Home |  About Us |  Breaking Idols |  Resources |  To Your Health! |  Links - that we like! |  Sign Our Guestbook!

Sat, 21 Oct 2017 08:02:52 -0400

SHABBAT, 1 Heshvan 5778 — יוֹם שַׁבָּת א חֶשְׁוָן ה' תשעח



Table Of Contents
(Click On Item To Jump To Respective Section)

  1. Introduction —Returning To Torah!

  2. What Did The Original Community Of Faith — In Yeshua HaMashiach Look Like?

  3. What Was An Apostle?

  4. Was Saul Of Tarsus — A False Prophet?

  5. 'Paul' Said, "...and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions..."

  6. "Winners" Rewrite History

  7. Inerrancy & Infallibility — Commandments Of Men?

  8. Were 'Christian Scriptures' Written Mainly To And By Gentiles?

  9. Who Was Luke's "Most Excellent Theophilus" And When Was Acts Written?

  10. Is The 2nd Peter Reference To 'Paul's Writings As "Scripture" Valid?

  11. Did Admonitions 'Not To Add Or Take Away From Scripture' Apply To 'The New Testament'?

  12. FACT: Neither 'Paul' Nor Luke Knew Yeshua Personally!

  13. 'Paul' Set Us All Up By Declaring Any "Gospel Other Than His" — Is A False Gospel!

  14. 'Paul' Shamelessly Disparaged Those Apostles Chosen By Yeshua!

  15. Is The Inconsistent Telling Of The Same Incident A Telltale Sign of Lying?

  16. Yeshua Called His Handpicked Apostles, Friends!

  17. Did Saul Of Tarsus Claim To Be Superior Than The 12 Apostles?

  18. Yeshua HaMashiach Called 'Paul' A Liar!

  19. Was Saul Of Tarsus Capable Of Discerning Between Spirits Prior To His Claim To Being 'Filled With The Holy Spirit?'

  20. 'Paul' Preached The Different Gospel — Teaching "...You Are Not Under The Torah"

  21. Who Should You Follow, The Self-Proclaimed apostle 'Paul' Or Yeshua HaMashiach?

  22. Where did Yeshua say, "It is better to give than to receive"?

  23. The 12 Handpicked Apostles Of Yeshua HaMashiach!

Return To Contents Introduction —Returning To Torah! Return To Top

Introduction — Returning To Torah!



[Matthew 4:17 in Hebrew Gospel of Matthew by George Howard]

"...Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.""
[Matthew 4:17b ESV]

With these words, "Repent for the kingdom ...", a resounding theme of the "ministry" of Yeshua has actually been predetermined (incorrectly!), in our opinion, by the many who call themselves "Christian".

What we mean is that the English word "repent" carries with it the sense to "Stop Sinning".

Yet, the Hebrew words, Hazaroh Teshuvah (in the hebrew above) carry not only the sense to "Just Stop Sinning" but more so of "Returning".

Then, Returning To What?

Novel though it may sound, we at The Iconoclast believe that an essential objective of the Mashiach would be to preach to the nation of Israel to earnestly RETURN to the Torah of יְהֹוָה  [YehoVah] — that which was as given to us through His servant Moses!


We Want To Be Clear:
Returning To יְהֹוָה  [YehoVah] — Returning To Torah
Is NOT Rabbinic "Torah Observance"!

Please be aware that when we speak of Torah, we mean the literal Torah — the first five books of Scripture given to Moses, but also in the broader sense the entire writings of the Hebrew Scriptures known as the Tanakh (aka Old Testament)!

However, this is NOT what mainstream Judaism/Talmudists mean when they speak of "Torah Observance".

When mainstream rabbis speak of Torah, they include both the written Torah as well as what they refer to as the Oral Torah or Oral Law. Most everyone is familiar with the term "Written Torah" (otherwise known as the 5 books of Moses, aka Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). However, the rabbis reserve a set of esoteric/elite instructions to which they refer to as the Oral Torah, which was codified around 200-220 CE (comprising the Mishnah and the Gemara which together are known as the Talmud).

Interestingly, the Talmud is given greater authority by the rabbis than the written Torah of Moses!

Obviously, since the "Oral Torah" was comprised by rabbis, they hold their own "creation" above the particular instructions that יְהֹוָה  [YehoVah] — gave us through Moses. Moreover, there is no proof that there ever was an "Oral Torah," and there is absolutely no reference in the Tanakh (Hebrew Scriptures) about the Oral Torah, even when there could have been opportunity, as in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Interestly, concerning "Torah Observance," in a euphemistic way what the rabbis really mean is following the teachings of the Talmudic rabbis instead of the actual written Torah itself — while they often "sprinkle" some passages of Torah along with their teachings and dictates, albeit quite often out of context! (for example: Exodus 23:2 where rabbis take their dictum, incline after the majority; see It Is Not In Heaven or Rabbinic Authority And The Oral Law or Rabbinic Contestations of Authority).


Why might we think it a novel idea that Mashiach would focus on returning to follow and adhere to the Torah that יְהֹוָה  [YehoVah] gave to Moses?

Simply because the idea of the Mashiach, the especially anointed messenger of יְהֹוָה  [YehoVah], to focus on teaching to return to the adherence of the Torah is rather obvious to us.

To us, it follows logically that if the person who would be the Mashiach were to be the particular messenger — in effect the spokesman of the Almighty, his focus would necessarily be to promote the special revelation of יְהֹוָה  [YehoVah], the Torah He gave to His servant Moses. We believe he would instruct them about turning away from their present (evil) ways and returning to the instructions, teachings and commands of the Torah! In short, to return to יְהֹוָה  [YehoVah].

What we find, however, is that definitions of the Mashiach, be they from Orthodox Judaism, Pauline Christianity or even Islam, all hold the Mashiach as something quite different, from prominently a military leader, to founder of new religion, to a prophet!

We realize that our belief system and our ideas regarding the Mashiach of יְהֹוָה  [YehoVah] may seem strange and perhaps heretical. Nevertheless, it is our sincere desire to convey that the specially anointed messenger/spokesman of יְהֹוָה  [YehoVah] would focus especially upon following the revelation of the Torah itself, and in its broader sense the entire writings of the Hebrew Scriptures known as the Tanakh! Just as it is recorded that Yeshua quoted from more than literally the first five books of Moses, we also hold the entire Tanakh as authoritative. The word "Torah" actually does mean "teaching/instruction"!

We find that due to extreme corruption and manipulation of ancient texts, the truth of the Mashiach may be discerned only with the aid of the Ruach HaKodesh of יְהֹוָה  [YehoVah] — Himself. Therefore, when we discuss the person Yeshua (whom we consider Mashiach – see Is Yeshua Mashiach?), we find that the actual teachings of Saul of Tarsus (aka PaulineChristianity) to be in essence contrary to the essential teachings of Yeshua (particularly found in the Hebrew Matthew), which uphold the Torah given through Moses!

As we discuss below, it is our opinion that the followers of Saul of Tarsus, aka 'Paul' (i.e., Christians/Pauline Christianity), treat the Torah of יְהֹוָה  [YehoVah] with abject contempt and disrespect, following their de facto messiah 'Paul' based upon his seminal instruction, "...You are not under the Torah" (Romans 6:14) with all of his related anti-Torah teaching!

Isaiah 55:6-7

דִּרְשׁוּ יְהוָה בְּהִמָּצְאוֹ קְרָאֻהוּ בִּהְיוֹתוֹ קָרוֹב׃

ו

6

Seek ye the LORD while He may be found, call ye upon Him while He is near;

יַעֲזֹב רָשָׁע דַּרְכּוֹ וְאִישׁ אָוֶן מַחְשְׁבֹתָיו וְיָשֹׁב אֶל־יְהוָה וִירַחֲמֵהוּ וְאֶל־אֱלֹהֵינוּ כִּי־יַרְבֶּה לִסְלוֹחַ׃

ז

7

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the man of iniquity his thoughts; and let him return unto the LORD, and He will have compassion upon him, and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon.

It is with this background that we proceed to express how we think the hand-picked Talmidim of Yeshua Himself would have interpreted His instructions.



Return To Contents What Did The Original Community Of Faith In Yeshua HaMashiach Look Like? Return To Top

What Might The Community Of Faith
In Yeshua HaMashiach Look Like
Had There Been No 'Apostle Paul'?

Have you ever given any thought to what the community of faith, in the belief that Yeshua was Mashiach, would look like had there been no Saul of Tarsus, no self–proclaimed 'Apostle Paul' to inform the world of his version of who Yeshua was?

This is how we, at The Iconoclast, think it may have looked:

  • First and foremost, we believe that the early community proclaiming faith in Yeshua as Mashiach would have been focused upon returning to the adherence to following the instructions given in the written Torah of יְהֹוָה  [YehoVah], which He gave to His servant Moses! We absolutely believe that that early community of faith did exactly that. However, we also believe that there has been a mostly successful attempt to hide that essential truth through the writings of Saul of Tarsus (aka 'Paul', self-proclaimed to be the preeminent emissary (apostle) to Yeshua) and his primary student and biographer, Luke. We believe that together, they have created a history that has conveniently hidden the true mission of the Mashiach of Elohim, which, as we have stated above would have been to turn His talmudim to following and adhering to the teachings, instructions and commands given in the written Torah; turning their hearts towards יְהֹוָה  [YehoVah]!

  • Thus, we believe that the early community of faith in Yeshua would have chiefly differed from 1st century Judaism in that it would recognize the Torah of יְהֹוָה  [YehoVah] as the center of life instruction, whereas we believe that the extant information of the words of Yeshua B'Natzeret (Jesus of Nazareth) show clearly that the religious leaders in Israel at that time were centered upon their own man-made laws declaring their 'Oral Torah' as the center of their religious experience. We believe that as Yeshua focused upon following the written Torah, he was the direct fulfillment of the Messianic hope given by יְהֹוָה  [YehoVah] to the nation of Israel.

  • The community of faith in Yeshua as Mashiach would have remained as a community within the religious sphere of Israel, a Judaism that functioned along side of the existing community in Israel prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and for some time thereafter.

  • It would have continued as part of the Jewish community until or unless it was forced out. However, it would remain Jewish in culture and ethnicity and it would continue to uphold the Torah as prescribed by Yeshua HaMashiach.

  • If forced to separate from the greater Jewish communities, it would remain a Yeshua centered, Torah focussed Judaism. Necessarily, it would not assimilate into the cultures it found itself in any more than other Jewish communities would throughout the ages.

  • Just as modern forms of Judaism define themselves outside of the scope of the Temple Services (at the since destroyed Temple in Jerusalem), the community of faith, in Yeshua, would have remained Torah focussed apart from Temple worship, but rather being centered in the teachings of Yeshua, as the Ruach HaKodesh of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) would lead them.

  • We believe that the version of 'Judaism' that Yeshua taught was centered in the Torah (Hebrew Scriptures) of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) ONLY, rather than on prevalent teachings of the 'Scribes and Pharisees' of His day (proponents of an 'Oral Torah'/'Oral Law', aka a teaching of men). We assert that the early talmidim (followers/students), of Yeshua, would have continued the teachings as centered in the Hebrew Scriptures only.

  • Because we hold that the early talmidim, and especially the hand-picked special messengers, Apostles, of Yeshua would have held the written Torah as the supreme authority for life, beliefs and actions, we absolutely reject what to us is the preposterous belief in Christianity that those Gentiles who joined the early Messianic community would have been free to establish a brand new religion essentially forsaking the Torah of Moses following their true Messiah, Saul of Tarsus, aka "'Paul'" based upon his seminal teaching "You are not under the Torah" (see New Testament book of Romans chapter:verse, 6:14)!!! We refer you to our page on Goyim joining Israel. We sincerely believe that the Apostles would have weighed all disputes against the written Torah, and particularly in the matter involving circumscision found in Acts 15, if an actual event, it would have been recorded that they would have referred to the abundant scriptural passages referencing circumcision for those non-Jews who joined Israel. Yet, that New Testament chapter has conveniently left out any such references! Again, please see our page on the Goyim as noted above for our assessment of this important issue.

  • Even after being dispersed away from mainstream Judaism, the community of faith in Yeshua b'Natzeret would have kept its focus on Yeshua as the promised Mashiach of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]), the hope of Israel. It would define itself apart from Pharisaic / rabbinical Judaism, but it would remain a Torah centered Judaism as defined by Yeshua and as led by the Ruach HaKodesh of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]).

  • It would not tolerate the introduction of any other proclamations of others as The Messiah, such as Bar Kochba was proclaimed by rabbi Akiva in the 2nd century.

  • It could not have accepted the Judaisms later defined by rabbis, who essentially continued the Pharisaic tradition ("... teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." - Matthew 15:9a), and took upon themselves a de facto role as cohanim (i.e., priests, decendants of Aaron — yet few have been direct decendants of Aaron! — in that regard, might the modern Jewish [post–Temple] priesthood (rabbis) be seen to be just like the false priests that Jeroboam made for Israel? —
    "And he made houses of high places, and made priests from among all the people, that were not of the sons of Levi." [1 Kings 12:31 JPS-1917]).

    Just as Karaite* Jews eschew modernistic rabbinic traditions, we also reject the euphemistic term 'Torah Observant' (even among those calling themselves Messianic Jews). That term infers that someone actually follows the teachings of the Torah directly, but the reality is that those calling themselves 'Torah Observant' follow the teachings of 'the rabbis' as if they are the explicit and direct 'Word of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH])'!

    *(Definition of Karaism from www.karaite-korner.org: "Karaism is the original form of Judaism as prescribed by God in the Torah. Karaite Judaism rejects later additions to the Tanach (Jewish Bible) such as the Rabbinic Oral Law and places the ultimate responsibility of interpreting the Bible on each individual. Karaism does not reject Biblical interpretation but rather holds every interpretation up to the same objective scrutiny regardless of its source.")

