Monday, May 26, 2014

Paul is Irrelevant

Paul is irrelevant.

His own teachings bear out how irrelevant he is. He says everything was fulfilled in Christ. If that was the case, then why do we need Paul? He said he speaks as a fool. I'd suggest he shut his stupid mouth then and let Jesus do the talking, and incidentally for the second largest writer in the New Testament, I have only been able to find two places where he quotes Jesus. Is this the gospel of Jesus Christ or of Paul here? Paul does not falter even on this question. He says clearly, 

"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ,  according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began..." [Romans 16:25]

He makes the perfect case against himself.

I've never quite noticed... The common response says the 'my' here doesn't function as personally possessive with respect to Paul, but refers to the Gospel broadly. It gets a little creepty when you notice he refers to 'my gospel' but with respect to Christ, he only says Christ's 'preaching'. It almost seems that he's trying to minimalize Christ's role in redemption.

But I'm afraid the bad news does not stop there. What does he mean when he says 'kept secret since the  world began'? Is it a secret even today or has it already been revealed?

"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen..." [Galatians 1:15,16]

In Paul's mind, the terminal point in God's redemption of man is not in the person of Christ, but rather, God "called [Paul] by his grace, to reveal the Son in [him]."

My, my. This is pretty deep stuff.

Seriously, the greatest apostle of a religion quotes the founder on two occasions in nearly a hundred pages of ramblings, saying he boasts of this and that, he boasts he's the greatest of the apostles and that the apostles Jesus selected were nothing to him and only thought they were something but weren't.

In Galatians 2, he pulls no punches. He makes clear that there is a false leadership in Jerusalem, led by Peter and James and he defies it.

"But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me... 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. [Galatians 2:6,9]

In Paul's books, the leader of the entire church is only a 'something', a 'somewhat', a pretended 'pillar'. They 'added nothing to me'. This is mutiny. At the least it's tacky and it's definitely gossip.

He's so great, they added nothing to him. You might say, Oh, the symbols, this is all metaphor, you must read so carefully! Okay, let's try that for a second. Let's see what else Sha'ul has to say.

"For I suppose that I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." [2 Corinthians 11:5]

MY GOD. Okay, so maybe I would go along with the whole, it's all a metaphor, don't take it so seriously.  But how clear do you have to get to see that he is a seditionist, a mutineer, an infiltrator? Did he ever offer approval to the apostolic ministry?

"But Peter... I withstood him to his face."

You see, he did not gently lay criticism upon the Apostle. He didn't take him into the side in quiet like Jesus said in Matthew 17.

"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone..." [Matthew 18:15]

Rather what Paul does is to maliciously slander Peter and to go to the third recourse for selfish gain.

Jesus went on to say about the second recourse, "But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." [Matthew 18:16]

And then and only then, "...if he shall neglect to hear [even] them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." [Matthew 18:17]

By going to the third recourse, he snipes at the authority of Peter to suggest that Peter is subject to Paul rather than the other way around.

It also very cleverly takes advantage of Peter's character weaknesses. Anyone who is familiar with Peter's history, as we as witnesses are, know that Peter had quite some crises to deal with in his character. For Paul to gin up a controversy when there is none actually tends to take in most witnesses, who see this as just another personal failing of Peter.

Paul is not merely a snake. He is an incredibly slick snake.

Here in this same chapter, he continues in this line of preposterous blasphemies:

"As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia." [2 Corinthians 11:10]


This is so bizarre, in that elsewhere he notes the 'Mediator, the man Christ Jesus'. Can even this holy man  Jesus stop Paul in his blasphemous crimes? It seems He did not stop Paul.

He says people must accept his revelation that God's revelation in the Torah is expired and is a curse to be done away with. He says on circumcision, he disagrees with circumcision and says his opponents should go
all the way and cut their whole penises off.

Let's play a little game. Who said the following:



"Cut your penis off!"

Charles Manson.. or.. the Apostle Paul?
 The correct answer is: Paul!
  ("Brothers and sisters, if I’m still preaching circumcision, why am I still being harassed? In that case, the offense of the cross would be canceled. I wish that the ones who are upsetting you would castrate themselves!" Galatians 5:11,12 CEB)

"I gave him over to Satan."

Charles Manson.. or.. the Apostle Paul? 

The correct answer is: Paul!
 (I have delivered [Hymeneaus and Alexander] over to Satan... 1 Timothy 1:20)

Who said the following?

"Do you feel blame? Are you mad? Uh, do you feel like wolf kabob Roth vantage? Gefrannis booj pooch boo jujube; bear-ramage. Jigiji geeji geeja geeble Google. Begep flagaggle vaggle veditch-waggle bagga?"

Ooh.. this is a tough one.

The correct answer is: Paul! oh wait, hold up a sec. I got my notes mixed up.

The correct answer is: Charles Manson!


                                                  
This 'Paul' character, or should I say Sha'ul, speaks as one possessed and is guilty of what he says for everyone else. He only thinks he is something. He has added nothing but confusion to this "Christian" church. He says he teaches Christ? The man has taught against God and His laws and Paul will be damned to hell for his lies.

7 comments:

  1. I do not have much to say. Who is your Savior, Jesus or "the Apostle Paul"? You are lying if you say Jesus and you a part of a congregation that teaches Paul more that Jesus.
    Jesus, in Matthew 5:16-20 states so clearly that the Law of GOD, not the law of Moses will continue. Paul changed his own name; GOD did not change it like HE changed the names of Abraham and Israel. Paul had to promote himself because no one else did!
    Anyone who is not entrenched in the traditions of man can see that Romans 6:14 is an anti-GOD statement. If everything else that Paul said was right, I, Jesse Van Myers, would not be able to forget his greatest error--..."for ye are not under the law, but under grace".

    ReplyDelete
  2. READ GALATIANS 1:8 where this lying bastard even claims to be better than "angels from Heaven"!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I DO NOT REMEMBER WHAT MY STATE OF MIND WAS ON LAST MAY, BUT I WROTE "APOSTLE" TWICE CLOSE TO DECEITFUL PAUL!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sometimes this site requires me to go to my password before publishing. In the above comment, I didn't write a bunch of stuff that could be rejected.

    Now to 1Timothy 1:20. This short verse contains a ton of nonsense. If Paul worked for Jesus, why would he send Hymenaeus and Alexander to the devil?

    If Paul were a man of GOD and follower of Jesus, he would have forgiven them and prayed for them.

    Then the most stupid of his remarks, "...that they may learn not to blaspheme". Satan is the master of blasphemies! That makes as much sense as a farmer locking his chicken-eating dog in the henhouse so as to learn not to kill chickens!

    ReplyDelete
  5. As I was researching Alexander, I came across Acts, Chapter 19 @ verses 1-5 where Paul re-baptized some who had been baptized by John. This impostor is saying that the baptism by John was not good. Therefore, the Baptism of Jesus by John was inferior to that of Paul, according to Paul?

    ReplyDelete
  6. For the last year, I have been absent from e-Preacher and tardy on this site. These reductions in publications are due to my obtaining a smart phone. I have been deleted on FaceBook from trashing impostor paul than any other reason or excuse!!

    ReplyDelete