Monday, May 1, 2017

The False Apostle Paul

"Christianity is being expounded by someone who never spent any extended time with Jesus, never trained under him, and whose writings are devoid of utterances of Jesus except a small unique aphorism and only one inaccurate quote from the Lord’s supper account. Other respected thinkers have been astonished by Paul’s lack of mentioning any lessons of Jesus. Albert Schweitzer once said: "Where possible, he (Paul) avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the ‘Our Father.’ Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord. A modern Christian scholar, Hans van Campenhausen, agrees this deficiency in Paul’s writings is a striking and glaring problem: "The most striking feature is that the words of the Lord, which must have been collected and handed on in the primitive community and elsewhere from the earliest days, played no, or at least no vital, part in Paul’s basic instruction of his churches." Peter’s point in the Clementine Homilies is likewise that Paul’s failure to teach what Jesus teaches is the clearest proof that Paul is not following Jesus. It is a point well-taken."

~ Jesus' Words Only or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 2:2, by Douglas Del Tonto, p. 328-330

[updated June 18th, 2018]

This post will discuss the problems with the Biblical writings of the man called Paul, whose original name was Saul of Tarsus.  The more I research, observe the effects of, and contemplate his writings, the more I find that Paul (who I will refer to as Saul from now on) was indeed a false apostle (i.e. not a true follower of Jesus), who has very badly misled Christians for centuries.  In fact I see now that he was a master propagandist, he has managed to mislead billions of people over centuries with ideas that are so detrimental to one's well-being and the well-being of the world, that they actually deserve to be called satanic.  This will seem ridiculous at first to many Christians who have been taught by a church that Saul was a saint, and they will probably immediately think of many nice/good things Paul said; but what they need to wake up to is that, in classic propaganda fashion, he also said some things that were not just a little off, but so wrong that they overpower whatever good he also said, like deadly poison put in otherwise healthy food.  I'm speaking especially of his ideas of "Inherited Sin," "Easy Grace," and Blood-sacrifice Atonement, among other ideas that are the complete opposite of crucial truths humanity desperately needs.  These toxic ideas have become central in the minds of most Christians, and so, very unfortunately, these religious people believing in and following these toxic ideas have gone very far from the true Way that was taught by Jesus and the prophets, in fact they have joined Saul in opposing that true Way.  Most of the Christians I meet actually have their entire spiritual life centered in toxic teachings of Saul, the most critical things for salvation all corrupted by those teachings.  They don't see just how toxic those teachings are, and so they never support or have real revolutionary positive change in their lives. 

I will be highlighting some of the most major examples of Saul's toxic teachings, but if you delve into the resources below you will be shown many more.  The key thing to keep in mind is that if certain very destructive lies are sandwiched in with some good truths, the overall effect of ingesting it all-together will be harmful to you, just like a little bit of a very toxic poison in a healthy salad would be so.  The books, videos and websites listed below present this overwhelming evidence, and I will share more of my own perspective as well on why rejecting Saul's doctrines is such an important issue that needs much more clarity in the world. This is not an issue of an author making some minor mistakes, but overall his message remains good and true; the problem with Saul is that his teachings spread extremely destructive lies that have an overall very negative effect on humanity.  

Ingesting/following/accepting Saul's destructive lies leads one to be "loving and practicing lies" (Revelation 22:15) that prevent us from aligning with the will of the perfectly good Creator, and His/Her (?) representative, the man usually called by the name Jesus Christ.  Speaking of the name Jesus Christ, his original name is said to be "Yehoshua," or Joshua in English.  Others say "Yeshua" is correct too, I can't say with absolute certainty which is more accurate, but the point of not using the name Jesus Christ is that it's important to give some effort to use his real name out of respect for him, rather than a clear mistranslation.  "Christ" is Greek for "the anointed one," which meant a chosen person/king by God, specifically the Messiah/Savior when speaking of Yehoshua.  So altogether it would be more accurate to say "Yehoshua the Messiah" than to say Jesus Christ, but even more important than getting his name just right is getting his teachings right, and a crucial part of doing that is rejecting the opposing teachings of Saul. 