    (Please note that the term 'Torah Observant' has actually come to mean, 'followers of rabbinic / pharisaic Judaism', rather than truly following the Torah/Scriptures of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) alone! Any reference to 'Torah observant' herein is intended to be literal, and never intended to infer that pharisaic / rabbinic Judaism was what Yeshua or His talmidim would have considered as legitimate. For a reference to the background of this, we would recommend the book "The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus" – http://www.hebrewyeshua.com/hebrew_yeshua_book.html)

  • It would have recognized the destruction of the Temple as a fulfillment of prophecy in Daniel, and it would have evolved by interpreting Messianic prophecy, including Jeremiah 31:31ff, as applicable to itself (for an illustration of this fulfillment, see our page of Solomon Birnbaum's "The Story That Could Not Be Forgotten," which shows how the post Temple destruction Messianic Judaism interpreted the Passover, the seder (order) for which all of Judaism has adopted!).

  • Also, as with other forms of Judaism, any non–Jews who would join the faith community would themselves assimilate into the Yeshua centered Messianic Jewish culture (there would be no Jewish assimilation into Gentile/pagan culture as found in 'Pauline Christianity'). In essence, there would not be any genuine community of faith in Yeshua apart from Jewish ethnicity, culture and Torah observance as defined by Yeshua HaMashiach.


Of course, there was such a person as Saul of Tarsus, whose claim to being "The Apostle To The Gentiles" entirely changed the course of history. It is 'Paul's version of Yeshua that has prevailed to inform the world of who Yeshua was!

Because of the work of Saul of Tarsus, and, we would assert anti-Jewish factions following the lives of the original Apostles, the foundation of the original faith community of Yeshua HaMashiach was, for all practical purposes, lost to history.

At The Iconoclast, we reject the fantastic notion that the original faith community of Yeshua HaMashiach, which was clearly an accepted sect of 1st century Israelite Judaism, ever left its base established by the Jewish Messiah.

We do not accept the idea that the original faith community of Yeshua HaMashiach ever changed into, 'morphed' into the new religion of 'Pauline Christianity' — that religion of 'in the name of Paul's Jesus', the Gentile focused, pagan influenced religion commonly referred to as 'Christianity'!

In essence, we reject the defining of 'Paul's Jesus', and its consequential teachings against יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]), such as 'Paul's seminal argument, "you are not under the Torah" (Romans 6:14). We only accept the Jewish Yeshua HaMashiach as defined and taught to us by the Ruach HaKodesh of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) (the Holy Spirit of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH])) and as witnessed to us from writings of those handpicked Apostles who knew Him in the flesh — and His consequential teachings for יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]), such as the instructions found in Matthew 5:17-20.


'Pauline Christianity'
The New Religion Begun 'In The Name of 'Paul's Jesus'
Did Not Morph From Messianic Judaism, As It Attests,
But Rather Became A New, 'Gentile–ized', Pagan Influenced Religion!

'In the name of Paul's Jesus,' a new religion came into being, completely obscuring the Israelite–Jewish context, ethnicity, culture and language of the original faith community in Yeshua HaMashiach, it became a completely non–Jewish, pagan influenced religion which we refer to herein as 'Pauline Christianity'.

Moreover, we assert that that new religion (and any outgrowth from it, including much of Protestantism) is the direct fulfillment of the prophecy found in the second chapter of the book of Daniel. That prophecy speaks of the fourth world kingdom, 'the feet of iron and clay' — the establishment of the extension of the Roman Empire, which is clearly fulfilled by The Roman Catholic church!


Does Your Essential Knowledge Of Yeshua
Come From 'Paul's Teachings?
(Have You Actually Been Informed About Yeshua By 'Paul'?)

As per the title of this discussion, "Paul, The False Apostle," it is our intent herein to show that Saul of Tarsus, aka 'Paul', was not a true and legitimate, handpicked Apostle of Yeshua HaMashiach. We believe that this conclusion can be discovered using the existing New Testament text.

Of Course, 'Paulists' Will Disagree ...

We recognize that all Paulists—[catholic and their protestant offspring] (aka 'Bible idolators'), will vehemently disagree — they can not even challenge their exising paradigms, primarily because their sin of idolatry ensures that they will not question the true definer of their religion — their beloved 'Apostle Paul'.

It is our opinion that 'Bible idolators' have clearly accepted 'Paul's [version of] Jesus' to define their 'lord'.

Moreover, we assert that 'Paul's Jesus' is NOT the same person as has been declared by the Ruach haKodesh of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]), i.e. the true Yeshua b'Natzeret, Yeshua HaMashiach, the hope of Israel. Rather, we contend that 'Paul's Jesus' is something quite different, perhaps a lying spirit, a demon or a fallen angel!

[It is our belief that Saul of Tarsus, aka 'Paul', was actually a FALSE PROPHET AND A SELF-PROCLAIMED APOSTLE (i.e., ALSO A FALSE APOSTLE)!]



Return To Contents What Was An Apostle? Return To Top

What Was An Apostle?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_(Christian)

"The term apostle is derived from Classical Greek ἀπόστολος (pron.:"apóstolos"), meaning one who is sent away, from στέλλω ("stello", to send) + από ("apo", away from).[1] The literal meaning in English is therefore an "emissary", from the Latin mitto (to send) + ex (away from). The purpose of such "sending away" (not strictly "forth" which implies "forward", πρό ("pro" in Greek), and pro in Latin) is to convey messages. Thus "a messenger" is an appropriate alternative translation. In the case of the Christian apostles, the message they were sent away to convey was the message of the "good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ", and they were sent by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to the Jews. Before their sending away at Pentecost the Twelve had been mere "Disciples", from Latin discipulus, one who learns, from disco, to learn.[2] Pentecost was for them thus a form of graduation, from Latin gradus, a step, on which occasion, having been filled with the gift of the Holy Spirit, they stepped-up from being students to teachers. Apostle is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word shaliah. Jesus is stated in the Bible to have had Twelve Apostles who by the Great Commission spread the message of the Gospel after his resurrection. There is also a tradition derived from the Gospel of Luke of Seventy Apostles."

"Saul of Tarsus, not one of the Twelve or the Seventy and a recent convert, claimed the title of Apostle to the Gentiles, even though other apostles actively recruited Gentiles (non Jews) and Peter's role was never restricted to just Apostle to the Jews (see also Circumcision controversy in early Christianity, Incident at Antioch, Primacy of Simon Peter, and Paul of Tarsus and Judaism), indeed traditionally the first Gentile convert is considered to be Cornelius the Centurion, who was recruited by Peter. Paul claimed a special commission from the resurrected Jesus, separate from the Great Commission given to the Twelve. Paul did not restrict the term apostle to the Twelve, referring to his mentor Barnabas and others as apostles, either because he didn't know it or resisted it.[3] This restricted usage appears in Revelation.[3][4] ..."

Although we acknowledge the broader 'de facto' definition of "Apostle" as described above from Wikipedia internet encyclopedia, we only accept the 'de jure' definition of "Apostle" from Revelation 21:14, the lists given by hand-picked "Apostles" Mattityahu (Matthew) and Yohanan (John), and that given in the early part of the book of Acts.

We subscribe to the restricted usage of the term "Apostle" herein, the same as used by Yeshua HaMashiach ('Jesus' the Jewish Messiah (anointed of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH])-God)) as He referred to His special and particular hand-picked twelve Apostles (in the Gospel accounts of Matthew and John), and as He referred to them in the book of the Revelation 21:14. Thus, at The Iconoclast, we restrict the term "Apostle" to Yeshua's use of the term to apply only to those original hand-picked "Apostles", plus the replacement to 'Judas Iscariot', being Mattityahu (Matthias), whose selection is described in the book of Acts 1:15-17, 20-22.

We refuse to acknowledge the interpretation of the Roman Catholic church of any succession of "Apostles", nor the broad sense of the term depicted later in Acts and by Saul of Tarsus in his writings.

For Himself, Saul of Tarsus Reserved
The Restricted Use Of The Term "Apostle"!

It is clear from the internal evidence of the writings of Saul of Tarsus, that although he used the term "Apostle" liberally to refer to any emissary (one sent forth) that he reserved the restricted usage of the term "Apostle" for himself, considering himself equivalent or superior to the original hand-picked "Apostles" who were personally chosen by Yeshua HaMashiach Himself:

Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. [2 Corinthians 11:5 ESV]


Only Talmidim (Disciples) Of Yeshua B'Natzeret
Were Qualified To Be His Apostles!

We do not make this claim lightly. Rather, we refer to Yeshua's own words as recorded by His handpicked Apostles Matityahu and Yohanan (Matthew and John):

"Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?"

"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
[Matthew 19:27-28]

"And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."
[Revelation 21:14]

Just from these two passages, it is evident that Yeshua only ever intended that there would be twelve (12) Apostles (in the restricted sense as noted above).

As we note elsewhere herein, Yeshua called His talmidim, those whom He called to be His Apostles, His particular emissaries — friends! To be friends, people must know each other personally. From all accounts, the handpicked Apostles of Yeshua B'Natzeret were with Him for the three and one half years of His eartly ministry in the land of Israel.

Saul of Tarsus, aka 'Paul',
Did Not Know Yeshua B'Natzeret Personally!

It is evident that Saul of Tarsus, aka 'Paul', never knew Yeshua B'Natzeret in the flesh, much less could he have been a personal talmid and a friend of Yeshua. That unequivocally excludes him from any possibility of being a true Apostle of the risen Mashiach of Israel, regardless of how often and how vocal were his presumptuous claims!

Remember the words of Yeshua:

"I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars" [Revelation 2:2]



Return To Contents Was Saul Of Tarsus — A False Prophet? Return To Top

Was Saul of Tarsus — A False Prophet?

This is how a false prophet is described in the Tanakh:

"20 But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.'

21 And if thou say in thy heart: 'How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?'

22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken; the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him."
[Deuteronomy 18:20-22 JPS 1917]


http://www.interlinearbible.org/deuteronomy/18.htm

Q: How many false prophecies does one have to give in order for that person to be declared a false prophet?

A: ONE !!!!!!!
It only takes one false prophecy to conclude that a "prophet" is a false prophet!

Did Saul of Tarsus ever give a prophecy that did not come to pass?

What about his prophetic utterance in Acts 27? Did it really come to pass?

23 "For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve,"

24 "Saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Caesar: and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee."
[Acts 27:23-24]

According to this vision, his prophetic utterance, Saul was told that he would be brought before Caesar and that no passengers would die.

Ironically, Luke makes it quite clear that the latter part of 'Paul's vision came to pass:

44 "And the rest, some on boards, and some on broken pieces of the ship. And so it came to pass, that they escaped all safe to land."
[Acts 27:44]

It seems, to us, rather important that Saul of Tarsus's chief defender, companion and biographer was strangely silent in regards to giving a description of the fulfillment of Saul's prophecy that he would be brought before Caesar (Acts 27:23-24), when he had been so descriptive in detailing the part of the prophecy regarding the lives of the people on board the ship.

Since he gave such a descriptive account of all that happened on the storm–tossed ship where 'Paul' had given his prophetic utterance, it seems disingenuous to us that Luke provided absolutely no detail for the first part of Saul's vision. Almost in passing, he made mention that 'Paul' was in Rome for two years (Acts 28:30).

Here are the last two verses of the last chapter of the book of Acts which talk of the end of Saul's time in Rome:

30 "And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,"

31 "Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him."
[Acts 28:30-31]


Interestingly, Luke had been quite emphatic (and clear) about setting forth an orderly account to Theophilus (in Luke 1 and again, as what looks to be a continuation, in Acts 1):

"1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,"

2 "Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;"

3 "It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,"

4 "That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."
[Luke 1:1-4]

"The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,"
[Acts 1:1]

Why, you might ask, is any of this important?

Because it appears that there is no actual evidence that establishes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Saul of Tarsus (aka 'Paul') ever actually faced Caesar — as he had so notably prophesied!

IF SAUL OF TARSUS DID NOT FACE CAESAR, THEN HIS PROPHETIC UTTERANCE IS SIMPLY FALSE.


!!! ONE FALSE PROPHECY
==
ONE FALSE PROPHET !!!


In our search to try to find out whether or not Saul of Tarsus ever appeared before Caesar, we could not find any 'hard evidence'.

What we have seen is that there are two main apologies regarding the possible fulfillment of 'Paul's prophetic utterance from Acts 27, neither of which can reasonably be considered 'hard and conclusive evidence'.

We found that the main 'proof' given by apologists is actually based upon 'church tradition', from some early 'church fathers'; basically stating that 'Paul' was beheaded at the hands of Nero.

Otherwise, most other apologies fall into a singular category, where arguments are actually derived as the extension of the text itself, in that the apologists' assume that 'since all of the New Testament' is sacred scripture [which, as such, cannot be questioned and necessarily must be true] — that Saul's prophecy would have occurred simply because it was stated!

Yet, Luke's account is completely silent
regarding any potential fulfillment,
when he could have easily provided it
If it actually occurred !!!

For 'tradition' to supersede Luke's account, let alone the notion that 'as Acts is sacred Scripture and any prophecies given would necessarily have to have been fulfilled', provide no actual evidence that Saul ever appeared before Caesar.

Unless indisputable evidence is provided to us (or we discover it for ourselves), we must resolutely treat Saul of Tarsus as a FALSE PROPHET. We cannot consider his writings as sacred, nor should his teachings be followed.

THEREFORE, SAUL OF TARSUS
— THE SELF–PROCLAIMED "UBER–APOSTLE"
MUST BE CONSIDERED TO BE A FALSE PROPHET!

Before יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]),
Saul of Tarsus,
and anything within the sphere of his influence,
MUST BE CONSIDERED TO BE DEFILED!



Return To Contents 'Paul' Said, "...and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions..." Return To Top

Did Saul Of Tarsus ('Paul')
Essentially Infer That:
Yeshua's Death And Resurrection
WAS NOT SUFFICIENT?
In That He Alone Was Able To Complete
That Which Was Lacking In Yeshua's Sufferings:

http://interlinearbible.org/colossians/1.htm

"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,"
[Colossians 1:24 ESV]


We have included the screen shot from http://interlinearbible.org/colossians/1.htm, above, to show that the Greek text represents the clear translation that most English versions convey.

