Saturday, May 3, 2014
This in EXCELLENT general overview outlining the main reasons/evidence proving Saul of Tarsus to be a false apostle. Highly recommend that all read this.
He was AN antichrist, no doubt.
For those of you who DOUBT that Paul was a false apostle,
please pray for wisdom and read the following text. If you
can explain away all of these facts, you are either blind, or
completely given over to your own delusion and deception.
Who are you going to believe....Paul.....or.....Christ?
This is something that was shown to me by the Spirit of God over 20 years ago, and those who are willing to be intellectually and biblically honest will at least prayerfully study this subject and let the Scriptures explain the Scriptures through the Spirit of God. I know others will have the knee-jerk reaction and will post on the subject in the same fashion.
Paul is a FALSE APOSTLE. His writings, along with the 325 Council of Nicea have led most "christians" into the abyss through division, half-truths, bad doctrine, false teachings, and the flat out heresy of teaching the doctrine of Balaam. Don't believe it?
Brethren, as Isaiah once said, "Come, let us reason together"......
1: Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
2: I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
Keep in mind, the preceding words were spoken BY CHRIST HIMSELF. In addressing each of the seven churches in Revelation, Christ either CONDEMNS the church for what they are doing WRONG, (and warns them to repent), COMMENDS the church for what they are doing RIGHT (and encourages them to hold on), or, a little of both.
In REV 2:1-2, Christ is COMMENDING the EPHESIANS (the church at Ephesus) for realizing that they were being led astray by "false apostles". And who were the "apostles" to the Ephesians? Paul and Barnabas !!!
Is Christ somehow confused? Doesn't Christ KNOW that PAUL is the "apostle" to the Ephesians?
Is it possible that someone else claimed to be the apostle to the Ephesians, and that someone other than PAUL was teaching heresy and lies to the Ephesians? NO. It is not possible. In fact, Paul plainly states in his own writings, that he does not preach Christ where any other man has preached Christ before.
20: Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation
So according to Paul's own words, he is the FIRST man to preach (the previously "unnamed" Christ) to the Ephesians.
And of course, who wrote "Ephesians"? Paul did. But can Paul be proven a liar? Was Paul teaching the doctrine of Balaam?
The following doctrine comes from Pauline Christianity....
I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Now in attempting to protect a false apostle, one might claim that Paul did not write the book of Romans. The problem with this false claim, is that every doctrine espoused by Paul is consistently taught through every book that he wrote. Consistent through Paul's writings, for one instance, is the eating of unclean meats.
1 TIMOTHY 4
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
Paul is clearly lying here, as proven by Ezekiel who states that you cannot make the unclean thing to be a clean thing....but more of that in a moment. Are there other passages that point to Paul stating that you can eat not only UNCLEAN MEATS, but MEATS sacrificed unto IDOLS?
1 COR 8:8-10
But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
So according to Paul, if you pray over your unclean meat, it suddenly becomes clean.
According to Paul, only the "weak" fail to understand the his doctrine, which is exactly OPPOSITE
of the doctrine as taught by the prophets, not to mention the MESSIAH HIMSELF.
Paul goes as far as to say that we should not let people judge us as to eating these unclean meats in COL 2:16. And it should be noted (above 1 COR 8:10), the idea of it being a STUMBLING BLOCK to the "weak". Paul says throughout this chapter that you shouldn't eat these unclean meats in front of "weak" believers because it could be a "stumblingblock"....
Okay, so we know what Paul's doctrine is on unclean and meats sacrificed unto idols.
But what does CHRIST say is the stumblingblock?
But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
How can anyone defend Paul's teaching of this false doctrine and STUMBLINGBLOCK?....which is
the very doctrine that CHRIST CONDEMNS as a stumbling block and the doctrine of Balaam?
Let's see what Ezekiel says:
Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between
the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean
You cannot make unclean meats, or meats sacrificed to idols CLEAN by praying over them.
This is CHRIST'S doctrine, taught by the prophets, but NOT PAUL.
The UNCHANGING God of the Old Testament told His prophets that you cannot make the profane into something HOLY, and Christ, "the same yesterday, and to today, and FOREVER", still CONDEMNS the practice of eating the unclean and profane (REV 2:14, above)....Did God and Christ change their mind on "the unclean/profane/meat sacrificed to idols", and ONLY PAUL is privy to this
Paul was CLEARLY teaching the doctrine of Balaam, and if you can't see it, it is because you are spiritually BLIND to the subject.
Again, I am not saying that everything that Paul wrote is a lie, but nonetheless, he IS the LIAR and FALSE APOSTLE to the Ephesians, as stated BY CHRIST HIMSELF in Revelation 2. Now, can Paul be documented as a liar elsewhere in Scripture?
