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.

The Succession of Prophets and Paul

The Succession of Prophets

Why We Reject Paul

Supposing his words are almost without error. This does not make them scripture. Scripture was only breathed through the prophets.

Furthermore, there are prophets throughout history and into the present.

Nevertheless, these prophets since the time of Christ have no authority to alter canon by either addition or negation. The most power they have is to aid in making its true and ancient meaning obvious for the average reader. In this sense, they have an extreme gift for interpretation and one of their tasks is to make Scripture known.

But on the question of the succession several points should be made.

I. Several hundred years after the time of Christ, a man came along, preaching in the name of the prophets and that he was a valid succession and he came preaching a final revelation. His name was Muhammad and his book is called the Qu'ran.

II. Sometime after Muhammad came and went, another came saying he was a valid succession from the line of Muhammad. He had one additional revelation. The Muslims were split down the middle into Sunni and Shi'a camps.

III. Even further down the road came a man named Ba'ha'ullah. He said that he too was in the tradition of the former prophets and a continuation even of Muhammad. He vastly revolutionized the Islamic faith, and today, we call it the Ba'hai faith, and we laugh at its adherents who shun any visual representation of Ba'ha'ullah, except the more sensitive and politically correct among us, of course.

IV. Still we have other self-proclaimed prophets. Among them was one by the name Mary Baker Eddy, professing a new doctrine, but still in the succession of Christ and the prophets. She bestowed on her generation and posterity the nutty Christian Science.

V. As things always were, and still today, we had characters such as Charles Taze Russell and his ilk, who rewrote the entire Bible to their own liking. We have doctrines novel to the modern era even, including theosophy pioneered by Blavatsky, L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology, and still we have an endless plethora of teachings, new ones for every people in every generation. And a lot of them conspicuously claim the authority granted in succession, who, while they may not use this language, they pay due respect to the prophets of old and to the Messiah, whose system their new theories pretend to be a continuation of, though they do lie.

_________________________

And we are convinced at every juncture of history, at every opportunity that it has had to either invalidate or to confirm this teaching, it has provided more and more corroboration since the beginning that the final revelations of canonical stature, that is, deserving to be admired on the level of purely God-breathed, prophetically inspired teaching, was finished at the time of Christ.

Any subsequent revelation, no matter how true, must unquestionably take a back seat to the Law and the Prophets and Christ. There is nothing beyond the words of Christ in the which a man might be saved. No Peter, no Paul, no Pope, can effect upon us a greater or more perfect salvation than that found in Christ. And this does not mean that their writings are not of substantial value, but that they are not necessary to salvation.

We of the anti-Paul sect, in our deliberate investigations of history, conclude that Paul is a usurper and a progenitor of novel doctrines foreign to the teachings of Christ, that in the Church age, his teachings have overshadowed and have been lauded to a greater height than those of Christ, and that he is merely another, yet at the beginning, of a long line of pretenders, claiming themselves to be a continuation in the sense of succession, with every affirmation in their words to the ministry of the Prophets and the Christ, but who in deed have overthrown the ministries of the Prophets and the Christ.

Our firm resolution is to regard anything attributed to the pen of the pretended Apostle Paul as wholly subject to error, as already containing a disastrous number of errors, and if esteemed as being worthy of consideration at all, to be esteemed as such only in a secondary sense of being the fifth wheel to all portions of Scripture, and whose plain meaning can never be accepted to invalidate portions of the prolegomena but must be read entirely in light of prolegomena. Insofar as it negates it, the epistles should be dismissed. Insofar as it confirms or illuminates, it should be heralded as a valuable insight but never to sit beside Holy and God-breathed Scripture.

The Enormity of Discrepancies in Paul's Writings versus what the Churches Teach

Some of us are more than aware of the spiritual sickness of the human soul. We are consumed by it, we are frankly afflicted by it and we are helpless to resist it. Thus it is God we seek to save us really from ourselves. Then we have another group that I think have a head knowledge of this sickness, might pay lip service to it but show no continuing conviction that they are helpless outside themselves without God to nourish them continually with the ability to resist temptation.

