"O L-RD, Who are my power and my strength and my refuge in the day of trouble, to You nations will come from the ends of the earth and say, 'Only lies have our fathers handed down to us, emptiness in which there is nothing of any avail! Can a man make gods for himself, and they are no gods? 'Therefore, behold I let them know; at this time I will let them know My power and My might, and they shall know that My Name is the L-RD".
Jeremiah 16:19-21

This article will probably offend those who think Paul of Tarsus was sent by God to enlighten the world. I wish to apologise to any Jewish reader the mention of Jsus! The original of this article was to prove to the reader that the Gospels of the Greek Testament and Paul’s Epistle’s were poles apart. I find however the contrast offensive towards the God of Israel, so I have tried to eliminate  the mentioning of the Greek Testament gospels. Paul stands alone in the massive deception of his mystery (pagan) religion – the enlightened will know that! For the reader who has no idea of the craftiness of this false apostle this may come as a shock – for that I apologise!  So any reference to the Greek Testament gospels is only to show how both the false messiah and his allegedly chosen apostle is the biggest scam ever known to man!


Paul: fanatic, heretic and egotist

Paul taught that the whole function of Jesus centred on his death which released the faithful from the burden of their sins, their misery and the power of Satan. In fact not a single word Paul wrote in the Epistles gives the actual teaching of Jesus, nor does he mention even one of his parables; instead he spreads his own philosophy and his own ideas.

Paul tends to characterise all people as children of anger, ie. as subject to the wrath of God (see Eph. 2,3). All are (without exception) quite lost (eg. Romans 5,18; Cor. 15,18), without hope and without God (Eph. 2,12), for Satan has power over everyone (without exception) (eg. Rom. 3,9; Gal. 3,22; Col 2,14). A sentence of damnation hangs like a sword of Damocles over all people (eg. Rom. 5,16).

Thus Paul as a human teacher made out of the joyous tidings his threatening tidings and implied that only he could show the path to salvation. Of course with such an attitude one can hardly arrive at a natural view of death, for it makes death a solution to sin.

In no other religion do we find such cultivation of the fear of death as in the Pauline Christianity. With Paul Christianity became a religion in which Christians, beset by fears, would bow docilely under the yoke of threats. The religion was already veering away from the concept of the kind and loving, all-forgiving God and reverting to the crudities of the wrathful “Old Testament God”, as borne out by Paul’s words.

The point comes home best when one considers Paul’s explicit statement that the human individual can do nothing himself to secure salvation, Rom 3,24; 3,28; 9,11; 9,16; 1.Cor. 1,29; Gal. 2,16). For according to Paul salvation depends solely on the Grace of God” (Eph. 2, 8-9).

Thus the Pauline doctrine makes salvation a one-sided matter for God; people on earth have their hands bound (cf. Rom. 3,24; 4,16; Eph. 2,5; 2,8-9; 2. Tim. 1,9; Tit. 3,5-7). What Paul says here is of course quite attractive, because it is comfortable. By joining the fold, salvation ensues “automatically”. No effort on one’s own part is then necessary to arrive at the goal of life, for every Christian is saved once and for all by the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross at Golgotha. All you have to do is believe!

Paul the Coward

Paul preferred the cop out of going to Ceasar – incidently Paul’s pal Epaphroditus was Nero’s secretary….

ACTS 21:13 Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? For I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus….

This sure sounds noble and brave if not outright boastful, but watch what transpires. Paul’s arrest and how the Gentiles had to save him from the hands of the Jews in Acts 21:30-ch 23:22.  After this he was sent to Felix to be protected from the Jews. Ch. 23:23-ch. 24:27  There he stays for some time while Felix procrastinates dealing with the issue. Then Festus comes along and is compelled to do something about Paul and asks Paul a question.

But Festus, wanting to do the Jews a favor, answered Paul and said, “Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and there be judged before me concerning these things?” Then Paul said, “I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged. To the Jews I have done no wrong, as you very well know. For if I am an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.” Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, “You have appealed to Caesar? To Caesar you shall go!”  Acts 25:9-12

Caesar!!!  Of all the people to seek justice from, Paul opts for appealing to the likes of Caesar Nero!! Nero! You know…, that blood thirsty tyrant who murdered untold numbers of innocent people including his own mother!  And Paul says that this is where he “ought to be judged”! This is the height of hypocrisy for Paul in light of the fact that he had previously instructed the Corinthians not to seek justice from the unrighteous. All of 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 is telling… here are the highlights.

“Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?… If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge?… Now therefore, it is an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another, Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be defrauded?” 1 Corinthians 6:1,4,7

Paul couldn’t even practice what he preached. And what ever happened to, “I am willing to die in Jerusalem for Christ”? It was a statement of willingness to be a martyr and “accept wrong”. Paul tried to explain to Festus that he didn’t deserve to die because he had done nothing wrong. What martyr ever thought he deserved to die?  And what is just as absurd is that Paul said he was willing to go to his death if he did deserve it! How many individuals who know they deserve death are perfectly willing to go quietly to their execution? This entire picture that Paul has painted is stood on its head! True martyrs. The guilty at least protest, if not scream, all the way!  It was the grandest act of cowardice Paul could have made in light of the fact that he had  bragged he was willing to die as a martyr. He didn’t go through with it because the bottom line for Paul was the preservation of self and the image he had made for himself among the Gentiles. As has been shown in previous chapters, Paul was terribly full of himself… even putting himself above Moses. No one who is full of themselves is truly willing to die as a martyr. They might well brag that they are, because they are full of themselves… to uplift their image in the eyes of men. But when it comes down to hard choices, self-centered men will always play the coward.

