Monday, March 11, 2013
[Return to Part Two]
Here then is the matrix of antinomies, along with a brief statement of the apparent logical contradiction in each case (the original Greek should always be checked, at least via Adolph Knoch's superlative interlinear [Biblio.#17, above], as modern translations often blur these very discrepancies):
· 1. Acts 9:7 -- Acts 22:9
In the propositional calculus of modern logic, ‘p & not‑q’ is the truth‑functional negation of ‘q & not‑p’. Thus ‘they heard but did not see’ directly contradicts ‘they saw but did not hear’. Yet this famous event on the Damascus road was the sole original justification for Paul's supposed commission in independence of Peter/Kefa and the other Apostles.
· 2. Acts 9:26‑29 -- Galatians 1:17‑2:1
Did Paul then travel immediately; or seventeen years later! from Damascus to Jerusalem in order to meet with the entire Apostolic circle?
· 3. Mathewt 22:41‑45 -- Romans 1:3
Paul asserts that Christ is descended from David, which Christ himself in the Gospels explicitly denies (the synoptic genealogies merely providing the OT background to this transcending self‑assertion).
· 4. Luke 2:49, 19:45‑46 -- Acts 17:24
The Gospels endorse the OT designation of the Temple in Jerusalem as the very House of the LORD. Paul nevertheless proclaims to the Athenians that God inhabits no sanctuary made by human hands.
· 5. Acts 1:15 -- I‑Corinthians 15:6
How can Christ have appeared to over 500 Brothers at a time (prior to the ascension) when the entire Discipleship numbered only 120?
· 6. Matthew 10:2&40, 16:15‑19 -- Galatians 2:11‑13
The explicit designation of Simon Peter as the foremost Apostle, with all the delegated authority of the Lord himself, logically precludes any other Disciple or Apostle opposing him ‘to his face’ and (worse yet) calling him a hypocrite.
· 7. Matthew 28:16‑20; Acts 10:1‑11:18, 15:7‑8 & 13‑18 -- Galatians 2:6‑9
The Gospel doctrine is clearly that, after the resurrection, the remaining eleven Apostles were sent forth to proclaim the good news to the whole world. Paul nevertheless claims to be the one and only Apostle to the gentiles (‘the’ Apostle as he is often called), while Peter and the others according to this view were to be restricted to evangelizing among the Jews.
· 8. Matthew 5:48; Lk 1:6; John 1:14, 6:53‑56 -- Romans 8:8
The incarnation of the Logos, and also the injunction to be perfect, entail that those who are in the flesh can indeed please God.
· 9. Luke 24:36‑43; John 11:43‑44, 20:27; Acts 1:9‑11; Phippians 25 -- I‑Corinthians 15:50
The evangelists proclaim an incarnate resurrection and parousia (second coming), whereas Paul on the contrary takes an anti‑corporeal, frankly gnostic position.
· 10. Luke 4:5‑8; John 18:36, 19:18; Acts 4:26 (Psalm 2:2) -- Romans 13:1‑5
The celestial kingdom is described in the Gospels as of another order from the entire realm of the nations, which are ruled by Satan and whereby Christ was crucified. On the other hand, the secular authorities with all their weaponry (including Mark 15:16 ff.??) are stated by Paul to be God's own army.
· 11. Matthew 22:21 -- Acts 25:11
Christ cedes taxes to Caesar, Paul cedes his personal security to him (Nero, no less!).
· 12. Deuteronomy 23:15‑16; Matthew 23:10‑12; John 8:31‑36 -- Colossians 4:1; I‑Timothy 6:1‑2; Philemons 10‑19
The re‑conceptualization in the Gospels promises to emancipate the believers from oppressive relationships, while Paul literally endorses slavery within the Discipleship.
· 13. Matthew 12:46‑50, 23:8‑9; Luke 14:25‑26; John 1:12‑13, 3:1‑8, 11:52 -- Colossians 3:18‑21; I‑Timothy 5:8
Christ teaches that family ties are to be renounced in favor of; that is, replaced by, the Father/Motherhood of God together with the Brother/Sisterhood of their incarnate Sons and Daughters, whereas Paul adamantly defends the traditional family structure.
· 14. Matthew 19:10‑12; Luke 14:20‑26, 18:28‑30, 20:34‑36; Philippians 64! -- I‑Corinthans 7:2‑16 & 9:5(?!); Ephesians 5:22‑24; I‑Timothy 3:1‑4:3
The Gospels stipulate that those worthy of salvation must transcend matrimony (note that Luke 18:28‑30 occurs after Luke 4:38‑39); after all, according to Genesis 3:16, monandry was Eve's punishment for disobedience! Paul notwithstanding permits a continuation of marriage among the Disciples.
· 15. Numbers 6:5; Leviticus 19:27; Matthew 2:23 (Judges 13:5); Tr 21 -- I‑Corinthians 11:14
The Hebrew tradition was that long hair on male or female is a sign of holiness and special devotion to God. Indeed the word at Mt 2:23 is NAZWRAIOS (the LXX or Septuagint term for Nazirite), not NAZARHNOS (i.e. someone from Nazareth). Were not John the Baptist and Christ both thus consecrated from birth?
· 16. Matthew 6:24‑34, 10:8; Mark 10:13‑31; Luke 14:28‑33; Acts 4:32‑36 -- Acts 18:1‑3; I‑Corinthians 11:34; II‑Thessalonians 3:6‑12
Christ decrees a cessation of working for mammon, donating all private possessions to the poor, and following thereafter a lifestyle both communal and itinerant; childlike and without anxiety day‑to‑day like the birds and the flowers, with all shared possessions being distributed equitably among those who have need, thus lifting the curse of toil from mankind (Gensis 3:17‑19). Paul's advice, on the contrary, is to ‘eat at home’ and avoid idlers, who must either work or go hungry.
· 17. Mark 7:14‑23; Luke 7:34 -- Romans 14:21; I‑Corinthians 8:13
Either we ought, or we ought not, to maintain some particular diet for religious reasons. Yet Paul agrees with neither the OT's dietary rules (kashrut) nor the Savior's remarkable midrash (commentary) thereupon.
· 18. Matthew 12:19 (Isaiah 42:2); Luke 10:7 -- Acts 17:16‑34, 20:20
Paul preActshes house‑to‑house, as well as in the streets and squares— contrary to Christ's paradigm.
· 19. Matthew 6:5‑6 -- I‑Timothy 2:8
Paul demands the very same outspoken prayer which Christ condemns as exhibitionist; the Savior states that one should only pray in solitude and in secret, never openly.
· 20. Matthew 18:1‑4; Mark 9:33‑35; Luke 14:7‑11 -- II‑Corinthians 11:5‑12:13
Paul's recounting of his travels is insubordinately boastful and rivalrous; rather than humble, respectful and obedient, toward those who preceded him in the Discipleship.
· 21. Matthew 5:43‑48, 7:1‑5, 9:10‑13, 18:21‑35; John 8:2‑11 -- I‑Corinthians 5; Galatians 5:12; Tit 3:10‑11
The Gospel attitude toward wrongdoers is merciful, yet Paul's is frankly inquisitional. Is ‘turning someone over to Satan for the extermination of the flesh’ intended to mean delivering him to the secular authorities for execution (as in John 19:17‑18)? Are we to love our enemies or condemn and castigate them?
· 22. Matthew 23:8‑12 -- Acts 20:28; I‑Corinthians 4:15; I‑Timothy 3:1‑13
Paul introduces the terms ‘father’ and ‘deacon’ and ‘bishop’ to designate religious leaders— the very sort of title (along with ‘pastor,’ ‘minister,’ etc.) which Christ had explicitly prohibited. Indeed, the passage in Matthew would seem to preclude any kind of hierarchy in the Discipleship other than simple seniority (thus PRESBUTEROS, ‘elder’, in Acts 21:18, Jasher 5:14, I‑Peter 5:1, II‑John 1) by which criterion Paul was obliged to submit to the original Apostles, quite contrary to II‑Corinthans 11:5 & Galatians 2:6.
· 23. Gen 17:10; Luke 2:21 -- Acts 16:3(?!); Galathians 5:2; Phlpenas 3:2; Titus 1:10‑11
Saying that it is necessary ‘to gag (EPISTOMIZEIN) circumcisionist dogs’ is conceptually inappropriate in an Apostolic context. In any event, even if Christ referred to that custom parabolically; as in Th 53, he certainly did not forbid its physical practice.
· 24. Luke 11:27‑28; John 4:1‑30, 11:20‑35, 20:11‑18; Th 21 -- I‑Corinthians 14:34‑35; I‑Timothy 2:11‑15
Various women speak up boldly to the Savior. Later, Mariam Magdalene as first witness (!) of the resurrection is sent by Christ to ‘angel’ (AGGELLW: p66* )* A B) his rising to the Apostles themselves. This is not a teaching of mere female submissiveness or keeping quiet in the Convocation!
· 25. Luke 7:36‑8:3, 10:38‑42, 23:55‑24:11; John 12:1‑3; Th 61b, 114; Phillipians 59 -- I‑Corinthians 7:1‑2; Ephesians 5:22‑24
The Gospels represent women as an intimate part of Christ's entourage; thus rescinding the punishment of husband‑domination in Genesis 3:16. Paul emphatically opposes any liberated role for females.
· 26. Matthew 3:11‑17, 28:19‑20; Philippians 73, 96, 115(!) -- Romans 6:3‑4; Colossians 2:12
The Gospels endorse John's Baptism in water as signifying repentance and cleansing vis‑à‑vis the Torah, and which furthermore is explicitly to be undertaken ‘in the Name’. Paul, however, sees Baptism as a metaphorical or participatory dying!
· 27. Luke 23:43; John 5:24, 8:51; Th 1, 18, 19, 111; Ph 43 -- I‑Thessalonias 4:16‑17
Christ teaches that his Disciples will not experience death, regardless of martyrdom, whereas Paul writes of ‘the dead in Christ.’