What I want to bring to the attention of people here is that one of the cornerstones of orthodoxy has always been that there were men of a particular generation, empowered with a grace from God to determine questions of canonicity, they were afforded an infallible status and that their decision on what should be considered "Scripture" was final. It never really was final though because there were continuing debates for much of the next 1300 years. It was only in the 1800s when there was finally a complete elimination of the Apocrypha from the King James Bible. Early in American history it was not abnormal for most family Bibles to include those books. So if religious men weren't even sure of what was the inspired writings belonging to a class of authoritative scriptures into even the last couple hundred years, it makes no sense to say that the debate is over today.

My suggestion here is that what was taking place was fallible men, who were as vulnerable to fault and error as anyone else. They were not empowered to make the decision on what to include.

What is God's word for us? His commandments? What is His revelation?

Many zealous men began ascribing to a selection of letters certain statuses or designations, identifying them as the Word of God.  The idea of orthodoxy, is that God first empowered certain men to write down injunctions and commentary, as well as historical narrative, on things He saw fit to describe. These writings were given an indestructible status. At some point in the future, a group of men were empowered to collect and assemble these words into one final publication and these were infallible decisions. If that succession of events fails in one of the transits from one point to the next, orthodoxy begins to unravel.

The primary views on inspiration/inerrancy:

I. A number of Christians who believe the Bible is perfect and inspired. They accept its claims uncritically, with no examination. That if they are told anything or read anything that seems to be contradicted by it the claim must be rejected

II. A number of unbelievers (really all of them) who believe it is not perfect, not inspired, and is more or less false. There is no more reason to believe it than believe Bozo the Clown is able to heal the blind, or that the TSA giving your grandmother a cavity search  makes us safer as a nation. Clearly, all of those things are absurd and the unbelievers consider the Bible just as absurd.

III. Christians in the middle who see that there is some sort of error somewhere but otherwise are less concerned with diagnosing theologically what it is. Those Christians who have a progressive view that there are greater principles outside the Bible that the Bible tries to channel, but that it does not channel perfectly, or channel without error, or channel consistently from cover to cover.

***

If it is going to be suggested that there is, in the preliminary, the possibility that there is something contained in the Bible that is inaccurate then it has to be proposed how to identify that information and specific instances where that has occurred.

***


"If the Bible is authentic, then it must be completely consistent with itself."

The nature of the book is that the claims surrounding it indicate that it contains words so true that nothing outside of it can disprove its claims. If it be true that there are instances of inaccurate claims to be found within the book, there is no way to identify that information except with a test for internal consistency. The true Word would expose the fiction that is packaged together with it. In other words, if it can be isolated where the contradictions exist, we can uncover from that which source is to be trusted, or in other words, what is authentically from God.

Beyond that, I suggest there are some fundamental questions that should be answered about the claims made within our faith:

If God cannot lie and God has preserved His word, then there are no lies found in it. But how can we be sure that what we have today is the authentic document, in its entirety and free from error after years of transcribing and translating?

"Is the Bible free from contradiction?" Generally Christians would answer yes. But this is not the only response a Christian might give.

Finally, my arguments are probably painful for fundamentalist Christians reading this and would be seen as only being destructive unless I were offering some alternative. I never thought it was sufficient for someone to point out flaws, decimate ideas and tear your dreams apart and offer you nothing in return, nothing of substance. I will offer you choices, A or B, but, and there's always a but, none of them you will like, you will refuse to accept any of  them and you will never recognize them as being valid dichotomies. But then there is this: Either what I am saying is true or what you say is true. Convenient though it may be to hold on to your beliefs, if you are incorrect, then it can only be that one of my two choices are true.

On we go...