Interestingly, many Christian commentators try to explain away the clear meaning of the text simply because of its devastating implications to those who hold Saul of Tarsus, aka 'Paul', as a true 'Apostle of Jesus Christ'!

We believe that the clear meaning of the text, as shown from the Interlinear Greek, essentially shows the extreme arrogance of 'Paul', and that he considered himself not just as an uber/Supreme Apostle, but that he alone was able to complete the work of Yeshua HaMashiach.

In doing so, wasn't he actually elevating himself above Yeshua? He was clearly stressing his own superiority and at the same time inferring the Messiah Yeshua's insufficiency!

To us, this is just another example of the kind of subtlety that 'Paul' used in instructing all of his followers how to think.

Sublety ... 'Paul's Secret Weapon!

"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman: 'Yea, hath God said: Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?'" [Genesis 3:1 JPS-1917]

The evil one – Lucifer – has used subtlety to deceive and to control the hearts and minds of men throughout the ages. Subtlety and stealth have proven to be effective weapons, deceiving people into choosing the Gospel of Saul of Tarsus, aka 'Paul', over that of the true, handpicked, legitimate Twelve Apostles — and, yes, even over Yeshua HaMashiach Himself!


"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

"For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:"

"I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

"Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."
[Isaiah 14:12-15]


We understand that 'Paul' never visited Colossae. The book itself referred to a man named Epaphras as having established the congregation there (Colossians 1:7). In the book of Colossians, 'Paul' essentially was writing the congregants to accept him as their supreme authority, their particular Apostle, the person whose 'Gospel message' alone should be followed.

This is similar to how he addressed the Corinthians:

"Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." [1 Cor. 11:1]

Yet, Doesn't The Ruach haKodesh Alone Teach
True Followers Of Yeshua HaMashiach?

As it appears to have been 'Paul's pattern everywhere he went and wrote, in emphasizing his own preeminence, he either failed to express or minimized the knowledge of the truth, that it is the Ruach HaKodesh alone who teaches true followers of Yeshua HaMashiach.

In essence, those persons filled with the Ruach HaKodesh of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) do not need a self-proclaimed 'apostle' to teach them about the Holy One of Israel!

Rather, every place he went, 'Paul' declared that his 'Gospel message' was the only legitimate instruction to follow, that anyone else's 'Gospel message', not in agreement with his, even if it was given by an Angel of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) — that Angel of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) was to be accursed!

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." [Galatians 1:8 ESV]

Isn't that just another way of saying that anyone teaching a 'Gospel message' in opposition to 'Paul' was 'of the devil'?

Isn't That Blasphemy Against
The Ruach HaKodesh of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH])?

For 'Paul' to state that anyone whose message is in opposition to his, when the person teaching is actually filled with the Ruach HaKodesh or an actual Angel from heaven (a true messenger/representative of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH])), according to Yeshua HaMashiach, making that kind of statement is actually to commit blasphemy against the Ruach HaKodesh of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]), the Holy Spirit!

Please note that Yeshua said that blasphemy against the Ruach HaKodesh of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) was not forgivable (see Matthew 12:31-32)!

Just as he claimed that other 'Gospel messages' were not sufficient, and were false, 'Paul' claimed that he alone was able to fill up (i.e. finish/complete) the work of Yeshua. As he stated emphatically, he was expressing to his audiences that 'The Holy One of Israel, the Mashiach, the anointed of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH])', Yeshua HaMashiach was LACKING, i.e. NOT SUFFICIENT!

Is that not abject arrogance?

In making this statement (Colossians 1:24), wasn't 'Paul' inferring his own preeminence over and above Yeshua HaMashiach Himself? You will not find any other New Testament writer ever indicating that Yeshua's Death And Resurrection WAS NOT SUFFICIENT. Yet, isn't that essentially what 'Paul' stated in Colossians 1:24?

Interestingly, to drive home the point of his own suffering, 'Paul' ended the letter to the Colossians by saying, "Remember my chains."


Wasn't 'Paul' Extremely Arrogant To State So Emphatically
That THE LORD Yeshua Was "Lacking In His Own Afflictions?"

Isn't it obvious that 'Paul' not only considered himself greater than the twelve Apostles, but by stating that he needed to fill up where Yeshua was lacking, he CONSIDERED HIMSELF GREATER THAN THE LORD HIMSELF? Wasn't he claiming that, essentially, because Yeshua's sufferings were incomplete — that it required 'Paul' to complete it?

Isn't that HERESY? Isn't that A DIFFERENT GOSPEL than that of Yeshua HaMashiach as told to us by His eyewitnesses, his own chosen Apostles?


'Paul' Essentially Taught That Yeshua HaMashiach Was Not Sufficient!

Colossians 1:24 is a clear teaching from 'Paul' that his 'Gospel message' meant accepting his version of 'Jesus Christ'. That version, unlike 'Gospel messages' as preached by Yeshua's true hand-picked Apostles, emphatically stated that the death and resurrection of Yeshua HaMashiach was not sufficient. Clearly, 'Paul' was stating his own preeminence, that he was able to 'fill up' what was lacking in Yeshua!

Remember, 'Paul' said that anyone who preached a different 'Gospel message' than 'his' was to be 'accursed' (indicating that anything else was a 'FALSE GOSPEL')!

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed."
[Galatians 1:8 ESV]

"Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."

"And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
[Matthew 12:31-32 ESV]


If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams - and he give thee a sign or a wonder,

and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee - saying: 'Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them';

thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

After the LORD your God shall ye walk, and Him shall ye fear, and His commandments shall ye keep, and unto His voice shall ye hearken, and Him shall ye serve, and unto Him shall ye cleave.

And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken perversion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of bondage, to draw thee aside out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.

[Deuteronomy 13:1–5 (13:2–6 JPS 1917)]



Return To Contents Winners Rewrite History! Return To Top

'Winners' Rewrite History!

Have you ever heard the term, "Winners Get To Rewrite History"? From the time following the death, resurrection and ascension of Yeshua HaMashiach to HaShamayim (heaven), and the subsequent destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, it is evident that the only entity that could possibly have fulfilled the 'feet of iron and clay' prophecy found in the 2nd chapter of the book of Daniel, is the extension of the old Roman Empire — the Roman Catholic church!

That prophecy spoke of a bifurcated 4th (and last) world kingdom, recognized as the 'feet of iron and clay', for which the Roman Catholic church has shown itself, throughout history, to clearly fulfill. The Roman Catholic church is the obvious extension/continuation of the old Roman Empire.

Yet, in the eyes of "the world," the Roman Catholic church is the 'Winner'. As such, 'she' has been able to rewrite history, with herself as the preeminent definer of 'her' version of the religion known as 'Christianity' — that religious system which thrust itself upon mankind 'claiming to be led by 'the Vicar of Christ', Jesus Christ on earth', intending to completely annihilate evidence, to eradicate the original faith community of the true Jewish Redeemer/Messiah, Yeshua HaMashiach, which was Jewish in its ethnicity, character, worship. The Roman Catholic church has ruled with an iron hand at the expense of truth!

"And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus..."

"... And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth."
[Revelation 17:6,18]

To this point, not only has 'Rome' done its best at intimidating, persecuting and even killing anyone it considered "heretics" – but it is most likely responsible for the destruction of any then known original 'New Testament' manuscripts that may have existed up and to the time that Rome declared itself THE TRUE CHURCH.



Return To Contents Inerrancy & Infallibility — Commandments Of Men? Return To Top

Doctrine of 'Inerrancy & Infallibility' of Scripture
Are These Man-Made Commandments?

In a similar way that some 'Pharisees' interpreted the Torah (the Law) to abrogate the Law in Yeshua's day, man-made 'commandments' have become 'Laws of God' — TODAY!

Essentially, the doctrine of the inerrancy and infallibility of 'New Testament Scripture' is treated as if observing it is a direct command of Almighty God! As we illustrate below, that 'commandment of men' has been promulgated by the Roman Catholic church!

— And, YOU [Bible Idolaters] would never have imagined that the 'directive', "Come out of her, my people," could be applied to you!

"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." [Revelation 18:4 KJV]

Regarding the doctrine of inerrancy and infallibility — the man-made law to treat the New Testament as if it is the absolute 'true and sacred word of God', prohibits any honest discussion into the grandiose claims that Saul of Tarsus, aka 'Paul', made on the faith community of Yeshua HaMashiach!

When one is allowed to question the authority of the New Testament text, by the text itself they then have the opportunity to discern truth previously not seen. As we illustrate later on in our discussion, 'Paul' made self-proclamations — and 'Paul' corroborated 'Paul'!

"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true."
[John 5:31]

Once a person can take their 'Paul glasses' off they can begin to see the real Saul of Tarsus — then they can honestly examine quotes, like Colossians 1:24, to see 'Paul's abject arrogance where he even claimed to complete what he said was lacking in Yeshua himself!


Doctrine Of Inerrancy And Infallibility ... Continued

The manuscripts that have been accepted as "canon" for the assembling of the New Testament are treated as though they were assumed to have been personally approved by Yeshua and His original handpicked Apostles themselves, all of whom were Jewish!

Ironically, at least in the protestant world, the 'mantra' of 'inerrancy and infallibility' regarding the 'New Testament' seems to infer or imply that any TRANSLATION should automatically be considered as directly inspired by God, inerrant and infallible as well!

Please note: It must be understood that a TRANSLATION is itself an INTERPRETATION. An interpretation is an attempt to capture the correct meaning, but that meaning is always subject to the biases of the translators, and possibly even their agendas. That does not mean that a translation is necessarily incorrect or intentionally biased, but it can never substitute for the original writing itself.

Moreover, it takes a stretch of facts, a 'poetic license', to assume that a translation could also be considered inerrant and infallible simply because of the belief that 'original' manuscripts were purported to be so.

Please be advised that there is no prima facie evidence that 'original manuscripts' ever existed (that does not mean there weren't original manuscripts, just that there is no evidence to prove it).

In simplistic terms, the basic argument regarding the doctrine of inerrancy and infallibility for the New Testament is that the original writings were all inspired by God; therefore, as God embodies ultimate TRUTH, 'New Testament Scripture' is to be regarded as TRUE, inerrant and infallible [AND – NOT TO BE QUESTIONED!].

On the surface, that argument appears easy to follow — and even accept — without questioning the veracity of its source!


OK, What Appears To Be
A Modern Day Source For Inerrancy And Infallibility?

Surprisingly, it will likely come as a shock, especially to those Bible Idolaters who undyingly hold onto the idea that all 'Scripture' is unequivocally inspired by Almighty God, absolutely inerrant and infallible — that the source for their 'belief' is found to be none other than the Roman Catholic church! Unwittingly, although they may be sincere in their beliefs, they have actually acquiesced to 'Rome' to share in her act of 'modern day' idolatry!

The following is an excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy:

...The Roman Catholic view is summarized by the editors of the New American Bible:

Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus . . . reaffirmed the decisions of the Council of Trent and emphasized that the Bible in all its parts was inspired and that a stated fact must be accepted as falling under inspiration, down to the most insignificant item; that is, the whole Bible is the Word of God.[8]

In an article for The Catholic Study Bible, "The Bible in Catholic Life," Daniel J. Harrington, S.J. highlights the teachings found in the Second Vatican Council's document Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei verbum) which he says "should be taken as the authoritative climax of a long series of developments in the Church's attitude toward the Bible."[9] This conciliar document states:

Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures.

The document then cites 2 Timothy 3:16:17.[10]



Return To Contents Were 'Christian Scriptures' Written By Gentiles? Return To Top

Was Written Evidence Hidden To Hide
The Jewish History, Culture And Ethnicity
Of The Original Faith Community?

Our original intent was to show the distinction between the assembling of the Tanakh (aka the Jewish Scriptures, the Old Testament) and that of the Brit HaHadashah (New Testament). However, due to the potential to take that discussion away from our core argument herein, we have decided to rather focus on the existing 'New Testament writings' and the information we have from them on Saul of Tarsus.

Please note that we have significant issues regarding the gathering of original source New Testament writings and manuscripts!

We find it odd that despite the fact that the original faith community of Yeshua was Jewish in culture and language, absolutely no original source writings are in either Hebrew or Aramaic, nor many (if any) references to them from other early 'accepted writings or personal letters' (note: other early writings or letters have been used to corroborate some of the manuscripts included in acceptance of documents for the 'canon').

What writings/manuscripts that "survived" the purge of the anti-Jewish factions leading into the Roman Catholic church are all copies of copies at best and often contain 'scribal additions and embellishments', but they are all written in the Greek language and apparently were added much later than when the manuscripts were written! Again, absolutely no original Hebrew or Aramaic language writings are found to exist, despite the Jewish ethnicity and culture of the Apostles and the original faith community of followers of Yeshua HaMashiach!


Should We Accept The Arguments
That Greek Was The Universal Language
Used Exclusively By Hebrew Writers?

Modern arguments that Greek was the universal language of the time and that all of the early Jewish writers used it exclusively may entertain the many or perhaps the gullible, but we find that line of argumentation to be incredulous if not absolutely preposterous! We also expect that idea in and of itself has been given to us by the entity that has written the history — anti-Jewish factions extended into the Roman Catholic church!

It is our belief that the history regarding the Jewishness of the original faith community has been grossly expunged and supplanted by Greek culture and, especially, a 'Pauline Gentilized Christianity'.

Moreover, the topic of our discussion regarding the credibility of Saul of Tarsus about his claims to being an Apostle illustrate to us that the acceptance of 'Paul' has brought about the destruction of not only the core message but also the cultural and ethnic basis of the original faith community of Yeshua HaMashiach.

To us, it is clear that 'Paul's 'Gentile/pagan oriented Christianity' has supplanted, and all but eradicated, knowledge of the original faith community — that 'interpreted Judaism' which originated with Yeshua HaMashiach and was subsequently taught by His true followers, His emissaries, His hand-picked Apostles!