Before moving forward, let's look at what happened in Jerusalem, when Paul met with the TRUE PILLARS of New Jerusalem, the apostles chosen by Christ. Paul is telling Peter, James and John that "the whole of the law" cannot be dumped on the gentiles, as all of Israel failed the Law and God's Covenant. So, the apostles, along with Paul, agree to FOUR CRITERIA of the Law that MUST BE maintained, even by the gentiles.
1) NO MEATS/OFFERINGS sacrificed to IDOLS
2) NO drinking of blood
3) NO eating meats strangled to death (imagine the adrenaline pumped into the flesh by the animal being strangled)
4) NO fornication
These FOUR REQUIREMENTS are listed three times in ACTS, to which Paul, the false apostle, agrees upon teaching.
(read ACTS 15:20, ACTS 15:29, ACTS 21:25)
Although Paul lied in agreement with the REAL APOSTLES in Jerusalem, Paul DID NOT TEACH what they AGREED UPON at ALL.
He taught the EXACT opposite, as documented above in 1 TIM 4:4-5, 1 COR 8: 8-10, COL 2:16, etc. And if you want to catch Paul DIRECTLY LYING, read his account of when he met up with the REAL APOSTLES in Jerusalem:
9: And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave
to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10: Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
In this passage, Paul is referencing his meeting in Jerusalem, meeting the REAL APOSTLES,and WHAT THEY DISCUSSED with him.
Paul nakedly states that the only thing they agreed upon in Jerusalem, was to give ALMS TO THE POOR. Which, profoundly, was NEVER MENTIONED in the book of ACTS. Paul does not tell the Galatians: 1) NO meats sacrificed to IDOLS; 2) NO drinking blood;
3) NO strangled meats; 4) NO fornication. Nope. Paul doesn't even mention it.
He deductively lies by omission, and then says that "helping the poor" was the only thing they agreed upon in Jerusalem. In fact, Paul pridefully boasts that the REAL APOSTLES "added nothing to him" (GALATIANS 2:6).
Does Paul meet the criteria set by the REAL APOSTLES?
After the death of Judas, Peter realizes from the Psalms that "one should take his place"; and the real apostles again set
FOUR CRITERIA for choosing the replacement apostle (ACTS 1:20-26). These are the four criteria:
1) The new apostle had to have been with them (the apostles, Christ, and the crowd which followed) from the beginning
2) The new apostle had to have seen the miracles performed by Christ
3) The new apostle had to have seen Christ crucified
4) The new apostle had to have seen Christ resurrected
Brethren, which of these FOUR CRITERIA does Paul meet? Only the fourth, and that is if we choose to believe Paul the liar, in his ever-changing story about his "conversion" on the road to Damascus. Oh, I have no doubt Paul may have seen a bright light on the road to Damascus, but the serpent/nachash is by definition a "shining one"....The first time Paul tells this story, he said he saw a bright light that told him to seek out Ananias, and that Ananias would give him further instruction. The second time Paul tells this story, he says that he saw CHRIST, and that CHRIST told him he was the new apostle to the gentiles. But let us take into consideration the first claim, that he was told to seek out Ananais. This person is directly related to Caiaphas, the high priest who sought to have the Messiah killed. Why would Christ send Paul, a persecutor of his followers, to receive instruction from the high priest which sought to have Him (Messiah) killed in the first place? It makes absolutely no sense at all.
With the Paul issue set aside for a moment, let's look at a great possibility as to WHY the real apostles voted for Matthias.
Ever hear of the Q-Source, sometimes called the Q-Document? Personally, I read of this document decades ago, and the commentary regarding this document strained my understanding. Let me explain. This document is contemporary to the times of the apostles, and many theologians have theorized that all four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written FROM this one source.
Granted, many people use the Q-Source as a way of discounting the four gospels,
as they were, "copied" from this one text. As believers, we need to understand this document....and here is my hypothesis: I believe that the four gospels were not "copied", per se, but that this document was "referenced" by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, years later, after they realized they should commit their experiences with Christ to paper/papyrus.
Indeed, if you have studied the gospels as I have, the reader will notice that there are times when the commentary goes from a first person narrative, to a second person narrative; hinting that the four gospels did in fact come from referencing one source, the Q document.
So who wrote the Q document? As the apostles were going to vote on who should replace Judas, is it possible that Matthias was chosen NOT ONLY because he met the FOUR CRITERIA as decided by the apostles, but because he (Matthias), while not being directly involved or distracted, WROTE DOWN WHAT WAS HAPPENING all through Christ's ministry?
This would not only explain WHY the apostles chose Matthias, but it would bring an
end to the "controversy" over the four gospels using the Q-Source as a reference.