· 28. Matthew 5:17‑19, 19:16‑19; Luke 16:29‑31; Acts 21:17‑24(!!); 4QMT:C.26b‑31 -- Romans 7:6; Galatians 3:10, 5:18
If the entire Torah; the decalogue in particular, but also the remaining mitzvot(moral rules) such as Leviticus 19:18 et passim, is in effect until the sky and earth pass away, then the Mosaic Law is not an obsolete curse from which believers are absolved. This was the very topic at issue when, after Paul had completed his three missionary journeys, ‘all of the Elders’ (!) in Jerusalem required him to take the Nazirite vow, to prove his continuing adherence to the Law of Moses. (‘The works of the Torah...will be reckoned to you as righteousness’; from the Dead Sea Scrolls)
· 29. Matthew 7:21, 11:2‑6!, 19:16‑19, 25:31‑46; John 13:34!, 14:21, 15:10; Jasher 2:14‑26 -- Romans 3:28, 10:9; I‑Corintians 15:35‑44
Christ says that one's calling him ‘Lord’ is not enough, but rather that the Disciple's total obedience is demanded; both the OT and the Gospels require obedience to a plenitude of divine commandments, with resultant fruitful deeds. Indeed, it was precisely by his works; and not merely by his faith, that Christ proved his own authority to John the Baptist! Paul on the other hand states that a simple confession of faith, along with a belief in Christ's (merely spiritual, not corporeal) resurrection, suffices, a thoroughly antinomian doctrine. (This subject must be carefully distinguished from that of forgiveness; both among humans and between God and humankind, as a pre‑eminently innovative tenet in the Gospels. For of course absolution logically presupposes a transgression of the rules, not their abrogation; compare e.g. Ezekiel 18 with Matthew 6:14‑15.)
· 30. Genesis 49; Judges 2:16 ff.; Matthew 19:28; Acts 1:13‑26; Revelation/Ap 2:2, 21:14 -- I‑Corinthians 9:1‑2; II‑Corinthians 11:5‑13
Finally, we must observe the fact that the permanent tally of the Apostles was established by the Savior at exactly twelve (for obvious reasons of historical symbolism; note the symmetry at Revelation/Ap 21:12‑14), and moreover that Paul was never numbered in that circle (see also the Epistle of Barnabas 8:3).
Although Paul did in fact compose some eloquently poetic passages (such as Colossians 1:15‑20), these must, in light of the aforementioned doctrinal conflicts, be considered no more than ornamentation in his writings. Those documents, in their entirety, proclaim a discipleship which is fundamentally incompatible with the message of Christ himself as recorded in the historical Gospels.
Furthermore and most remarkably, prior to Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus of Lyon at the close of the second century, there is no single author who quotes from both the Gospels and from the Epistles. There was thus an exceedingly long period of schism between the traditions of the Twelve and of Paul, prior to the earliest attempts at textual reconciliation.
The irony of course is that the Gospels themselves, of which tradition Paul was evidently ignorant, were ultimately only preserved by the Pauline Church, which also disseminated the very OT which Paul himself had disdained. My purpose here, however, has been merely to format a set of scriptural dichotomies, in order to exhibit the underlying logic of the ancient Messianic/Paulianity schism as essentially a conceptual (and of course personal) rather than a factual issue.
This in turn may hopefully serve to stimulate a discussion both of the apostolic status of Saul of Tarsus and thus of his inclusion in the canon. For he seems never to have joined Christ's Discipleship at all (which would have meant accepting Peter's spiritual authority), much less to have become an Apostle.
Indeed, Paul appears to have been personally in charge of the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58‑8:1), since according to Dueteronomy 17:7 the ‘witnesses who laid their cloaks at his feet’i.e. were under his direct authority were obliged to cast the first stones. Might one therefore ask as to his whereabouts on the night Christ was arrested? Was he then also part of the Temple guard? (Remember that Luke 22:63‑65 takes place at their hands, not those of the Romans.) Thus perhaps the puzzling II‑Corinthians 5:16, EGNWKAMEN KATA SARKA CRISTON: ‘We have known Christ according to the flesh.’ This would certainly explain his subsequent obsession with unmerited forgiveness!
These basic questions cannot be papered over, nor can they be settled by institutional fiat. For their illuminating implication is that traditional Christianity; as defined by the classical NT canon including both the Gospels and Paul's Epistles, is logically self‑contradictory and hence inherently unstable. Or, in a contemporary analogy, we might say that Paul's writings are like a computer virus: a surreptitious theological reprogram which, downloaded with the Gospels, completely changes their message, rendering it not gibberish but rather transmuted into another doctrine altogether, historical Church Christianity instead of the original Messianic Brotherhood.
31: 1 Cor 14:4: He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.”
Yet just 14 verses later Paul says: 1 Cor 14:18: “I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:”
32: Romans 3:1‑2: What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
[Return To Part One]
“It is impossible sufficiently to regret the loss of such a text,” though he admits that in some respects it must have been apocryphal, and “we know it contained more than one strange fable.” (Holmes-Gore, Rev. V.A.; Ferrier Todd; The Distortion of Christianity. Extract from Christ or Paul? p. 18)
Several things in it are, however, highly significant.
“One very remarkable fact,” writes Renan, “is that James, the man of Jerusalem, played in the Gospel of the Hebrews a more important part than in the Evangelical tradition which has survived.” (Holmes-Gore, Rev. V.A.; Ferrier Todd; The Distortion of Christianity. Extract from Christ or Paul? p. 18)
It also appears that the first Hebrew edition embodies more than one hostile allusion to Paul. People have prophesied, and cast out devils in the name of Jesus: Jesus openly repulses them because they have “practiced illegality.”
“The parable of the tares is still more characteristic. A man has sown in his field only good seed; but whilst he slept an enemy came, sowed tares in the field, and departed. ‘Master,’ said the servants, ‘didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares?’ And he said unto them, ‘An ‘enemy’ hath done this.’ The servants said unto him, ‘Wilt thou that we go and gather them up?’ But he said unto them, ‘Nay, lest while ye gather up the tares ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, I will say to the reapers, gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.’ It must be remembered that the expression ‘the enemy’ was the name habitually given by the Ebionites to Paul.” (Holmes-Gore, Rev. V.A.; Ferrier Todd; The Distortion of Christianity. Extract from Christ or Paul? p. 19)
Dr. W.J. Sparrow-Simpson in an article entitled “The Silence of the New Testament” gives some instances of more recent writers who question Paul’s interpretation of certain matters:
1). “Can we say that Jesus Himself ever treated it as a matter of cardinal importance that man should regard Him as the Messiah?”
2). “Jesus never, like Paul, makes the additional demand of faith in the propitiatory sacrifice of His Death.”
3). “Jesus could never have said “Do this in remembrance of Me.’ Why not? Because although Paul declares that He did, neither Matthew, nor Mark, nor John thought it necessary to put in any such command. Yet had they believed the command to have been given it is morally certain that they must have handed it on.” (Holmes-Gore, Rev. V.A.; Ferrier Todd; The Distortion of Christianity. Extract from Christ or Paul? p. 19)
4). “Jesus spoke no word, did no act that implied the necessity of an official priesthood for His people. He enforced no sacerdotal observance, instituted no sacrificial order, promulgated no sacerdotal law.” (Holmes-Gore, Rev. V.A.; Ferrier Todd; The Distortion of Christianity. Extract from Christ or Paul? p. 3)
All these quotations are typical of the writers who have been sufficiently perceptive to question Paul’s’ authority. (It should be assumed that Dr. Sparrow-Simpson agrees with the views which he quotes)
We have the equally striking view of Havelock Ellis, who thus expresses himself in his “Affirmations:”
“Something even stranger than theology or metaphysics has seemed to cut us off from the spirit of Jesus, and that is the spirit of Paul, certainly the real founder of ‘Christianity’ as we know it, for Jerome, Augustine, Luther were all the children of Paul, and in no respect the children of Jesus. That marvelous little Jew painted in its main outline the picture of Christianity which in the theater of this world has for so many centuries shut us off from Jesus. Impelled by intense and concentrated energy of his twisted suffering nature, Paul brought ‘moral force’ into our Western world, and after it that infinite procession of hypocrisies and cruelties and artificialities which still trails loathsomely across the scene of civilized life. Jesus may have been a visionary, “but His visions were in divine harmony with the course of nature, with the wine and the bread of life, with children and with flowers.” We may be very sure that Paul never considered the lilies, or found benediction with children. He trampled on nature when it came his way, and for the rest never saw it. Well might everything that has ever been evil in Christianity, its temporal power, its accursed intolerance, its contempt for reason, for beautiful living, for every sweet and sunny and simple aspect of the world; all that is involved in the awful conception of ‘moral force,’ flows directly form Paul...thus, Paul, and not Peter, was the rock on which the Church was built.” (This part of the study was taken, in part, from Judeo-Christianity on Trial,” by Stan Schmikla, Jann Publishing, P.O. box 22522, Knoxville, Tennessee 37933, pp. 96-117)
Following are a few things that Paul taught in opposition to what Christ taught.
1). Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9:20: “And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law.”
Christ said in Matthew 13:2, 14‑15: “And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore...And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and SHOULD BE CONVERTED, AND I SHOULD HEAL THEM.” (Also see Mark 4:12; John 12:40; Acts 28:25-27)
Yahshua taught in parables because He did not want the Jews to understand what He was saying because if they were to see with their eyes and hear with their ears (understand) then He would have to convert them and save them.
We know that He was speaking of the Jews because He says twice: Matthew 15:24: “But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
As a second witness: Matthew 10:5‑6: “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But GO RATHER TO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.”
Isaiah told about the jews and how they would act toward Him and that He would speak in parables: Isaiah 29:13: “Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men.”
Some will say that Isaiah was speaking about the Israelites, but I say that he was not that he was speaking to a people who were not Israelites, and because Christ said the same thing then this proves that Isaiah was speaking about the jews: Isaiah 29:10‑16: “For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned...Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and THEIR FEAR TOWARD ME IS TAUGHT BY THE PRECEPT OF MEN (the traditions of the elders, which was later codified in a set of books called The Talmud): Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?”
We are told in the book of Obadiah 1:3‑8: “The pride of thine heart hath deceived thee...Shall I not in that day, saith the LORD, EVEN DESTROY THE WISE MEN OUT OF EDOM, AND UNDERSTANDING OUT OF THE MOUNT OF ESAU?”
So by this we know Yahweh is speaking of the Jews because Esau is in modern Jewry Jewish Encyclopedia. Therefore it is obvious as to who was being spoken of.
Mark 4:33‑34: “And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it. But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.”
Now I full well know that He was speaking to a great multitude at times when He spoke in parables but He had to do that because there were always Jews there waiting to trap Him in His words.
Mark 12:13: “And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.”
2). Paul taught Romans 3:19‑20: “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law THERE SHALL NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED IN HIS SIGHT: FOR BY THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN.”
We know that Paul is speaking of the Israelites here because the other races and people never had the law, yet he would have you believe that all people can sin and cannot be justified by the law. Yet the Israelites are the only people on earth that ever had the laws, statutes and judgments of Yahweh.
Leviticus 26:46: “THESE ARE THE STATUTES AND JUDGMENTS AND LAWS, WHICH THE LORD MADE BETWEEN HIM AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.”
It is very clear that Yahweh did not make these laws, statutes and judgments between Him and any other people or race on earth. Only the Israelites.