---
Here I want to examine a class of teachings found in Paul's writings and how Christians actively subvert his message because they find it inconvenient. This is valuable because where the vast majority of the church finds itself at odds with Paul's teaching, that is more likely to be a false teaching than something the church largely agrees upon. The most contentious verses are going to show the greatest likelihood of error.

# 1. The falling away of 2 Thes 2 versus the Revival of Joel

Christians enjoy the feeling that Christianity offers and there is no greater feeling for us than when we feel closest to our Creator. Latter Rain was a teaching that gave Christians purpose, a raison d'etre. Their job was to usher in a final outpouring of the Holy Spirit, reclaim the earth for Christ and pave the way for His kingdom. So it simulated this effect, the feeling that Christians try to pursue. They would experience an onslaught of revival and holiness unrivaled since the days of Pentecost. Today, Latter Rain seems isolated to a few isolated groups; however, there is a teaching common to churches that does take a cue from Latter Rain; namely, that in the Last Days there will be a great outpouring of the Spirit and Christians will perform great signs and wonders like in apostolic times.

But what they do not tell you is the picture that Paul painted for the last days was very different. The faithful would sink to new levels of unbelief and despair, coming to accept false teachings and false teachers and that many would fall away from the faith altogether and pave way for a last days apostasy. These are not popular predictions and so are simply not given the air time that Joel's prophecy is given.

This becomes a serious problem when the traditional Christian confronts the anti-Paul crowd with judgment and condemnation yet they themselves willfully are ignoring critical Pauline teaching that simply does not sit well with them. These Christians of the Type I rather than Type III variety, which we've established as the unthinking crowd, many of whom advocate for the partially Latter Rain teaching and warn against spotting contradictions or going against the ideas of innerancy or inspiration are they themselves ignoring a biblical message because it doesn't square well with their fairy tale existence. Now, I am a critic of Paul's. But I want tobe clear: It is blatant favoritism and prejudicial to willfully pass over Paul's prophecy because Joel's words are more satisfying. The standard for a faith that identifies itself as the true faith and all others be damned should be higher than "I like what Joel said, I don't like what Paul said." If we are going to reject any part of the Scriptures, this is not the way to do it.

Solution

I propose a solution that does not fall into the trap that mainstream Christianity does and also integrates both into a harmonious composite. I argue that on the corporate level there will be a falling away (of the churches). However, what God initially revealed in the body at Pentecost will now be revealed spiritually within the hearts of His true followers, His children. People will prophesy and dream dreams, and see visions, but these are manifestations of a purification and rejuventation in the person's heart, not some change in the environment of the churches or the church body. It occurs purely in the heart of God's people. What does take place around them leaves them shocked and confused: It is the church body that, rather than experiencing revival, sinks into unbelief and immoral practices and it serves as conviction to those with eyes to see and ears to hear. This harmonizes the two and I haven't seen Christians make any attempt to harmonize it, but a willful neglect of the words of Paul. Take note, I am defending Paul here, the Christians are denying him. So far, I have not heard one Christian offer this as an explanation or a similar explanation that seeks to conjoin the ideas as harmonious but only rhetoric that emphasizes one prophecy and downplays or neglects the other.

# 2. Paul and the Darth Vader heresy versus Jesus

Because Christians are in the business of contradictions, which they call mysteries, such apparent discrepancies as this one mean very little to them. In their minds, they are spiritual and witty because they can make two contradictory things to agree. If you don't get it, it's because you're just an idiot and you have demons inside of you. Some just see this as being moronic. What we have here is what I refer to as the Darth Vader heresy.


Matthew 23:7 ""And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

Yet Paul opens the way for Catholics to call their priests "Fathers" with the Darth Vader heresy... Corinthians... I am your father...

  

1 Corinthians 4:15 "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel."

# 3. Paul and the Not-so-Eternal Torment

Then we have out-and-out deception in Christianity. Whenever Paul says something convenient to the Christian's case, he is hailed. Whenever he says something Christians dislike, they sweep it under the rug.

Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

2 Thessalonians 1:9 "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power..."

Notice he doesn't suggest an ongoing state of torment in an eternal hell. He only refers to a final destruction and death. But we can't let that get in the way of a ruse like eternal hell, which we hope will scare people into going to church where we can shake them down with Malachian injunctions about if you don't give money to the pastors you're robbing from God and will burn in hell. I've got an idea: Why don't the pastors first show us through their genealogy that they are in fact Levites and the ones who rightfully can collect the tithes and then we'll talk.

# 4. Paul and the Non-Pretrib Rapture

How many Christians keep repeating the satanic pre-trib Rapture doctrine? And they profane the name of Paul by quoting him as its supporter.

2 Thessalonians 2:3,4 "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

Students of prophecy will recognize this event as occurring midway into the period of seven years. Sorry.. Paul gives us no more indication than that the rapture can only occur at the earliest at the midpoint and even possibly post-trib.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some recognize me as being an opponent of Paul. Not at all. I'm calling out the church because they twist Paul's words to settle theological scores. I'm only advocating that Paul be taught for what he is and I'm publicizing what it is that he taught. Namely, he taught against a pre-trib rapture, eternal hell, taught open contradictions to Jesus' gospel, he slandered the apostles who Jesus appointed, he taught to drink alcohol, he tacitly approved of polygamy and openly supported chastity, he taught to curse one's enemies, he taught about proper family relationships, that women are not qualified to preach, and many other astonishing teachings.

Let's recap with what the church teaches...

- Pre-trib (-1 Paul)
+ Eternal hell (-2 Paul)
- No drinking alcohol (-3 Paul)
- Anti-polygamy (-4 Paul)
- Virginity should be discouraged, everyone should get married (-5 Paul)
- No cursing one's enemies (-6 Paul)
- Do not teach proper family relationships (-7 Paul)
+ Women can teach (-8 Paul)

You can see from this list that they only selectively teach Paul. It happens that they keep what is popular they find him saying and then they reject what is unpopular. This list shows anytime Paul said you can do something the church says you should not do it, anytime he teaches one thing, the churches teach the contrary, and if he teaches to not do something, that is what the church's tell you TO DO!

If he affirms virginity, then the elders of the church guess you are gay if you stay single and judge you prejudicially. (-)

If on the other hand, he says to ban women preachers, the church says no, we will allow women preachers. (+)

If he says that parents have an obligation their children to raise them according to a good parental philosophy, the church says no, children ought to do exactly as they're told and be beaten if they disagree. (-)

If on the other hand he teaches that hell is not eternal after all, the churches insist that it is. (+)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In conclusion, it should be noted that I presented a very short list of discrepancies. My final words are to indicate that if the church expects to see resolution with the anti-Paul crowd, then they will have to stop resorting to treachery and deceit to prove their points. If we are to accept Paul at all, it will be for who he is, and not who you want him to be.

Did Paul Really Worship Zeus?

What did Paul really believe?

I would suggest to you that there is some mystery left in that question. Despite all the writings he bestowed upon the ages there were certain of his quotes like, "To the Jews I became like a Jew" and "To those under the law I became like one under the law," (I Corinthians 9:19-23) and so it could be left to be concluded by a reasonable person that he was not completely forthcoming with that information that would affect his method of attempting to please all men at all times ( I Corinthians 10:33). Surely trying to make everyone happy would lead to compromise. He very nearly claims he understood all mysteries (I Corinthians 13:2) which leads logical readers to ask did he explain all of them or did he leave some of them out. Elsewhere he completely lies (Romans 3:7 where he nearly admits it, elsewhere such as before Festus, he clearly fabricates), he takes an apparition's words to him as making him an apostle where the apparition never makes such a claim (did the ghost have such power?) and yet no one, Peter, Christ, or Luke ever identify him as being an apostle.

Here, I offer to you a presentation, an organic argument that should help to dissect what Paul kept to himself, those mysteries that he set himself as being the only one to receive the answers on.