That is food for thought....but as far as Saul of Tarsus goes....He was a pharisee, and was directly involved with the murders of countless Christians. Paul stood by, holding the coats of those who stoned Stephen. Paul was on his way to Damascus for yet more killing, as authorized by the high priest Caiaphas. Again I would ask:
Why would Christ appear to this murderer, and tell Paul to seek the advice of Caiaphas' relative, Ananais? It just makes no sense at all....Unless Caiaphas had ulterior motives, like destroying Christianity from within, by installing a false apostle that would lead millions astray through false teachings like the acceptance of the doctrine of Balaam.
All divisions in Christianity come from PAUL and his writings.
1) Works vs. faith - a Pauline doctrine
2) John's Baptism vs. Paul's "baptism of spirit"
3) Confusion on "speaking in tongues"
4) Confusion on "the rapture"
5) Ridiculous doctrine of the "uncircumcision"
Paul's hypocrisy is astounding once you open your eyes to it. He says that to get circumcised makes void the Cross of Christ, yet he kowtows and has Timothy circumcised.
Paul says the Law is a BURDEN. (ACTS 15:10 and throughout Paul's writings)
Paul says the Law is a CURSE (GALATIANS 3:10)
Christ said his yoke was light. (MATTHEW 11:30)
Paul says that the Messiah is the end of the law (ROMANS 3:28; 10:4)
Christ said he came NOT to change the Law, a "jot or tittle". (MAT 5:18; LUKE 16:17)
Paul says he is convinced there is "no unclean thing" (ROMANS 14:14)
Christ HATES the doctrine of Balaam, which teaches acceptance of the unclean. (REV 2:2)
Paul says, "be ye followers of me" (1 COR 4:16)
Christ says we are to follow HIM (LUKE 9:59).
Paul testified of himself and a "special revelation" (GALATIANS 1:12)
Christ testified NOT of HIMSELF (JOHN 5:30-31)
Paul said those who are justified by the law, are fallen from grace (GALATIANS 5:4)
Paul said that the Law was "the death of him" (ROMANS 7:9-10)
Christ said "to enter into life, keep the commandments" (MATTHEW 19:17)
Christ said "if you love me, keep my commandments" (JOHN 14:15)
Paul, collectively, speaks of himself -- "I, PAUL," -- and uses the personal pronoun "I" more than the name of Jesus. Interestingly, the Greek word for "I" is EGO. Christ said:
He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. (JOHN 7:18)
Christ came in His Father's name, and as seen throughout Paul's writings, Paul clearly came in his own name. "if another come in his own name, he you will receive" (JOHN 5:43).
Paul admits to being a pharisee (ACTS 26:5, PHILLIPIANS 3:5)
Christ says beware of the leaven of the pharisees (MATTHEW 16:6)
Paul says he is CONVINCED that unclean meats are okay, and that
circumcision is not necessary. (COL 2:16; ROMANS CHAPTER 2-4)
Christ said whoever teaches against the law is the least in heaven. (MATTHEW 5:19)
Paul says "Christ is the end of the Law" (ROMANS 10:4)
Christ said he came NOT TO DESTROY the LAW. (MATTHEW 5:17)
Paul says he is a "father" of Christ's churches. (1 COR 4:15; PHILEMON 1:10)
Christ said CALL NO MAN FATHER, but He who is in heaven. (MATTHEW 23:9)
Paul says there is a structure to Christ's church, containing apostles, prophets,
evangelists, pastors/shepherds, and teachers. (EPHESIANS 4:11)
Christ said there is ONE FLOCK, and ONE SHEPHERD (JOHN 10:16)
Paul says there are many leaders of Christ's church (1COR 4:15)
Christ said the Messiah is (MATTHEW 23:5)
And this is just a spattering of the evidence the Spirit of God has witnessed to me against Paul, the false apostle and liar, as recognized by the Ephesians, an action COMMENDED by Christ Himself, in REVELATION 2:2.
Some people try to defend Paul by quoting what other (real) apostles said about him. But keep in mind this, the apostles were just men, prone to deception like all men. And don't overlook how many of the real apostles spoke of the false apostles and teachers already in their midst. Lastly, the Spirit told the apostles NOT to go into Asia (ACTS 16:6),...but after being found as a false apostle, where did Paul go? Into ASIA (ACTS 20:16, 2 COR 1:8).
Lastly, one must realize that not only do the divisions in Christ's church come from Paul's writings, but that these writings were CHOSEN BY MEN to be included in the Bible.
What better way was there, to unite the SUN CULT'S pagan rituals with Christianity, other than Paul's deceitful writings? Remember that the church at Ephesus was previously the temple of Diana (ACTS 19:28), and what better way to try and "convert" the Ephesians to Paul's pagan, lawless version of Christ's message, than to say it is OKAY to still eat the meats sacrificed to DIANA?
Now, I know that this post is going to upset a whole bunch of people who are deceived into following Paul's lawless version of "salvation through grace"...And as John said in his epistle, "it is the Spirit of God that teacheth all deep things"....I pray that everyone who reads this post inquires to the SPIRIT of GOD, and seeks to find the truth of this matter.