Christ taught John 17:14: “I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.”
One of the many things that Paul taught that was simply not true and that was he was:
“I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians (how could Paul be debtor to the barbarians or unbelievers? He could not be unless he was taking part of his teachings from them); both to the wise, and to the unwise (the unwise is portrayed in the scriptures as those who do not believe in Yahweh, therefore, how could Paul be indebted to them? Obviously he could not). So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also (in Rome were many strangers, people who were not Israelites and the Gospel was not for them, it was for Israelites only). For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth (we have already shown this to be a false statement; for the gospel was not for all the races and peoples who were not Israelites); to the Jew first (this is certainly a false statement, for the Jews are the children of the devil, and there are many places where the prophets and Christ Himself taught parables so that the Jews would not under stand and then He would have to convert them), and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith (the just shall live by faith but they must also show their faith by works, and works are doing the will of Yahweh). For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.” (Romans 1:14-18)
The Other Races Cannot Sin
Constantly we hear from the Judeo‑Christian clergy and evangelists, and even too many so‑called layman Judeo‑Christians that the Bible and the Gospel is for all the various races on earth. That all the races must be saved.
But that is an error, the Bible was not written to all the different races on earth, and it certainly was not written to the Jews, for they hate Christ and Christian (His followers) with a passion, and at every chance they get, they murder as many as they can get away with. Look at Russia, they murdered over 50 million Christians after they took over in 1917 until the present time and they are not through yet.
"Thanks to the terrible power of our International Banks, we have forced the Christians into wars without number. Wars have a special value for Jews, since Christians massacre each other and make more room for us Jews. Wars are the Jews' Harvest: The Jew banks grow fat on Christian wars. Over 100‑million Christians have been swept off the face of the earth by wars, and the end is not yet." (Rabbi Reichorn, speaking at the funeral of Grand Rabbi Simeon Ben‑Iudah, 1869, Henry Ford also noted that: 'It was a Jew who said, 'Wars are the Jews' harvest'; but no harvest is so rich as civil wars.' The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem, Vol. III, p. 180).
"Wars are the Jews harvest, for with them we wipe out the Christians and get control of their gold. We have already killed 100‑million of them, and the end is not yet." (Chief Rabbi in France, in 1859, Rabbi Reichorn).
The Laws, Statutes, and Judgments of Almighty God was given ONLY to Israel and not to any other people on the face of the earth.
"Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest." (Joshua 1:7)
God has not delt with any nation or people on earth as He has with Israel; nor will He ever do so, for He has chosen Israel to be His own and not the other races.
The Judeo-Christian clergy also say that Christ died to save all the races from their sins. Well the other races and peoples of the earth did not need Christ to save them from their sins, because they had no sins to begin with. For they never had the law to transgress, and therefore they could not sin.
"Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression." (Romans 4:15)
"(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." (Romans 5:13)
"And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant," (1 Chronicles 16:17)
"For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children." (Psalm 78:5)
Therefore, if the other races and peoples did not have the law, then they could not have any sin. That is why there will be people who have never had a belief in Christ, will be outside the walls of the city as spoken of in the Book of Revelation.
"Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. FOR WITHOUT ARE DOGS, AND SORCERERS, AND WHOREMONGERS, AND MURDERERS, AND IDOLATERS, AND WHOSOEVER LOVETH AND MAKETH A LIE." (Revelation 22:14‑15)
Therefore, the other races and people have not sinned because they never had God's Law, Statutes, and Judgments.
So when you hear the Judeo‑Christian preachers, evangelists and etc., tell you that we are to be a multi cultural people, and that there is no difference in the races is a damnable liar, for God created all the various races with to serve a specific service in His plan, and He formed Adam the father of Abraham, and therefore our father also; and only Adams descendants, the Israelites were given the Law, Statutes and Judgments of Almighty God. And God said that the different races were Good, but He will not acknowledge mixed breeds.
It is only our White Israelite people who can commit sin, because they are the only ones who were given the Law.
"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4)
Now some will falsely say that the laws of God have been given to all the races, but that is not true, they are told what God’s laws are, they have not been given them as God gave them to the Children of Israel.
We are not to be a multi-cultural people, we are not to mix with the other races because that is an Abomination to God Almighty.
3). Paul said in 1 Corinthians 5:10: “Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.”
Christ said in Matthew 18:7: “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!”
John 8:23: “And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.”
John 15:19: “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.”
John 17:6: “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.”
John 17:9: “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.”
John 17:15‑16: “I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.”
1 John 4:5: “They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.”
4). Paul said in 2 Corinthians 5:19: “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.”
Here Paul is telling us that Yahweh is trying to save the entire world, and all the different people and races on earth. When that is simply not so. For as has already been shown Christ came ONLY TO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL, and not to any other people or races on earth.
Every single one of the verses previously shown (John 8:23; 15:19; 17:6; 17:9; 17:15-16 and 1 John 4:5) shows that Christ was not come to all the world. Paul said “reconciling the world unto himself” meaning that Yahweh was trying to reconcile all the world to Himself, and that is just simply not a true statement. No matter what you, or I, or any of the Judeo-Christians might like.
Christ said in John 17:14: “I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.”
5). Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:19: “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.”
Now we know that the Jews are famous magicians and that many of them are witches, which is heresy. However, Yahweh says: Exodus 22:18: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”
Deuteronomy 18:10: “There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.”
6). Paul says in Romans 3:28: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”
This is false because we are told in James 2:21‑22: “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? SEEST THOU HOW FAITH WROUGHT WITH HIS WORKS, AND BY WORKS WAS FAITH MADE PERFECT?”
Again we are told in James 2:24‑26: “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD ALSO.”
7). Paul says in Romans 6:14: “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.”
This also is false teaching because we are told in James 2:9‑12: “But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.”
James 4:11: “Speak not evil one of another, brethren (who are the brethren spoken of here, of course is it ones brother or sister Israelite which does not include those of another race or people). He that speaketh evil of his (Israelite) brother, and judgeth his (Israelite) brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.”
1 John 3:4: “WHOSOEVER COMMITTETH SIN TRANSGRESSETH ALSO THE LAW: FOR SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW.”
8). Paul says in Acts 11:26: “And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”
The name “Christian” has been universally accepted as the “new name” given to the followers of Jesus, based on this one verse from the book of Acts.
The most significant even taking place in Antioch was (we are told) the fulfillment of God’s promise found in the Book of Isaiah:
“And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and THOU SHALT BE CALLED BY A NEW NAME WHICH THE MOUTH OF THE LORD SHALL NAME.” (Isaiah 62:2)
There is absolutely no similarity in the two verses quoted. Isaiah 62:2 clearly establishes that “the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory.” The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch BY PAGANS, and the exalting element was absent. If Isaiah 62:2 is to be fulfilled accordingly, IT HAS YET TO TAKE PLACE. Christ is not only the modern English form of the ancient name of the Sun-god, Messiah Chrisna, but research by Margie Martin reveals that Christ, IN THE OCCULT, means; MAN IS HIS OWN SAVIOR. (Which is the same as the Jews in their writings: "The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy, and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this new world order the Children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property, and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state. Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which is said that when the Messianic time is come the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands." (Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx, La Revue de Paris, p. 54, June 1, 1928)
Historically, it is a well known fact that Jesus’ followers were ridiculed by the pagans (Jews) of Antioch and it was the pagan (Jews) of Antioch who labeled the disciples Christians. IT WAS DONE IN MALICE, MOCKERY AND RIDICULE! By inspection of the two verses, it is clearly evident that the prophecy of Isaiah 62:2 was not fulfilled in Acts 11:26, in any way, shape or form. This prophecy is to be executed in grandeur; “And the Gentiles shall see THY RIGHTEOUSNESS, and all kings THY GLORY; and (then and ONLY THEN) thou shalt be called by a new name, which THE MOUTH OF THE LORD SHALL NAME.” It is explicit that Yahweh Himself gives His people a new name, not the pagans of Antioch.
Christian (Christianos) is a word formed after the Roman style and used by the pagans of Antioch to insult the early believers. As applied by the Jewish society, without doubt, there was an implication of scorn and ridicule. Agrippa confirms this statement in Acts 26:18.
Acts 26:28: “Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.”
Though the word “chrematizo,” rendered “were called” in Acts 11:26, might be used of a name adopted by oneself or given by others, the early believers DID NOT adopt it for themselves. Justin Martyr (e.g., apol. 1, 4 p. 55a; dial. C. Tryph. Et; compare Teaching, etc. 12, 4) states that THE NAME CHRISTIAN WAS FIRST GIVEN TO JESUS’ FOLLOWERS BY THE PAGANS (but NOT ACCEPTED). However, from the second century onward, the pagans themselves ACCEPTED the name Christian as a title of honor. From the above statement, it is not too difficult to understand why Constantine proclaimed Christianity the religion of the land.
The following is an extract from “The Hoax of 20 Centuries,” by Dirk Van der Merwe who did an in depth study into the word Christianity:
“The division of Christianity is not a result of a unified religion that has suffered from the splitting off of various factions who followed “false teachings” as we have been led to believe. Rather, it is a smoldering pit of confusion (Babylon) because Christianity was designed to be all things to all men so long as they believe in Christ! As a result of this indefinite definition, Christianity today is exactly what its authors envisioned it to be; unified disunity, lawful lawlessness, the grossest contradiction of terms!
The Messianic followers were called (belonging to) THE WAY, not as some argue, because Jesus called Himself the Truth, the Life and the Way, but because they followed the Messianic methods of righteous living. Belonging to THE WAY meant operating as a community by a system based on Israelite (Yahweh’s) Laws. By community, it is not meant that the Messianic followers lived commune style or that they even lived in the same neighborhood or city; they functioned as a community.
The Messianic followers lived a lifestyle so alien and foreign to their fellow countrymen, steeped in the traditions of the elders and the ways of Babylon, that they were perceived by their contemporaries as strange and odd. It was this “bizarre” way of conducting their affairs which resulted in them all being wealthy and immune to the Babylonian system while the Babylonian system was in full force.
It was not until fifteen or sixteen years after the crucifixion that the term Christian and thus Christianity made its appearance. However, before dealing with Christianity per se, first consider its place of origin. Christianity was spawned in Antioch, a city in Syria. The story of Antioch is both fascinating and revealing. Most modern Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias claim that the city had its origin with Seleucus Nicator, who founded it in 300 B.C.
He named it in honor of either his father or his son, both of whom went by the name Antiochus. However, information found in more ancient documents cast a much different light on Nicator’s relationship to Antioch. For instance, the Jewish Encyclopedia (p. 632) states:
“The Biblical Hamath is considered by the Jerusalem Targum (Aramaic translation of the Old Testament) to be Antioch.”