The New Testament Appears
To Be Written Predominantly To Gentiles!

Non–Jewish people may not recognize how that the New Testament, particularly in the writings of 'Paul' and Luke (which comprise the majority of the writings) — is very 'Gentile–oriented, Gentile–centered'.

Ironically, the original faith community of followers of Yeshua were Israelite Jews! We believe that that Jewish faith–community practiced the true form of faith given by the personal teachings of the promised Messiah–Yeshua HaMashiach!

A Predominant Gentile/Greek Scribing and/or Authorship!
(Especially Evident In The New Testament Book Of John)

Those of us who are ethnic Jews find it especially disturbing how that, especially in the New Testament book of John, that the ruling authorities are mostly referred to as "Jews!"

As an example we will cite just a few examples where by referrring to the Israelite ruling authorities, in using the term "Jews", it makes it quite clear that in the least there has been a great deal of corruption through a scribal "poetic license" but all such examples make it look quite probable of a non-Jewish authorship as well.

Although we appreciate and are often informed from some of the books of the New Testament, things like this make even original Jewish authorship suspect in our opinion! In other words, when reading John especially, because the ruling authorities are typically referred to as "Jews", and not rabbis, priests, etc., it really looks like the point of view by the author is from a non-Israelite perspective. Hopefully, just a few examples below will make this point.

The fact is that according to the "gospel" accounts, the original Talmidim of Yeshua were all ethnic Jews, so the question as to why ethnic Jews would ever refer to their own priests and/or other rulers as "Jews" seems to us preposterous! Moreover, it seems much more likely that an author or scribe, when referring to ruling authorities as "Jews" would only do so if they themselves were NOT ethnically Jewish!!! (Note — we have changed the color of Jews for this illustration):

"And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?”" [John 1:19 ESV]

"The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem." [John 2:13 ESV]

"So the Jews said to him, "What sign do you show us for doing these things?" " [John 2:18 ESV]

"Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews." [John 3:1 ESV]

"After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem." [John 5:1 ESV]

"So the Jews said to the man who had been healed, "It is the Sabbath, and it is not lawful for you to take up your bed."" [John 5:10 ESV]

"This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." [John 5:18 ESV]

"Now the Jews' Feast of Booths was at hand." [John 7:2 ESV]

"Yet for fear of the Jews no one spoke openly of him."
[John 7:13 ESV]

"Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves." [John 11:55 ESV]

"Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."" [John 18:36 ESV]


We wonder how the assemblers of the New Testament canon (we doubt any were Jewish) apparently gave little interest, or consideration, to the words attributed directly to Yeshua:

"... I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
[Matthew 15:24]



Return To Contents Who Was Luke's "Most Excellent Theophilus" And When Was Acts Written? Return To Top

When Was The Book of Acts Written?

Excerpts from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles:

"... The title "Acts of the Apostles" (Greek Πράξεις ἀποστόλων Praxeis Apostolon) was not part of the original text. It was first used by Irenaeus late in the 2nd century. "

"...The book of Acts has been most commonly dated to the second half of the 1st century. ..."

"...Parallels between Acts and Josephus' The Wars of the Jews (written in 75-80) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94) have long been argued.[23] Several scholars have argued that Acts used material of both of Josephus' works, rather than the other way around, which would indicate that Acts was written around the year 100 or later.[24][25] Three points of contact with Josephus in particular are cited: (1) The circumstances attending the death of Agrippa I in 44. Here Acts 12:21-23 is largely parallel to Antiquities 19.8.2; (2) the cause of the Egyptian pseudo-prophet in Acts 21:37f and in Josephus (War 2.13.5; Antiquities 20.8.6); (3) the curious resemblance as to the order in which Theudas and Judas of Galilee are referred to in both (Acts 5:36f; Antiquities 20.5.1)."

It is probably safe to assume that the book of Acts was written later than 'Paul's own letters, which includes the book of Galatians we have been examining herein.


Luke and the 'Most Excellent Theophilus'

To continue this discussion, we want to raise questions of just who both Luke and Theophilus were and when they lived. It's important to know because much of what is known to 'Christianity' is predicated upon trusting in the veracity of the 'New Testament', of which Luke, and of course, 'Paul' are attributed to having written over half.

No doubt that most of you have heard of Luke, but have you ever bothered to ask, "just who was Theophilus?" Interestingly, a man by the name of Theophilus is the person to whom the introduction of both of the 'New Testament' books of Luke and Acts state that they are written to:

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."
[Luke 1:1-4]

"In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God."
[Acts 1:1-3]

Who was Luke?

From wikipedia, the online encyclopedia,
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_the_Evangelist):

"Luke the Evangelist (Ancient Greek: Λουκᾶς, Loukás) was an Early Christian writer whom Church Fathers such as Jerome and Eusebius said was the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. He is considered one of the Four Evangelists...."

"Luke was a Greco-Syrian physician who lived in the Greek city of Antioch in Ancient Syria.[2][3][4][5][6][7]"

"His earliest notice is in Paul's Epistle to Philemon, verse 24. He is also mentioned in Colossians 4:14 and 2 Timothy 4:11, two works commonly ascribed to Paul. The next earliest account of Luke is in the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to the Gospel of Luke, a document once thought to date to the 2nd century, but which has more recently been dated to the later 4th century. Helmut Koester, however, claims that the following part – the only part preserved in the original Greek – may have been composed in the late 2nd century:

"Luke, a native of Antioch, by profession a physician.[8] He had become a disciple of the apostle Paul and later followed Paul until his [Paul's] martyrdom. Having served the Lord continuously, unmarried and without children, filled with the Holy Spirit he died at the age of 84 years. (p. 335)"

"Epiphanius states that Luke was one of the Seventy (Panarion 51.11), and John Chrysostom indicates at one point that the "brother" Paul mentions in 2 Corinthians 8:18 is either Luke or Barnabas. J. Wenham asserts that Luke was "one of the Seventy, the Emmaus disciple, Lucius of Cyrene and Paul's kinsman." Not all scholars are as confident of all of these attributes as Wenham is, not least because Luke's own statement at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke (1:1–4) freely admits that he was not an eyewitness to the events of the Gospel.

If one accepts that Luke was in fact the author of the Gospel bearing his name and also the Acts of the Apostles, certain details of his personal life can be reasonably assumed. While he does exclude himself from those who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry, he repeatedly uses the word "we" in describing the Pauline missions in Acts of the Apostles, indicating that he was personally there at those times."[9]

Ok, we can probably assume that Luke was a contemporary of 'Paul', and his companion.

What about Theophilus? There is information all over the internet, but it is convenient to use Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch):

"Theophilus, Patriarch of Antioch,[1] succeeded Eros c. 169, and was succeeded by Maximus I c.183, according to Henry Fynes Clinton,[2] but these dates are only approximations. His death probably occurred between 183 - 185.[3]

We gather from his writings (the only remaining being his apology to Autolycus) that he was born a pagan, not far from the Tigris and Euphrates, and was led to embrace Christianity by studying the Holy Scriptures, especially the prophetical books.[4] He makes no reference to his office in his existing writings, nor is any other fact in his life recorded. Eusebius, however, speaks of the zeal which he and the other chief shepherds displayed in driving away the heretics who were attacking Christ's flock, with special mention of his work against Marcion.[5] He made contributions to the departments of Christian literature, polemics, exegetics, and apologetics. William Sanday[6] describes him as "one of the precursors of that group of writers who, from Irenaeus to Cyprian, not only break the obscurity which rests on the earliest history of the Church, but alike in the East and in the West carry it to the front in literary eminence, and distance all their heathen contemporaries"."...

Eusebius and Jerome mention numerous works of Theophilus existing in their time. They are:

  • the existing Apologia addressed to Autolycus;
  • a work against the heresy of Hermogenes;
  • against that of Marcion;
  • some catechetical writings;

Jerome [7] also mentions having read some commentaries on the gospel and on Proverbs, which bore Theophilus's name, but which he regarded as inconsistent with the elegance and style of his other works.

The one undoubted extant work of Theophilus, the 7th Bishop of Antioch (c. 169–c. 183), is his Apology to Autolycus (Apologia ad Autolycum), a series of books defending Christianity written to a pagan friend.

Of course, there are other men named Theophilus in history. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_ben_Ananus):

Theophilus was the High Priest in the Second Temple in Jerusalem from AD 37 to 41 according to Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews. He was a member of one of the wealthiest and most influential Jewish families in Iudaea Province during the 1st century. According to some Christian traditions[who?] he was the person to whom the Gospel of Luke is addressed.

Theophilus was the son of Annas and the brother of Eleazar, Jonathan, Matthias and Ananus, all of whom served as High Priests. He was also the brother-in-law of Joseph Caiaphas, the High Priest before whom Jesus appeared. In addition, his son Matthias served as the next to the last High Priest before the destruction of the Temple by the Romans.

Archeological evidence confirming the existence of Theophilus, as an ossuary has been discovered bearing the inscription, "Johanna granddaughter of Theophilus, the High Priest".[citation needed] The details of this ossuary have been published in the Israel Exploration Journal. Therefore Theophilus had at least one other son named Jonathan, father to Johanna.

The above are the two prominent Theophilus's, we have found, who lived around the time of Luke. Obviously, the Theophilus who was the High Priest of the Second Temple was the only contemporary of Luke. Curiously, 'you who never bothered to ask about 'Theophilus', would probably just assume that Luke was writing to the High Priest, simply because they were adults at around the same time.'

Ironically, you probably wouldn't consider that when it was recorded that when Peter went to the Centurion (the first Gentile convert) he made the statement:

And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without objection. I ask then why you sent for me."
[Acts 10:28-29]

So, the question must be asked, why would a Jewish High Priest associate with the Gentile, Luke? Direct answer, "He would not!" Why would the Jewish High Priest be the recipient of both the New Testament books of Luke and Acts? Moreover, if the Jewish Theophilus was the High Priest during the years 37 to 41 AD, wouldn't that be much too early for Luke to have written to him regarding 'Paul', whose 'work' was much later?

We believe that the Theophilus of the late second century is the person to whom the books of Luke and Acts were written. Historical evidence obviously points to both Luke and the book of Acts as having been written at the earliest at the end of the first century and more likely early in the 2nd. If the Theophilus who Luke and Acts were written to lived at the latter half of the 2nd century, then the person writing to Theophilus could not have been the Luke who was associated with 'Paul', simply because that was long past his lifetime.

If 'New Testament' Books
Were Written To Theophilus Of Antioch,
They Date Long Past Lives Of Eyewitnesses!

If, as we assert, the books of Luke and Acts were addressed to the Theophilus of Antioch, whose work was at the latter half of the 2nd century, then it is probably safe to say that those books were not compiled from the testimony of direct eyewitnesses as they claim. Although some source material may have originated from direct testimony of eyewitnesses, that is impossible to prove.

Now, if a 'canon requirement for manuscript inclusion' was that it had to originate from an account written by an eyewitness (or perhaps even a close associate of that eyewitness), then neither Luke nor Acts would qualify. However, since these books were included in the canon, it could be inferred that those who assembled it had an agenda which potentially conflicted with the originator of the Brit HaHadashah, the New Covenant, Yeshua HaMashiach Himself!

We regard that as a serious matter not to taken lightly.


Can We Trust Luke's Account That The Mothers
Of Yeshua and Yohanan (The Baptizer)
Were 'Close' Relatives?

A great majority of 'Believers' accept, without question, Luke's account regarding Elizabeth and Miriam (mother of Yeshua). Luke's gospel says they were relatives (some translations render cousins):

"And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren."
[Luke 1:36 ESV]

Is that true? Could Miriam and Elizabeth have been directly related?

A little history is helpful in looking at this!

Israelite Tribes Married Only Within Their Respective Tribes!

The Tanakh gives us important information regarding the tribes of Israel. Thus, we know that Israelite tribes married only within their own tribes (see Numbers 36:5-9), but that a stricter standard applied to Kohanim (Priests) in that Kohanim married only Kohanim, not just others from the tribe of Levi (see Leviticus 21).

The gospel of Luke is the only of the four gospels that gives any information regarding the birth and heritage of Yohanan HaMatbil (John the Baptizer). According to Luke, Yohanan's father, Zechariah, was a priest (from the tribe of Levi and the 'sub-tribe' of Aharon, Aaron). Miriam, the mother of Yeshua, was clearly from the tribe of Judah.

From our knowledge of Israelite marriage laws within tribes and stricter laws for Kohanim, the Luke account of Miriam and Elizabeth starts to look to be at or near the same level as a fairy tale!


However, in the spirit of 'fair play' it should be mentioned that in the book of 2 Chronicles it speaks about the priest, Jehoida, who was married to the sister of King Joash:

10 Now when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the seed royal of the house of Judah.

11 But Jehoshabeath, the daughter of the king, took Joash the son of Ahaziah, and stole him away from among the king's sons that were slain, and put him and his nurse in the bed-chamber. So Jehoshabeath, the daughter of king Jehoram, the wife of Jehoiada the priest--for she was the sister of Ahaziah--hid him from Athaliah, so that she slew him not.

12 And he was with them hid in the house of God six years; and Athaliah reigned over the land. [2 Chronicles 22:10-12 JPS 1917]


But Aren't The Luke Accounts
Based Upon Unquestionable Facts
—On The Testimony Of Reliable Eyewitnesses?

Again, remember that the book of Luke was addressed to 'Theophilus'!

In our opinion, Luke's Theophilus was the Theophilus of Antioch, who served beginning at the year 169 AD — long after the events could have originally been recorded and around 100 years after most of the last eyewitnesses would have been alive! Moreover, for the 'New Testament' narrative to have gotten so watered down as to claim that Elizabeth and Miriam were near relatives simply belies credibility.

To critically examine Luke, disciple of 'Paul', to consider who Theophilus was and therefore the timeframe and authorship of the books, and to question the credibility of the accounts as we do with Luke's narrative regarding the birth of Yeshua, we must conclude that the books attributed to Luke should not be accepted as authoritative in matters of doctrine!