Before I discuss the writings of Saul further, it's first necessary to address the issue of the Bible being perfect, a.k.a. "Biblical inerrancy," the idea that everything in the Bible is "the Word of God," i.e. it's all accurate and inspired wisdom direct from the Creator, somehow avoiding any corruption or distortion through the centuries.  This must be dealt with first, because if you believe in Biblical inerrancy, you're never going to analyze the writings of Saul objectively.  Saul apparently anticipated this dynamic, and so he is also the one that said "all Scripture is inspired of God," of course meaning including his own writings; this is self-supporting propaganda, like a social-system that gives us the "givens" of needing to pay other humans to live on this planet, and needing "authorities" to keep us safe, to enable and justify their existence.  Whenever I point out the faults of Saul's writings to Christians, they usually point me to Saul's writing in 2 Timothy 3:16 wherein he says everything he says comes directly from God, as if that is a rational defense of his writings!  It's like saying "Well, it doesn't matter if he said things that are blasphemous, satanic or against the teachings of Yehoshua, because he also said everything he says is inspired of God."  Thinking everything he said must somehow be good, they change the meaning of those toxic teachings (or otherwise rationalize away the toxicity) so that it fits Saul's own claim of purity.  Beyond the illegitimacy of Biblical inerrancy being based on this dumbfoundingly amoral and unintelligent "Saul said so" rationale, this idea that everything in the Bible, which is available in hundreds of different versions, in hundreds of different languages, is the perfect teaching of the Creator, is irrational in multiple other respects as well, one being those hundreds of different versions, with no rational means by which to determine/declare which is the most, or only, correct one.  Another irrational element is that it ignores all of the history of the Bible, it ignores what Scripture was accepted by the Church, which was rejected, and why.  And in fact, it is a form of idol-worship, making a book written by men equal to the Most High.  Yes there is crucial wisdom still in the Bible that was certainly inspired by the Creator, but it is also certain that not all of it is true wisdom, and that other Scripture, like The Gospel of the Ebionites, contains crucial truth worthy of study as well. (By the way, "The Ebionites rejected the epistles of Paul of Tarsus, whom they regarded as an apostate from the Law.")  If you really believe in the perfect goodness of our Creator, and in the constant attacks by The Devil/Satan, to think that the Bible would somehow remain completely free from corruption is also not rational; of course it would be attacked/distorted/corrupted, because it did (and still does) contain crucial truth about our Creator, Yehoshua, ourselves, and the path to liberation from Satan's bondage.  Many believe, including myself, that the prophets and Yehoshua knew this corruption was going to happen; this may be in fact in large part why Yehoshua taught so much in parables, to preserve crucial wisdom for the future generations from "the lying pen of the scribes" (Jeremiah 8:8).  And, also ignored by Pauline Christians, John spoke directly about the possibility of people altering his writing in Revelation 22:18-19, so obviously he was not a believer in "biblical inerrancy" either.

Additionally repeatedly calling the Bible "the Word of God" distorts the truth about what/who that Word really is (Yehoshua, the "Word that became flesh," and the Holy Spirit).  Also the New Testament of course didn't exist at the time of Yehoshua, he never gave his stamp of approval to any translation.  Again, to think the most popular/official version of Scriptures has always been perfect and forever would be, just because, of all people, Saul of Tarsus said so, is irrational and a form of idol-worship.  The Bible is definitely worth daily study, but certain things Saul said in particular are so clearly false (e.g. all governments come from God and slaves obeying their masters are doing God's will!), and against what Yehoshua taught (e.g. as shown in part in the below image collection), that you really have to be in denial to ignore all of it, and many Christians are in denial because of their false beliefs, namely the false beliefs that a) the Bible is the completely perfect message from the Creator, and/or b) we can't discern what is true and what isn't within it, if some part isn't true then the whole Bible is worthless.