The Dictionary of the Holy bible, by J.R. Carpon, published circa 1750 states:
“Antioch, the capital of Syria. This is thought to be the same as Riblah in the land of Hamath where Nebuchadnezzar spent some of the time during the siege of Jerusalem and where he slew Zedekiah’s children and put out his eyes...”
Rablah was actually Daphne, a suburb of Antioch on the east or right side of the Orontes river. Both the Encyclopedia Britannica and Jewish Encyclopedia make a point of stating that Antioch and Hamath were situated on the left or west side of the Orontes river.
Taking these latter facts into consideration , it becomes clear that Nicator did not found and name a new city (Antioch) at all. He merely renamed and revitalized the ancient city of Hamath.
Hamath is the key to understanding why Antiochus Epipanes, eighth in the Seleacuis Dynasty, was the one to be most identified with Antioch. In fact, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia, some Jews believed that Epiphanes was the true founder and why Christianity was started in that exact location. The city of Hamath was so named to honor the youngest son of Canaan (Genesis 10:18). Canaan, of course, was the one cursed by Noah, a practitioner of righteousness. The name Hamath means “enclosure or fortification of wrath.”
In light of the overt hatred that the Canaanites have always displayed to wards righteousness, plus what shell be momentarily exposed about what is known of the later history of Hamath, it is quite within reason to argue that the city was so named because it was intended (destined) to serve as a citadel from which the wrath of the Canaanites would be fortified against Yahweh of Israel. His Laws, Statutes, and Judgments and His people and everything righteous.
However, many of the Canaanites’ objectives with Hamath became obscure when Nicator changed the name of that city to Antioch. It was not until the advent of Antiochus Epiphanes that the original intent of Hamath came to the surface once more.
Jewish Historians knew full well that Epiphanes was preceded by seven others on the Seleucid throne. Yet, in a quote form “Melligat Antiochus,” we find:
“It is evident that the Jews considered Antiochus Epiphanes the founder (of Antioch).” (Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 632)
Why would the Jews believe such a theory when their own recorded history clearly militates against such thinking? There is but one reasonable, logical answer. The Jews did not recognize Epiphanes as the literal founder of the city, but rather saw him as the one who re-founded or resurrected the spirit that was expected from a city which was designed to strengthen the wrath of the Canaanites against Yahweh of Israel and His righteous ways.
Epiphanes indeed gave the Jews every reason to believe that he was the reviver of the Spirit of Hamath. It was from Antioch that Epiphanes enacted laws which made it illegal to seek after righteousness. Anyone of his subjects who did not sacrifice swine flesh, who did not profane the Sabbath and holy days of Israel, who did not worship idols; in short, who did not rebel against the righteous Yahweh of Israel and His Law, Statutes and Judgments, did so under penalty of death. (1 Maccabees 1:45-50) To show himself a man who did not waste his time on idle talk. Epiphanes desecrated the alter in Jerusalem by sacrificing a pig on it. (The New Compact Dictionary, p. 47)
It is a recorded fact of history that most leaders who acted in bizarre and irrational extremes did so because of an advanced case of syphilis. Naturally, it cannot be proven of Antiochus Epiphanes, but so crazy was this character that his subjects, who knew him more intimately than any historian today would ever hope to know him, called him not Epiphanes, meaning “the illustrious one,” but Epimanes, “the madman.” (Bible Dictionary, James Hastings, p, 38)
It was a pun on his title to reveal his true character. Something like calling a mean vindictive man the horrible judge rather than the honorable judge. Of this obscene character, Smith wrote:
“He was the first type of antichrist (or opposer of the Messiah of Israel, His Way, and Laws) because of his want for respect of Yahweh, religion and the disregard of every higher feeling amongst men.”
A reading of the books of Maccabees and the appropriate actions dealing with the Antiochus family from Josephus’s writings reveals the rest of them as a lying, violent, war-mongering family who showed benevolence only when it aided their cause.
The preceding was a very brief synopsis of the history of the city and the family who lent its name to the place where Christianity had its cradle. Now, consider the name Antioch itself: The New Companies bible Dictionary, p. 47, states that Antioch means “to withstand or be in opposition to.” But that is obviously an incomplete meaning. That applies only to the “Anti” part of the name. What about the “och” part in Antioch? Och comes form the Greek root word eko which means to have and that Hocus (anti-hocus) means to hold, possess or support. Adding this to what is already known about the Anti and the meaning of Antioch becomes clear; to withstand or be in opposition to having or possessing. Some claim that Anti really means in place of. If that be the case, it still does not change the meaning, because in place of having, means not having. Nevertheless, the meaning of Antioch is a direct contradiction of what the Messiah said of His mission. “I have come that you might have life and have it abundantly.” (John 10:10)
The term Christian thus had its cradle in a city whose name is associated with opposition to the Lord and His Law, want of respect for higher feelings, desecration of what was deemed holy and sacred, blatant Canaanite wrath and outright madness. And a point for Monarchists and royalists to remember; it was in Antioch (the suburb of Riblah) that the unsuccessful attempt was made by Nebuchadnezzar to destroy the royal house of David. The Encyclopedia Britannica (11th edition) makes the following observation on p. 460:
“The term Christian is a rather late Christian neologism.”
The popular meaning for a neologism, of course, is a new word. It is also interesting to know that Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 770 also defines a neologism as “a meaningless word coined by a psychotic.”
Now, let’s consider Christianity itself; in other words, the bedrock upon which the myriad of contradicting teachings and dogmas of the Christian religion is founded. According to Christian apologists, Christianity, from its inception was not based on the Israelite Law-founded teachings of the Messiah. It was thus not a continuation of “THE WAY.” It was, from its foundation, a new universal religion based upon a synthesis of all ethnic religions.
Bear in mind that the evidence does not come from the enemies of Christianity, but from its apologists and protagonists. Christianity was (is) not Messianic in essence. From Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible, under the category “Christianity,” states:
“We therefore hold that whatever Christianity is, it is not what certain modern writers describe as ‘the religion of Jesus,’ but something very different; and that is, it is not to be confounded with churchly dogmas and institutions, it is just as little to be identified with an ethical theism based on the beauty of Christ’s character and the pure precepts of His Sermon on the Mount. The men who were first called Christians (Acts 11:25) had never seen Jesus or listened to His teachings, and the Gospel that laid its grasp upon them and won for them this distinctive name was neither a bare repetition of the Master’s teaching nor a mere exhibition of His perfect life. On the contrary, it was such a gospel as found in the epistles of St. Paul.”
Christianity was (is) not Israelitish in orientation and creation. From the same source, it is quoted,
“As a religion appearing in history, Christianity had its historical relations and its historical roots. It was related to all the old ethnic faiths and to every religious experience of vision and longing, of striving and despair, that the soul of man had ever known. The modern study of Comparative Religion is enabling us to realize this as it has never been realized before; but the New Testament makes the general truth perfectly plain.”
Further in the same section is this description:
“Christianity was not a mere spiritualized Judaism, but a new and universal religion recognizing no distinction between Jews and Greek, circumcision and uncircumcision, and seeing in Christ Himself the all in all.”
Again, let it be stated that the division of Christianity is not a result of unified religion that has suffered form the splitting off of various factions who followed “false teachings” as we have been led to believe. Rather, it is a smoldering pit of confusion (Babylon) because Christianity was designed to be all things to all men as long as they believe in a Christ. As a result of this indefinite definition, Christianity today is exactly what its authors envisioned it to be; unified disunity, lawful lawlessness, the grossest contradiction of terms. It is by this same ‘double think’ logic that the concept of a ‘one world nation’ with a legion of different conflicting nationalities, languages, cultures, and customs is possible; provided, of course, that everyone believes in ‘Peace.’ It is hell on the mind’s ability to concentrate and understand it, but that is just what ‘getting religion’ or being ‘enlightened’ is all about. The person is encouraged to stop thinking (park your brain at the church house door, and pick it up on the way out). The person is admonished to accept everything by faith. The populous is taught that way. If one has sufficient faith, one does not need to be burdened with the responsibility of reason. Why then are people given the ability to reason if it is not meant to be used?
For someone who can still use reason, the difference between THE WAY and Christianity can easily be summarized. THE WAY is a system based on Yahweh’s (Israelite) Law, by which the Kingdom of god can be established while Babylon is still very much in charge. Christianity, on the other hand, is a religious order concerned with abstract esoteric knowledge. That it is a religious order can be seen most clearly in the way that it divides its adherents into clergy and laity which, incidently, is in direct conflict with the Messiah’s commandment. The difference between Christianity as a religious order and THE WAY as a community is made clear in the following excerpt taken from “The Church Against Itself,” p. 134, by Rosemary Reuter, a noted Catholic scholar who was, at the time of publication of her book, a lecturer at George Washington and Howard Universities. ‘The first concept of church office was borrowed, not surprisingly, from the Jewish synagogue. The Sanhedrin, the council of elders which ruled very Jewish community, provided first the model for church office. This pattern was established first in Jerusalem, where, by Paul’s time, it had succeeded in replacing the original community of Jesus’s followers and substitution a presbyterian structure modeled on the Jerusalem Sanhedrin.” (The Hoax of 20 Centuries, by Van der Merwe)
From this short narrative by Dirk Van der Merwe, the reader may now be acquainted with a somewhat different Antioch than reveled by today’s clergy. Yes, Christianity had its beginning in Antioch and this was the location where, members of a religious sect received the name Christian, but this WAS NOT the religion of Jesus, and the people implicated WERE NOT the followers of Jesus’ teachings. From “The Rise of Christianity,” by W.H.C. Frend, the following is quoted:
“Peter, as the first witness of the risen Lord was at first spokesman and leader but sometime in the 40s A.D. James emerged as undisputed ruler of the church. How and why are not known. He (James) is represented in later tradition as holy man, as NAZARITE...” (The rise of Christianity, by W.H.C. Frend, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, p. 88)
“By 40 A.D., (Christianity) was established as a movement throughout Palestine. Beyond its borders a second important center was developing in Antioch. They the (Christians) were not known as “NAZRENES’ AS THEY WERE IN PALESTINE, but as ‘men of Christ’ (Christianoi).” (The Rise of Christianity, by W.H.C. Frend, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, p. 88)
Jesus’ followers were not known as “Christians” and their religion was not “Christianity.” They were known as “NAZRENES” and their religion was THE WAY.
9). Paul stated in Romans 10:8‑10:
“But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 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. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”
This is simply not a true statement because even the evil spirits and devils confess Yahshua and believe that He exists; yet they are not saved.