Return To Contents Is The 2nd Peter Reference To 'Paul's Writings As "Scripture" Valid? Return To Top

Is The 2nd Peter Reference
To 'Paul's Writings As "Scripture" Valid?

From the time of the ascension of Yeshua to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, any letters that used the term "Scripture" to refer to other writings would necessarily have to refer to the Hebrew Scriptures (the Tanakh - aka Old Testament), as the corpus of material to be later called 'New Testament' did not exist until long after the deaths of its writers!

A good example of this is 2 Tim. 3:14-17:

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it"

"and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,"

"that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
[2 Timothy 3:14-17 ESV]

Again, the designation of "scripture" in 2 Timothy 3 could only refer to the Hebrew Scriptures – the 'New Testament' didn't exist until much, much later.

"and how from childhood you have been
acquainted with the sacred writings, ..."

[2 Timothy 3:15]

Moreover, by the context of the 2 Timothy 3 passage, which states "and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings," — those 'sacred writings' from Timothy's childhood could not possibly have been 'Paul's writings, which were contemporary to the adult Timothy — simply because they didn't exist when Timothy was a child nor at that time to be included in the context of 2nd Timothy.

2 Peter 3 — A Late Addition!

"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;"

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

[2 Peter 3:15-16 KJV]

2 Peter 3:15-16 is often used as a 'proof text' to establish 'Paul' as a bona fide apostle!

The Internal Evidence:
The 'New Testament' — As 'Scripture',
DID NOT EXIST WHEN SHIMON –'PETER'
SUPPOSEDLY WROTE HIS LETTERS!

The internal evidence, itself, should help the discerning reader to see that where this passage refers to all of 'Paul's writings as "SCRIPTURE", it absolutely has to be a later addition — simply because The New Testament, whose 13 of 27 books were written by 'Paul' himself, DID NOT EXIST NOR WAS THERE EVEN A CONCEPT OF A 'NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE' AT THAT TIME!

At best, some letters may have been circulated between congregations, but there is no prima facie evidence to the extent of circulation – all we have to go on are 'Paul's allusions to his own letters being sent between congregations. But, again, THE 'NEW TESTAMENT' DID NOT EXIST AS A WHOLE, NOR WAS IT CONSIDERED 'SCRIPTURE' UNTIL MUCH, MUCH LATER IN TIME!

No doubt Shimon Kefa (Simon Peter) would not have considered 'Paul's writings as additions to the Tanakh, the Hebrew Scriptures! We believe that it would have been ridiculous for him to consider any of 'Paul's writings as 'Scripture'.

We believe that the 2 Peter 3 passage is used as a 'proof-text' for the gullible to accept 'Paul' as a bona fide Apostle!

Can you now see this ruse? 2 Peter 3 is clearly a 'scribal addition'. It is a very convenient subterfuge intended to dupe you into accepting 'Paul' as an Apostle – without giving it a second thought! Have you been fooled by this deception?

ROME absolutely expects you to!


Did The Apostle Shimon Kefa (Peter)
Actually Write 1st & 2nd Peter?

Here is some information from Wikipedia regarding the Greek text in these books:

"Some scholars believe the author was not Peter, but an unknown author writing after Peter's death. Estimates for the date of composition range from 60 to 112 AD. Most critical scholars are skeptical that the apostle Simon Peter, the fisherman on the Sea of Galilee, actually wrote the epistle, because of the urbane cultured style of the Greek and the lack of any personal detail suggesting contact with the historical Jesus of Nazareth. The letter contains about thirty-five references to the Hebrew Bible, all of which, however, come from the Septuagint translation, an unlikely source for historical Peter the apostle, but appropriate for a Hellenized audience; thus the use of the Septuagint helps define the audience. The Septuagint was a Greek translation that had been created at Alexandria for the use of those Jews who could not easily read the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Tanakh and for proselytes. A historical Jew in Galilee would not have heard Scripture in this form, it is argued."

If you've read this far, you would expect that we, at The Iconoclast, might find this view compelling! We feel it is a valid argument in that it, as elsewhere, reports of the scholarly writing style in Greek, which the actual Apostle Peter would most likely have not known. In fact, it is often reported that the style of the Greek is the closest to " high Greek" than any other New Testament writing!

Moreover, as Wikipedia mentions that the references to the Tanakh are from the Septuagint, this alone is a valid argument to consider regarding authenticity of authorship. First of all, the Septuagint is a translation of Hebrew Scriptures, and it is interpretive at that. Although Greek 'scholars' might gravitate to a view that it would have been authoritative, for Yeshua and His talmidim it is preposterous to assume that they would have held it equal to or superior to the actual Hebrew Scriptures! In other words, the actual Apostle, Shimon Kefa, would have quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures, not to a translation of the sacred writings.

Are there Historical Arguments For Non–Authorship Of Peter?

There are many good websites with much information regarding the authorship of the books of 1st and 2nd Peter. However, we found that the following site The Rejection of Pascal's Wager provided a good summary:

Okay, let's recap the main arguments that the apostle Peter could not be the author of I Peter:

  • There was no systematic persecution of Christians in Asia Minor during Peter's lifetime
  • The earliest non-local persecution of Christian in Asia Minor was that of Emperor Domitian around 90-95 CE.
  • The earliest recorded case of Christians in some of the provinces mentioned in I Peter was 90 CE or more than a quarter century after the death of Peter.
  • The rhetorical question in I Peter 3:13 could not be understood if it were placed during Peter's lifetime.
  • The sophisticated prose and ideas, which could not have originated from an unschooled Galilean peasant.
  • The complete reliance on the Septuagint instead of the scriptures in the original Hebrew could not have been expected of an Aramaic speaking Palestinian Jew.

Perhaps one of the strongest argument against Petrine authorship is that its authenticity was denied by many Christians down to the fourth century.
Thus II Peter could not have been written by Peter for the following reasons:

  • It was a later epistle than I Peter.
  • It is very similar in style and content to Jude, a known second century document.
  • It considered the Pauline epistles as scriptures, something that did not yet happened during Peter's lifetime.
  • It tried to explain the delay of the second coming by postponing it indefinitely. Something which is in direct contradiction to the Christians during the lifetime of Peter, who expected the second coming very soon.
  • The Petrine authorship was denied by Christians themselves until the fourth century.

Then, Who Wrote 1st & 2nd Peter?

Interestingly, in 1st Peter, 5:12, there is a reference regarding the authorship of the book:

"By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand."

So, the question should be asked, "Just who was Silvanus?"

This following reference is from en.wikipedia.org:

Saint Silas or Saint Silvanus (Greek:  / ; fl. 1st century AD) was a leading member of the Early Christian community, who later accompanied Paul on parts of his first and second missionary journeys.[1]

There is some disagreement over the proper form of his name: he is consistently called "Silas" in Acts, but the Latin Silvanus, which means "of the forest," is always used by Paul and in the First Epistle of Peter; it may be that "Silvanus" is the Romanized version of the original "Silas," or that "Silas" is the Greek nickname for "Silvanus." Silas is thus often identified with Silvanus of the Seventy. Fitzmyer points out that Silas is the Greek version of the Aramaic "Seila," a version of the Hebrew "Saul," which is attested in Palmyrene inscriptions.[2] The name Latin "Silvanus" may be derived from pre-Roman Italian languages (see, e.g., the character "Asilas," an Etruscan leader and warrior-prophet who plays a prominent role in assisting Aeneas in Virgil's epic poem the Aeneid).[citation needed]

He was with Paul in Phillipi when they were imprisoned, but were freed when an earthquake broke their chains and opened the prison door. He is thus sometimes depicted carrying broken chains.[3]

From many sources, it appears that Silvanus and Silas were one and the same person. If so, this 'Silvanus' found in 1 Peter, would have been Silas, a close companion of Saul of Tarsus!

Moreover, if at least 1st Peter was written by a close companion to 'Paul', we should probably expect that there might be some similarities between some of the writings attributed to 'Paul' to that of Peter. In fact, one website does a pretty good job of putting the references side by side that make this in the least, suspicious!

The following information is found at Christianity Unity Blog:

Eph 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ 1Pe 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!
Col 3:8 But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 1Pe 2:1 Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 1Pe 3:1 Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands
1Th 5:6 …let us be alert and self-controlled. 1Pe 5:8 Be self-controlled and alert.
1Co 16:20 …Greet one another with a holy kiss. 1Pe 5:14 Greet one another with a kiss of love.
Rom 8:18 … the glory that will be revealed in us. 1Pe 5:1 … the glory to be revealed:
Rom 4:24 …for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 1Pe 1:21 … you believe in God, who raised him from the dead …
Rom 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities… Pe 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men
Rom 12:6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith.
Rom 12:7 If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach;
1Pe 4:10 Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God’s grace in its various forms.
1Pe 4:11 If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides
1Ti 2:9 I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 1Pe 3:3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.

This site (http://christianunityblog.net) adds the following summary:

Beyond the similarity of many verses of Paul and Peter, the overall structure of his plea is the same. Peter introduced the letter by identifying himself as an apostle. He proceeded to identify his intended audience by their location and by the blessings they have received from God. He extends grace and peace. Next he describes in more detail the great blessings they have received from God. Then he proceeds to call for an appropriate response to those blessings. This is all very Pauline  compare to Ephesians, Colossians, and Romans. However, Peter seems to go back and forth several times  lavish description of blessings, then calling for a response, then revisiting the blessings, and calling for a response again, etc.

Overall, the similarity to Pauls letters is unmistakable. And there is a good reason for that similarity. 1 Pet 5:12 tells us that Peter wrote this letter with the help of Silas (Gk Silvanus). There is virtually unanimous agreement that this is the same Silas who accompanied Paul on his second missionary journey (approximately AD 51-54.) Silas was a leading brother in Jerusalem (Acts 15:22) and a prophet (Acts 15:32). He joined Paul first in Jerusalem as one selected to deliver the decision of the council to Antioch and other churches. After visiting Antioch with the letter, he accompanied Paul to Syria, Cilisia, Derbe, Lystra, Phrygia, Galatia, Troas, Macedonia, Philippi (where he was jailed along with Paul), Thessalonica, Berea, and Corinth. While on that journey, he assisted Paul in writing both letters to the Thessalonians. Silas had extensive exposure to Pauls teaching as well as his writing. He was undoubtedly familiar with at least most of Pauls letters by the time 1 Peter was written (approximately AD 60-64). It is no surprise, therefore, that we see many similarities between 1 Peter and the letters of Paul.


One More Thing —
How Many People Living In The First Century Were Educated
– Could Read And Write?

"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus [Yeshua]."
[Acts 4:13 ESV] (emphasis ours)

Thus, we must ask the question, "How is it that, with knowledge of the Acts 4 passage, would "Scholars/Experts" consider that an uneducated fisherman from Galilee in the first century to be the most likely candidate to have written 2nd Peter, which is known to have been written in the highest form of Greek in all of the New Testament?"

HOWEVER, please be advised that although it is recorded in Acts 4 that Peter was perceived to be unlearned, that DOES NOT mean that he and his fellow true Apostles were actually unlearned and also unfamiliar with the Hebrew Scriptures!!! In fact, it was a law in ancient Israel that the Torah be read in the presence of the people EVERY SEVEN YEARS during the feast of Succot (aka Feast of Tabernacles)!

"10And Moses commanded them, saying: 'At the end of every seven years, in the set time of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles,
11when all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which He shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.
12Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law;
13and that their children, who have not known, may hear, and learn to fear the LORD your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over the Jordan to possess it.'"
[Deuteronomy 31:10-13 JPS 1917]


No doubt that we have not exhausted this subject. Yet, we hope by these few illustrations that it can be seen that not only did Shimon Kefa (Peter) NOT attribute the writings of Saul of Tarsus, the 'self—proclaimed apostle Paul', as equivalent to 'Scripture', but it is likely that neither book attributed to have been wrtten by 'Peter', actually was!

Of course, ROME absolutely expects that you will not question this!



Return To Contents Did Admonitions 'Not To Add Or Take Away From Scripture' Apply To 'The New Testament'? Return To Top

Do The Three Admonitions
'Not To Add To Or Take Away From Scripture'
Apply To 'The New Testament'?

There are three well-known passages in the Tanakh which especially warn about 'adding to, or taking away from Scripture'. Those people that hold the belief that the Tanakh, the Hebrew Scriptures, are the unequivocal Word of God would necessarily consider any other writings, including the New Testament, as non–sanctioned additions!

"And now, O Israel, hearken unto the statutes and unto the ordinances, which I teach you, to do them; that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, giveth you."

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." [Deuteronomy 4:1-2]

"All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."
[Deuteronomy 13:1 Tanakh (Deu.12:32)]

"Every word of God is tried; He is a shield unto them that take refuge in Him."

"Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." [Proverbs 30:5-6]

For those select Messianic Jews ('seeds of Israel') and Messianic Non–Jews who embrace Yeshua b'Natzeret as the promised Redeemer of Israel and at the same time revere the Tanakh as the authoritative written directive from יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]), we assert that they should consider much of the writings of the New Testament as just informative and instructive, but not necessarily authoritative, in consideration of the above referenced passages.

However, we must also be careful to allow the Ruach HaKodesh to glorify יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) with the eyewitness accounts of the teachings of Yeshua HaMashiach. We assert that the words of Yeshua HaMashiach, as recorded by eyewitnesses and as they are taught to us by the Ruach HaKodesh, should be considered authoritative!

Yet, to treat the whole of The New Testament on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures should be discouraged, simply because of the warnings in the two passages in Deuteronomy and the one in Proverbs concerned with adding to or taking away from The Word of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]), but also because of the preeminence of the doctrines of 'Paul' (Saul of Tarsus).

Moreover, we believe that the eyewitness followers of Yeshua HaMashiach would also have held to the belief that the Hebrew Scriptures were their primary written directives — the Word of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) — since we have the 'authoritative' words of Yeshua to instruct us:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

"For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

[Matthew 5:17-20]

In addition to internal evidence of The New Testament writings, as noted previously, we honestly believe that the true Apostles of Yeshua could never have considered the writings of Saul of Tarsus at or near the same level as the Tanakh!