Paul gave 3 different accounts of the vision he had!


Another point of contention amongst scholars is the different versions of HIS VISIONS on the road to Damascus. How can someone experience such a life changing event and then tell it differently? You would think that every detail would be burned into your mind, so as never being able to forget it. But, our man Paul, again has problems remembering in which order things happened, he confuses what his witnesses saw and heard, and he adds or detracts from his story as necessary. Does this seem like a man who had a vision of Jsus??

Let us have a look at the differences:

Narration No. 1:

Acts 9:3-7 And as he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. Then he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’ and he said, Who are You Lord? and the Lord said, I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads. So he, trembling and astonished said, Lord, what do You want me to do? And the Lord said to him, Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do. And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.

Notice that the verse includes the ‘kicking against the goads’ (more about this later)

Narration No: 2

Acts 22:1. While defending himself before the people of Jerusalem, Saul narrated the first narration in the Hebrew dialect;

Brethren and fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you. Verses 6 And it came about that as I was on my way, approaching Damascus about noontime, a very bright light suddenly flashed from heaven all around me, and I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? And I answered, Who art Thou, Lord? And He said to me, I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting. And those who were with me beheld the light, to be sure, but did not understand that voice of the One who was speaking to me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said to me, Arise and go into Damascus; and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.

Note: In this the first and second narration, Paul tells us that Jesus Christ simply directed him to go to the City of Damascus and there he would receive instructions from someone. In the above verse there is no comment here about ‘kicking against the goads’.

Narrative No. 3:

Acts 26:12. While defending himself before King Agrippa Saul narrates the incident in first person;

While thus engaged as I was journeying to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests, at midday, O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shinning all around me and those who were journeying with me. And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads. And I said, Who are Thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But arise, and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the thing which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; delivering you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.”

Surely all the warning bells should be ringing…. in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.” What and whose gospel is this?

Note: Also in this verse ‘the goads’ is added. In the three narratives I have underlined what the others with him had or had not seen or heard. As it can be seen when contrasting the three stories simultaneously they all have differing narrations. In the last one there has been added to the words of Jesus a whole lot of extra details which neither of the other two contains. It seems that whoever wrote this portion really wanted to express the Gospel of Paul rather than that of JC.

The narrator of Acts is not quite sure exactly what happened nor how it affected those with Paul. For that matter neither is Paul who had the LIFE CHANGING EPIPHANY.


IF Jesus had already given the needed guidance to Paul and also made him the Minister then why the story of a disciple of Jsus named Ananias breaking the news of appointment to Paul, three or four days later in the city of Damascus, who already knew it? Acts 22:14


On this fundamental subject of the discourse between Jesus and Paul, it is recorded in the Book of Acts:

That the men traveling with Paul, stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one. 9 :7

That the men traveling with Paul, saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to Paul. 22 : 9

That the men traveling with Saul saw the light and all fell down. 26:12

And now for the piece de resistance – remember Paul quotes what his disembodied vision says ….”it is hard for thee to kick against the goads.” Acts 26:14 – THIS QUOTE IS PAGAN FROM 794 In Bacchae of Euripides and in Pindar’s Odes, Pythia 2.94. Here we have the expression to “to kick against the goad” used of resisting the will of a ‘god’ already in the early fifth century before Messiah. (Bacchae was published later in 405 BCE).

Aelius Aristides specifically refers to Pindar as advising not to kick against the goads in: From Plato Concerning Rhetoric (Jebb edition, page 53, line 15).

The phase is also found in Aeschylus, Agamemnon, Line 1624. With the death of Aeschylus set arund 456 BCE, this work was also published before Euripides’ Bacchae.

It is kind of strange to have a pagan quote from the mouth of ‘Jesus’ – don’t you think?

While we are on this subject of Paul plagiarising and quoting from Pagan philosophers … here is a few more – and of course you can and should check them out for yourself.

Who wrote the following?

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become as soundingbrass or a tinkling cymbal. Though I tell what is to come, and know all secrets, and all wisdom; andthough I have faith strong as the storm which lifts mountains from their seat, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and give all my fire that I have received from my Father, but have not love, I am in no wise profited. Love is patient, love is kind. Love is not envious, works not evil, knows not pride; is not rude, neither selfish; is slow to anger, imagines no mischief; rejoices not in injustice, but delights in justice. Love defends all, love believes all, love hopes all, love bears all; never exhausts itself; but as for tongues they shall cease, and, as for knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we have truth in part, and error in part, but when the fullness of perfection is come, that which is in part shall be blotted out. When a man was a child he spoke as a child, understood as a child, thought as a child; but when he became a man he put away childish things. For now we see through a glass and through dark sayings. Now we know in part, but when we are come before the face of God, we shall not know in part, but even as we are taught by him. Andnow remain these three: faith and hope and love; but the greatest of these is love”.

You got it……. The famous  passage from 1 Cor 13 that Paul wrote…???

It is actually an excerpt from the Essenes Gospel of Peace. The passage from 1 Cor 13 this is merely a PLAGIARISM of that excerpt.

Conclusion: So 1 Cor 13 is a PLAGIARISM. Keep in mind that you have been taught to believe it came from Paul. Why specifically Paul?