In Matthew 8:28‑29 we are told about the devils confessing Yahshua and by that confession shows that they believe that He was the son of Yahweh:
“And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him TWO POSSESSED WITH DEVILS, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way. And, BEHOLD, THEY CRIED OUT, SAYING, What have we to do with thee, JESUS, THOU SON OF GOD? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?”
In Luke 8:27‑28 we are told about other devils which confessed Yahshua as the son of God:
“And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs. When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, WHAT HAVE I TO DO WITH THEE, JESUS, THOU SON OF GOD MOST HIGH? I beseech thee, torment me not.”
Now it is true the man was saying these things, but it is obvious that he did so under the direction of the devils that he had.
In Acts 19:15 we find Paul counterdicting himself when he related the story about the man who had an evil spirit:
“And THE EVIL SPIRIT ANSWERED AND SAID, JESUS I KNOW, AND PAUL I KNOW; but who are ye?”
10). Paul relates in 1 Corinthians 10:23:
James tells us in James 2:9‑10: “But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and YET OFFEND IN ONE POINT, HE IS GUILTY OF ALL.”
“All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.”
This is clearly not true because all things were not lawful for Paul, for Yahweh’s Laws had not been done away with in his time, neither are they done away with in our day.
Matthew 5:18: “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.”
Luke 16:17: “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.”
Here we have from the Masters own lips that the Law was not done away with by Him, nor will it ever be done away with as long as there is a heaven and earth.
The Biblical story of Adam and Eve has been available in the English language since the middle of the sixteenth century and although there have been individuals who have rejected it on the basis of being contrary to logic and reason, orthodoxy has simply dismissed their protestantions and consigned their arguments to the garbage heap of heresy. However, with the passage of time, more and more people are beginning to look for reasons which would account for the incredible guilt complex which afflicts the Western world and are finding this in religion and the doctrine of “original sin.”
If all men everywhere are u nder the oncdemnation of original sin as is stated by Paul (1 Corinthians 15:12) and if all men are held accountable for the sins of Adam and dependent on a selective redemption from above (Romans 11:5), it is small wonder that people simply give up in despair and become totally disinterestd in trying to achieve the genetic potential with which they were endowed by their parents. However, “original sin” is a church fallacy that does not exist, as even a superficial look into the subject will reveal and is one of the veils of blindness which, at the end of the age, will be removed from Yahweh’s people.
“But thou, O Daniel, SHUT UP THE WORDS, AND SEAL THE BOOK, EVEN TO THE TIME OF THE END...And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: FOR THE WORDS ARE CLOSED UP AND SEALED TILL THE TIME OF THE END.” (Daniel 12:4-9)
11). Paul’s statement in Romans 5:12 and in 1 Corinthians 15:22 need to be examined as Biblical definitions concerning the subject of “sin.”
Romans 5:12: “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”
1 Corinthians 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”
In both these pertinent passages, it is stated that ALL sin and ALL die because of one man: Adam. This being so and as “sin” is primary to death, attention is focused on this subject which according to 1 John 3:4 is explained as a transgression of the Law. Paul however, had a different definition which is most difficult to apply to Adam for he contended that “...whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23)
While Abel, Adam’s son’s name, appears at the head of the list in the so-called “Hall of Faith” (Hebrews 11:4), that of Adam is entirely missing which makes it doubtful that Paul’s definition of “sin” could apply to him. According then to Paul; if “faith” is the yardstick against which violation is measured, Adam could “not sin” and Paul’s whole argument falls to the ground.
The universality of “sin” and its consequent “death” miss the mark when one considers the Biblical narrative. The “living of the earth” (Genesis 1:24) and the “man” male and femail of Genesis 1:26-27, received no command nor any Law from Yahweh other than to “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:28) This was long before the “formation of THE Adam from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7) which makes it utterly ridiculous for them to be held resonsible for the behavior of THE Adam in the “garden.”
The existence of these other people is admitted in Cain’s contention that after him these other people is admitted in Cain’s contention that after his expulsion from the Adamic earth, “...every one that findeth me shall slay me.” (Genesis 4:14) This being so, how could ALL sin (Romans 3:23) and how could the sentence of death be passed on those races who had had nothing to do with THE Adam. Those who lived before THE Adam’s time had died “without” any sentence being passed on them, thus indicating that death was part and parcel of the law of nature which, in the fulness of time, takes it toll.
Passing on to THE Adam whom the theologians teach was the first human being created and who, being the so-called “head of the human family” introduced the original sin, one finds the Genesis story, which undoubtedly originated in Babylon, full of derogatory implications concerning the character of the Creator which logic and reason simply cannot accept The Genesis account of Creation claims that everything that was created was “good,” and one has no reason to doubt that the formation of THE Adam was nothing less than perfect too.
He was then placed in the “garden” an environment of perfection, and, in place of the command given to the earlier creation in which they were told to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it,” Adam’s responsibility was limited to “dressing the garden and keeping.” It was at this pont that Adam was endowed with “free will;” i.e., he was given the freedom to choose and make decisions for himself which, as must be obvious, introduces the subject of accountability into the Genesis story. Being a “free agent,” Adam had to take on the responsibility and the accountability of that status and, if found guilty of any crime, as it were, he could justifiable be sentenced to whatever penalty was prescribed for the crime.
These facts introduce a note which places all the responsiblilty of what Adam was supposed to have done on his shoulders whereas, if one looks at the whole situation, the responsibility for what Adam did or did not do, must lie in some other directon. An illustration to support this contention is to be found in the case of a watchmaker who makes a chronometer with all the parts necessary for that watch to operate perfectly and he alone is responsible for the way in which it works.
All will surely agree that it would be the height of stupidity to blame the “watch” if it did not operate correctly; the responsiblity for the malfunction must surely lie with the watchmaker! Now, Adam did not ask to be formed, and there is certainly no evidence to suggest that he had anything to do with the faculties, inclinations and desires with which he had been endowed. Everything that was in Adam was put there by He Who formed him. How then could he be held accountable for doing what he did, particularly as the means for his malfunction had, according to the Genesis account, been deliberately put there by the Creator?
12). Paul said in Ephesians 5:25: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.”
This is simply a false statement. Yahshua did not come for the church, He came to Redeem His Israel people as He said:
Matthew 15:24: “But he answered and said, I AM NOT SENT BUT UNTO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.”
By this we can clearly see that Christ DID NOT COME FOR THE CHURCH. He came only to Redeem the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel.
Luke 1:68: “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for HE HATH VISITED AND REDEEMED HIS PEOPLE.”
Luke 24:21: “But WE TRUSTED THAT it had been HE which SHOULD HAVE REDEEMED ISRAEL: and beside all this.”
We are told in Isaiah many times that Yahweh is our Redeemer and Savior:
Isaiah 41:14: “Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I WILL HELP THEE, saith the LORD, and THY REDEEMER, THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL.”
Isaiah 44:24: “Thus saith the LORD, THY REDEEMER, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.”
Isaiah 48:17: “Thus saith the LORD, THY REDEEMER, THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.”
Isa 49:26: “And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I THE LORD AM THY SAVIOUR AND THY REDEEMER, THE MIGHTY ONE OF JACOB.”
Isaiah 54:5: “FOR THY MAKER IS THINE HUSBAND; the LORD of hosts is his name; AND THY REDEEMER THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.”
Isaiah 54:8: “In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, SAITH THE LORD THY REDEEMER.”
Isaiah 60:16: “Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I THE LORD AM THY SAVIOUR AND THY REDEEMER, THE MIGHTY ONE OF JACOB.”
Christ is OUR Saviour, the True Israelites, and not the saviour of all the other races and peoples on the earth. For Hosea, Peter and John testified of this many times:
Hosea 13:4: “Yet I AM THE LORD THY GOD from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for THERE IS NO SAVIOUR BESIDE ME.”
Luke 1:47: “And my spirit hath rejoiced in God MY SAVIOUR.”
Luke 2:11: “For unto you is born this day in the city of David A SAVIOUR, which is Christ the Lord.”
John 4:42: “And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, THE SAVIOUR...”
2 Peter 1:1: “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and OUR SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.”
2 Peter 1:11: “For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and SAVIOUR Jesus Christ.”
2 Peter 2:20: “For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and SAVIOUR Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.”
2 Peter 3:2: “That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and SAVIOUR.”
2 Peter 3:18: “But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and SAVIOUR Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.”
1 John 4:14: “And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the SAVIOUR...”
Jude 1:25: “TO THE ONLY WISE GOD OUR SAVIOUR, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.”
13). In Romans 4:7 Paul says: “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.”
Romans 7:12: “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.”
Romans 15:19: “Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.”
(5) The Paul Paradox
Those who study the New Testament may well note that popular ‘red‑letter’ editions of the text, with Christ's words thus highlighted, contain virtually no such rubrics thruout the Epistles of Paul. With the sole exception of the eucharistic formula at I‑Corinthians 11:24‑25, he does not quote any sayings of the historical Yeashúa/Jesus, either as found in the written Gospels or from a contemporaneous oral tradition.
Indeed furthermore, he never even once alludes to the panorama of the Savior's biography, from the Nativity up to the Passion, which fills the pages of the first four books of the New Testament. This is, on the face of it, a most puzzling omission. (¹although, astonishingly, at Acts 13:24‑25 he does quote John the Baptist!; Acts 20:35, on the other hand, is actually a citation from Thucidides'
Peloponnesian War, while Ac 26:14 is in fact a line from Euripides' Bacchae!)
Beyond this remarkable lack of historical concern, however, there is an even more enigmatic aspect of Paul's record in the New Testament. For an objective, philosophical reading of the documents would seem to reveal a number of logical contradictions, both within his biography and also between his theology and that of the Evangelists. It must be emphasized that these anomalies are conceptual rather than empirical in nature.
For although they of course occur in interwoven historical, theological and normative contexts within the NT, they nevertheless present themselves as a priori problems of analytical consistency between various texts; regardless of the truth or falsity of any factual claims being made or presumed by those texts. Furthermore, these discrepancies must be similarly distinguished from logically posterior issues concerning the ancient composition, editing, redactions or dating of the New Testament writings, all of which are factual/historical topics.
In sum, and stated more formally: the Pauline antinomies are logical contradictions and therefore cannot in principle be resolved by means of either historical investigation or textual criticism, both of which are empirical methodologies.
Neither is this the place to provide a retrospective survey of the many past commentaries on these complex questions. I shall only append a series of quotations from a number of eminent figures; starting with Peter Abelard (citing Jerome, Augustine and Origen), Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, Teresa of Avila, Blaise Pascal, and John Locke, who are in general agreement that Paul's doctrines appear to be seriously at odds with the Gospel message. These excerpts suffice to show that what might be called ‘the Paul paradox’ has been recognized by a remarkably wide spectrum of prominent individuals across the centuries.