Problems with Saul's Teachings

Saul gave some key toxic teachings that have become fundamental to Christianity, all of which were not what Yehoshua taught, and are actually the opposite of what he taught.  In addition to the doctrines I'm about to expound on, Saul was also very pro-statism and pro-carnism, and, in case you never noticed, government and the violence of humans toward animals are, and have always been, the top sources of violence and slavery in the world.  Most of you reading this probably don't see the truth of this veganarchist philosophy yet though because of indoctrination/conditioning, which is perhaps the biggest indicator that the world is indeed mostly misled by the Devil, since advocating the end of all unnecessary slavery and violence, which is what veganarchism is fundamentally, should be a baseline morality for humanity, but in this backwards lie-believing world/society it's called "dangerous extremism."  Likewise in classic propagandist fashion, Saul actually calls the call to abstain from the murder of animals "a doctrine of demons," which is the exact opposite of the truth and is an example of projection, i.e. he his projecting his own behavior onto others, which is something toxic personalities always do.  It is in fact his teachings, like that you can't stop sinning, and that unnecessary murder and slavery are fine, that are the true doctrines of demons.  The Devil wants us to keep sinning and supporting sin, and that's exactly what Saul's propaganda supports.  Additionally Paul gives blanket endorsement to all governments of the world, saying that they all come from God, which is absurd and blasphemous.  If you are still believing in the "representation" and "overall goodness" of social-systems, and the "necessity" of consuming animal products, feel free to ignore this element like most people do, and move on to the following other points about Saul's teaching below.

What's important with this concerning Saul for me is that the more I analyze the teachings of Saul, the more evil I realize they are, in fact I can't imagine how they could be more evil, in that they impart maximum harm in content, and scope, through deceptiveness.  And what makes it so deceptive?  Like with any well-crafted propaganda, it uses the method of combining really crucial truth alongside very destructive lies, the former being the bait that gets you to swallow the hook of the latter.  I myself had a hard time seeing and accepting the truth about Saul because of the crucial truth he did say, particularly in verses like Ephesians 5:10-11, 15-17 and 2 Timothy 1:7, which are crucial truths by themselves.  But again one must remember the fundamental method of propaganda, and so such wonderful verses of crucial truth should be expected by someone who is also delivering extremely destructive lies to humanity, lies so destructive that the overall effect is evil, just as a hook ultimately kills the fish, even though the bait was good.  Additionally it is just irrational and unintelligent to ignore lies because they happen to be on the same page as truth.  So that all said, let's get into those very toxic lies Saul pushed on believers:
  • Saul said: We are irremediably imperfect because of "inherited sin" from Adam & Eve; this is also known as the "total depravity" doctrine, i.e. the idea that there is nothing good in you, you are actually a terrible being at your core.  Here is what Saul said exactly:  "For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out" (Romans 7:18).  I could write a whole book on just how toxic and evil this idea alone is; I hope to get the main important points across clearly to you below.  This toxic idea is usually adopted by Pauline Christians with the sentiment that it is good because "it keeps us humble," i.e. avoiding pride by very regularly saying and praying that we're imperfect.  And they do often mention this idea, it's practically a mantra for them, included in almost every prayer!  This toxic and blasphemous idea actually corrupts the prayer.  Yes it's true that pride is not good, but you don't have to believe in some irreparable genetic and moral flaw in order to not be prideful; "inherited-sin" is an idea that, I hope you will realize, is actually satanic poison to your mind.  And this poison has spread beyond Pauline Christians, it's become a belief for believers and non-believers alike, the latter often repeating the similar mantras "I'm only human" and "Nobody's perfect," the implication being the same, that humans are inherently flawed.  Yehoshua called us to be perfect like our heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48), and so to say we can't do that is blasphemy against Yehoshua, and the Creator who directed him, who, don't forget, made us in His image (Genesis 1:27).  Yehoshua came to set the captives of sin free, through teaching them the way out of that bondage, namely the Greatest Commandments (read Matthew 22:36-40). Any person that tells you that you can't become free from sin is in direct opposition to Yehoshua, whether they realize it or not.  This idea of "inherent imperfection," that there is "nothing good in us," that "our inherent nature is sinful," is blasphemous too because it suggests that the Creator created evil (just as the Old Testament often seems to say, due to the same name, YHWH, being used both for the Creator and for Satan), which is a completely satanic idea; remember Satan was the accuser of God from the very beginning, accusing Him of doing evil when He had not done so.  (Which is the same behavior of toxic/possessed people to this day, who slander good people while supporting bad people). 