“Perhaps even more important is the fact that the (excerpt above from the Essene Gospel of Peace) was found hidden away in the Vatican Library and removed by a priest because he believed the world should know the truth. In fact hidden away in the Vatican Library are copies of ancient manuscripts that are far older and more pure than anything we make our biblical translations from today. When asked why the Roman Church does not make these manuscripts available to Christians today, they said that they (the church) believe that they are the sole keepers of the truth — that these scriptures do not belong to those who are outside Roman Catholicism. They believe that genuine followers of Christ will be a part of their Church — a priest dedicated to the furtherance of what they consider God’s true Church — and they therefore believe that they alone have been entrusted with the ultimate truths of the teachings of The Way, and the secrets of the Kingdom belong only to them. “


Where do the following come from?

“We are his offspring”

“Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”

“In him we live and move and have our being”

“Cretans are always liars”

“Bad company corrupts good character”

“The good that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not do, that I do”

“But if any widow has children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home”

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after the Messiah

They look like passages from the letters of Paul!

You would be correct in that assumption some of the most famous passages in the pauline epistles….

They actually come directly from the pagan writings of Arastus (c.300

BCE); Epimenides (c 600BCE); Menander (c 350 BCE); Hippolytus (c 430

BCE); Terence (c 200 BCE) who were extollong the idol “Zeus”. Also quoted is a passage from the Buddhist scriptures (c 500-250 BCE



Arastus “We are his (Zeus) offspring” (Acts 17:28)

Epimenides “god (Zeus) is not far from each one of us for in him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:27,28)

From Epimenides “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes lazy gluttons(Titus 1:12)

From Menander “Bad company corrupts good character” (1 Cor 15:33)

From Hippolytus “The good that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not do, that I do” (Romans 7:19)

From Terence “But if any widow has children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home” (1 Timothy 5:4)

From Mahaparinibanasuta Buddhist scriptures “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phillipians 2:12)

Conclusion:  We find plagiarisms and quoting from pagan philosophy in Paul’s letters.

Paul used these passages (and they were actually extolling another “god”), to put into his letters that the Christian Church have made you to believe are the WORD OF GOD!

Think again!! You have been SERIOUSLY deceived…

Paul also stole the ministry from Peter who was given the command to preach to the gentiles.

What message did Paul carry to the Jews and the Gentiles?

A mystery religion .. that he had revealed only to him? He preached a false gospel of a mythical god … who was in fact based on gnosticism, Mithraism and Zeus. He preached that the law was abrogated – what kind of gospel is this?

He put himself up as ‘god/messiah’ and preached that the law had been abrogated Gal 3:22-25  Rom 4:14  Rom 7:6 (to many to mention).

He preached a false gospel Rom 16:25 (to many to mention)

He invented a new gospel the just shall live by faith Rom 1:17 and misquotes Hab2:4

He preached that we are saved by grace – without the law Eph 2:5 Eph 2:8 Rom 11:5 Titus 2:11 (and others)

He abrogated the Torah and invented a new law – The Law of Christ Gal 5:11-26 1 Cor 9:21 Gal 2:21 Gal 6:2 (and others)

He preached that eating food presented to idols was no big thing et al. 1 Cor 8:4

He created the ‘mystical body of Christ …’ Rom 11:4-5 Rom 12:5 1 Cor 12:27 1 Cor 10:16  Col 1:18 (to many to mention)

He preached that believers were the temple of the holy Spirit 1 Cor 6:19 1 Cor 3:16

He created an entirely new version of the “New Covenant”  Gospel: Luke 22:14 -20 Matt 26:29 Mark14:22-25 Paul’s 1 Cor 11:23 -30  1Cor 10:16-22

He invented the lie – there are none righteousRom 3:10

He plagerized others 1 Cor 13

He quoted pagan philosophers Acts 17:27-28 1 Cor 15:33 Rom7:19 (and others)

He also cursed God and “his” so called son Jsus Gal 1:8-9

He also stated that the God’s Law was a curse Gal 3:10 Gal 3:13

He states that keeping the Sabbath and feast days are not necessary Col 2:16-17

He accuses Jsus apostles of being false apostles of Christ, deceitful workers 2 Cor 11:13

He accuses them of being satanic and posing as angels of light 2 Cor 11:14

He states that he became a father through his gospel 1 Cor 4:15

He handed people over to satan and murdered them 1 Tim 1:20 1 Cor 5:5

He said ‘follow me and MY gospel’  …(can the blind lead the blind)? 2 Tim 2:8 Rom 2:16 Matt 15:14

In 2 Corinthians 11:1-12, Paul is manic in his own defence, and in his vigour is clear what his opponents’ charges against him are. Central is that his overweening conceit has distorted his thinking, that he is a foolish boaster, and Paul sarcastically accepts the charges to reply to them. Among the charges he attempts to refute in 2 Corinthians are:

1.            his boasting is unbounded (10:8,13,15;11:23)

2.            he is insane (stronger than “foolish”) with boasting (12:11)

3.            he is deceitful (12:16)

4.            he did people wrong (7:2;12)

5.            he is unreliable (1:17-18)

6.            he is weak (10:1;11:21)

7.            though clever, he admits he is no speaker (11:6)

8.            he has no personal presence (10:1,10)

9.            he can achieve nothing with worldly weapons (10:2f)

10.          his measure is false (10:13)

11.          his experience or evidence is dubious (10:15)

12.          he alters God’s word (4:2)

13.          he hides his true message (4:3)

14.          he preaches himself (4:5)

15.          he denigrates Jews (11:23f) but boasts of being one (11:22).