[Continued in Part Three]
The Jews have put so many things in the Scriptures that are not true by lying scribes, that it behooves us to examine Paul.
We are told in 2 Timothy 2:16:
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
We are also told in 1 Thessalonians 5:21:
“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”
To modern Christians, the question “Was Paul an Apostle?” will appear unreasoned, illogical or even mad. But since ongoing research steadily uncovers discrepancies in Paul’s doctrines, it must be established whether or not Paul was an “apostle.” Whether you or anyone else likes it or not. This study is not a personal attack because of ill feelings, but solely in the interest of truth.
How can one account for the difference between Christianity as preached by Yahshua and modern Christian doctrine? This can only be answered by knowing the influence of Paul on modern Christian doctrines. Paul is one of many who left a permanent mark on the pages of history. In whatever form they appear on the stage of the world, they always play a leading role. Through his INCONSISTENT and CONTRADICTORY actions, Paul became an enigma for the world of religion, a fact that leaves those capable of reasoning greatly perplexed. Who does Paul claim to be?
“...I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus...” (Acts 21:39)
“...I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee...” (Acts 23:6)
“...For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.” (Romans 11:1)
“I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also.” (2 Corinthians 11:21)
Now here we have Paul saying that he is a Jew, and proving it to the satisfaction of the Pharisees in attendance at this meeting. Then we have Paul saying that he was an Israelite.
Romans 11:1: “I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I ALSO AM AN ISRAELITE, OF THE SEED OF ABRAHAM, OF THE TRIBE OF BENJAMIN.”
Even the Jews could truthfully say this, for Yahshua acknowledged that they were of the seed of Abraham:
“I KNOW THAT YE ARE ABRAHAM’S SEED; BUT YE SEEK TO KILL ME, BECAUSE MY WORD HATH NO PLACE IN YOU....They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, IF YE WERE ABRAHAM’S CHILDREN (in the previous verse Yahshua acknowledged that the Jews were the SEED of Abraham, but here He says that the Jews are not his children. They are the seed, but not the children), ye would do the works of Abraham...Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. JESUS SAID UNTO THEM (the Jews), IF GOD WERE YOUR FATHER (Here Yahshua is saying that God is not their father; and if God is not their father then their father is Satan), ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me...Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it...HE THAT IS OF GOD HEARETH GOD’S WORDS: YE THEREFORE HEAR THEM NOT, BECAUSE YE ARE NOT OF GOD...YET YE HAVE NOT KNOWN HIM (Here Yahshua is saying that the Jews do not know God; they are not His children nor do they know Him); but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.” (John 8:37-55)
Philipans 3:5: “Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee.”
So we have Paul saying two things, completely different. One of them is a lie; which one is the question?
Acts 21:39: “But Paul said, I AM A MAN WHICH AM A JEW OF TARSUS, A CITY IN CILICIA, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.”
Acts 22:3: “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.”
Therefore, we can see that Paul is a liar. Now some will say that he claimed to be a jew in order to save his life; but Yahshua did no such thing when He could have saved His life by declaring that He was a jew. This He never did. Therefore, there is only one conclusion that Paul was a liar.
Since Paul denied the Law and preached that it was no longer in effect then we are told in:
1 John 2:4: “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”
In his “Last Battle Cry,” Jarah B. Crawford enlightened his readers; and in reference to John 8:31-48, he states:
“...In the first place, Jesus was talking with Jews ‘who had believed.’ They claimed to be Abraham’s seed, but they also claimed they had never been in bondage in Egypt; that in 721 B.C., the ten Northern tribes went into the Assyrian captivity; and that in 586 B.C., the Southern kingdom went into the Babylonian captivity. Yet these Jews said they had ‘never yet been enslaved.’ Jesus openly admits that they are Abraham’s offspring. Yet later He says, ‘If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham.’ Then He really laid it on the line and said, ‘You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father.’ To put the frosting on the cake, Jesus said that they do not hear the words of God ‘because YOU (Jews) ARE NOT OF GOD.’” (Jarah B. Crawford, Last Battle Cry, Christianity’s final conflict with evil. Middlebury, VT, Jann Publishing, Inc. 1984. p. 2-3)
What can be concluded from Jesus’ own words is that being of Abraham’s seed, Pharisee, Jew or Benjamite, does not necessarily make one “OF GOD.” In Acts 21:39, Acts 23:6, Romans 11:1 and 2 Corinthians 11:21, like a chamaeleon whose skin changes according to the surroundings, Paul on these occasions calls himself whatever fits the purpose. Isn’t the Christianity he accepted worthy of declaration?
“And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law.” (1 Corinthians 9:20)
Yet from a study of the parables that Yahshua spoke, we know that He never intended the Jews to receive the gospel and to be saved.
The New Testament provides abundant proofs of Paul’s sly conduct in propagating the new faith. Having little success with the Jews, Paul turned towards the Gentiles (Israelites). In order to make Christianity an attractive religion, he thought it expedient to recast the whole structure of the Christian faith. He introduced so many changes that his faith acquired a great resemblance to pagan conceptions. Through arbitrary innovations, he made many things lawful which were absolutely unlawful according to the Law of Moses, as handed to him by Yahweh Himself.
Yahshua had clearly told His disciples that he was not sent to change the law:
“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.” (Matthew 5:17-19)
In Luke 16:17, Yahshuas’ testimony is parallel.
“And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.”
This statement is again corroborated by Mark in 13:31. But in spite of this positive command of the Master, Paul, without the least hesitation, announced that the law was superfluous and redundant, and assuming the role of the new law-giver, Paul declared:
“I do not frustrate the law of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” (Galatians 2:21)
And again in Romans 3:20, Paul repeats:
“Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”
Now, the question arises: How did Paul manage to gain control over the ECCLESIA and succeed in implanting innovations completely at variance with Yahshua’s original teachings? This question is not difficult to answer once Paul’s background is exposed. Paul was NOT a Galilean as THE ELEVEN. He was like Judas, THE TWELFTH, a Jew. Paul was born SAUL in the city of Tarsus, a Roman province of Cilicia. Although not born in Palestine, Saul was a Hellenistic Jew. Sauls’ father was a jew, a Pharisee, and a Roman citizen as well.
“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: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” (Acts 23:6)
Nothing is known of Saul’s mother, but he did have a sister who lived in Jerusalem. There are two distinct periods in Saul’s early life: his childhood spent in Tarsus, and his adolescent years and early manhood spent in Jerusalem. The words translated “brought up” in Acts 22:3 could reinforce the idea that Saul was very yong when he came to Jerusalem. Scholars, however, take it as reference to his education.
In his writings, Saul expresses a sense of pride in being a Jew. He also emanates egoism in Tarsus, which was a university town and center of government and trade. Such pride denotes real affection for its culture which was Greek and pagan. To be shielded from pagan influences in a city like Tarsus was an impossible task. It was the kind of place where any intellectual child would be bound to pick up some of the language and ideas of “pagan Greek culture.” Influence of this kind of city is probably enough to explain the three references to “Greek literature” which are found in Paul’s letters and sermons: references to the poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander.
Saul soon left Tarsus and came to the center of the Jewish world, Jerusalem. Here he became a student of the learned Rabbi Hillel. Hillel had taught a more advanced and liberal form of Judaism than his rival, Shammai. What Yahshua said about divorce may have been provoked by the arguments of the followers of these two rabbis. Hillel declared that a man could divorce his wife if she displeased him in any way, but Shammai took the view that divorce was justified only in the event of some serious mortal sin. Shammai had also refused to see any place for the Gentiles (Israelites) in the purposes of God.
In his “Barnabas and the Early Christians,” Ata ur-Rakim provided the following information:
“...it is recorded that Paul had desired to marry a woman called Popea, who was the attractive but ambitious daughter of the high priest of the Jews. She possessed haunting beauty and an intriguing mind. She like Paul, but she rejected his offers of marriage and went to Rome as an actress. Starting on the stage, she climbed step by step until she reached Nero’s bed. Ultimately she married him and so became the Empress of the Roman Empire. Paul therefore had good reason to resent both the Jews and the Romans. Paul’s conversion coincided with his being rejected by Popea. He must have been under considerable emotional and mental strain at the time. It is possible that this crisis in his life had some bearing on this sudden change from his being one the greatest supporters of the Jewish Law to one of its greatest enemies.”
Saul progressed well in his studies at Jerusalem, he was a highly successful student and became so recognized that when Yahshua’s followers were being tried for their faith, he was in a position to cast his vote against them, either in a synagogue assembly or in the supreme council of the Jews, “the Sanhedrin.” Judging from his complex personality and Epistles, three apparent main influences must have affected Saul’s mind: “Judaism, Greek philosophy” and the “Mystery Religions.” Saul himself hardly mentions Greek or pagan influences but his very actions and doctrines testify for him.
As one reads the letter Paul wrote as a Christian, it is obvious that he still retained the best beliefs of his teachers. The way Paul wrote, using the Old Testament to prove his theological points, is taken directly from his training as a Pharisee. No one who reads his letter to the Galatians can fail to be amazed by the way Paul draws very unusual meanings from what are quite evident Old Testament passages. For example, Paul argues like a Jewish rabbi when he claims that the promises made to Abraham referred to one single person, Yahshua, because the word “offspring” is singular and not plural.
There was one crucial point, whoever, at which Paul departed from his Jewish heritage. The Jews insisted on a detailed observance, not only of the written Law of the Old Testament, but of traditional laws and customs for which there was no Biblical authority. Paul drove himself into despair as he vainly tried to be a good Pharisee and keep ALL the law. He knew he could never do it, therefore he could never truly know the Father. “Faith” and “grace” then became indispensable.
Of the many philosophical schools of the time, STOICISM was most agreeable to Saul. At least one, if not two, great Stoics came from Tarsus and Saul may have remembered their philosophy from his youth. Some scholars have suggested that Saul’s acquaintance with Stoic philosophy was closer than this.
In 1910, Rudolf Bultmann pointed out that Saul’s reasoning sometimes resembles the Stoic’s arguments. Both use rhetorical questions, short disconnected statements, an imaginary opponent to raise questions, and frequent illustrations drawn from athletics, building, and life in general.
It is even possible to find phrases in Paul’s teaching which could be taken to support Stoic doctrine; for example the statement that “ALL THIS WERE CREATED THROUGH HIM AND FOR HIM. HE IS BEFORE ALL THINGS, AND IN HIM ALL THINGS HOLD TOGETHER.” There is also the fact that in his sermon of Athens, Luke reports that Paul had actually quoted from Aratus (Acts 17:28), who was a well-known Stoic terminology, as when he described morality in terms of what is “fitting or not fitting.”