    Saul/Paul's teaching of "inherited sin," which most Christians translate to the extremely self-destructive belief that there is something fundamentally wrong with them, completely contradicts that we were made in the image of the perfectly good Creator.  "Inherited sin" doctrine is false and blasphemous, saying that each baby is inherently flawed, that the Creator is making evil in the world, and that the Creator is unjust, putting the blame on children for the sins of their parents. (This is also plainly refuted in Ezekiel 18:20).  And since who we are is fundamentally a Holy Spirit made in God's image, "inherited sin" doctrine is also blasphemy against this Holy Spirit, and Jesus said that was an unforgivable sin (Matthew 12:31 & Mark 3:29).  We can see the truth of that being "unforgivable" in that when we are believing in the lie of "inherited sin" we can never follow the Greatest Commandments and align with God's will and grace fully, because we don't believe we can do it (as Saul/Paul also taught wrongly, the Commandments are just there to show our imperfection that we can't overcome).  Inherited-sin doctrine sabotages (and ignores) Jesus' call to be perfect whereby we can receive the Creator's full forgiveness and grace.  Those who believe the lie that they can't stop sinning never will stop sinning, because of that belief/self-fulfilling prophecy.  Hence Saul can say other good and true things alongside this critically destructive lie, but the overall effect is evil, the overall effect is sabotaging your salvation.  While we are still "loving and practicing the lie" of inherited-sin, we are kept "outside the gates."

    It's crucial to understand that to believe this lie about ourselves is against healthy self-love, which is integral to the Greatest Commandments of Yehoshua.  And the self-love of the Greatest Commandments is absolutely necessary to fulfill the Creator's calling for us, to fulfill His opportunities of grace (Kairos Moments) given to all of us, because those Divine opportunities require courage and boldness from us (Hebrews 4:16, Matthew 14:27 & Mark 6:50); and guess who tends to always lack courage and boldness?  Those that believe the lie that there is something fundamentally wrong with them, just as Saul taught them; therefore believing in Saul's teaching completely sabotages the Creator's grace, and the Devil must certainly be very happy with that.

    Additionally this doctrine is just clearly false and irrational on a common-sense basis: If you can follow the Greatest Commandments perfectly for 10 minutes, than why not for 1 hour?  And if for 1 hour, why not 5 hours?  One whole day?  When I bring this point up to Pauline Christians they have no real response, and just usually revert back to why pride is a bad thing.  The clear falsity and irrationality of "inherited sin/irreparable defect" is apparent too whenever we look at a newborn infant, their inherent innocence and goodness is clear as day; it is only with time, and the abuse and lies that usually come with it here in this satanically-influenced world, that that innocence and goodness is lost and corrupted.
  • Saul said: Our sins are wiped clean by the blood-sacrifice of the death of Yehoshua; this is known as the doctrine of "atonement."  This doctrine is completely immoral and against everything Yehoshua stood for.  Yehoshua came to do away with the animal sacrifices at the temple, explaining that they were worthless for the purpose of forgiving sins, in fact being more of a satanic practice than anything the Creator ever wanted.  Many scholars and believers, including myself, believe that the original law given to Moses did not include animal sacrifice, but it was allowed for by Moses because the people were so resistant to simply leaving the animals alone!  So this blood-sacrifice of Yehoshua, as "the perfect payment" for our sins, in a cosmic "legal proceeding" (as some Pauline Christians describe it), is not only against what the will of the Creator is, it's against what Yehoshua taught as well, which is that it is obedience to the Commandments that brings us salvation, not murdering animals, or the murder of himself.  Of course it would be correct to say that Yehoshua sacrificed his life for us in that he accepted persecution and death as the Father's will for the betterment of humanity, but that doesn't  mean that his blood canceled out our sins.  He sacrificed his own life to show others the way of salvation, his torture and murder not being the means of salvation itselfThere's a big difference there, a difference that "easy grace" doctrine lovers unfortunately ignore.