His defence exacerbates and illustrates the accusations. The “pillars” at Jerusalem had the authority of Christ, and few scholars disagree, so Paul just defies them. Plainly he was not appointed by Christ as an apostle but says he is no less than those who were because of claimed visions that no one else can confirm—Christians cannot resist anything that cannot be verified!

Pauls reasoning is: “He is not a false apostle, the true apostles are. He does not change God’s words, they do. He does not accept payment, they do. Just in case his visions of Christ are not impressive enough he has been to the third heaven! Hellenistic “pneumatics” made claims like this to uphold their claim to the secret knowledge of gnosis. It shows Paul is a Gnostic or is appealing to Gnostic allies in the Corinthian church against the representatives of the mother church in Jerusalem.”

Paul and Mithra

The Lord’s supper was not invented by Paul, but was borrowed by him from Mithraism, the mystery religion that existed long before Christianity and was Christianity’s chief competitor up until the time of Constantine. In Mithraism, the central figure is the mythical Mithras, who died for the sins of mankind and was resurrected. Believers in Mithras were rewarded with eternal life. Part of the Mithraic communion liturgy included the words, “He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.”

The early Church Fathers Justin Martyr and Tertullian tried to say that Mithraism copied the Lord’s Supper from Christianity, but they were forced to say that demons had copied it since only demons could copy an event in advance of its happening! They could not say that the followers of Mithras had copied it – it was a known fact that Mithraism had included the ritual a long time before Christ was born.

Where did Mithraism come from? The ancient historian Plutarch mentioned Mithraism in connection with the pirates of Cilicia in Asia Minor encountering the Roman general Pompey in 67 BC. More recently, in 1989 Mithraic scholar David Ulansey wrote a book, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries, in which he convincingly shows that Mithraism originated in the city of Tarsus in Cilicia. That this is also the home town of the apostle Paul cannot be a coincidence.

Paul admits that he did not know Jesus during Jesus’ lifetime. He also says that his gospel was not taught to him by any man Galatians 1:11-12. All of Paul’s theology is based on his own revelations, or visions. Like dreams, visions or hallucinations do not come from nowhere, but reveal what is already in a person’s subconscious. It is very likely that the source of most of Paul’s visions, and therefore most of his theology, is to be found in Mithraism and is another example of the church modifying the gospels to incorporate the theology of Paul, which eventually won out over the theology of Jesus’ original disciples.

In Romans 2:29 Paul is telling he is a Jew who is inwardly and that circumcision is that which is of the heart … we have a problem here in the fact God said to Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

It would appear that Paul has jumped the gun here … the covenant is totally with God’s own people the house of Israel and the house of Judah – and Paul is telling us ‘he is a Jew who is one inwardly,’ So we are now to believe that Paul is able to graft us into the new covenant by his gospel? And doing away with the law which is old and obey his lying and false gospel?

2 Cor 3:6

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

So we are to now believe that to the obey the Torah killeth and that Paul’s ‘spirit’ gives us life?

Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

This is Paul’s twisted concept of what the New Covenant is … he then proceeds to add more twisted concepts in his understanding of how  JC celebrated the last supper! He adds his pernicious ideas that have rocked the foundations of truth! The blasphemy that has caused the Roman Catholic Church and her daughters the Protestants  to partake in something that was never ordained or sanctioned by God – this is directly due to this false apostle’s lies of his ‘mystery religion..’

Paul then added his own interpretation. Paul has caused many agony of mind and heart – Breaking bread is different to what the New Covenant really is … it has absolutely nothing to do with bread!!!!!!

In inventing this blasphemy which is celebrated every day in the Roman Catholic mass – and in Protestant churches every Sunday – it seems the blasphemy never ends!

Because neither of them are right  –  The God of Israel’s Sabbath and His Feast Days are still in operation and will be till the end of time!   And the Communion that is celebrated in ‘Christian churches’ as no relation to the truth in any shape or form whatsoever, again inspired by the false apostle Paul – and his cohorts.

The proof that the New Covenant is not yet with us – is the fruit of ‘Paul’ of Tarsus’s revelation is swirling round us like a murky mist – 33,000 different denominations – all professing to be followers of Christ – makes its own statement.  We know that we need to keep the law (Torah)– old things have not passed away, because they are NOT old. 2 Cor 5:17.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith YHWH, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith YHWH:

31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith YHWH, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their Elohim, and they shall be my people.

31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know YHWH: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith YHWH; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

It must be obvious to a discerning person that …. THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED YET …. ‘Paul’ of Tarsus has tried to bring this to pass by creating a ‘spiritual body of Christ/ making it Israel.’ It is obscene and a tragic lie fooling people in to something that will never happen. Only Israel is called to be the guardians and the expounders of the Torah.

When Was The Law To Cease To Exist?

‘Paul’ of Tarsus traditions:

Galatians 3:19-29 reads,

3:19 What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the promise has been made. It was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator.

3:20Now a mediator is not between one, but God is one.

3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could make alive, most assuredly righteousness would have been of the law.

 3:22 But the Scriptures shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

3:23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, shut up to the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

3:24 So that the law has become our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

3:25 But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor.

3:26 For you are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus.

3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 

3:28 There is neither Jew no Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 3:29 If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to promise.