And on that note, I make no pretense that I'm here to keep from offending anyone like the fraudulent Paul did. You can be offended as much as you like but I'm not going to alter a word of mine unless it is shown to be false, and that you will not accomplish either.

____________________________

Paul's Jesus, YHWH's Yahshua

When was the name of "Jesus" adopted? Greco-Roman hegemony assured this name was used over Yahshua. This treatise will offer an explanation coinciding with historical events, a unifying theory, starting with Saul's conversion.

_____

(Saul struck with blinding light) at Acts 9...

v

"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.

from Acts 9,26

"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick gainst the pricks."

^

Now this is an expression that some may have trouble understanding. It was something I needed explained and I'm sure it would be a help to offer that here. This statement is a reference to goading an animal, pricking them, with a spur such as that on a boot, telling them to go on.

Euripides' Bacchae

The king of Thebes was against the revelries and orgies held in honor of Dinonysus, "divine son of Zeus," god of wine and grapes. That is, the king was actively trying to stop these processions from taking place. Dionysus, enraged, comes to earth in human form, appears to the king while concealing his identity saying that the king should not fight against Dionysus, "a mere mortal against a god". "For it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks," comparing the king to an animal fighting against the pricks. Now, Paul is an educated Roman citizen. When the spirit identifies itself as "Jesus", that is "Hail Zeus" and borrows a quip from Dionysus, he very literally takes this as saying that the Christ is in fact Dionysus, god of wines.

He may be encountered with a series of progressive thoughts recalling...

Yeshua came first changing water to wine at Cana (John 4), He came "eating and drinking" (Matthew 11), He asked us to drink wine (For this is my blood). When Paul starts addressing these similarities as an educated Roman, he could likely come to the conclusion that the Messiah was Dionysus.

Dionysus comes from on high, emptying himself of god-ness and taking on the form of a man (in the Bacchae). Philippians 2:6,7 "Who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness". Paul's Iesous is not the Yahsua revealed to us.

Paul integrates a pagan "trinity" concept, referring to a godhead (cf. Romans 1:20, Colossians 1:9). The spirit which ordained Paul ordained this gospel. If the doctrine opposes Christ, the spirit was not Yahshua. Paul, with the spurring or goad of Dionysus continues his paganizing of the Christian faith.

Festus says to Paul "You are out of your mind Paul. Your great learning is driving you mad."

Festus is pointing out that the Hebrew Messiah identifying Himself as the son of Zeus is an absurdity. He was right. However, Festus adds, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." Clearly if he could keep to his Roman pantheon of gods then he would accept the Messiah, since the Messiah was nothing more than another being in the pantheon.

Paul to the Greeks continues along with this thinking. Saying, "For we are indeed his offspring" (Acts 17:28), adopted from Aratus, speaking of Zeus. Paul is implicit, the god of your Aratus is my god, and the Hail Zeus is his son.

"For in him we live, and move, and have our being." (Acts 17:28). Epimenides, speaking of Zeus says, "For in thee we live and move and have our being." Epimenides says, "The Cretians, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies," Paul adopts this at Titus 1:12.

This was adapted from Epimenides' Cretica. It was a poem criticizing the Cretians for building a tomb for Zeus, Epimenides believing Zeus to be eternal. So what Paul is actually doing here is cursing the Cretians because in fact his god is in fact Zeus.

I Corinthians 15:33 "...evil communications corrupt good manners." Menander of Athens "Bad company corrupts good character."

Buddha "Work out your own salvation." Paul at Philemon  2:12 "...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

He also adapts a quote from  Publius Terentius Afer at I Timothy 5:4.

The Hail Zeus was preached to the Greeks, the followers of Zeus. The Messiah came as "Hail Zeus", son of Zeus, and any Greek or Roman could accept that. Some used the word "poetry" saying Paul quotes "pagan poetry". It is really pagan theology or pagan scriptures he quotes. By quoting it and pasing it off as from God he is validating it. His use of "godhead" is another throwback to pagan theology.