We find it ludicrous that anyone might entertain the idea that the writings of Saul of Tarsus were to be equivalent to the Hebrew Scriptures (equally preposterous and presumptuous are those non–Jews who claim they are now "Jews", simply by following 'Paul's gospel).



Return To Contents FACT: Neither 'Paul' Nor Luke Knew Yeshua Personally! Return To Top

FACT: Neither 'Paul' Nor Luke
Knew Yeshua Personally!

One often stated requirement for a letter/epistle/book to qualify to be in the canon for The New Testament was that it was to have been written by a legitimate Apostle or another talmid (disciple) who had known Yeshua personally during the three and one half years of His earthly ministry in Israel.

It must be noted that over one half of the New Testament canon contains books written by Saul of Tarsus or his companion, Luke, neither of whom spent any time at all in the personal presence of Yeshua while He ministered among His own handpicked Apostles on earth!

Spending Moments Of Time In 'Visions'
Is Not Equivalent To Three And One Half Years — In Person!

Strangely and ironically, even though the only times 'Paul' would claim that he was in the 'presence' of 'Jesus' was during his self-proclaimed 'visions', starting with the one on the road to Damascus'. Nevertheless, spending a few moments in his self-proclaimed 'visions' CANNOT POSSIBLY BE CONSIDERED EQUIVALENT to knowing Yeshua HaMashiach, spending 'quality' time with Him, and being personally 'discipled' by Him for three and a half years!

ROME hopes you do not question this!

"God Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It."

I think it fairly safe to state that most 'Bible Idolaters' hold to the following paradigm to guide their lives and faith: They unequivocally believe that what is known as the Holy Scriptures (both "Old" and "New" Testaments) are without error and completely and inherently the Word of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) ("God said it, I believe it, that settles it").

To them, it is a sin to question it at all or to consider any argument that may challenge that tenet. As such, they are potentially unable to honestly discern truth from fiction. This is especially related to the writings of Saul of Tarsus, aka 'Paul'.

Is It Essentially Idolatry
— To Uncompromisingly Hold Onto The Notion That
All 'New Testament Scripture' Is 'Inerrant And Infallible'?

Essentially, because they believe that the New Testament is without possibility of error, 'Bible Idolaters' cannot question anything in it. In reality, theirs is what is known as a "circular argument" (it proves itself but cannot stand on its own merit except without scrutiny or challenge).

How is this so? Simply because the claims of Saul of Tarsus ('Paul') can only be PROVEN using his own writings!



Return To Contents 'Paul' Set Us All Up By Declaring Any "Gospel Other Than His" — Is A False Gospel! Return To Top

'Paul' Set Us All Up By Declaring
Any "Gospel Other Than His"

Is A False Gospel!
[Galatians 1:6-9]

This was accomplished through subtlety and stealth!

"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman: 'Yea, hath God said: Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?'" [Genesis 3:1 JPS-1917]

The evil one – Lucifer – has used subtle deception to control the hearts and minds of men throughout the ages. Subtlety and stealth have been an effective tool for deceiving people into choosing the doctrines of 'Paul' over the true, handpicked and legitimate Apostles, and, yes, even over the Lord Yeshua HaMashiach Himself!

How could this have been done?

Let's look at the text: Galatians 1:6-9 [http://interlinearbible.org/galatians/1.htm]

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—

not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. [Galatians 1:6-9 ESV]


This passage is probably the most glossed over of 'Paul's writings, and yet it is also used to support core doctrinal positions effectively establishing 'Paul's gospel as superior to that of Yeshua HaMashiach!

We will try to dissect these verses to show the subtle deception employed by 'Paul' which has effectively deceived 'Christiandom' throughout the ages!

'Paul' started out by declaring his "astonishment" that some had deserted "him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel." We believe that he was actually saying that his audience, the Galatians, were abondoning God ("...him who called you")!

We assert that this illustrates Lucifer's effective use of psychological deception.

How, you might ask?

Simply because the phrase sets his audience up to be immediately defensive, to doubt their ability to think without 'Paul' to put his spin on things. It is seen in verses 6 and 7 that the audience is expected to doubt, before he declares it, that even to consider "any other gospel" other than 'Paul's is "deserting him who called you ..."

Who Were Those Who Were Causing
The Galatians To Abandon 'Paul's Gospel?

Ok, so have any of 'Paul's disciples (or you) asked, "just who were those who were supposedly causing the Galatians to abandon 'Paul's Gospel?"

We assert that most likely the Galatians were being influenced by true, hand-picked Apostles of Yeshua HaMashiach!

Why do we believe that?

Let's look at the following passage from Galatians 2:

"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned."

"For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party."

"And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy."
[Galatians 2:11-13 ESV]

'Paul' tells us that the Apostle, Shimon Kefa (Simon Peter), was at Antioch in Galatia! Thus, we infer that 'Paul' was addressing his Galatian audience, in chapter 1, in reference to the Gospel as presented by none other than the most prominent of the handpicked Apostles of the true Yeshua HaMashiach, Shimon Kefa!


We want to continue our brief discussion of Galatians 1:6-9 passage. Particularly, we want to look at verse 8:

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed."

We must ask here: "Isn't an angel from heaven a direct emissary of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]), Almighty God, the Creator of the Universe?"

We assert that is exactly the case!

Wasn't 'Paul' asserting that even if an angel from heaven gave a different version of the Gospel message of Yeshua HaMashiach than what he ('Paul') presented, that Angel of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) was to be accursed?

Wasn't Shimon Kefa ...
Filled With The Ruach HaKodesh of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH])?

We have already established the probability that Shimon Kefa could have been who 'Paul' was alluding to, in Galatians 1:6-7, as one who was presenting to the Galatians the true Gospel of Yeshua HaMashiach and to whom 'Paul' was saying should be accursed.

What we want you to consider is that we believe that Shimon Kefa would have been "filled with the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH])." As such, for 'Paul' to call him accursed would have been to commit blasphemy against the Ruach HaKodesh of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH])!

Isn't That Blasphemy Against
The Ruach HaKodesh Of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH])?

For 'Paul' to state that anyone whose message is in opposition to his, when that person preaching was actually filled with the Ruach HaKodesh of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) (such as, in this case, Shimon Kefa, one of the 12 personally chosen emissaries of Yeshua HaMashiach Himself), or an actual Angel from heaven (a true messenger/representative of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH])), according to Yeshua HaMashiach, making that kind of statement was actually to commit blasphemy against the Ruach HaKodesh of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH])!

Yeshua said that blasphemy against the Ruach HaKodesh of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) was not forgivable:

"Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."

"Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."

"And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

[Matthew 12:30-32 ESV]

Thus, 'Paul' was most likely committing blasphemy against the Ruach HaKodesh of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) in this discourse in the book of Galatians, setting himself in absolute opposition to יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) and Yeshua HaMashiach — AND illustrating how he and his Gospel message fell directly under Lucifer's authority!

The Roman Catholic church does NOT want you to discover this!


More False Teaching By 'Paul' In Galatians

Few people have noticed the subtlety of 'Paul' when he talked about the Torah (the Law) in Galatians 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." [Galatians 3:19]

"What's wrong with that," you may ask. Of course, nothing, unless you know what the Hebrew Scriptures have to say about how the Torah (the Law) was actually given! As 'Paul' stated in Galatians 3, the Law was given "... by the hand of angels."

The Hebrew Scriptures tell a different story, that the Law was not given by angels, but rather by Almighty God ( יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH])) Himself!

"And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of speaking with him upon mount Sinai, the two tables of the testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God." [Exodus 3:18 JPS-1917]

Was this a mere slip, or was this rather the manner of 'Paul' — to play 'fast and loose' with facts when reporting to an audience not necessarily versed in the knowledge of the subject at hand (or perhaps to those who would consider his writings equivalent to or superior to the Hebrew Scriptures)?

Now, in Galatians 1:12, 'Paul' declared that he was taught his gospel directly by the revelation of "Jesus Christ". Of course, Rome does Not want you asking here, "Then, who taught the twelve handpicked Apostles?" – simply because they got the true Gospel directly from Yeshua, face to face.

Oh, you might ask, "But, isn't 'Paul's gospel the same as that of Shimon (Peter) and the other Apostles?".

"Ye shall know them by their fruits..."

By examining 'Paul's own self-description of how he treated the Lord's Apostles (seeing the 'fruit' of his character towards others), we should see if it measures up to Yeshua's standards.

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits...." [Matthew 7:14-15a]

Let's look at 'Paul's own words:

"Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again into Damascus.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

[Galatians 1:17-19]

This is subtle!

  • Can you see that 'Paul' inferred his own superiority – that even here he is setting us up to accept him and his word over "other apostles"?

  • Where was his humility?

  • As a 'new believer', did he think that he did not require any instruction by others who were in 'faith' before him?

  • Why did he wait 3 years before going to see Peter (or any of the twelve Apostles)?

  • Did he not think that he needed any mentoring and already knew all he needed about faith in Yeshua?

  • Was he always so 'full of himself'?

  • Was he always without common 'manners' – and respect for others?

"Ye shall know them by their fruits...." [Matthew 7:15a]

It is apparent that he considered 'his revelation' greater than that of those who walked with Yeshua in the flesh. Simply note just from his personal testimony in the letter to the Galatians, 'Paul' informed us that after becoming a 'new believer' he did not entertain any notion that it might be a good idea to immediately spend time with any of the Lord's handpicked Apostles to learn from them!

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. [John 10:1]

Doesn't it seem logical that if he had just received a revelation that he was to be an Apostle, that he might seek out those known to be Apostles to learn from them? Did he not have any humility, nor respect (nor decency) in relation to those who were chosen PERSONALLY by the Jewish Messiah Himself – to be His particular witnesses?

Again, this is very subtle, and something that Rome does not wish you to question!

Here is something you may not have noticed: he refers to James, the Lord's brother, as an apostle in verse 19. It is apparent that 'Paul' understood somehow that there were men that were especially called out as Apostles (as he included himself in that auspicious group), but is it reasonable to assume that three years after his 'conversion' he did not know who they were?

From all accounts in the New Testament, "James", the Lord's brother, was not counted among the handpicked Apostles. You might say, rightly, that elsewhere Luke and / or 'Paul' refer to others, not of the twelve, as being "apostles" as well (one is Barnabas, who, unlike 'Paul', is never attributed to have claimed that title to himself). Aside from them, do you see anywhere in the New Testament that any of the known twelve, handpicked Apostles, refer to other "apostles" beside themselves? (The only writers to mention 'other apostles' are 'Paul' and Luke!).



Return To Contents 'Paul' Shamelessly Disparaged Those Apostles Chosen By Yeshua! Return To Top

More Subtlety ...
'Paul' Shamelessly Disparaged
Those Apostles Chosen By Yeshua!

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. [Galatians 2:1]

... And I went up by revelation, ... but privately to them which were of reputation ... [Galatians 2:2 (parts)]

But of these who seemed to be somewhat, ... for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: [Galatians 2:6 (part)]

And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars ... [Galatians 2:9a]

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. [Galatians 2:11]

Obviously, you can read the passage for yourself to see the entire context. What I want to draw your attention to are the several areas where 'Paul' actually disparages the Apostles (and James, who is referenced elsewhere not as an Apostle, but rather leader of the congregation in Jerusalem):

  • "... privately to them which were of reputation ...
  • But of these who seemed to be somewhat ... for they who seemed to be somewhat ... added nothing to me
  • ... And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars"
  • ... when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face.

The Subtlety Of Acquiescence
'Paul' Defined Opposition — As A Different Gospel!

Please remember, in his own words these are examples of how 'Paul' treated the handpicked Apostles of Yeshua. In treating the Lord's special emissaries with contempt, 'Paul' openly disrespected them. It could be inferred that by treating them thusly, he was doing this to the Lord Himself!

I don't care how you frame it, but, essentially, didn't 'Paul' preach a different gospel than Yeshua and His handpicked Apostles?

IT MAY NOT BE EASY TO SEE THE SUBTLETY OF ACQUIESCENCE, first, to the idea that 'all Scripture is the Word of God' (remember, many people consider The New Testament as 'Scripture') — Which Cannot Be Questioned, and, second, that anyone opposing 'Paul' is, to him and those who follow his gospel, preaching a different gospel (see Galatians 1:6-9)!

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits...."
[Matthew 7:14-15a]

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. [John 10:1]



Return To Contents Is The Inconsistent Telling Of The Same Incident A Telltale Sign of Lying? Return To Top

In looking at 'Paul's character, we have considered first his own description of himself from the account in the book of Galatians. Nevertheless, it is most likely helpful to review the three occurrences in the book of Acts that describe 'Paul's conversion experience (Acts chapters 9, 22 and 26).

Is The Inconsistent Telling
Of The Same Incident —
A Telltale Sign Of Lying?

In modern day Police investigations it is a common practice to ask an accused person to repeat their stories multiple times. A 'telltale' sign that someone is lying is that the stories change in some aspect each time they are told. We know that the book of Acts was compiled, most probably by Luke, who was 'Paul's own disciple. In each of the three times 'Paul's conversion is told in Acts (chapters 9, 22 and 26), each account is a bit different than the others, but all three contradict 'Paul's own description in the Galatians account (presumably written by his own hand!).

Could it have been that 'Paul' actually told his audiences different versions of the 'story'?

Assuming that Acts was compiled by just one person (Luke), shouldn't we expect that in repeating the telling of the same event that each telling should be consistent with the others?

We should — EXCEPT if the recorder was merely being faithful in writing the accounts as he witnessed them being told first hand. Could it have been that 'Paul' actually gave different accounts of the same story to different audiences? Note that two of the accounts could easily have been witnessed by the writer (the incident when before the Jewish audience (where he spoke to them in Hebrew) and the one before King Agrippa). Regardless, all three accounts, two of which may have been directly witnessed accounts of 'Paul' himself, are each different from each other in some respect – and not insignificantly!