  • Saul said: We simply need to proclaim faith, rather than follow the Commandments; this is known as the doctrine of "justification."  This doctrine says that we are "justified for all [wicked] things," simply by belief in Yehoshua, i.e. that we are not guilty for the sins we commit because of the blood-sacrifice atonement of Yehoshua's death.  "Oh sure, do your best to do good," say the Pauline Christians, "but it's not crucial, because you can't obey the commandments perfectly anyway, because of the inherited sin Paul says we have. You just have to proclaim your faith in Jesus and his coming Kingdom."  And of course millions of people have run with this idea, avoiding Yehoshua's call to be perfect and "sin no more" (John 5:14, 8:11).  Pauline Christians ignore a lot of Scripture that contradicts this "easy grace" theology, another example being 1 John 3:6, that says "Whoever abides in Him does not sin; whoever sins has neither seen Him nor know Him."  The call to perfect adherence to the Greatest Commandments is put aside, Saul even saying it's impossible and "a curse," which is again making Yehoshua out to be a false teacher! 
    Here's a typical example of what modern Christians say on the matter: 
"In fact, it’s impossible to keep all the commandments all the time.  None of us is perfect, and each one of us ‘sins’ (we go against God’s wishes).  Paul says that what the commandments do is tell us that we have sinned: “because no one can be made right with God by following the law.  The law only shows us our sin.” (Romans 3:20)" 
Yet this is devilish misdirection of humanity.  The truth is the opposite: "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments.  And His commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3).  John shows himself to be a true disciple of Yehoshua, while Saul completely opposes and contradicts Yehoshua. 
  • This faith-without-works-is-sufficient doctrine is actually a form of moral-relativism, and moral relativism is arguably the #1 psychological/spiritual problem in the world, being behind justifications and rationalizations for all kinds of immoral behavior, now, and throughout history.  Following moral relativism is the true "original sin" that led to the "fall of humanity," so this doctrine promoted by Saul has actually been serving the main evil that has been misleading humanity since the beginning, causing massive suffering for many centuries.  No small thing!  Paul's moral relativism, to do what is "expedient" and feels best to you (Romans 14:23), not tied to any set rules, is actually at its root satanic, repeating what the Devil did in the Garden of Eden, and what modern new-age "do what you feel/ I'm against all isms" spirituality and urban educated fool philosophy promote, side-by-side with what satanism teaches.  "Do what thou wilt" was the main doctrine of the infamous Aleister Crowley, a self-professed satanist.  The following quotes from the above/below-linked to book Jesus Words Only, speaks to this problem well:
"It’s all relative to how you feel about it. Paul thus clearly identifies a new moral law divorced from the written precepts of the Law. Paul made the new morality depend on the circumstances. It also depended on its expediency. There are no strict moral rules to follow. Paul’s doctrines are what traditionally we would call antinomianism. If your conscience “led by the Spirit” is your guide, and you reject the Law of Moses in its express moral precepts, then you are antinomian. You are using your own decisions “led by the Spirit” of when and how to comply, if at all, with any of the express commands in the Law of Moses. This aspect of Paul is what makes him so attractive to the world. Paul gave flexible guidelines about what is sin." (p. 82)
"Paul is much easier, and far more attractive. For Paul, by contrast [to Jesus], when you sin against the Law, the issue is whether your conscience can allow you to live with it. “Happy is he who does not condemn himself in that thing which he allows.” (Rom. 14:22.) Most of those in the world coming to Christ opt to follow the message of Paul. They can even boast of their lack of perfection and bask in the feeling of being forgiven. Based on Paul, they are confident they are destined for heaven regardless... Paul has become a magnet for the modern Christian. Jesus’ message of righteousness in action, obedience to the Law, and severe repentance after failure has lost all its appeal." (p. 83)
Also worth mentioning about Saul's teachings:

1)  Paul was pro-slavery.

Paul: "Slaves are to be under the control of their masters in all respects, giving them satisfaction..." (Titus 2:9)

Paul: "Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ, not only when being watched, as currying favor, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of the God from the heart..." (Ephesians 6:5-6.; This statement is also blatant blasphemy, implying it's God's will for people to be enslaved.)

Those words have undoubtedly been used countless times over hundreds of years by slave-masters to justify their enslavement and horrific abuse of other men and women. Don't bother, as some in denial do, with the absurd and lame excuse for Paul that "He was just speaking to the realities of his time." Jesus never said anything pro-slavery, he spoke in favor of freedom, as an abolitionist. Jesus said forthrightly that he came to free the captives (Luke 4:18), and freed the captive/enslaved animals that were going to be murdered at the temple as well (Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:15). Think twice before slanderously presuming "Jesus said he came to free captives only in a spiritual sense," putting apathetic evil on Jesus in foolish defense of Paul. Here's some pointed logic to hopefully break through the Pauline Christianity indoctrination:
a) Slavery is evil.
b) Someone who is pro-slavery is therefore pro-evil.
c) Paul was clearly pro-slavery, therefore Paul promoted evil.

"But he also said good things!" say the Pauline Christians, as if that cancels-out the evil; it doesn't. Those who defend the toxic words of Paul, words that are nothing at all like those of Jesus (actually in opposition to Jesus' teachings), are defending evil. Pointing to other lines of Paul that sound better is morally weak, unintelligent and irrational, ignorant of what a toxic propaganda sandwich looks like, having eaten it blindly for years.

2)  Jesus had no problem offending people by speaking crucial and blunt truth, but Saul said we should change our behavior depending on whether it would offend the other person or not, he promoted moral-relativism in that way too.

3)  Paulinists dismissively say that following the Commandments is "legalistic," while also saying that Jesus's death was a "legal proceeding" that paid for the sins we inherited from Adam. This is ignorant and hypocritical.

4)  Paul's writings are known to have inspired Nazis, and thereby the Holocaust, by saying Jews were the "enemy of the whole world" (1 Thessalonians 2:16) and that all governments are divine (Romans 13:1) and should be obeyed without question.

5)  Blatant sexism exists in Paul's writings, saying that women should submit to their husbands as if the men were God (Ephesians 5:22), which has inspired/supported countless acts of domestic oppression and violence.

Here are more contradictions between what Yehoshua and Saul taught:

All of the rationalizations I hear in defense of Saul never really make sense, they usually end up ignoring what he actually said and putting some other meaning on his words; they try to change it into something more rational, moral and true, just as I heard people doing in defense of Mark Passio's toxic propagandistic teachings (as I explained in my last post).  For example when I point to a clearly false and blasphemous verse like when Saul said all governments come from God, Pauline Christians say "Paul didn't really mean that (destructive lie), what he meant was..." and then change the wording and meaning until it is much more reasonable, and then I say "Well that's reasonable, but that's not what Paul said."  Or when I ask why he admittedly lied to others when spreading the so-called gospel, they reply "He said lies to attract more people to the Gospel," as if destructive lies are ever a good way of spreading crucial truth!  Pauline Christians tell me I don't understand Saul's teaching, yet the truth is it is they that don't understand what he was doing, having been heavily indoctrinated to ignore the truth that is right in front of them.  They ignore the toxic doctrines of Saul because they believe in him 100%, because their church says to, and because they believe the modern Bible is 100% accurate truth.  As I pointed out in my previous post, if you don't understand how satanic propaganda works, i.e. saying some crucial truths (e.g. "For the Spirit which God has given us is not a spirit of cowardice, but one of strength and of love and of sound judgment."), and then mixing in some very detrimental lies (e.g. Inherited Sin, Divine Politicians and Blood-Sacrifice Atonement), then you will remain too naive to see the truth.

  • "Martin Luther thought he had discovered Christ in Paul (in Paulo reperi), and made the Pauline doctrine of man's inability to keep the law (Romans 9:2 et seq.) the center of Reformation theology. That was a double fatality within Christianity... First then, there was the work of a usurper and the split he caused at the time of Christianity's origin; second, Luther's fatal mistake (and the mistake of his Christian successors) in finding the truth where in reality there was error. ... It has become clear that the beliefs of those who had seen and heard Jesus in the flesh--the disciples and the original community--were at odds to an extraordinary degree with the teaching of Paul, who claimed to have been not only called by a vision but instructed by the heavenly Christ. The conflict at Antioch between the apostles Peter and Paul, far more embittered as research has shown than the Bible allows us to see, was the most fateful split in Christianity, which in the Acts of the Apostles was 'theologically camouflaged'.

    Paul, who had never seen Jesus, showed great reserve towards the Palestinian traditions regarding Jesus' life. The historical Jesus and his earthly life are without significance for Paul. ... The most essential and effective alteration of Jesus' message carried out by Paul was in the denying the Law's power of salvation and replacing the idea of the Covenant, the objective principle of the Jewish religion, with faith in Christ and in the atoning power of his sacrificial death... Here the Cause of God was robbed of its proper center and transformed into a mixture of Judaism, Christianity and paganism. The original community sent teachers ('false brethren', Paul called them) to the new communities founded by Paul; they taught the true doctrine to the believers only just won for the Faith and opposed the doctrine taught by Paul. Paul was such a controversial figure that Tertullian, in his pamphlet attacking Marcion, called him 'Apostle to the Heretics', and the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies declared him a false teacher, even indeed the anti-Christ.

    This was the 'Fall' of Christianity: that Paul with his 'Gospel', which became the core of Christian dogma formation, conquered the world, while the historic basis of Christianity was declared a heresy, the preservers of the original branded as 'Ebionites'. [The Ebionites] continued in the tradition it had directly inherited, and could justifiably regard Pauline and catholic Christianity as heretical. It was not, as its opponents alleged, Jewish Christianity which debased the person of Jesus, but the Church in general which was misled into [abandoning Jesus's teachings]... The Church took Paul as its spiritual guide, thereby becoming involved down the centuries in conflicts and schisms, enmity, persecution and blood-shed, as Christians wrestled with the implications and interpretation of Pauline doctrines. This is even admitted by some Catholics: 'Christianity today mostly means Paul.' ... 'Christianity is the religion founded by Paul which replaces the Gospel of Jesus..." ... [T]he Pauline doctrine of Justification, the doctrine of Original Sin... these are a deformation of Jesus' teaching. Some critical theological scholars have confirmed that these deformations in Christianity started very early, in fact with Paul, and that the arch-apostle, without whom Marcion would not have been possible, was the arch-heretic in Christianity..."

    ~ The Light Shineth in Darkness by Udo Schaefer (George Ronald, Oxford, 1980), p. 80-83, 85, 87.  There are many references footnoted in those passages of the book.)







      Video Playlist: "Apostle Paul is a Ravening Wolf"


      Video Playlist: "What's up with Galatians?" (on Paul)