There are several significant resemblances between the mystery religions and Paul’s Christianity. Both came to Rome from the east. Both offered SALVATION to their followers. Both used initiation rites (baptism) and a sacramental meal (communion). Bot referred to their savior god as “LORD.”
Because of these resemblances between Christianity and the “mysteries” it is apparent that what Paul did was to change the simple ethical teachings of Yahshua into a kind of mystery religion. Comparing the New Testament to the Old is sufficient proof that Christianity is indeed just another mystery (pagan) religion.
Was Paul’s work complementary to that of Peter’s and other “early church leaders;” or was he establishing a different branch of “THE WAY,” a religion that would be different from the original teachings at Jerusalem not only in character, but in belief as well? This was the suggestion put forward in the middle of the nineteenth century by the members of the “Tubingen School” in Germany. Influenced by the great New Testament scholar, Ferdinand Christian Baur, they realized that there was a vast difference between Paul’s type of Christianity and the sort of ECCLESIA founded by Yahshua’s Apostles such as Peter and James.
They saw the whole of the first generation of these religions as a conflict between these rival forms of religious institutions; a conflict that was resolved only with the emergence of the catholic church in the second century. This was not a new idea dreamed up by the members of the “Tubingen School.” Even in the second century, the anonymous authors of the “Clementine Homilies and Recognition” were suggesting that there were irreconcilable differences between Paul and Yahshua’s Apostles. In answer to the question posed at the beginning of this paragraph, NO. Paul’s work was not complimentary to that of the Master’s Apostles, IT WAS CONTRADICTORY.
During the entire period of Yahshua’s ministry, Saul remained the most vicious of the persecutors. He had never met or even seen the Master. It is only upon one occasion that Saul claims to have seen Him and it is a personal claim since no witnesses verified the vision encountered by Saul on his way to Damascus. Because this influential incident is recorded no less than three times in the book of Acts, it may be educational to compare Saul’s three reports.
Foremost however, it may be well to recall that according to the earliest manuscripts, the modern doctrine of the “ascension” does not exist; it is a hoax. This alone is enough to reject Paul’s fabricated event. But for the sake of curiosity, the three narratives should be examined for their inconsistency and contradictory configuration.
“And he (Saul) fell to the earth, and heard a voice... And the men which journeyed with him (Saul) stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no man.” (Acts 9:4, 7)
“And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice...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 22:7, 9)
“And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me...” (Acts 26:14)
In Acts 9, Saul FELL to the ground and his men STOOD speechless but HEARD a voice. In Acts 22, Saul’s men saw the light but HEARD NOT the voice. In Acts 26, all were FALLEN to the earth and Saul HEARD the voice.
In a court of law, this testimony would be rejected and the witness dismissed. These reports cannot be associated with inspired writings; furthermore, Saul’s vision is too correlative with Daniel’s vision, where, instead of becoming blind, Daniel became dumb.
“And when he had spoken such words unto me, I set my face toward the ground, and I became dumb.” (Daniel 10:15)
It is an undisputed historical fact that Paul simply refused to benefit from the easily available opportunity of guidance from those who had been Yahshua’s disciples. Because he could not bear to play “second fiddle,” Paul assumed leadership of the early ECCLESIA through sheer force of his personality. It is indeed very strange that during His ministry, while living amongst His disciples, Yahshua taught them that the Law was under no term to be abolished. He thoroughly engraved upon their minds that they were not to take his teachings to the Gentiles.
“...Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5-6)
And in Matthew 15:24, Yahshua repeats:
“...I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Yet, within a short time after the “crucifixion,” the Master appears in a vision to abrogate His previous teachings. It is strange indeed that He does not appear to His own trained disciples but chooses His bitterest enemy.
Following his conversion, Saul encountered immediate adversity from the Jews in Damascus and was forced to flee the city. Rather than returning to Jerusalem and share the blessed event of his conversion with the Apostles, Saul goes off into the Arabian desert where he allegedly welcomes nearly three years of solitude. How does a city boy survive this rugged monastic desert life? From Damascus, directly east is the desert of Arabia and if one travels father east, at a distance of a little more than thee hundred miles, there stands Babylon. Interestingly enough, the 1905 edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia mentions a Babylonian school for Pharisee training, in the centuries before and after Yahshua.
From the presentation thus far, it is apparent that Saul did not know Yahshua, was not familiar with His teachings, and that his conversion was a fabrication. Now, through circumstantial evidence, it is intended to predicate that, even by way of persecution, the Jews were unsuccessful in their termination attempts directed toward “THE WAY.” Saul, a constituent of the conspiring Pharisee Jews, therefore infiltrated the early church through his conversion scheme, took command, and introduced pagan doctrines to direct Yahshua’s followers from the true teachings.
Since Saul’s conversion was a hoax, and he, never having the status of disciple, how did this self-proclaimed Apostle gain knowledge of Yahshua’s teachings?
While persecuting Yahshua’s followers and simultaneously closing down the early assemblies, Saul amassed “logia and testimonia” which the churches utilized as fundamental guidelines. Saul, following his miraculous conversion, went beyond the desert of Arabia, straight to Babylon where the “logia and testimonia” were thoroughly studied by the Pharisee Jews who were determined to arrest Yahshua’s reintroduction of Yahweh’s Law. Saul was not alone in this conspiracy. The Jews who feared to lose their political influence and their power in religious concerns needed an immediate deterrent. Thus restraint had to be a religious mixture of Yahshua’s teachings and the Babylonian Mysteries, incorporated into one, to insure the domination of clergymen over the populous. And this is exactly what Saul’s mission consisted of; he successfully combined the Mystery religion with Yahshua’s teachings, and “Christianity” was born.
In the beginning, Paul started with a few innovations. Later, the introduction of new ideas within this new religion radically changed Yahshua’s teachings. Innovations introduced by Paul were simply to attract the Gentiles. He started with canceling the law of circumcision. Step by step, these innovations created a faith which more resembled pagan beliefs than the revealed teachings of Yahshua. The very first commandment states:
“Thou shalt have none other gods before me.”
Yet, the Christian church believes in two more gods besides the Creator. Paul had to incorporate the idea of “Trinity” into his teachings as all the known religions of his time believed in a “Triune Deity.”
Paul found it expedient to revoke the law of circumcision as this was the foremost stumbling block for the Gentiles. This he removed by saying that true righteousness did not rest merely upon the removing of the foreskin; but rather it rested on faith. He argued that Abraham was already righteous when he was commanded to be circumcised.
“And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised...” (Romans 4:11)
When the elders at Jerusalem learned of Paul’s contradictive offense, they attempted to rectify the damage and James wrote to the congregations.
“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and not works? Can faith save him? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed into him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.” (James 2:14, 22-23)
Seeing that the Israelite elders still persisted in the strict observation of the Law and strongly resisted Paul’s efforts to introduce innovations, Paul struck upon the idea of doing away with the Law and said:
“Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all.” (Romans 4:15-16)
Abraham is the father of who ALL? Paul strikes out in this declaration. Having disposed of the matter of the Law, to his satisfaction and to the contentment of the Gentiles, Paul now focuses his attention to the “Trinity” of the pagans.
From chapter 2, the reader may recollect the fact that the Pauline Epistles were written long before the Gospels. If taken in chronological order, the Epistles rightfully take precedence in the New Testament and the stereoty0e phrases such as, “It’s mentioned first in the Gospels.” can be put to rest. It is Paul who first recorded his thoughts.
“But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.” (1 Corinthians 2:15)
“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” (Romans 8:9)
“And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son unto your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” (Galatians 4:6)
“...Shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live.” (Hebrews 12:9)
“The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.” (2 Corinthians 11:31)
Compare this last verse with Romans 3:7:
“For if the truth of God hath more abounded through MY LIE unto his glory; why yet am I so judged as a sinner?”
A very important part of the pagan faiths was the belief in a god who was young and handsome and was to have died or mutilated himself for the sake of mankind. These young gods were invariably supposed to be the offsprings of the ruling supreme god. When Paul and the Jews pondered over the matter, they found a perfect solution in historical fact that the Master had been nailed to the cross.
They, and others, who had witnessed the crucifixion believed that Yahshua had died and later when his body was reported not to have been found in the sepulchre, they wondered. This mysterious disappearance of Yahshua could certainly be put to an advantageous purpose. As Paul pondered, he realized the Yahshua’s “crucifixion” could indeed be used to his own advantage.
As the Gentiles were accustomed to worshiping a number of deities, out of which three were held above all, Paul provided three dieties: “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.” This new religion had very little resemblance to “THE WAY,” the belief of Yahshua’s followers.
No doubt, Paul did succeed in bringing the Gentiles into the fold of a religion devised by the Jewish Pharisees and though Paul preached in the name of “Jesus Christ,” his gospel was at complete variance with Yahshua’s teachings. This is why James, Head of the Assembly, considered Paul nothing better than a renegade and a polluted person. James advised Paul to go and cleanse himself:
“Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; Take them, and purify thyself with them...” (Acts 21:23-24)
Paul no doubt achieved tremendous success among the Gentiles through his deviation from Yahshua’s teachings; yet the true Assembly under James remained firm and loyal. James and his fellow elders refused to deviate from the original teachings of the Master. They continued to teach what they ha directly learned from Yahshua and paid no attention to visions that led to the darkness of pagan idolatry. Evidence of the conflict between James and his faithful elders, on the one side, and Paul and his associates on the other, can easily be found in the New Testament. In fact, the New Testament in its present content consists mostly of Paul’s own writings and the remaining books have, for the most part, been altered to support the ideas introduced by the Jew Pharisees and scribes.
It must be remembered that the New Testament was canonized in 325 A.D., at the “council of Nicaea,” where 27 books were selected by a majority vote. Of course, in that congregation the majority was of those who believed in the “Trinity” and other pagan conceptions. Those who represented the true Assembly were a small minority and though they emphatically opposed all abominations, they were threatened into silence. The Bishop of Rome, the head of the majority church, had the support of Emperor Constantine, and few dared to oppose the Bishop and the Emperor.
The books that were accepted in this congregation had little historical evidence as to their authenticity. Truth has remained obscure behind the curtain of uncertainty and skepticism. It is impossible to know for certain the real authors of these books. The claim that these books were inspired has now been disproved by many scholars.
The fact remains that Paul did succeed in his purpose, and his concepts and ideas were welcomed by the Gentiles. Paul’s religion prevailed everywhere; it was a “universal” religion. Does this mean that Paul was a divinely inspired reformer and worked under the Divine command?
“But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.” (Deuteronomy 18:20)
“Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Because ye have spoken vanity, and seen lies, therefore, behold, I am against you, saith the Lord God. And mine hand shall be upon the prophets that see vanity, and that divine lies: they shall not be in the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel, neither shall they enter into the land of Israel; and ye shall know that I am the Lord God.” (Ezekiel 13:8-9)
Yahshua, who preached the truth to Israelites, did not die. Paul who peached to the Gentile assembly...it is known how he met his end.