Just as Police investigations question an accused person multiple times and get different stores when that person is lying, isn't it possible that, using the same criteria, 'Paul' himself is shown to be a liar?

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. [John 8:44]

I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: [Revelation 2:2]

Rome does not want you to ask any of these questions!

If you are unable to question 'Paul' because you regard his words too sacred, as 'the word of God', then you will not possibly see that his own claims regarding his "apostleship" cannot possibly be true. However, once you start to question Saul of Tarsus ('Paul'), you will begin to see how utterly preposterous some of his claims are!



Return To Contents Yeshua Called His Handpicked Apostles, Friends! Return To Top

Yeshua Called His
Handpicked Apostles, Friends!

Consider this simple thought: Yeshua's twelve handpicked Apostles were close to Him. They knew Him face-to-face for three and a half years. And Yeshua called them His friends!

'Paul' Claimed To Be An Apostle —
Authenticated Solely From His Own Secret 'Visions'
(– He Never Knew Yeshua Personally!)

'Paul' claimed to be an apostle, and this claim was only authenticated by his own accounts of secret 'visions and revelations'. This is a fact: 'Paul' proclaimed that he was appointed to be an apostle by Yeshua HaMashiach – BUT HE NEVER EVEN MET YESHUA IN THE FLESH – HE WAS NEVER A PERSONAL FRIEND OF YESHUA!

Have you ever heard that you can prove Scripture from Scripture?

If someone tells you that a claim of theirs is true based upon something else they said or wrote, would that automatically qualify their statements as being true? (of course not — you might even say, "That's utterly ridiculous!"). Ironically, isn't that what 'Paul' based his authority upon?

"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." (John 5:31)

Claiming to have had 'visions and revelations' are the singular 'proof-claims' by which 'Paul' proclaimed that he was personally chosen to be an apostle!

The Roman Catholic church hopes that you will accept and acknowledge 'Paul's self proclamations as (the greatest) apostle, by the few 'moments' he claims to have spent with 'his familiar spirit friend', whom he called 'Jesus', in 'visions and revelations' — of course those claims are supposed to supersede (trump) that of the three and one half years that the true, handpicked, Apostles knew the real Yeshua personally – in the flesh!

Where are the independent testimonials of the people who were supposed to have been with Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus? If there were any written accounts, none of the early writers seemed to think they were important enough to include to help corroborate 'Paul's claims. In effect, there are no corroborating testimonies.

... by the mouth of two or three witnesses

If by the mouth of two or three witnesses a matter is resolved in the Torah of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]), how is it that 'Paul's claims are not allowed to be verified by anyone except himself? [see Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15-21]

Ironically, 'Paul's claims to apostleship are based upon his own, unchallenged, claims of encounters with his 'familiar spirit friend,' whom he called 'Jesus', in 'visions'; while the legitimate 12 Apostles walked personally with the real Yeshua for the three and one half years of His earthly ministry!

"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." [John 5:31]



Return To Contents Did Saul Of Tarsus Claim To Be Superior Than The 12 Apostles? Return To Top

Did Saul of Tarsus Claim
To Be Superior To The 12 Apostles?

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

I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing. [2 Corinthians 12:11]

"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." [John 5:31]

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits...." [Matthew 7:14-15a]

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. [John 10:1]

To reiterate, the legitimate 12 Apostles knew Yeshua personally. They were 'discipled' by Him directly and openlyNot In Secret — Not in unchallenged nor unconfirmed 'visions'.

Yet, Saul of Tarsus made himself out to be superior to all of them – based upon secret 'visions', and not in a personal, in the flesh, relationship with Yeshua for the entire world to see! Ironically, even though 'Paul's vision–based conversion experience is recorded four times in the New Testament, and it is different each time, adherents of 'Paul's 'gospel' seldom question his grandiose claims. Essentially, they prefer his 'gospel' to that of Yeshua!

Moreover, it is easy to see that 'Paul' did not respect Yeshua's 12 handpicked Apostles. Simply, in disrespecting the Apostles of the Lord, 'Paul' disrespected and disparaged Yeshua Himself.



Return To Contents Yeshua HaMashiach Called 'Paul' A Liar! Return To Top

Yeshua HaMashiach Called 'Paul' A Liar!
(Because 'Paul' Falsely Said He Was An Apostle)

"...thou hast tried them
which say they are apostles, and are not,
and hast found them liars"

In the book of the Revelation of Yeshua HaMashiach, as Yeshua asked Yohanan (John – one of His handpicked Apostles) to record, Yeshua spoke directly to the congregation in Ephesus:

"I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:" [Revelation 2:2]

Interestingly, what did 'Paul' say to Timothy about the congregations in Asia (of which Ephesus was one)?

"This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes." [2 Timothy 1:15]

What is not stated is why anyone would turn away from 'Paul' and his 'Gospel message'. Without corroborating data, all anyone can do is to try to fill in the gaps.

Here's what we think anyway!

The true Apostle Yohanan (the Apostle known as the one whom Yeshua loved) was on the Isle of Patmos when he wrote down the book of Revelation. The first congregation addressed there was Ephesus, where the passsage above speaks about those calling themselves Apostles but are not and are liars.

The city of Ephesus is a port city on the Aegean Sea, of which the Isle of Patmos is off the coast and south. We do not feel that it would be a huge stretch to presume that the Apostle Yohanan himself could have actually visited Ephesus, due to the close proximity, but also because it is obvious that that congregation was influenced against 'Paul' by someone with a different 'Gospel message'.

Again, per 'Paul' to his disciple, Timothy,

"This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes." [2 Timothy 1:15]

We Believe There Were Known Disagreements
Between 'Paul' And Yeshua's Handpicked Apostles

We believe that there were known disagreements between the Apostles and 'Paul'. The book of Acts tells us that when 'Paul' came to Jerusalem, he was confronted about his teaching Jews among the Gentiles to forsake the Torah:

" And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs."
[Acts 21:20-21 ESV]

The account continues with 'Paul' being asked to pay the expenses of four men who had taken a vow, and to join them. When the end of the seven days was near completion, we are informed that Jews from Asia recognized 'Paul' and brought attention to him as one who taught everywhere against the Torah (see Acts 21:17ff).

The point we want to make here is that 'Paul' was accused by all groups of Jewish people, believers and non believers, of having taught Jews to forsake the Torah of Moses. These accounts make it appear to be well known that 'Paul's gospel message included that he commonly preached against the Torah of Moses as a matter of habit.

The Acts account takes the story of 'Paul' away from Jeruslalem and towards Rome thereafter. Luke, the purported author of the book of Acts, known as a disciple of 'Paul', would have had little motive nor interest in providing detail or more information regarding the accusation of Jews regarding 'Paul'. Rather, his focus was on 'Paul's Gospel message and Luke's defense of 'Paul'.


We have mentioned that Luke was a disciple of 'Paul'. If, as we believe, 'Paul' was one whom Yeshua said had falsely claimed to be an apostle and was not, but a liar, then that also tainted those who trusted 'Paul' as his own disciples!

Consequently, we believe we have found something quite interesting regarding Luke's account of the discovery of the empty tomb of Yeshua.

It is well known, from the book of Yohanan, that both Kefa (Peter) and Yohanan ran to discover the empty tomb (see John 20). However, in the account of this incident found in Luke 24, Yohanan is not even mentioned as having been with Shimon Kefa (Simon Peter). Again, we find this surprising, particularly with Luke's stated concerns on providing orderly (precise) accounts!

We have mentioned elsewhere herein regarding the books of Luke and Acts, how that they are both addressed to a man named Theophilus. In the opening chapter of the book of Luke, Luke stressed a concern to trying to record an orderly account of those who were eyewitnesses:

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." [Luke 1:1-4 ESV]

Luke Purposefully Left Out Accounts Regarding Yohanan

It is our belief that it was no accident that Luke left out the account of Yohanan running to the tomb of Yeshua with Shimon Kefa. We believe that he did this purposefully, and we believe it is because Yohanan would not have accepted 'Paul' as an Apostle, that he would have regarded him as a teacher against the Torah of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]), and a liar as recorded in the book of Revelation!

If our assumption is true, in the least it sheds doubt as to whether Luke was the objective biographer that his addresses to 'Theophilus' lead to believe. If that is so, then his accounts regarding 'Paul' likely were written with an intent to minimize or hide the guilt of 'Paul' regarding the accusations not only that he taught against the Torah of Moses (the Torah of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH])), but also that Yeshua HaMashiach, Himself, directly called 'Paul' a liar! No doubt that Luke would have agreed with 'Paul' and would have had no interest in pursuing other 'Gospel messages', even from those of acknowledged, handpicked Apostles of Yeshua HaMashiach!

It is unfortunate to us how complete was the deception of Lucifer upon the entire world, but particularly upon those who want to include themselves as the Israel of God. We want to believe the best about people, but we find uncomfortable evidence against 'Paul' and his own disciples, including Luke.

We agree with Yeshua HaMashiach that Saul of Tarsus, the man who called himself an Apostle but was not — was in fact a Liar!


'Paul' called his opposition accursed. Therefore, if 'Paul' is shown to call the Gospel message of Yeshua HaMashiach as opposed to his, 'Paul' will have actually committed blasphemy against the Ruach HaKodesh of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]). That, as shown from Yeshua's own words, is a sin that cannot be forgiven (see Matthew 12:31-32).

That said, not only has 'Paul' been called a liar by Yeshua HaMashiach, his own 'Gospel message' is shown to be from the pit of hell as well!



Return To Contents Was Saul Of Tarsus Capable Of Discerning Between Spirits Prior To His Claim To Being 'Filled With The Holy Spirit?' Return To Top

Was Saul of Tarsus Capable Of Discerning
Between Spirits Prior To His Claim
To Being 'Filled With The Holy Spirit?'

Why do we ask this question?

Of course, it is in the book of Acts where we find accounts of 'Paul's conversion 'on the road to Damascus'. Although we challenge the veracity of those writings herein, we nevertheless wish to explore the accounts for a very important, but extremely overlooked point by many!

That point is, prior to his claim that he was filled with the Holy Spirit, without the Ruach HaKodesh could Saul of Tarsus effectively discern whether the spirit that he claimed confronted him was indeed Yeshua HaMashiach and not a demon or a fallen angel?

If that situation presented itself to any other person, wouldn't it be a valid question to ask whether they had the ability, without having the Ruach HaKodesh (who gives spiritual discernment to those who know Yeshua already, those who have repented of their sins and repented of their unbelief), to effectively discern between true and lying Spirits?

When it comes to Saul of Tarsus, aka 'Paul', should not the same consideration apply?

We ask this rhetorical question:

"From the accounts in the book of Acts, prior to the time that 'Paul' claimed to have received the Ruach HaKodesh, how could he possibly have known perfectly that the Spirit that confronted him was actually Yeshua HaMashiach (referred to as 'Jesus Christ') — whom he never met in the flesh — and not a lying, fallen angel or demon, an emissary of the devil?"

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world."
[1 John 4:1]

We acknowledge that the context of the above referenced passage is about false prophets. However, it is in regard to testing the spirits, whether they are in men or angels, that we believe the broader instruction of the passage must apply.

Was 'Paul's 'Jesus Christ' Actually A Devil?

We absolutely challenge the veracity of the claims of Saul of Tarsus regarding the spirit he became familiar with who called himself 'Jesus'.

We believe 'Paul's familiar friend, 'Jesus', was actually a lying spirit and absolutely NOT the risen Yeshua HaMashiach!

Why?

Does 'Paul's 'Gospel'
Promote Dishonoring The Torah?

Need we look any further than to examine how followers of 'Paul's gospel dishonor the Torah of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH])? Part of our argument is concerned with the results of the teachings of Saul of Tarsus, especially following his instructions which are summed up with "... ye are not under the law" (said another way: you are not under the Torah).

Regarding the Torah of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]), as a practical outgrowth of their faith, how do those people live out their lives, who follow the teachings/gospel of Saul of Tarsus? Do they honor the Torah or dishonor it?

If they dishonor the Torah of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]), then by extension, might it be safe to say that resulting sin is perpetrated by none other than the father of lies himself?



Return To Contents 'Paul' Taught "You Are Not Under The Torah" Return To Top

'Paul' Preached The Different Gospel
By Teaching "... ye are not under the law"
(Said Differently: "You Are Not Under The Torah")

One of the signs that a person is a disciple/follower of 'Paul' as opposed to a disciple/follower of Yeshua is that, per 'Paul's instructions, his followers' lifestyle and doctrine DECLARE that the Torah of God, aka the Law, has been abolished!

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. [Isaiah 8:20]

In 'Paul's own words,
this is the central linchpin declaration of his gospel:

"... ye are not under the law"

"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace."

"What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid." [Romans 6:14-15]

How did Yeshua feel about the Torah, "the Law?"

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

"For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." [Matthew 5:17-20]

Perhaps this should be directed at 'Paul's followers:

... except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of
the ... Pharisee – 'Paul',
ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven!

But, of course, this is really what they express about their 'master', 'Paul':

'Paul' Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It!


What Is The Fruit Of 'Paul's Teaching?

By observing how followers of 'Paul's gospel conduct their everyday lives with respect to the Law, can we not see the fulfillment of his teaching regarding it?

It is probably safe to say that most people who consider themselves believers in Yeshua accept that the Ten Commandments found in the Torah are binding on themselves. In that light, how do those who adhere to 'Paul's gospel live their lives in regard to the Ten Commandments?

Followers of 'Paul's Gospel Blatantly Break The 4th Commandment!

We have to look no further than the 4th commandment, to keep the Sabbath day, found in Exodus 20, where it is stated very clearly,

"But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: In it thou shalt not do any work, ..." [Exodus 20:10]

How many 'Christians' treat the first day of the week, Sunday, as the de facto Sabbath and absolutely disregard the command to observe the 7th day, Saturday, which is clearly stated in Exodus 20?

But, of course, in 'Paul's own words,
"... ye are not under the law, but under grace!"


