Monday, March 11, 2013
"Paul Says" (Part Two) from Willie Martin Archive
[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]