”

The Love of God is higher
Than the love of any man.
Receive from God, give back to God-
Then to others, that’s His plan.

The Love of God involves much more
Than simply “love your fellow man.”
Worship, trust, and pray to God,
and obey Him – that’s His plan

To worship and pray to neighbors,
Whoever they may be,
Or trust and obey our enemies
Would be idolatry.

The love of God is first and greatest,
And the love of man is second.
“All we need is love” are words
of dead Beetles on the pavement.

“The entire law is summed up in a single command”
are not the words of Jesus our Salvation.
It’s false teaching of Paul the Pharisee
“an accuser of our brethren.”

“Love” without God is Satan’s word through Paul
in his chapter to the Corinthians.
“I will show you the most excellent way”
is the road to eternal perdition.

Where is God in Paul’s chapter on love?
Nowhere in view of the eye.
Paul sings about himself like a Mexican Mariachi
“I, I, I, I.”

Jesus is The Most Excellent Way
Not the words of a Pharisee.
The words of Jesus are very clear.
Jesus said, “You must follow ME.”