In further pursuit of Paul’s claim to apostleship, this writer quotes:
“The time is perhaps coming when the Church will have to make up its mind whether its teaching shall be based upon the teachings of Jesus or upon the Christianity of Paul.” (Holmes-Gore, Rev. V.A.; Ferrier Todd; The Distortion of Christianity. Extract from Christ or Paul? p. 11)
These words spoken by Dr. Hastings Rashdall in a sermon delivered in Hereford Cathedral in 1911 express the conviction held by many that our Christianity is more Pauline than Christian.
The same truth has been expressed with typical frankness by Bernard Shaw, who says:
“There has really never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of the limitation of Paul’s Soul upon the Soul of Jesus.” (Holmes-Gore, Rev. V.A.; Ferrier Todd; The Distortion of Christianity. Extract from Christ or Paul? p. 11)
And more recently, the Rev. Reginald F. Rynd, writing in the October 1940 issue of the “Hibbert Journal,” says the fact that Paul’s Gospel was triumphant is no proof that it was the logical development of primitive tradition. Indeed, the more one ponders over the question of Paul’s’ ascendancy in the early Church the more unaccountable does it become. The Master is said to have spent a considerable proportion of His ministry training twelve disciples to form the nucleus of a Christian fellowship and carry on the work when He was no longer with them.
But what happened? It appears that almost as soon as He left them, Paul arrived on the scene and told them that they were on quite the wrong lines, and that his version of the Gospel was the real one. It is hardly surprising that they were loath to receive him and that a bitter and lengthy controversy went on between him and the disciples.
The author of the Acts of the Apostles has succeeded in making the disagreement as slight as possible, but other writings in the New Testament give unmistakable signs that it was much more serious and fundamental than Acts cares to admit. The Pauline Epistles reveal that there was a bitter controversy between Paul and Peter, and also between Paul and James.
Many would agree that the Epistle of James is intended to counteract the influence of Romans, but Ernest Renan would go further and say that the Epistle of Jude is a letter written against Paul, and that anti-Pauline references are to be found in the Revelation. Thus, in his “History of the Origins of Christianity” (Book III, St. Paul) he says that anti-Pauline letters were sent from Jerusalem in the name of the Apostles, and adds:
“It is possible that a specimen of these letters may have been preserved for us in the Epistle of Jude.”
The Epistle of Jude, he goes on to say
“...is a manifesto of the most violent description against nameless adversaries, who are represented as rebels and impure men. The style has much analogy with the style of the Epistle of James.” (Holmes-Gore, Rev. V.A.; Ferrier Todd; The Distortion of Christianity. Extract from Christ or Paul? p. 12)
After quoting verses 3 to 18 of the Epistle of Jude, Renan goes on to say:
“Paul from this moment was for a section of the Church one of the most dangerous of heretics, a false Jew, a false Apostle, a new Balaam, a Jezebel, a villain who prophesied the destruction of the temple, in two words, a Simon Magnus...They were accustomed to designate the Apostle of the Gentiles by the sobriquet of Nicholas (Conqueror of the People), a name akin to Balaam. His disciples for the same reason were called Nicolaitans...His gospel was a false Gospel...Paul was the ‘frivolous man’ of whom the Gentiles have received the doctrine which is opposed to the Law; his visions, which he calls ‘depths of God,’ they qualified as the ‘depth of Satan,’ his Churches they named the ‘Synagogues of Satan;’ in spite of Paul, they proclaim boldly that the Twelve on are the foundation of the Church of Christ.” (Holmes-Gore, Rev. V.A.; Ferrier Todd; The Distortion of Christianity. Extract from Christ or Paul? p. 15)
The theologians Baur and Volk mar agree with Renan that the reference to “Nicolaitans” in the Revelation is a covert attack on Paul. The “Nicolaitans” were an antinomian sect who abused the doctrine, emphasized by Paul, of Gentile liberty from the Mosaic Law.
Early in the last century, the theologians of the Tubingen School had perceived the serious nature of the conflict between Paul and the other disciples. And though we cannot accept all their conclusions, they did well to stress the conflict which so many have tried to conceal or ignore. That the difference of opinion between them was very sharp is shown by Paul’s violent attacks on all who taught another Gospel.
Thus we read:
“I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in grace of Christ unto a different gospel; which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received (from me), let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:6-9)
“For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.” (2 Corinthians 11:4)
The followers of Baur (one of the chief theologians of the Tubingen School) held the theory that Simon Magus, who is mentioned in the eighth chapter of Acts, is really a “pseudonym” for Paul. They pointed out that Simon claimed to be the power of god which is called Great, and Paul calls his Gospel the Power of God (Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 1:18), and claims that the power of Yahshua rested in himself (2 Corinthians 12:9). Moreover, in the “Clementine Recognition iii, 49, Simon is called “a chosen vessel for evil,” which recalls Paul’s own claim to be a chosen vessel. (Acts 9:15)
In Acts 8, the power of bestowing the Holy Ghost, which Philip does not appear to have exercised, is clearly represented as the special prerogative of the apostles. When, therefore, Simon offered money for the power of conferring the Holy Ghost, it was really to obtain the rank of Apostle.
This is interpreted as a cryptic account of the refusal of the older Apostles to admit Paul’s claim to rank with them, backed though it was by a gift of money for the poor saints in Jerusalem.
Peter tells him that he has no lot in the matter, i.e., no part in the lot of the Apostleship (See Acts 1:17, 25); and that he is still in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity, i.e., full of bitter hatred against Peter. (Galatians 2:11)
Baur himself pointed out that in the Clementine Literature, in the disputations between Simon Magus and Peter, some of the claims Simon is represented as making (e.g., that of having seen the Master, not in his lifetime, yet subsequently in vision) were really the claims of Paul; and urged that Peter’s refutation of Simon was in some places intended as polemic against Paul.
Moreover, the Clementine Literature is notable for its hostility to Paul and its Ebonite and Essen Doctrines. A remarkable passage which occurs both in “the clementine Homilies” and in “the Clementine Recognitions” contains a warning that the tempter who had contended in vain with the Master would afterwards send Apostles of deceit, and therefore the converts are cautioned against receiving any teacher who had not first compared his doctrine with that of James, lest the devil should send a preacher of error to them, even as he had raised up Somon as an opponent to Peter. Thus we read:
“Remember to shun [an] apostle or teacher or prophet who does not first accurately compare his preaching with [that of] James, who was called the brother of my Lord, and to whom was entrusted to administer the church of the Hebrews in Jerusalem...wherefore He who hath sent us, said, ‘Many shall come to me in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits ye shall know them.’” (Holmes-Gore, Rev. V.A.; Ferrier Todd; The Distortion of Christianity. Extract from Christ or Paul? p. 14)
Murray’s Dictionary of Christian Biography admits “it need not be disputed that in this passage Paul is referred to, his preaching being spoken of in the future tense as dramatic propriety required, since the action of the story is laid at a time before his conversion.” (Holmes-Gore, Rev. V.A.; Ferrier Todd; The Distortion of Christianity. Extract from Christ or Paul? p. 15)
In the letter of Peter prefixed to “the Clementine Homilies,” we cannot doubt that Paul is assailed as the enemy who taught that the obligations of the Mosaic Law were not perpetual, and who unwarrantably represented Peter himself as concurring in teaching which he entirely repudiated.
Again, in the Laodicean disputation in “the Clementine Homilies” xvii, 13-20, an argument takes place as to whether evidence of the senses or that of supernatural vision is more trustworthy; and it is made to appear that Simon Magus claims to have obtained, by means of a vision of the Master, knowledge of Him superior to that which Peter had gained during his year of personal converse with Him!
And Peter says to Simon Magus:
“...why should Christ have remained with his disciples and instructed them a whole year, if it were possible for one to be made teacher at once by vision? If, however, thou hast been made an apostle after having been instructed by Him in a brief and momentary manifestation, then preach His words, love His apostles, and fight not against me who have lived in His society.” (Homily xvii, c. 19)
The curious and erroneous idea that the Master’s ministry lasted only one year is found even in writers of the first century, and is probably due to a misinterpretation of the Master’s saying He had come to proclaim the accepted year of the Lord. (See Luke 4:19)
In this section phrases are introduced which occur in the notice of the dispute at Antioch between Peter and
Paul, contained in the Epistle to the Galatians.
Murray’s Dictionary of Christian Biography admits “it need not be doubted that in this section of “the Homilies” the arguments nominally directed against Simon are really intended to depreciate the claims of Paul.” (Holmes-Gore, Rev. V.A.; Ferrier Todd; The Distortion of Christianity. Extract from Christ or Paul? p. 15) This was the main passage that gave rise to Baur’s theory which led to so much speculation on the identification of Paul and Simon.
And though some ingenious theologians appear to have over-reached themselves in their anxiety to turn every reference to Simon Magus into a diatribe against Paul, it is highly significant that there was such tremendous opposition to Paul in the early Assembly.;
In the so-called “pseudo-epistle” of Peter to James, prefixed to “the Clementines,” the unnamed enemy who had falsified the doctrine preached by Peter is clearly Paul, for Peter says:
“I see already the beginning of the evil; for some of the Gentiles have rejected the doctrines taught by me, which are in harmony with the Law, having adopted an anti-legal and fabulous doctrine from the man who is my enemy. Nay, some have attempted, even during my lifetime, to wrest my words, by various false interpretations, to the subversion of the Law as if I also were really, though I did not openly express it, of the same opinion.” (Holmes-Gore, Rev. V.A.; Ferrier Todd; The Distortion of Christianity. Extract from Christ or Paul? p. 17)
Another interesting statement attributed to Peter by “the Homilies” is the opinion that the false Gospel must first be spread by a deceiver (presumably Paul), and then after the destruction of the holy place (i.e., the Temple at Jerusalem) the true Gospel must be secretly disseminated. (Homily ii, c. 17)
Another lesser-known document which was anti-Pauline is the “Ascents of Jesus.” This is described by Bishop Lightfoot as a Judeo-Christian work stamped with the most distinctive Essen features; it is referred to in “Epiphanius” (Haer. xxx, 16), who says it represented James as condemning sacrifices, and published a number of columnies against Paul.
It would seem that a number of anti-Pauline writings which were current in the early Assembly were either lost or suppressed by the supporters of Paul...In fact, it is obvious that the Gospels in their original form must have been very different from what they are today. Among the documents which were lost or suppressed was the Gospel of Hebrews, or Nazarene Gospel. Ernest Renan says:
[continued in Part Two]