The teaching that Paul delivered to the Galatians, as seen in Galatians 3:19, implies that prior to transgressions there existed no law. Also, that its existence was envisaged to be for a temporary period, ceasing to exist once the seed to whom the promise had been made had come. Is this the case? Was the law to cease to exist upon the coming of the seed to whom the promise had been made?

In Galatians 3:23-25 Paul reiterates that with the coming of Christ the law has ceased to have authority over those it previously had authority over. In other words, it is of no consequence to them.

Is this the case? Did the law cease to have authority, with the coming of Christ, over those it had authority over prior to the coming of Christ?

Please note in Gal 3:19 …. ‘Paul’of Tarsus states the Law was ordained through the angels by the hand of a mediator …. THIS is what God says ABOUT HIS LAW:

Deuteronomy 10:1  At that time YHWH said unto me, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount, and make thee an ark of wood.

10:2 And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark.

10:3 And I made an ark of shittim wood, and hewed two tables of stone like unto the first, and went up into the mount, having the two tables in mine hand.

10:4 And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which YHWH spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and YHWH gave them unto me.

‘Paul’ of Tarsus says in: Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Have I missed something here? Do you see any angels ordaining the most sacred Law of  Hashem?

Deut 9:10 And the LORD delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the LORD spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.

Deuteronomy 30:11-14 mangled in Romans 10:6-9

Moses says (Deuteronomy 30:11-14) “For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.”

Paul says (Romans 10:4-9) “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 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.”

Paul is clearly quoting from Deuteronomy 30:11-14, but he completely changes the meaning. He quotes the “who will ascend into heaven?” and “who will descend into the deep?” (close enough translation of Moses) questions, but totally changes the point. Moses’ point is that the LAW is not up in heaven where we can’t reach it, nor is it in the deep (or beyond the sea) where we can’t reach it—no, the Law is right here where we can both reach it and do it. Moses’ point is that the Law is doable. Paul’s is the opposite, that the Law is NOT doable. Is Paul, therefore, using this passage honorably? No.

Let’s look even closer.

Paul is trying to establish that faith in Christ means we no longer have to keep the Law. And to do so, he quotes Moses as saying that a man will live by doing the Law and then follows it up by quoting this section of Deuteronomy where Moses shows that the Law is doable. And then he reaches the conclusion that since the Law is NOT doable (a conclusion contrary to both his proof texts from Moses), instead of doing the Law you just need to confess that Jesus is Lord and believe that he was raised from the dead, and that’s it, you will be saved. He clearly is not properly using the OT.

Paul’s Original Sin

The only PERSON who mentions the paralyzing effects of original sin is Paul  – No one and nowhere else does scripture teach this – Paul’s gospel is one of death and inability…

Another devastating doctrine of ‘Paul’ of Tarsus is his iniquitous comprehension of sin …

 The founders of Christianity understood that if man can save himself from eternal damnation through his own initiative and obedience to God, the church would have very little to offer the human race.  Moreover, if righteousness can be achieved through submission to the commandments outlined in the Torah, what possible benefit could Jesus’ death provide for mankind?  Such self-probing thoughts, however, were unimaginable to those who shaped primitive Christianity.

Despite the zealous position missionaries take as they defend this creed, the Christian doctrine on original sin is profoundly hostile to the central teachings of the Jewish scripturesOver and over again the Torah loudly dismisses the notion that man has lost his divinely endowed capacity to freely choose good over evil, life over death.  This is not a hidden or ambiguous message in the Jewish scriptures.  On the contrary, it is proclaimed in virtually every teaching that Moses directs to the children of Israel.

In fact, in an extraordinary sermon delivered by Moses in the last days of his life, the prophet stands before the entire nation and condemns the notion that man’s condition is utterly hopeless.  Throughout this uplifting exhortation, Moses declares that it is man alone who can and must merit his own salvation.  Moreover, as he unhesitatingly speaks in the name of God, the lawgiver thoroughly rejects the notion that obedience to the Almighty is “too difficult or far off” and declares to the children of Israel that righteousness has been placed within their reach.

Deuteronomy 30 isn’t a quiet chapter and its verses read as though the Torah is bracing the Jewish people for the Christian doctrines that would confront them many centuries later.  As the last Book of the Pentateuch draws to a close, Moses admonishes his young nation not to question their capacity to remain faithful to the mitzvoth of the Torah.  Deuteronomy 30:10-14 states:

. . . if you will hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Law; if you turn unto the Lord thy God with all your heart and with all your soul; for this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you neither is it too far off.  It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, and make us hear it, that we may do it?”  Neither is it beyond the sea that you should say: “Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it that we may do it?”  The word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.

The Jewish people have drawn great comfort and encouragement from this uplifting promise.  For the church, however, Moses’ strong message created a theological disaster.  How could the authors of the New Testament reasonably insist that man’s dire condition was hopeless if the Torah unambiguously declared that man possessed an extraordinary ability to remain faithful to God?  How could the church fathers possibly contend that the mitzvoth in the Torah couldn’t save the Jewish people when the Creator proclaimed otherwise?  How could missionaries conceivably maintain that the commandments of the Torah are too difficult when the Torah declares that they are “not far off,” “not too hard,” and “you may do it”?

This staggering problem did not escape the false apostle Paul.  Bear in mind, the author of Romans and Galatians constructed his most consequential doctrines on the premise that man is utterly depraved and incapable of saving himself through his own obedience to God.  In chapter after chapter he directs his largely gentile audiences toward the cross and away from Sinai as he repeatedly insists that man is lost without Jsus.