The Shabbat Of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) In Isaiah 56 & 58

"Thus saith the LORD: Keep ye justice, and do righteousness; for My salvation is near to come, and My favour to be revealed."

"Happy is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that holdeth fast by it: that keepeth the sabbath from profaning it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil."

Neither let the alien, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying: 'The LORD will surely separate me from His people'; neither let the eunuch say: 'Behold, I am a dry tree.'"

"For thus saith the LORD concerning the eunuchs that keep My sabbaths, and choose the things that please Me, and hold fast by My covenant:"

"Even unto them will I give in My house and within My walls a monument and a memorial better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting memorial, that shall not be cut off."

"Also the aliens, that join themselves to the LORD, to minister unto Him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from profaning it, and holdeth fast by My covenant:"

"Even them will I bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer; their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be acceptable upon Mine altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples."

"Saith the Lord GOD who gathereth the dispersed of Israel: Yet I will gather others to him, beside those of him that are gathered." [Isaiah 56:1-8]

"If thou turn away thy foot because of the sabbath, from pursuing thy business on My holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, and the holy of the LORD honourable; and shalt honour it, not doing thy wonted ways, nor pursuing thy business, nor speaking thereof;"

"Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD, and I will make thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and I will feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it." [Isaiah 58:13-14]


Treating יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) As If He Doesn't Exist

Let's look at the 3rd commandment,

"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." [Exodus 20:7]

You may not be aware of this, but the word used for 'vain', the Hebrew word 'shav', literally means 'nothing, emptiness'.

If you take it literally, the 3rd commandment essentially means that you treat God as if He doesn't exist, as if He's worthless, without value AND without consideration!

'Paul's Followers Think They Do 'Jesus' A Favor
By Keeping Pagan, Roman Catholic Feast Days!

What about when 'Paul's followers think they are doing 'Jesus' a favor in the keeping of pagan, Roman Catholic feast days such as Christmas and Easter, — and attributing them to glory of the LORD?

By following 'Paul's teaching, "Ye are not under the law", not only do they treat the Law of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) with contempt (which included the Sabbath and Jewish feast days), but followers of 'Paul's gospel religiously uphold 'a de facto Law-of-man' in the keeping of pagan celebrations and doing so in the name of 'Jesus' — this is certainly treating יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) as if He doesn't exist!

We have to look no further than the Roman Catholic pagan feast days, honored by those who follow 'Paul's gospel, than to see several commandments of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) (God) being treated with contempt.

The first commandment is stated in Exodus 20:3,
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

The pagan festival, 'The Mass of Christ, aka 'Christmas', was formerly known as the celebration of The Birth Of The Sun god; it was embraced instead, calling it the 'birth of christ', by Roman Emperor (and self-proclaimed Bishop) Constantine (the actual 'first pope' of the Roman Catholic church).

The pagan feast of Ishtar, worship of the 'goddess of fertility', was embraced as 'Easter' by followers of 'Paul'. Isn't it easy to see that they forsake the Torah prescribed feast, Pesach (Passover), replacing it in favor of the pagan feast of the pagan goddess, Ishtar?

Note also that there is absolutely no 'Scriptural' mandate to celebrate birthdays (although it is mentioned that Herod's birthday was celebrated — when the head of John the Baptizer was brought to him on a platter); but the celebration of the birth of the sun god (now celebrated as the birth of 'Christ'/the mass of 'Christ'/Christmas') is celebrated by the whole world! — much to the approving 'all seeing eye' of the pagan, Roman Catholic church!

"And in all things that I have said unto you take ye heed; and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth." [Exodus 23:13 JPS-1917]

Many other instances of antinomianism, how 'Paul's gospel has been translated into the everyday lives of his followers abound. However, isn't it clear from these several examples of the complete lack of respect to the Laws written on stone by none other than Almighty God are treated by those who follow 'Paul's gospel?


'OK, Now You're Meddling:
Do You Have To Mention Food Laws In The Torah?'

Suffice it to say that followers of 'Paul's gospel also dishonor the Torah prescribed laws regarding food. Many of those laws are found in Leviticus 11. Prominent medieval rabbi Moses ben-Maimon, called Maimonides, codified the commandments (known as the 613 commandments). From a small portion in his list, several of the food laws are mentioned here:

176. To examine the signs of animals to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:2
177. To examine the signs of fowl to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Deut. 14:11
178. To examine the signs of fish to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:9
179. To examine the signs of locusts to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher Lev. 11:21
180. Not to eat non-kosher animals Lev. 11:4
181. Not to eat non-kosher fowl Lev. 11:13
182. Not to eat non-kosher fish Lev. 11:11
183. Not to eat non-kosher flying insects Deut. 14:19
184. Not to eat non-kosher creatures that crawl on land Lev. 11:41
185. Not to eat non-kosher maggots Lev. 11:44
186. Not to eat worms found in fruit on the ground Lev. 11:42
187. Not to eat creatures that live in water other than (kosher) fish Lev. 11:43
188. Not to eat the meat of an animal that died without ritual slaughter Deut. 14:21
189. Not to benefit from an ox condemned to be stoned Ex. 21:28
190. Not to eat meat of an animal that was mortally wounded Ex. 22:30
191. Not to eat a limb torn off a living creature Deut. 12:23
192. Not to eat blood Lev. 3:17
193. Not to eat certain fats of clean animals Lev. 3:17

Do followers of 'Paul's gospel honor even these few laws (see Maimonides' List) as given through Maimonides (he codified the 613 commandments)?

The question needs to be addressed: where might followers of 'Paul' get their doctrine to conclude that they can somehow be part of a faith community rooted in Judaism? The following are a couple of snippets from Romans 14:

"For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs."

"Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him."

"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand."

"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

"He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks."
[Romans 14:3-6]

"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

"But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died."

"Let not then your good be evil spoken of:"

"For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."

"For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men."

"Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another."

"For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence."

"It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak."

"Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth."

"And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
[Romans 14:14-23]

No matter what passages they use to justify their reasons for dishonoring the Torah of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]), those followers of 'Paul's gospel actually condemn 'Paul' as one who taught against the Torah of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) when they dishonor it in the way they live out their lives.

How should they behave, if, instead, they were to follow the true gospel of the Jewish Redeemer/Messiah, Yeshua HaMashiach? Would they then be found to honor the Torah of יהוה (Yehovah [YHVH]) or dishonor it?

"They that sanctify themselves and purify themselves to go unto the gardens, behind one in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the detestable thing, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD." [Isaiah 66:17]



Return To Contents Who Should You Follow, The Self-Proclaimed apostle 'Paul' Or Yeshua HaMashiach? Return To Top

If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.
[John 12:26]

Who Will YOU Follow?


An Instruction Of Yeshua
"...And call no man your father ..."

"8But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, [The Mashiach/The Anointed] the Christ. 11The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."
[Matthew 23:8-12 ESV - with our embellishment]

Note how that Yeshua admonished His talmidim NOT to call any man "Father".

An Instruction Of 'Paul'
"...I have begotten you through the gospel."

"I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me."
[1 Corinthians 4:14-16]

Note how that 'Paul' was quick to declare his own preeminence. He beseeched his disciples to follow his own self, referring to them as sons, himself as their father!


'Paul' Consistently Instructed
That It Was He Who Should Be Followed!

"Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. " [1 Corinthians 4:16]

"Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample." [Philippians 3:17]
"(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:"
[Philippians 3:18]

Yeshua Also Asked To Be Followed!

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
" [Matthew 16:24-25]

"If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour."
[John 12:26]

Yet, It Was Obviously Within His Right
For Yeshua To Ask To Be Followed!

However, by instructing that others follow himself (but not Yeshua!), wasn't 'Paul' inferring that his gospel was superior to that of Yeshua?

In our opinion, had 'Paul' been a faithful and true follower of Yeshua himself, deference to Yeshua would have been his consistent attitude – always!

He would not have kept drawing so much attention to himself, nor as a true talmid of Yeshua would that have even been in his nature (being lead by the Ruach HaKodesh) to do so!

Had 'Paul' actually known Yeshua personally and had he been a true talmid, he would have always directed others — to follow Yeshua only — and not to have consistently directed others to follow 'himself':

"Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me." [1 Corinthians 4:16]

Perhaps Yeshua's admoninition to scribes and Pharisees applied directly to the Pharisee, Saul of Tarsus, aka 'Paul', — the false and self–proclaimed apostle:

" Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. " [Matthew 23:15]


"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made..."
[Genesis 3:1a].

Ironically, just as "... the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field ...", 'Paul' was likewise very subtle in how he phrased things:

"Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ."
[1 Corinthians 11:1]

Rather, since Yeshua spoke about sending the Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit), wouldn't it have made sense for 'Paul' just to emphasize that others follow Yeshua only – by following the lead of the Ruach HaKodesh, given to all believers?

Had 'Paul' actually spent time learning from the true Apostles of Yeshua after his so-called conversion, his road to Damascus experience, he would have been well acquainted with the teachings of Yeshua as taught by those who knew Him best. Particularly, the Apostle Yohanan had words to say regarding this very topic:

"But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him."
[1 John 2:27, ESV] (emphasis ours)


Moreover, by consistently taking a preeminent position, arrogantly persuading others to follow himself, wasn't 'Paul' actually attributing to himself the position of Mashiach?

Couldn't it be said that he was acting as if he were the true vine and his hearers/readers/followers were the branches? Wasn't that stance alone reserved for Yeshua, the true Mashiach, who alone others should follow?

"1I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned."
[John 15:1-6 ESV]

Whose Gospel Do You Follow,
That Of Yeshua,
Or that of 'Paul'?
(i.e. WHO IS YOUR LORD?)



Return To Contents Where Did Yeshua Say, "It is better to give than to receive"? Return To Top

When one begins to question the legitimacy of 'Paul's claims, other questions begin to surface. Have you ever heard the expression:

"It is better to give than to receive?"

Did you know that this lofty saying is found in ONLY one place in the New Testament – and it is actually attributed to having been spoken by Yeshua!

Can you guess which 'New Testament' personality supposedly attributed "It is better to give than to receive" to Yeshua? FYI, this saying is NOT corroborated elsewhere; it is not found in the four gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John); nor is it ever mentioned anywhere else in all of 'scripture':

"I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive."

"And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all."

"And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him,"

"Sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more. And they accompanied him unto the ship."
[Acts 20:35-38]

Oh, of course 'Paul' NEVER knew the real Yeshua in the flesh, so he must have gotten this exclusive tidbit of information from none other than the selfsame 'spirit' friend that spoke with him at so many other times by 'revelations' and 'visions', and with whom he was so intimately familiar!

To those who still are loyal to 'Paul', you might think about me thus:

'How dare that I challenge the integrity of 'your great APOSTLE', 'Paul', by inferring that his intimate familiar spirit friend, whom he called 'Jesus', was, in reality, a lying spirit!'

Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
[Isaiah 8:18-20]

Whose Gospel Do You Follow, 'Paul's Or Yeshua's?



Return To Contents The 12 Handpicked Apostles Of Yeshua HaMashiach! Return To Top

The True, Legitimate,
Handpicked Apostles (Emissaries) of Yeshua!

From passages in the New Testament that have passed down to us, we can readily tell that there were particularly only 12 Apostles of the Lamb (of Yeshua). Again, this is confirmed to us in the book of Revelation, Ch. 21:14:

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. [Revelation 21:14]

The Names of the 12 Apostles:

* Shim'on = Simon
* Y'hochanan = John
* Mattityahu = Matthew
* Ya'aqov = James (Hebrew origin meaning Jacob)
* Ya'aqov = James (Two Apostles were named Ya'aqov)
* Bar-Toimay = Bartholomew (Aramaic, which is related to Hebrew)
* Judah [Yehuda] = Jude / Saint Jude (not to be confused with Judas Iscariot, Hebrew origin).
* Yehuda = Judas Iscariot
* Shim'on = Simon (aka Cephas/Kephas - Hebrew/Aramaic origin meaning "Rock"; Peter in English)
* Tau'ma = Thomas (Aramaic origin).
* Andrew = Andrew (Greek origin. Is the brother of Cephas / Kephas).
* Phillip = Phillip (Greek origin).

The list of Apostles, as found in Matthew 10:

And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction.
The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;
Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

[Matthew 10:1-4 KJV]

A question must be asked, in the lists of the Apostles of Yeshua, where was Saul of Tarsus, aka 'Paul'?

"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." [John 5:31]

In 9 of his 13 epistles, 'Paul' identifies himself as an apostle:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, [Romans 1:1]
Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes, [1 Corinthians 1:1]
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God that is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in the whole of Achaia: [2 Corinthians 1:1]
Paul, an apostle--not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead-- [Galatians 1:1]
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus: [Ephesians 1:1]
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, [Colossians 1:1]
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, [1 Timothy 1:1]
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God according to the promise of the life that is in Christ Jesus, [2 Timothy 1:1]
Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, [Titus 1:1]

The only epistles that Paul does not make a declaration claiming to be an apostle: Philippians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Philemon.

In the 21st chapter of the book of Revelation, we read:

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. [Revelation 21:14]

From the list in Matthew and partial list in John, plus the passage in Acts that has Matthias taking the 12th spot in place of Judah Iscariot, can it reasonably be assumed that 'Paul' was never considered as one of the twelve handpicked Apostles, and most certainly not as one among the names of the twelve apostles of the lamb in Revelation 21:14?

Can there be any other conclusion than that Saul of Tarsus, 'Paul', was a false apostle?

Obviously, you shouldn't just take my word for it! Perhaps you will trust Yeshua (Jesus):

I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: [Revelation 2:2]

Essentially, Yeshua commended the congregation in Ephesus for having 'tried them which say they are Apostles but are not, and found them liars, because they could not bear them which are evil'!



Unless otherwise noted, 'Scripture' passages from the Tanakh (Old Testament) have been taken from the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) English version of 1917, and passages from the Brit HaHadashah (New Testament) have been taken from the King James version of the Bible.

Home |  About Us |  Breaking Idols |  Resources |  To Your Health! |  Links - that we like! |  Sign Our Guestbook!
DO NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!