Constantine

This doctrine of appeasement we see in the conversion of the Roman empire. The Christo-philosophy didn't jeopardize or supplant Roman paganism at all but was only a supplement. The Catholic church today is evidence with its vestments, relics, Mariolatry, Eucharist, and images. The Saturnalia was continued and carries on today as Christmas. The Sunday of Christ's resurrection came to coincide with the feast the fertility goddess Ishtar becoming Easter, another pagan revelry. The Christianity we had passed onto us today represents less the faith of the apostles than it does the Roman paganism. Today we pray to Paul's Hail Zeus rather than YHWH's Yahshua. Paul told Gentiles of the permissibility of meats sacrificed to idols, while Christ refutes this at Revelation 2:14.

______

Clearly, Paul's theology is formed around the belief that the Messiah is the divine son of Zeus and that he exists in some sort of godhead relationship with his father and mother. Paul never came to confirm this was his view but he does all but confirm it in his letters to the Gentiles. In conclusion, whoever it was that spoke to Paul on the Damascus road was using a cover identity of Dionysus and brought Paul to, instead of preaching Christ, to preach Zeusian religion to pagans.

To Be Clear on Paul

The church today is confronted with an ideology, fairly novel, but which can be traced to the early Patristic period which is an ideology of skepticism against Paul. I sympathize a lot with this movement as the teachings of Paul have serious implications as pertains to the Gospel Yeshua preached, and these people fear it gives rise to contradictions, which is my fear as well. Paul puts himself in a place I would greatly fear going and I believe you would too, as there is one conspicuous teaching of his that stands out above all others that I think has deep ramifications as to whether Paul truly was an apostle or not. The biggest problem I have with Paul and one that scholarship has as of yet failed to offer sufficient defense for is his teaching on meats sacrificed to idols. If this can be proven then much of the suspicions will be alleviated.

Paul teaches explicitly in I Corinthians 8 that eating this meat is okay but the bigger concern is causing our brother to stumble. I agree that we have a higher obligation to our brother than we do in eating something because it makes us feel good about ourselves, or fit into a size 4 for the first time since graduating high school. But that Paul would stop in saying that this was the only implication in eating it and emphasizing that we can in good conscience, if our conscience does not forbid us.

The church skips over this completely because of the teaching on unclean meats. The church logic goes that according to Mark 7 and Acts 11 those prohibitions were overturned, and so therefore there is no reason for anyone to suspect that basically there might be something seriously wrong with what Paul wrote. To them, it is simply another edifice removed in scaling back the prohibitions of the law.

^^This is very important to understand why it is ignored and why most don't know there is even a question there.^^

For the sake of the discussion at hand, and not for the one we will have at a more appropriate time, let me cede to you the point that you are right in those things, that the unclean meats are now fit for acceptance. My argument stands not changed, because of the verdict at the Jerusalem council. In Acts 15, there is some disagreement as to the role of circumcision and secondly what the Gentiles were expected to do as basic requirements of the faith. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit that circumcision not be impressed upon them, but that the abstinence from blood, things strangled, fornication, and of great concern to us is the abstinence from things sacrificed to idols.

Does this give rise to some concern? How is it that Paul is being issued an order to not teach on eating this as a holy duty before God yet he would suggest that if your conscience is clear, eat it any way?

Why does Yeshua to the church at Thyatira in Revelation 2 said that they had suffered those who taught that this food was permissible to eat, calling it the sin of Balaam, who lead the Israelites astray teaching them to eat this food.

I am not open to being closed-minded. Notice that I am not closed to being open because I struggle in answering this question. I wish that some great prophet or my friend David could give me a deep insight into this question that shuts the book on this question once and for all and that God could use me to reach out to this anti-Paul crowd, a field ripe for harvest but laborers few. They are incredibly hard to reach because their questions were not gathered in a second or a fleeting thought, but that are deep biblical questions that few can answer. If this script of theirs be false, then there must be answers and we must reach them.