Yet how could Paul harmonize this wayward and evil theology with the Jewish scriptures in which his teachings were not only unknown, but thoroughly condemned?  Even with the nimble skills that Paul possessed, welding together the church’s young doctrine on original sin with diametrically opposed teachings of the Jewish scriptures would not be a simple task.

Employing unparalleled literary manipulation, however, Paul manages to conceal this vexing theological problem with a swipe of his well-worn eraser.  In fact, Paul’s innovative approach to biblical tampering was so remarkable that it would set the standard of scriptural revisionism for future New Testament authors.

A classic example of this biblical revisionism can be found in Romans 10:8 where Paul announces to his readers that he is quoting directly from scripture as he records the words of Deuteronomy 30:14.  Yet as he approaches the last portion of this verse, he carefully stops short of the Torah’s vital conclusion and expunges the remaining segment of this crucial verse.  In Romans 10:8 Paul writes,

“But what does it say?  “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach)”.

Predictably, the last words of Deuteronomy 30:14, “that you may do it,” were meticulously deleted by Paul.  Bear in mind that he had good reason for removing this clause — the powerful message contained in these closing words rendered all that Paul was preaching as heresy.

This stunning misquote in Romans stands out as a remarkable illustration of Paul’s ability to shape scriptures in order to create the illusion that his theological message conformed to the principles of the Torah.  By removing the final segment of this verse, Paul succeeded in convincing his largely gentile readers that his Christian teachings were supported by the principles of the Hebrew Bible.

Deuteronomy 30:14 But the word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.

Romans 10:8 But what does it say?  “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach).

The question that immediately comes to mind is: How can Paul deliberately remove a vital clause from Moses’ message and still expect to gain a following among the Jewish people?  While considering this question, we can begin to understand why Paul attained great success among his gentile audiences and utterly failed among the Jews who were unimpressed with his contrived message.

The tragedy is many people think that the Jews rejected the true gospel – not so, they rejected Paul’s false gospel – therein lies the difference.

It is for this reason that although both Paul and Matthew quoted extensively from the Jewish scriptures, they achieved a very different result.  Paul was largely a minister to gentile audiences who were ignorant of the Jewish Bible (the only Bible in existence at the time).  As a result, they did not possess the skills necessary to discern between genuine Judaism and Bible tampering.  These illiterate masses were, as a result, vulnerable, and eagerly consumed everything that Paul taught them.  In fact, throughout the New Testament it was exclusively the Jewish apostates to Christianity who challenged Paul’s authority, never the gentile community.

Ironically, there was no individual in history who was more responsible for the strong resistance of the Jewish people to the Christian message than Matthew.  In contrast, the person most responsible for the church’s unparalleled success among the gentiles was unquestionably the apostle Paul.  Not surprisingly, throughout the biblical narrative, gentiles had always had a terrible time discerning chaff from wheat, truth from heresy; and the Jews were repeatedly warned never to emulate them.  Tragically, some of our people missed this crucial message.

Paul, however, should have been tipped off that his teachings on original sin were misguided and that his broad-brushed characterization of humanity was erroneous.  In fact, the Jewish scriptures repeatedly praised numerous men of God for their unwavering righteousness.  For example, the Bible declared that men like Calev and King Josiah were faithful throughout their extraordinary lives.  Moreover, because of their devotion to their Creator, Abraham and Daniel were the objects of the Almighty’s warm affection as He tenderly referred to Abraham as “My friend,” and Daniel, “beloved.” These extraordinary people did not merit these remarkable superlatives because they believed in Jesus or depended on a blood atonement; but rather, it was their devotion to God and unyielding obedience to His Torah that shaped their lives.

Job’s unique loyalty to God stands as a permanent enigma to Christian theology as well.  Here was a man who was severely tested by Satan and endured unimaginable personal tragedies, yet despite these afflictions, Job remains the model of the righteous servant of God.  While in Christian theology Job’s personal spiritual triumph is a theological impossibility, in Jewish terms it stands out as the embodiment of God’s salvation program for mankind.  Job didn’t rely on Jesus to save him and he certainly did not turn to the cross for his redemption; rather, it was his unswerving obedience to God that made his life a lesson for all of humanity.

Paul’s unfounded doctrine on original sin sullies the exemplary legacies of these and many other great men of God.  Moreover, Christians must ponder whether it is an insult to the Creator to label all of God’s human creation depraved.

Quite unwittingly, Luke committed a striking theological blunder that severely undermined Paul’s teachings on original sin.  In the first chapter of Luke, the evangelist seeks to portray Elizabeth, who is the cousin of Mary, and her husband Zechariah as the virtuous parents of John the Baptist.  Yet in his zeal to characterize the baptizer’s mother and father as saints, Luke unwittingly writes, “Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly.” (Luke 1:6)

The question that immediately comes to mind is how can missionaries possibly harmonize Paul’s insistence that all humanity is depraved when Luke insists that Elizabeth and Zechariah were to be regarded as “blameless”?  This is a stunning gaffe for Luke to make when it was he who eagerly promoted Paul in his Book of Acts.  Doesn’t Luke’s assertion that this couple observed “all the Lord’s commandments” fly in the face of Paul’s central teaching that no one is capable of keeping the mitzvoth of the Torah?  Is it not a fact that Christianity teaches that this task is impossible?

Paul never lived to read the Book of Luke, yet throughout his epistles Paul sidesteps any statement in the Jewish scriptures that could undermine his teaching on original sin.  For example, immediately after the sin of Adam and Eve is narrated, the Torah declares that man can master his passionate lust for sin.  In Genesis 4:6-7, God turns to Cain and warns him,

“If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?  If, though, you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you shall master over it”.

For Christian architects (a very polite terminology) like Paul, Augustine, and Calvin, this declaration of man’s capacity to restrain and govern his lust for sin is nothing short of heresy.  Moreover, the fact that the Torah places these assuring words immediately following the sin in the Garden of Eden is profoundly troubling for the church.  How can depraved humanity control its iniquity when the Book of Romans repeatedly insists that man can do nothing to release himself from sin’s powerful grip?  Yet notice that there is nothing in the Eden narrative that could be construed as support for Paul’s teaching on humanity’s dire condition.  On the contrary, in just these two inspiring verses, the Torah dispels forever the church’s teachings on original sin.

The Almighty did not give us desires that we cannot govern or commandments that we could not keep.  The Torah was not delivered to angels, it was given to the children of Israel long after our first ancestors transgressed in the Garden of Eden.

In Jewish terms, sin is not a person, it’s an event, and that event happened yesterday.  In chapter after chapter, the prophets of Israel beseech those who lost their way to turn back to the Merciful One because today is a new day.

Christianity is not about Jesus the man that preached an enlightened form of Judaism; it’s about a Gnostic Christ Paul saw in a vision. (Acts 9) That “vision” had nothing to do with the Jesus of the Galilee or God. Paul as a Diaspora Jew was exposed to Greek philosophy (He wrote only in Greek) and he originated in Tarsus, a center for the pagan mystery religions.

‘Paul’ of Tarsus

Paul was Jewish and persecuted the Christians who were renewing their knowledge of the laws and the application of the laws in their daily lives. So he was acting on the side of, that is for, the oppressive establishment.

He was unsuccessful in this as Jewish Christianity spread and continued to spread.

He then said that he had had a ‘vision’ and called himself a Christian but he preached not for but against the social laws and against the social system of the Pentateuch. He preached against material independence, against social security, against freedom from oppression and exploitation.

What he preached was the political ideology of an oppressive establishment which wanted to be able to oppress so as to exploit without hindrance.

This brought him into conflict with Jewish Christians and with the mostly Jewish Christian communities. He then concentrated on gaining converts from gentiles (people who are not Jewish) who presumably knew nothing or little about the laws of the Pentateuch and who would thus be more likely to follow his teachings without arguing about its content.

Paul’s letters (epistles) are the oldest part of the New Testament. The Gospels followed – as far as we know Matthew’s was written first, then Mark’s, then Luke’s. Luke also wrote The Acts. It seems that Paul’s letters were written about 50 AD and the gospels about 70-100 AD.

What stands out is that no one before Paul wrote such letters and that no one did so afterwards. They give his own point of view and personal ideology and he gives them an authority which they would not otherwise have had by means of a self-proclaimed vision.

The gospels as a whole relate to the life and death of Jesus but Paul’s letters seem to be more a vehicle for pronouncements directed against observance of laws ensuring freedom, independence and equality.

Paul’s teachings were accepted to a considerable extent and the Gentile Christians’ stories about the beginning of Christianity do differ from those of the Jewish Christians. It is the versions of the Gentile Christians which were included in the Christian Canon and became official doctrine.

I suppose that what I am saying is that changes which were made as time progressed were at times ‘politically’ motivated towards putting across Paul’s ‘message’, towards indoctrinating people with the political ideology of an oppressive establishment which wanted to be able to oppress so as to exploit without hindrance.


For no apparent reason, without justification and without stating a source, Paul says in his letter to the ‘Romans’ 5:4 that:

  1. All authority comes from God,

so that rulers (those who are in a position of authority) have been appointed by God.

Hence let every person submit to those who rule.

2.            It follows that whoever resists the rulers resists whom God has appointed and those who resist rulers will be punished,

3.            For rulers do not terrorise those whose conduct is “good”, but those whose conduct is “evil”. If you want to live without fearing the person who is in authority, then do what is “good” and you will be praised,

4.            For he rules over you in God’s place for your own good. But if you do that which is “evil”, be afraid, for his is not an empty threat; he will in God’s place punish the doer of “evil”.

5.            Therefore one must be obedient, to avoid their anger (if you do not obey) and because to obey is the right thing to do.

6.            For the same reason you also pay taxes, for those in authority collecting taxes are acting on God’s behalf.

7.            Pay all those in authority what they demand, taxes, revenues, respect, honour.

8.            Your only obligation to others is to love one another; Because he who loves another has fulfilled “the law”.

9.            For this:

You shall not commit adultery,

You shall not murder,

You shall not steal,

You shall not bear false witness,

You shall not covet;

and if there be any other commandment,

it is summed up in this saying:

You shall love your neighbour as yourself.

10.          Love does not do harm to a neighbour;

therefore love (is) the fulfilling of the law.

Romans 13, 1-7

Astonishingly and without good reason he states that those in authority rule by ‘divine right’, that whatever they do is justified because in his opinion they act on God’s behalf. Whatever those in authority do or want is called ‘good’ by Paul and those who resist or oppose them do ‘evil’ and will be punished. Paul wants all to obey those in authority and to be obedient, to pay taxes and revenues, to respect and honour those in authority.

He is arguing that one must fear and obey those in authority and do for them and give them all they ask, without regard to how selfish, rotten, corrupt, inhuman, vicious, murdering or evil they may be.

What Paul is saying and putting forward in this letter is neither God’s word nor is it what Jesus taught. Under the disguise of a religious sermon Paul is spreading political propaganda, trying to brainwash people into willingly serving and loving those who exploit and oppress so as to exploit.

Look again at the social laws and system of the Pentateuch and you will see how the laws of the Pentateuch ensure freedom and material independence and provide a good life of high quality here and now, backed by effective social security. No one may oppress or exploit another and all are equal, as a matter of law.

It is these laws of behaviour, it is these social laws and this social system which Paul opposes and he next attempts to stop people from keeping these laws.

Romans 13, 8-10

Paul lists only the last five of the Ten Commandments <3>. These five commandments protect people against anti-social behaviour of others by prohibiting the doing of that which would harm or injure other people, prohibiting adultery, murder, theft, false witness and coveting.

He continues by saying

(1) “Love does not do harm to a neighbour”, and

(2) “all ‘other’ commandments are contained in ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself'”.

He also says

(3) “Love is the fulfilling of the law” and

(4) “He who loves another has fulfilled the law”

and concludes

(5) Therefore your only obligation to others is to love one another.

The word ‘love’ is a label for something which is vague and abstract and quite meaningless until it is clearly, precisely and unambiguously defined in detail. ‘Love does not do harm to a neighbour’ and ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ are vague and do not stand up to examination.

It would be illogical to argue that step (2) follows from step (1).

One person’s idea of ‘love’ could be another person’s ‘insult’ or ‘hurt’.

To say that ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ contains all the other laws, is in effect abrogating, bypassing, annulling these laws by replacing them with a person’s likes and dislikes, even by a pervert’s feelings.

There is simply no basis for saying that “Love is the fulfilling of the law” and that “He who loves another has fulfilled the law”.

Paul himself leaves us in no doubt about his intentions when he says that “Your only obligation to others is to love one another”. His intentions are to stop people from observing other laws.

The laws he does not wish people to observe include the first five commandments (of the Ten Commandments) which he pointedly left out from his list and thus include the social laws and the social system laws which together ensure freedom and material independence and social security.

When Moses brought the tables of the law he brought ‘freedom upon the tables’. It is the Ten Commandments as a whole which underlie freedom, independence and strength to oppose and resist oppression.

And the first five commandments which Paul is attempting to stop people from observing are those which directly relate to freedom and independence, which give the working population strength in their struggle for a better life for themselves and their children against those who oppress and exploit.

These laws state that:

The only way to gain and keep freedom and independence and a good life free from oppression and exploitation is to follow all these laws.

One must not respect or serve oppressing, exploiting or enslaving beliefs or ideologies.

One must not use God’s name to lend authority to a statement which it would not otherwise have or to a false or misleading statement.

One must observe the Sabbath day, the seventh day which is a day of rest from work for all, on which all are equal and rest, on which our servants rest just as we do, remembering that it was God who by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm freed us from most brutal service.

One must honour one’s father and one’s mother and willingly accept God’s commands and the tradition, knowledge and life experience of one’s parents so that one will progress and advance in understanding and in life and so that one will have long and secure lives of high quality in the land God gives one.

Among the social laws of the Pentateuch, for example, are the kingship laws {3} which state that those in authority must not oppress people so as to increase their own possessions and power, that they must not put themselves above the people and so enrich themselves. They are warned against oppressing people and against forming enforcing squads or organisations so as to multiply their own power, must not be promiscuous and must not amass wealth. They must know and observe the law and its intent and aim to see the law applied.

The Pentateuch states the Ten Commandments, the social laws and the social system laws and states in religious language the effects when people either follow or else reject these laws. But it also states that this is a scientific Cause-and-effect relationship, lists causes and effects and states that the effects are reversible dependent on how people behave {17}.

Paul is apparently unaware of the inevitable inescapable consequences of breaking the law, of not living according to the social laws, and so makes changes which would have and have had disastrous consequences for those who attempted to put into effect what he proposes.

Throughout the ages, Christians of goodwill chose intuitively to interpret Paul’s statements about those in authority as meaning that ‘the authority of those in authority only comes from God to the extent to which they themselves live according to and apply the Ten Commandments, the social laws and the social system laws’ and that only those can ‘love one another’ who comply with all these laws.

This article has been put together using several peoples concept of Paul – the article was much bigger then this, however I put the thoughts and words of others including myself to create and expose this ‘deceiver’ who has caused such heartache to so many people!  Time permitting there is a lot more. This is a just a few serious pointers to show you just how deceived millions are ….

Want to share or print this? Choose how below:
  • Print
  • email
  • Add to favorites
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us

{ 3 comments… read them below or add your own }

Larry May 18, 2012 at 4:15 pm

I had never thought about some of these points before.  The point that Paul teaching to the gentiles who knew nothing or very little about the torah, is huge and explains why he was so successful with them.  I was wondering why he would do this but after reading corinthians 2 again it seems that he talks about himself continually.  Thanks for putting this together you do this very well.

  Quote this in your comment


Dave & Yvonne May 22, 2012 at 6:24 am

Larry your comment on on the points of Paul is meant to make you think …. a most magnificent deception of all time!!



  Quote this in your comment


Larry May 30, 2012 at 2:04 am

I was wondering, yourphariseefriend said in letter that the “law was grace”.  does this mean that people who may believe that Jesus is G-d “idolatry” that they are saved because they may miss one point their lives are otherwise perfect? Does that make sense?

  Quote this in your comment


Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: