Leaked Contents
The following information includes select passages from The Nazarene Way. The reason this information has been leaked is to provide early access to compelling information which can help open one’s eyes to the truth. Please note this is but a fraction of the work in progress. Everything will be available for free in PDF format on this website when it is ready. To be alerted when this book is out, please visit ‘Customer Support’.
Table of Contents
Paul’s Damascus Road conversion
The only confirmation we have on the authenticity of Paul’s apostleship is through his meeting with Jesus on Damascus road, and later in the temple of Jerusalem. None of the 12 Apostles ever refer to Paul as an apostle. Peter calls him a ‘beloved brother’. Luke calls Paul an apostle, but he also calls many others like Barnabas ‘apostles’; and he also wasn’t even an apostle himself! This is not to imply that Luke lied, as I will give a much more reasonable explanation for his actions later. My point is that Jesus Christ is the one that confirmed Paul’s authenticity on Damascus Road… Or did he?
The three conversion stories are told in Acts 9:1-19, Acts 22:3-21, and Acts 26. Please look them up and read them for yourselves. The full texts will be included in the book itself. Each of the three accounts of Paul’s conversion on Damascus road have notable differences, depending on who the audience is.
The first version is the only one in third person, leading one to think that Luke probably gave this version of Paul’s conversion. Paul, named Saul at the time, was persecuting the religious group called the Way. a light appeared around Paul, and he fell to the ground. He then had his encounter with a Lord who called himself Jesus, who told Paul to enter the city of Damascus, where he would receive further instruction. The men with Paul were standing, having heard a voice but not seeing anyone. Paul was blinded and guided to Damascus to stay for 3 days. Ananias later came to him and laid hands on him, praying. Paul received his sight and scales fell from his eyes. Scales… like a serpent’s scales?
In the second version, Paul was addressing a group of Jews in regard to his conversion. Paul explained that he was a Jew himself. Again he shortly explained his actions of persecuting the followers of the Way, making it more clear that this movement existed in response to the teachings of Jesus. Again on Damascus road, a light appeared around Paul and he fell to the ground. An entity again claiming to be Jesus appeared to Paul, and instructed him to go into the city of Damascus. In this account the men saw a light but did not hear a voice, which is the opposite of the first account. Paul was led to Damascus and was later met by Ananias. Again Ananias laid hands on Paul, and he regained his sight. This version actually continued with a unique account regarding the entity Paul believed to be Jesus. While at the temple in Jerusalem, this entity warned him to flee Jerusalem to avoid persecution. Paul gives a short account of an ominous event of his observance and approval of the murder of Stephen. Paul was holding on to the coats of those who were stoning the man.
The final account is perhaps the most twisted of them all. In his introduction, Paul stated quite plainly that he was of the strictest religious sect of the Jews – the Pharisees. Once again during his time of persecutions, Paul not only was imprisoning those of the Way, but he was also voting to have them killed! In the same way that the Pharisees tried to get Jesus to Blaspheme the Holy Spirit, Paul was chasing down this new religious group to even foreign lands, trying to get them to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. On Damascus road, Paul saw a light shining around both him and his companions. All of them this time fell to the ground, and Paul’s ‘Jesus’ instructed him everything right there on the road. This time there was no blindness, and Ananias was not even mentioned.
Earlier in the book of Acts, a man named Ananias was proclaimed to actually be a chief priest of the Jews (Acts 23:2). In chapter 9, that Ananias told the ‘Lord’ that Paul was given authority from the chief priests to bind all who invoked the name of Jesus. Although I can’t prove that this is the case, consider if it were true that Ananias knew this because he was a chief priest. In other words, what if the Ananias of Acts 9 and the Ananias of Acts 23 were the same person? If Paul told King Agrippa about Ananias, again assuming it was the same person, this would most certainly lessen the legitimacy of Paul’s story. King Agrippa would know very well that Ananias would not do as Paul claimed without first consulting the other chief priests. So instead, Paul likely excluded the story of his blindness and of Ananias to avoid this conflict. Again I can’t prove this, but it’s definitely an option to consider.
Let’s summarize the contradictions. In version one, a light shined around Paul, the men with Paul heard a voice but saw nothing, and those men were standing. In the second version, a light again shone around Paul, the men with Paul saw a light but didn’t hear a voice, and they were again standing. In the third version, everyone was surrounded by a light, everyone sees the light, and everyone falls down.
With just this alone, we can say quite a lot. In an official court of law today, if three different people respectively gave these three accounts, the judge would dismiss them as illegitimate speculation. If a single person gave these accounts one at a time to 3 different detectives, the court would rule that person a liar. And here we have a single book with 3 different accounts of this story. If the story was true, then each of these 3 accounts would not have such dramatic contradictions as this. Rather than mixing up a couple numbers, or over-exaggerating a crime as a witness, these accounts blatantly contradict each other.
Let’s set this fact straight – the 4 gospel recordings of Jesus do have legitimate differences because the four recordings are written by four different people. These 3 recordings of Paul’s conversion are written in a single book, which Luke likely wrote. Right off the bat we should just throw out the legitimacy of Paul’s conversion. However, a few more hints lead us to the real identity of the Lord that Paul encountered. In the first account, scales fell from Paul’s eyes when he received his sight. See https://biblehub.com/lexicon/acts/9-18.htm and https://biblehub.com/greek/3013.htm
This is the only verse in New Testament that contains this word for scales. It is suggested that this word could be referring to the scales of a fish. It is equally valid to consider these scales being like those of a serpent. Satan is sometimes referred to as a ruler, as god of the world (2 Cor 4:4, John 14:30 & 16:11), as a serpent (Rev 12:9), and has supernatural powers that can mimic acts of God (2 Thes 2:9).
The last two hints involve strange consistencies throughout the stories. Every time the ‘Lord’ whom Paul met is described, two things are consistent. First, he appears as a bright light. 2 Cor 11:14 says “Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light”. The other hint is very subtle, and requires some out-of-the-box thinking. We know that Jesus is a compassionate character, showing great mercy to his sheep. Satan, on the other hand, is not at all like this. Satan does not act as a servant leader, yet Jesus does. Look at what happens in each story. First, a bright light appears. Then, Paul falls to the ground. Next, the ‘Lord’ declares himself to be Jesus, the one who Paul is persecuting. Then the ‘Lord’ tells him what he must do, and only after that does the ‘Lord’ tell Paul to get up on his feet, without helping him up. Every time Jesus Christ makes a dramatic encounter with his sheep, what happens? Jesus immediately comforts them, by either saying “don’t be afraid”, reaching a hand out, or sometimes both. Let’s look at a few examples.
Rev 1:17 describes John’s spiritual encounter with the Lord of Israel. “When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he placed his right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last””.
Mat 28:2-5 gives a similar account, this time involving an angel of heaven. “And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. But the angel said to the woman, “Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus…”
Mat 14:26-31 regards the account of Jesus walking on water. “But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, saying, “It is a ghost!” And they cried out in fear. But immediately Jesus spoke to them and said, “Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.” Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came toward Jesus. But when he noticed the strong wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!” Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him…”
Mat 17:5-7 regards the transfiguration on a high mountain. “While [Peter] was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, “This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!” When the disciples heard this, they fell to the ground and were overcome by fear. But Jesus came and touched them, saying, “Get up and do not be afraid.””
Every single time Jesus or an angel encounters one of the sheep of Israel, they reassure them. Every time it is Jesus, he makes physical contact to remind them that he is in the flesh. And they always do it immediately, without any delay, no other concern in between. This is not what the ‘Lord’ Paul encounters does. In each story, Paul falls to the ground, then is told some things, then is finally told to get himself up off the ground. There is no physical contact. There is no reassurance. There is no confirmation that it is Jesus or an angel of heaven. There is no love that the good shepherd always shows for his sheep. Because the ‘Lord’ Paul encountered cannot love. And I sure won’t refer to ‘it’ as my Lord.
The Great Contradiction
Perhaps even still after reading the information above, you are not convinced of the existence of any issues with Paul. Or perhaps you do think there are issues, but you don’t know where to start in confirming it. The below information comes directly from The Nazarene Way and should be the icebreaker to help you see the truth.
Please take the time to look these scriptures up in context. The left column clearly shows that Paul repeatedly preached faith without any works at all, especially with regards to the Mosaic Law. The right column clearly shows that Jesus preached good works were also required, to include several parts of the Mosaic Law.
Let’s take a moment to analyze some of the scriptures from the table above. In Romans 5:20, Paul said that trespass (or sin) multiplied as a result of the law. He was clearly expressing his opposition to the law, claiming that it was the very reason we even know about sin (Rom 3:20). Knowing that Paul saw the Mosaic Law as the reason sin existed, Rom 8:1-8 also becomes more clear. In verse 2 he said, “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.” Given the context of Rom 3:20 and 5:20, Paul was clearly referring to the Mosaic law as “the law of sin and death”. In the rest of Rom 8:1-8 Paul said that this Mosaic Law was not applicable to those who live in spirit. One big issue is that reality clearly indicates that we are still creatures of flesh. Paul even said “those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” If this were true though, then why does Mat 5:21-48 support parts of the Mosaic Law that require physical works and not spiritual ones? Paul cannot be correct here. He was instead teaching the blissful ignorance of blind faith.
Romans chapter 9 regards Paul’s theory on predestination. In verses 11-12 Paul stated that even before being born, one would be elected to salvation “not by works but by his call”. In this case, even faith would not be able to save someone. Salvation becomes an improbable chance that God might have already chosen one over another based purely on predetermined fate. Verse 16 confirms that this is what Paul was trying to say. “So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.” This would mean that there is nothing one can physically do to please God, to include faith or belief. It would purely depend on whether God already called them. This is predestination.
In 2 Cor 5:17 Paul claimed that the new creation had come, implying a new covenant. Not only that, but he said “everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!” Yet this couldn’t be farther from the truth. There is not yet a new heaven and earth as prophesied in Rev 20:11-21:1, as judgment day has not yet passed. For confirmation, read Jer 31:27-34. Because evil definitely still exists, alongside many other indicators, we are still waiting for judgment day. The reason this goes against works is found in verses 19-21, where Paul clearly stated that everyone became righteous simply because of Jesus’s existence.
Gal 3:10-13 is perhaps the most clear case of Paul’s misrepresentation of scripture. Verse 10 reads, “For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law.”” The quote Paul used is from Deut 27:26. The quote itself is cursing those who do not follow the Mosaic Law. Paul was trying to use it to say that those who “rely on the works of the law” were the cursed ones. The context of Gal 3:11-13 makes it clear that Paul was indeed completely misquoting this scripture in an attempt to curse those who kept the Mosaic Law.
Gal 4:21-5:6 is an allegory used by Paul to claim that all are free from the law. He first asked those who desired to be under law if they would listen to it. Then he used the story of Abraham’s two sons to connect Paul’s followers to the free woman and the Jews to the slave. The children of Hagar were the ones under the slavery of the covenant of Mt Sinai, clearly pointing to the Mosaic Law. Paul didn’t even mention the name of Sarah, the primary woman to whom Abraham was married. He compared her to “the Jerusalem above”, clearly pointing to the New Jerusalem of the New Covenant. He even stated in verse 31, “So then, friends, we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman.” In chapter 5 Paul ended by warning not to submit to the “yoke of slavery”, or the Mosaic Law. Yet this was not all. Paul went on to say that “if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law.” Apparently if one chops off their foreskin, they are forced to obey the entire Mosaic Law, no exceptions. Paul then stated in verse 4 that one cannot choose both, but rather by choosing the Law one falls from grace. This section finishes in verses 5-6 with Paul clearly stating that faith alone was the only way to go. Considering what this actually means, Paul had effectively stated that if one did any lawful works at all, they would be throwing away every single bit of grace that resulted from faith alone. So according to Paul, if one were to believe that faith alone was required by salvation, yet they also followed the Mosaic Law in any way, then they could kiss that salvation goodbye as they fell from grace.
This passage gets far worse though. If we read just a bit more to verses 11-14, we can see the following. Paul started by claiming that he was apparently still preaching circumcision, regardless of what he had just written in verses 3-4. But then in verse 12, he clearly stated that he wished those who unsettled his Gentile audience would castrate themselves! See https://biblehub.com/greek/609.htm to confirm that the word ‘castrate’ was accurately translated. As Scott Nelson also noted in his book, Paul was implying that during a Jewish circumcision, he wished they would chop off their own genitalia! Immediately following this in verse 14 he had the gall to say, “for the whole law is summed up in a single command, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”” Not only is this incorrect as confirmed in Mat 22:34-40, it’s also blatantly hypocritical and wicked beyond belief. Paul was essentially saying, ‘I hope the Jews chop off their genitalia during circumcision, but remember to love one another always!’ The reason this goes against works is in verse 13, where he continued in this idea of freedom from the whole Mosaic Law, as was first made apparent in verse 1.
Inconsistencies in Paul’s Doctrine
The previous table did not include passages from every one of Paul’s epistles. To see why, let’s first take a look at the scripture of 1 Cor 9:19-23.
For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.
This is a very interesting passage, one that the reader ought to review in context to verify that the context does not alter its meaning. It tells us that there is a strong possibility that Paul’s doctrine was not actually consistent in his letters. To go further with this idea, lets bring our attention back to the book of Acts. In this book, Paul was repeatedly tested by the apostles because many Jews had warned about his lawless teachings. This is why the councils of Acts 15 and Acts 21:17-36 even happened in the first place. In the first council, Paul was given the benefit of the doubt, being sent with Barnabas alongside the prophets Judas Barsabbas and Silas (Acts 15:22,32). Yet in the second council, after taking the Nazarite vow, the Romans intervened and prevented any further action from the apostles. Before each of these councils, we learned some interesting details about Paul’s story.
In Acts 13:39, Paul gave his first clear statement against the entire Mosaic Law in his speech within the synagogue of Antioch. This was such a persuasive speech that in verses 42-44 almost everyone in the city became interested. Yet verse 45 tells us that the Jews completely opposed this. This led to the debate of Acts 15:1-2, which ultimately was the reason Paul and Barnabas were called to go to Jerusalem. They got in trouble for teaching lawless doctrine. Yet during the council, it was made apparent that the apostles were giving Paul and Barnabas the benefit of the doubt. The reason is that in Acts 10-11, Peter had just converted the first Gentiles, even causing the Holy Spirit to descend upon them. Even at the beginnings of Peter’s speech in Acts 15:7, he made it clear that they were still discussing what they needed to do with these Gentile converts. Their decision was not to teach lawlessness, but to gradually educate the Gentiles on the corrected Mosaic Law (Acts 15:19-21, 23-29). It was made clear in Acts 15:25-26 that the apostles thought Paul and Barnabas simply misunderstood this. They thought these two had made an honest mistake, misunderstanding what Jesus had taught. This especially makes sense since neither of these men met Jesus. But just in case, the apostles did send these two with the prophets Judas and Silas.
What is interesting is that we noticed Paul’s doctrine actually changed during this period. In Acts 16:1-3 Paul and Silas met Timothy. Timothy joined them and Paul had him circumcised. During their ministry in Acts 16:6-7, the ‘Holy Spirit’ did not allow them to go to several places in Asia Minor, particularly including Galatia. We first hypothesized that this was because Paul was teaching lawful doctrine, as he was with Silas. In fact, in verse 20 the reason Silas and Paul were arrested was because “These men are disturbing our city; they are Jews and are advocating customs that are not lawful for us as Romans to adopt or observe.” To the Romans, Paul’s lawless doctrine of salvation through faith alone would not be an issue. Yet the Mosaic Law, even in its corrected form, most certainly would be. Therefore, it is most reasonable that they were teaching lawful doctrine. Interestingly, after this in Acts 17:1 the two went to Thessalonica and preached to the Jews about Jesus. It was not until verse 14 that Paul was finally separated from Silas and Timothy. We again hypothesized that Paul would start preaching lawless doctrine shortly after this. In Acts 18:1-4, Paul was in Corinth and had taught a doctrine to Priscilla and Aquilla. In verses 5-6, Silas and Timothy arrived in the middle of Paul’s sermon and “opposed and reviled him”. This could only have happened if Paul was now teaching lawless doctrine again. In verse 7 he left them and met with Titus, and in verse 23 went to Galatia, no longer forbidden by the Holy spirit. In verse 24, with Paul now out of the picture, Apollos took stage at Ephesus. Apollos was a Jew, just as Silas and Paul were called ‘Jews’ in Acts 16:20. In the short time of Acts 18:1-4, Paul taught Priscilla and Aquilla some doctrine. Now in verse 26, Priscilla and Aquilla opposed Apollos and taught him a ‘more accurate’ doctrine of The Way. The most reasonable explanation for this is that Apollos taught the lawful doctrine of The Way, while Priscilla and Aquilla were taught lawless doctrine by Paul. In Acts 19:1 Apollos had departed Ephesus and went to Corinth. Paul went back to Ephesus though and was told that they were baptized “Into John’s Baptism” (Acts 19:3). Paul instead baptized them again, implying that John’s Baptism was not correct. After this in Acts 20:4, Paul met back up with Timothy alongside some from Thessalonica, Derbe, and Asia. Recall that Timothy and the Thessalonians had been taught lawful doctrine. In verse 6, we are told that this group waited until after the days of Unleavened Bread before sailing. This means that they were suddenly again observing the Mosaic Law. Finally in verse 16 Paul skipped the regions of Asia where he was just teaching lawless doctrine, instead intent on getting to Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. He did have a private meeting with those of Ephesus apart from Timothy and the others, as is made clear in verses 17-18. In this meeting, he told them that he was essentially going to be killed by the Jews (Acts 20:38). Being apart from those he taught lawful doctrine to, he could do this without issue. Then finally in Acts 21:17, the second council occurred and Paul was arrested/rescued by the Romans, never to be again approached by the apostles.
The most important thing to get out of this is precisely where Paul could and could not have taught lawless doctrine. Referring to everything we just covered, the following table summarizes who Paul could have taught which doctrine to.
There are only a few uncertainties in this table. The first is the church of Corinth. Paul had taught there first in Acts 18:1. However, while in Ephesus ‘correcting’ what Apollos had just taught, in Acts 19:1 Apollos had moved on to Corinth. So we cannot confidently predict all of what Paul had taught there. Titus’s situation is a bit similar. Right after Paul was busted by Silas and Timothy in Acts 18:5-6, he went to the house of “Titius Justus”, who is generally accepted by many scholars as Titus. So it is unclear what was actually taught to him. But aside from that, the rest of this table indicates that Thessalonica and Timothy were taught lawful doctrine, while the rest of Paul’s letters except possibly Titus and Corinth were taught lawless doctrine. So is this actually correct? Consider the following table.
In this table, the left column contains the same passages reviewed earlier regarding Paul’s ‘faith alone’ doctrine. The right column is new, containing scriptures from Timothy, Thessalonians, and even several pro-works statements from his letters of lawlessness. Now, its important to note that even this table does not fully cover all the contents and issues of Paul’s letters. In Paul’s letter to Titus, he supported good works while rejecting anything having to do with the Mosaic Law at all, even though Jesus supported some of the Mosaic Law. In much of 1 Cor, 1 Tim, and other related passages, Paul spent most of his time expressing his own sort of ‘law’ on what a Christian should and should not do. He also spent some of his time talking about completely unrelated subjects. Finally, his letter to Philemon is worthy of its own unique status for unrelated yet serious issues. An analysis of this letter will be presented later.
There are two scriptures worth noting in Paul’s pro-works writing of 2 Timothy. In 2 Tim 1:15, Paul specifically told Timothy that all in Asia had turned away from him. We know from our quick analysis of Acts that Paul had met Timothy while with Silas (Acts 16:1-3). Paul only preached lawlessness in Asia, while apart from Silas (Acts 16:6-7, Acts 17:14). So the reason Paul told Timothy that all abandoned him in 2 Tim 1:15 was because he had taught Timothy lawful doctrine, yet he had taught the churches of Asia lawless doctrine. So not only does this confirm that Paul’s letters to Timothy included only pro-works doctrine, but it also confirms that there was definitely doctrinal variance depending on who Paul was addressing.
For the other noted scripture, 2 Tim 3:16-17 is often used to say that the bible is infallible. Its important that the reader understands that verse 17 was only listed because it explicitly supported good works. Verse 16 cannot be correct though for a plethora of reasons we will discuss throughout this book.
Conclusion
The general consistencies from these finds verify the validity of Paul’s statement from 1 Cor 9:19-23. In Paul’s own words, he was a liar and a manipulator. Paul admitted he changed who he was to persuade others to follow him. So it is true that Paul sometimes preached a message to uphold God’s Law. It is also true that Paul sometimes preached a message that knowledge of the Law yields sin. It is also true that Paul sometimes preached salvation through faith without works. Paul even preached a law of faith (Rom 3:27), a law of spirit (Rom 8:1-8), and his very own Pauline law throughout some of his letters! Paul’s law in 1 Corinthians also verifies that he needed to undo Apollos’s teachings before his even more appalling letter of 2 Corinthians. More on that in the next chapter.
With this knowledge, it is clear that Paul changed his message depending on who the audience was. Additionally, he admitted that he did it for selfish gain, so that he may share in the gospel’s blessings (1 Cor 9:23). The God of Israel, on the other hand, never changes and does not lie to get people to follow him (Num 23:19, Jam 1:17, Mal 3:6, 1 Sam 15:29, Rev 1:8). The only thing that has ever changed was man, who corrupted his word as we will confirm throughout the rest of this book (Isa 1:10-17 esp. 12). There is nothing new about this concept, just as there is nothing new under the sun (Ecc 1:9). This is precisely why scriptures like Deut 12:32 and Rev 22:18 exist. God knew corrupt people would change his very words.
God forbids the practice of lying to a neighbor, which is more formally stated, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exo 20:16). The Hebrew words used for witness and for false are https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5707.htm and https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8267.htm. Witness can also mean testimony, and false can also mean deception or fraud. Paul admitted in 1 Cor 9:19-23 that he preached false, fraudulent and deceptive testimonies to different people just to get them to follow him. As another example, a Greek analysis of Rom 3:7 reveals the following, see https://biblehub.com/text/romans/3-7.htm. “If however the truth of God, in my lie, abounded to the glory of Him, why still as a sinner am I also judged?” (Translation derived from the Greek text analysis). Paul admitted that the truth of God was contained within his lie. It was all an open lie. But that’s not all. Romans 3:4 says the following - “Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true”. As we discussed before, Paul used this as an excuse to lie. Yet take a look at the following.
Rom 9:1 “I am speaking the truth in Christ – I am not lying; my conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit.”
2 Cor 11:31 “The God and Father of the Lord Jesus (blessed be he forever!) knows that I do not lie.”
Gal 1:20 “In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!”
1 Tim 2:7 “For this I was appointed a herald and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.”
Was Paul not lying about his predestination theory in Romans 9, his apostleship, his writing to the Galatians, or anything at all? How can these four statements possibly be true if he just called everyone a liar in Rom 3:4? This is nothing less than an absurd double standard, if not much worse. Additionally, are we to believe that a lie with the intent of misleading others is the same as a lie with the intent of protecting someone? Do intentions suddenly no longer matter? Is a lie a sin regardless of the situation? We know from Matthew’s gospel that Jesus preached intentions alongside actions. Yet Paul’s message was that everyone except himself must be a liar.
By now it should be clear that there really is a Great Contradiction in Paul’s teachings. We have taken scripture and compared it to other scripture, and have seen that it doesn’t line up like it should. Instead, Paul by his own words has caused these issues. The remaining step is to prove Paul’s true identity. Why should we even bother? How can we expect to find the truth in the middle of Paul’s lies? Why would this liar tell the truth about his identity? Probably because God forced him to, to confirm that his teachings were a test to see who would truly remain faithful to the Messiah’s real teachings (Deut 13:3). Let’s finally learn the true identity of Paul of Tarsus… in The Nazarene Way.
The Ravenous Wolf
In Genesis chapter 49, Jacob gathered his 12 sons and prophesied the destiny of their progeny. Jacob, named Israel by God, was aware that his 12 sons would become the Patriarchs of a mighty people. These descendants would be known as Israelites; a people of incredible biblical importance. Let’s review the specific prophesy regarding the Messiah.
Judah is a lion’s whelp; from the prey, my son, you have gone up. He crouches down, he stretches out like a lion, like a lioness – who dares rouse him up? The Scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and the obedience of the peoples is his. Binding his foal to the vine, and his donkey’s colt to the choice vine, he washes his garments in wine and his robe in the blood of grapes; his eyes are darker than wine, and his teeth whiter than milk. (Gen 49:9-12, confirmed in Rev 5:5)
As known from what we’ve already covered, this prophecy was about Jesus. The reason this is important is it gives us a format with which to understand the other prophecies in Gen 49. This prophecy talked to Judah, but it did not talk about him. It spoke of a single descendant which would be directly related to Judah. We also can see that this prophecy had sections which would be fulfilled literally and metaphorically. The reference to the colt/foal and donkey is speaking of Jesus’s final trip to Jerusalem, where he literally arrived seated on a donkey with a colt (Mat 21:1-5). These animals were both bound by rope, perhaps as both a literal and metaphorical fulfillment of the vines they are said to be bound to. Jesus washed (dipped/baptized) his garments in wine in Rev 19:13. Obviously there is way more to unpack from this prophecy, but that’s beyond our purpose for this chapter. All of this information confirms that this prophecy was about Jesus. This gives us a way to understand the template by which the other prophecies in Gen 49 would also be fulfilled. Now we can analyze the short prophecy of Benjamin.
Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, in the morning devouring the prey, and at evening dividing the spoil. (Gen 49:27)
As a brief disclaimer, I understand the biblical significance of the tribe of Benjamin from the Old Testament’s perspective. However if we follow the same format as Judah’s prophecy, it can be understood that this is also speaking of a single person. Paul admitted twice that he was an Israelite, belonging to the tribe of Benjamin (Rom 11:1, Phi 3:5). We also know that Paul lived two lives which were so different that one could describe them as day and night, or as morning and evening. The first life, as Saul, was a life persecuting followers of Jesus that belonged to The Way. This time of persecution could be linked metaphorically to a wolf devouring its prey. The second life, as Paul, was a life teaching salvation by faith alone. Through his teachings he divided the people who were followers of The Way (1 Corinthians 11:18-19). Also notice that in this prophecy, the ‘prey’ and the ‘spoil’ are both referring to the same object at different points. The ‘prey’ is what the wolf hunts, and the ‘spoil’ is the remains of that prey which the wolf divides. This means that the prey and the spoil which Paul hunted and later divided must have been the same thing – The Way.
We can now see the plausibility that Gen 49:27 described Paul. Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin, first persecuting the Way as Saul then dividing those left as Paul through his false doctrine. To conclude, we can even explain why Benjamin was described as a wolf. Mat 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” This is confirmation that Paul was not just a false apostle, but also a false prophet.
Just as the prophecy of Judah spoke of Jesus Christ the messiah, the prophecy of Benjamin spoke of his opposition - Paul. Please do note that if one rejects that the prophecy of Benjamin was about one man, then one must also reject that the prophecy of Judah was about one man. One must not just pick and choose what the bible says for their own benefit. One must look at the whole picture and think rationally about what it actually says.
Thomas Jefferson
I thank Scott Nelson, author of “Yeshua and the Law versus Paul the False Apostle” for revealing this passage to me. This passage is not biblical prophecy, but it certainly comes with prophetic undertones. It comes from a letter written by one of America’s founding fathers – Thomas Jefferson. From his several letters, it is apparent that Thomas Jefferson actually studied the bible fairly thoroughly without the influence of Christianity. The result? I’ll let you read this passage from his 13 April 1820 letter to William short. For this specific passage, any underlines come from Thomas Jefferson himself. Here are two links to his letter from the Library of Congress to confirm its legitimacy:
http://rs5.loc.gov/service/mss/mtj/mtj1/051/051_1224_1227.pdf
https://www.loc.gov/item/mtjbib023789/
But while this Syllabus is meant to place the character of Jesus in it’s true and high light, as no imposter himself, but a great Reformer of the Hebrew code of religion, it is not to be understood that I am with him in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of spiritualism: he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgiveness of sin, I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it Etc. Etc. it is the innocence of his character, the purity & sublimity of his moral precepts, the eloquence of his inculcations, the beauty of the apologues in which he conveys them, that I so much admire; sometimes indeed needing indulgence to Eastern hyperbolism. my eulogies too may be founded on a postulate which all may not be ready to grant. among the sayings & discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence: and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate therefore the gold from the dross; restore to him the former, & leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of his disciples. of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. these palpable interpolations and falsifications of his doctrines led me to try to sift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and that his part composed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given to us by man. the Syllabus is therefore of his doctrines, not all of mine. I read them as I do those of other antient and modern moralists, with a mixture of approbation and dissent.
If Thomas Jefferson found it easy to separate the nonsense of Paul’s letters from the truth, how much easier should it be for us with the plethora of bible study tools available online? Sure, Thomas Jefferson was no biblical scholar, but neither was he certified to help start a new country in rebellion towards the most powerful nation at the time – Great Britain. So although this passage doesn’t disprove Paul’s legitimacy, it should certainly be a wakeup call for most American Christian patriots.
It’s interesting to note two things. First, that Thomas Jefferson wrote, “he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgiveness of sin, I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it”. We know that true repentance is supposed to actually be a “counterpoise of good works”, as it’s original Greek word ‘metanoia’ implies. Such is also implied from Mat 27:2 in that Judas ‘turned back’ from his evil deeds. I wonder if this might have influenced Thomas Jefferson’s view. Second is the quotation “I separate therefore the gold from the dross”. Proverbs 25:4 reads, “Take away the dross from the silver, and the smith has material for a vessel”. Thomas Jefferson was actually quoting this scripture, implying that he was quite familiar with biblical literature. Also, he probably referred to gold instead of silver in recognition of just how valuable this discovery really was.
This is not the only letter of Jefferson’s that contains information like this. Another example is his August 4th letter, which followed from the letter we just covered. It can be found here http://rs5.loc.gov/service/mss/mtj/mtj1/052/052_0152_0158.pdf. Further individual research into this matter is highly suggested.
Peter’s Second Letter
Peter’s second letter begins,
To those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: May Grace and peace be yours in abundance in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.
First, although Peter mentions faith, he specifically states that this faith must be “as precious as ours”. There are different degrees of faith, so we must see what type of faith he is talking about. He also mentions God and Jesus, seemingly tying them together. But by reading the second sentence, it can be seen that Peter was not calling Jesus both God and Savior. In each instance he first addresses God, then addresses Jesus. Verses 3-4 read,
His divine power has given us everything needed for life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Thus he has given us, through these things, his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of lust, and may become participants of the divine nature.
Peter tells us we have everything needed for life through God’s knowledge. This means our “assumption” that it must be possible to find the truth is factual. Although it may not be possible to find every single detail of the truth, God has indeed made it possible to find the truth that is necessary “for life and godliness”. It is through this knowledge of the truth that God has selected his chosen people to receive his promises. Being chosen by God is not the same as predestination. One is chosen after they seek out and follow the truth. In this way, everyone has the chance to seek it out, but few actually take the time to do so. Peter continues in verses 5-9,
For this very reason, you must make every effort to support your faith with goodness, and goodness with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with endurance, and endurance with godliness, and godliness with mutual affection, and mutual affection with love. For if these things are yours and are increasing among you, they keep you from being ineffective and unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For anyone who lacks these things is nearsighted and blind, and is forgetful of the cleansing of past sins.
“This very reason” that Peter talks about is to “escape from the corruption that is in the world because of lust” from verse 4. In order to do this, in order to have knowledge of God’s truth, in order to receive those promises, one must make every effort to support their faith with goodness, knowledge, self control, endurance, godliness, mutual affection, and love. This is the definition of faith! One does not have legitimate faith without putting effort into these good works. The kind of faith described by The Assembly of The Way is fundamentally connected to works. They are inseparable. Peter even says that if these things are yours and increasing, so as to not become stagnant and complacent, then they will keep you from being unfruitful. This means that bearing fruit worthy of repentance is to do good works alongside faith, as just defined! Furthermore, anyone who lacks these has forgotten the cleansing of past sins. This means that even the Christian definition of cleansing of past sins is wrong. They say once sins are cleansed, you are free from them. Peter says you are obligated to remember them because this is exactly what makes your works so fruitful. It is both your intent and your actions that matter. By forgetting your past sins, your works are no longer with the intent of paying off your past debts. By remembering them and refusing to go back to those wicked ways, suddenly your intent is set on goodness in the face of evil. This is exactly the kind of message we have been looking for. We will see that everyone truly belonging to The Way will preach very similar, very powerful messages. Let’s take a moment to formally define faith with Peter’s words.
Faith – a belief defined by continuous development of goodness, knowledge, self control, endurance, godliness, mutual affection, and love. This ever-growing faith keeps one from being unfruitful because it requires good works.
2 Pet 1:10-14 continues,
Therefore, brothers and sisters, be all the more eager to confirm your call and election, for if you do this, you will never stumble. For in this way, entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be richly provided for you. Therefore I intend to keep on reminding you of these things, though you know them already and are established in the truth that has come to you. I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to refresh your memory, since I know that my death will come soon, as indeed our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.
One must continuously confirm that they are chosen by God, as this gift can be taken away. Something to think about, is Jesus’s kingdom the only kingdom of the heavens? Or are there other places for people to go who fail to follow Jesus in the way Peter described? There is one last thing to note here. Peter said that Jesus made it clear that his death was coming soon. This is definitely referring to the prophecy of John 21:18. There is a reason Peter does not know the meaning of this prophecy yet, which we will cover soon. In fact, continuing on to verses 20-21, Peter very well may have been admitting that he knew he might be wrong about this prophecy. The next verses read,
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
One cannot be certain that their interpretation of prophecy was the intended meaning until that prophecy has come to pass and has been fully identified as fulfilled. John hinted in the end of his gospel that Peter may have been wrong about the John 21:18 prophecy. Now Peter also adds a hint of uncertainty to his prophetic interpretation. This is not a coincidence. In fact, the next verses from chapter 2 are quite prophetic in this regard as well. Verses 1-3 read,
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions. They will even deny the master who brought them – bringing swift destruction on themselves. Even so, many will follow their licentious ways, and because of these teachers the way of truth will be maligned. And in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words. Their condemnation, pronounced against them long ago, has not been idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
Peter spoke what was coming before he even knew it. Certainly, he knew of the wickedness of the typical false teacher. But at the time he would have been clueless that he was foreshadowing Paul’s false teachings, as is made more obvious in chapter 3. This can only be because the Holy Spirit was speaking, or writing, through him. Verse 4 is quite interesting. It reads,
For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into [Tartarus] and committed them to chains of deepest darkness to be kept until the judgment;
The word Tartarus is the Greek word used here, see https://biblehub.com/text/2_peter/2-4.htm. Typically when referring to Hell, the word Gehenna is used. But in this case, Tartarus is describing a “deepest darkness”. For reasons we have discussed before, these two different places are probably not the same. Tartarus sounds a bit more like the outer darkness, just worse. In fact, there is nowhere else in the bible that the specific name Tartarus is used. There is one writing though, that is also mentioned by Jude and even Jesus, that does contain the story of this place. It is the Book of Enoch, which we will get to on page ###.
Continuing on, Peter compared the story of God’s wrath against the fallen angels to Noah’s time and to Sodom and Gomorrah. In verses 7-8, we get an interesting connection between licentiousness and lawlessness. Interesting, because in the prophecy from verses 1-3 licentiousness was used to describe the way of the false teachers, which again points to Paul. Peter goes on to say “then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment”. And right he is, even in Paul’s case allowing him to be tormented by one of Satan’s demons (2 Cor 12:7). Moving ahead to verse 17, Peter once again mentioned the deepest darkness, reserved for the most wicked, lawless, and licentious sinners. Again in verse 19 Peter made another eerie prophetic statement. It reads,
They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption; for people are slaves to whatever masters them. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment that was passed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “The dog turns back to its own vomit,” and, “The sow is washed only to wallow in the mud.”
It isn’t difficult to compare this to the enticing doctrine of Christian freedom from the law. It’s possible that at the time of his writing, Peter knew this was happening but just didn’t realize that it was because of Paul. Let’s move on to chapter 3 to see. In verse 1 Peter confirms that this is his second letter, and that in both his objective remained the same. This is an important detail because the first letter appears to be quite different. With the message of his second letter in mind though, we can be confident that his first speaks the same message, no matter how badly it has been twisted by others. Peter went on to also support Hydroplate Theory by saying, “by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water, through which the world of that time was deluged with water and perished.” Then in verse 8 he tells us that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and vice versa. It isn’t unreasonable then to see that the apostles were not as close to the end times as they might have originally thought. The reason is that, as Peter stated, God wants as many as possible to repent of their sins, that is, by bearing fruit worthy of repentance as John the Baptist stated. Only once that has happened will the end come. By the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, we can be confident that as long as righteousness exists, there is still time remaining to correct our ways. Lastly, Peter himself confirms in verse 13 that even they were waiting for the new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home. Compare this to Mat 5:17-20, Jer 31:31-34, and Rev 21:1. That time has not come yet, nor did it come after the resurrection of Jesus as many claim. Finally, we get to the one time that Peter mentioned Paul by name. This single section is often used to ‘prove’ that Paul was a true apostle. But let’s take a look for ourselves and see.
Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be without spot or blemish; and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability.
There are specific details here that confirm we are not wrong about Paul. First, Peter did not call Paul an apostle. He called him a “beloved brother”. To call him beloved is nothing new; Peter had previously stated that love is a key component to faith and ultimately salvation. Peter at the time either did not know what Paul was teaching, or was giving him the benefit of the doubt. It was probably a mixture of both though for the following reasons. Peter said that Paul wrote essentially the same message as he did in all his letters. Obviously, this isn’t true. But this leads to the conclusion that Peter did not know everything that Paul was teaching. He probably only had read the earliest of Paul’s letters, thinking those were the only ones and not reading the later ones like 2 Corinthians and Galatians. We know that in Paul’s earliest letters, like to Thessalonica, that he taught lawful doctrine. This was because he was with Silas, a prophet of The Way (Acts 15:32). So this isn’t surprising that Peter only knew part of the story at the time he wrote this.
Next, Peter said “There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” There’s a few things to unpack here. First, the fact that Peter said these letters were hard to understand testifies to the fact that he desperately wanted to give Paul the benefit of the doubt. Peter would rather think that others were misinterpreting Paul, than to think Paul actually meant the absurd things he said in his letters, even the earliest ones. Second, Peter pointed out that it was common even then for people to twist scriptures to fit their own narrative. This didn’t make those people right though. Third and most importantly is the question, was Peter calling Paul’s letter holy scripture? Well first, no because the word holy isn’t in there. More importantly, let’s take a look at the Greek text, see https://biblehub.com/text/2_peter/3-16.htm.
The word for “other” is the Greek word ‘loipos’, which means “the rest, the remaining”. Next, the word for “scriptures” is the Greek word ‘graphas’, meaning “a writing, scripture”, as in, anything written at all. There is no indication that the “scriptures” Peter was referring to were even related to religious text. He was probably just referring to the fact that people tend to read things in the way they want them to sound, rather than in the way they are truly written. But how could this be the case if Peter was talking about the remaining writings? Would this not imply that he was referring to biblical scripture? Unfortunately for those that think this way, the bible did not exist at that time. So what remaining writings could Peter be referring to? Truthfully, we just don’t know! He could be talking about holy scripture, but he was more likely just talking about any other writings. I love the way that Scott Nelson put it in his book, that this phrase was an “off-the-cuff hyperbole”. I view Peter’s message as such: ‘Of course people would take Paul’s letters out of context, have you seen the way they read other writings?’ By all means, study this for yourself and make your own conclusions. But before moving on, there’s an additional, highly important detail to consider.
At the end of Peter’s passage, he says, “beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless”. The fact that he said this right after talking about Paul’s message most likely means that he did not yet understand that Paul’s doctrine was lawless. 1 Cor 9:19-23 confirms that Paul taught many different things to many different people. Peter must have only seen his law-abiding doctrine.
At this point, it should not surprise you that the Christian Church has done everything in its power to hide the truth about lawless Paul from you. Unfortunately, as much as I’d like to keep all my arguments within the realm of biblical scripture, for this instance it is necessary that we take a leap of faith to discover something the church does not want you to see.
The Epistle of Peter to James
The Epistle of Peter to James is quite a special document. This letter was kept out of the bible, even though many scholars do consider it to be authentic. The reason why is extremely obvious once you read it for yourself. You can access it here https://bit.ly/3Qr1QIc.
Excerpt from Ch.1 [Peter speaking to James]:
Knowing, my brother, your eager desire after that which is for the advantage of us all, I beg and beseech you not to communicate to any one of the Gentiles the books of my preachings which I sent to you, nor to any one of our own tribe before trial; but if any one has been proved and found worthy, then to commit them to him, after the manner in which Moses delivered his books to the Seventy who succeeded to his chair
Ch.2:
In order, therefore, that the like may also happen to those among us as to these Seventy, give the books of my preachings to our brethren, with the like mystery of initiation, that they may indoctrinate those who wish to take part in teaching; for if it be not so done, our word of truth will be rent into many opinions. And this I know, not as being a prophet, but as already seeing the beginning of this very evil. For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my legal preaching, attaching themselves to certain lawless and trifling preaching of the man who is my enemy. And these things some have attempted while I am still alive, to transform my words by certain various interpretations, in order to the dissolution of the law; as though I also myself were of such a mind, but did not freely proclaim it, which God forbid! For such a thing were to act in opposition to the law of God which was spoken by Moses, and was borne witness to by our Lord in respect of its eternal continuance; for thus he spoke: “The heavens and the earth shall pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.” And this He has said, that all things might come to pass. But these men, professing, I know not how, to know my mind, undertake to explain my words, which they have heard of me, more intelligently than I who spoke them, telling their catechumens that this is my meaning, which indeed I never thought of. But if, while I am still alive, they dare thus to misrepresent me, how much more will those who shall come after me dare to do so!
Excerpt from Ch.5 [James speaking to the elders]:
Hear me, brethren and fellow-servants. If we should give the books to all indiscriminately, and they should be corrupted by any daring men, or be perverted by interpretations, as you have heard that some have already done, it will remain even for those who really seek the truth, always to wander in error.
It’s pretty obvious that in Chapter 2, Peter had finally recognized that the prophecy of John 21:18 was talking about his adversary Paul. Furthermore, Peter made it clear that although Paul and his followers wanted to get rid of the Law, our interpretation of Mat 5:17-20 was correct in that it did not go away. Rather, Peter said that this law was spoken by Moses, and that it would continue eternally, that is, forever. Now, although Peter did say that Moses gave the law, this does not mean that the Mosaic Law that we have today has not since been corrupted.
Additionally, Peter and James discussed these books of Peter’s preachings. Just what are they? Books and letters are two very different things, so this cannot just be about his letters. They must have been incredibly important given the care taken to protect them from corruption. Obviously, James’s warning came true, that this corruption “will remain even for those who really seek the truth, always to wander in error”. However, we’re going to fix that in this book. We are going to restore the truth about The Nazarene Way.
Jude
A short analysis of Jude’s letter confirms it’s authenticity and offers some great insight. Jude first specified his audience as “those who are called, who are beloved in God the father and kept safe for Jesus Christ”. From scriptures such as 1 Sam 2:9, Pro 2:8, and even 1 Pet 1:5, we know that God keeps his righteous ones safe. Also, Rev 17:14 refers to the true Israelites as “called and chosen and faithful”. So it is reasonable to argue that Jude had intended this letter to be for the true saints of The Way, just as Peter and James did. In verse 3 Jude begins,
Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.
Jude was in the middle of preparing a different letter, but decided that it was more important to write this short letter first. The reason was to contend for this faith which was entrusted to the saints. According to Merriam-Webster, contend means “to strive or vie in contest or rivalry or against difficulties”. The reason Jude suddenly shifted gears in his writings was to reunite his followers who had now become divided. This division was about faith itself. Verse 4 continues,
For certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who long ago were designated for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Well this is certainly interesting. Intruders secretly made their way into the Assembly of the Way with the purpose of perverting grace and faith, turning it into licentiousness. According to Merriam-Webster, licentiousness means “lacking legal or moral restraints.” And “marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness”. Although it usually means sexual immorality, it doesn’t always. Rather, in this context it could only have meant lawlessness, as was also realized in 2 Pet 2:7-8. Who preached God’s gracious salvation by faith alone? Eph 2:8-9 reads,
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God – not the result of works, so that no one may boast.
Jude wrote this letter to warn about Paul! His letter went on to explain several examples on what happens to these kinds of people, and why to avoid them. Interestingly, some of these examples are not described in the bible. Rather, verses 14 and 15 directly quote from the Book of Enoch, as Peter did earlier regarding Tartarus.
After these examples, Jude told his audience to remember what Peter said in 2 Pet 3:3, that they knew unrighteous people were coming. 2 Peter also mentioned Paul, yet at the time the apostles did not know that Paul was the wretched liar he truly was. The fact that Jude referenced this verse means that now they knew who these scoffers were. Jude, Peter, and all the other apostles had finally recognized Paul’s heretic deeds. It may have taken them time to finally see it, but they did not approve of Paul’s false doctrine. They just didn’t realize what he was actually teaching until after Peter’s second letter was released. It is recommended to read the few verses left in Jude’s letter, as they are quite uplifting.
Now, it’s worth quickly mentioning that the identity of Jude is largely a mystery at this point. It couldn’t have been Judas Iscariot as he hung himself, and Mat 10:2-3 does not include Jude’s name in the list of apostles. So just who was he? We will discover the answer in the Gospel of the Holy Twelve.
The 1 John 5:7 Dilemma
1 John 5:7 is a verse that is often used to support the theory on the trinity. The KJV bible reads “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” But check this out - the NRSV bible reads “There are three that testify:”. That’s right, those 5 words make up the entire verse of 1 John 5:7 in the NRSV bible. In the tiny footnotes at the bottom of my physical NRSV bible, it says, “A few authorities read (with variations), “There are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.”” So no big deal right? Some bibles include support for the trinity and some don’t. But it turns out that something far bigger is going on here.
Years ago, it was proven and supported by many biblical scholars that this verse was not written by the apostle John. This was proven by comparing the dates of different Greek and Latin manuscripts, only some of which contained this verse. This verse was not contained in some of the earliest manuscripts, suggesting that it was added later on. The KJV bible contains this verse because it was translated using some of the latest manuscripts, not the earliest original ones that many modern bible translations used. The controversy and results were swept under the rug, left as a little footnote in many modern bibles. Strangely enough, the debate still goes on even though it has been confirmed that this verse was not written by John. Here is a great video explaining the details of this incredible find: https://youtu.be/2-lFTcC11-A
Even if you want to believe that the bible is infallible, this single verse proves that it definitely is fallible. Now, this isn’t to say that this error was a nefarious act. It very well could have been an accident in some form or another. Nevertheless, a fact is a fact. If the bible has been corrupted in this way, then what other errors could there be?
The Sabbath
Matthew 5:17-20 makes it very clear that God’s Law and it’s commandments don’t go away until heaven and earth pass away. A common argument is that this means the 10 commandments must be kept, but not including the other 603 Torah commandments. (BTW the number 613 is just a traditional number, and I don’t think it is accurate). For now, let’s consider that we truly only need the 10 commandments, listed in Exodus chapter 20.
The fourth commandment is given in verses 8-11, and reads, “Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; you shall not do any work - you, your son or daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.” Unfortunately for all Christians, except the Seventh Day Adventists, they go to church on the first day of the week, not the last. But wait, Monday is the first day of the week now so Sunday is the seventh day. Let’s do a little research together.
The Council of Laodicea was a Christian Synod that is generally agreed to have occurred in the 4th century around 363-364 AD. A simple google search on “Council of Laodicea” will provide you with many great articles on this historical event. Here is one source I found listing the translated Canons: https://www.cepher.net/blog.aspx?post=3268. I want to bring your attention to Canon 29, although you should definitely read through all of these canons on your own. It reads, “Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.”
This Christian Synod declared that one must not keep a Saturday sabbath, in order to avoid being like the Jews. Because of the rulings of this Synod, and certainly other similar events around that time, Christians now go to church on Sunday. Was the Synod correcting the error of the Jewish people, or were they changing “the sacred seasons and the laws” as prophesied in Daniel 7:25? Keep in mind, Jesus kept the sabbath of the Jewish people because he was one of them (More accurately, they were all Israelites, but much more on that in The Nazarene Way).
The only Christian sect that I am aware of which keeps a Saturday Sabbath is the Seventh-Day Adventist church. Let me clarify that going to church does not make you a sabbath-keeper. A sabbath is a day of rest (Exo 20:10), one where you are permitted to do good (Mat 12:9-13), but must avoid doing evil (Isa 56:2-5). Going to church can be considered good, but if you do evil before or after service on that day then you definitely fall short of the requirements to keep the Sabbath holy. It is certainly important to figure out which day is the right one, in order to keep it holy.
Idolatry and The Cross
Idolatry is a subject of great importance. In Exodus 20:2-5 God tells us what it is and why it is important. These verses read,
I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God…
There is only one minor mistranslation here that could change its meaning, See https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/20-3.htm. The word ‘al- simply means upon or above, not “before”. Either way, this means God commanded that we have no other gods except him. This is because he wants us to love him above all else (Deut 6:5), because he is a jealous God. That’s not a bad thing; he created us because he simply wanted to be loved in return. The first four of the ten commandments were laid out to tell us exactly how to do this. Remember God, respect him, have no others, and don’t bow down to the others, even if they aren’t real.
God defines an idol as an object that is of the form of anything in heaven, earth, or the waters beneath. This object simply represents something that can be bowed down to. This would include many objects found in various religions today. Let’s take a moment to talk about one of great importance.
When it comes to religious symbols, the cross is the most-widely known and used symbol. Many Christians adore the symbol of the cross. Some say it represents the blood that was shed for their sins. Others say it represents that death could not hold their beloved Messiah. Needless to say, many have strong emotional ties to the cross symbol. To find out exactly what those emotions are really tied to, one ought to consider the following scenario.
Imagine one were married to their beloved significant other. One day, their spouse is shot dead with a pistol. would it be appropriate for them to wear a pistol symbol around their neck to remember their spouse? What if they purchased a small statue of that pistol for their home? Perhaps they bought a picture of that pistol to put on display; would that be any different? What if their loved one came back to life? Do you think it would still be appropriate? More importantly, do you think that spouse would appreciate seeing that symbol?
When thinking rationally about this, it makes little sense why someone would use an instrument of death to remember their loved one. It would be far more appropriate and meaningful if they remembered their spouse with flowers, a picture from their wedding, or something else to bring back happy memories. If one needs a symbol of death to remember the one they dearly love, then either they never actually loved that person or their love is actually for the symbol itself.
It should be pretty obvious that crucifixion is a terrible way to die. It may not be pleasant to think about, but we need to be realistic about this. Jesus was heavily beaten, scourged, and crowned with thorns before even being nailed up for crucifixion. Once he was up there, all he had to drink was vinegar, which certainly seeped into his wounds to cause further pain. How on earth did Christianity decide that it was a good idea to remember their beloved Messiah with this very symbol? To understand this, we need to first look at exactly what the instrument of crucifixion was.
Matthew 10:38 reads “whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me.” Jesus is not saying to take up the cross by making a necklace and putting it around one’s neck. He’s saying to follow him through the trials he himself faces, even in the face of death. Otherwise, the apostles would have documented their own use of cross necklaces. But there’s a significant detail here hidden in the Greek text. The word itself used for cross is translated from the Greek word “σταυρὸν”, or ‘stauron’. See https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/10-38.htm.
Looking at the Greek analysis of the word ‘stauros’, the definition reads “an upright stake, a cross (the Rom. instrument of crucifixion)”. But how can an upright stake be the same thing as a cross? As it turns out, there is actually very little evidence that Roman crucifixion was performed on a cross. Instead, there are actual statues of something quite different.
Consider the following. Crucifixion on a cross would leave the lungs more open and free to breath, making the death slower yet more bearable. As we can see above, however, crucifixion actually forces someone to slowly choke themselves out, especially when their neck muscles eventually fail to support their head. Additionally, the Romans did not like to waste too much time with crucifixion. For Jesus, the Roman soldiers killed those being crucified next to him faster by breaking their legs (John 19:31-37). They wanted those three dead by sunset because it was the day before the Sabbath. It would even be easier to move and set up a single wooden pole. It would be incredibly awkward for one man to carry a cross that big, yet carrying a log is something still done in the military today for training. Setting up a stake is as simple as sliding it into a hole, but setting up a cross also requires that the two pieces be firmly connected. Economically, a cross uses extra lumber and manpower for essentially negative gain. The more one thinks about the realistic pros and cons of a cross versus a stake, the less a cross makes sense.
But even this isn’t the end of the evidence against the cross. The word ‘Xulon’ is also used in direct reference to the instrument of crucifixion, see https://biblehub.com/greek/3586.htm. This word is used by Peter (1 Pet 2:24, Acts 10:39), Peter and the apostles (Acts 5:29-30), Jesus (Luke 23:31), and even Paul (Acts 13:29, Gal 3:13) to refer to Jesus being ‘hung on a tree’. The word ‘hang’ comes from the Greek word ‘kremannumi’, see https://biblehub.com/greek/2910.htm. This word is used to describe suspension from an object. So although in a modern context this would mean being hung by the neck from a literal tree, in this case it would mean being hung by nails from a ‘Xulon’. The word Xulon is a general word for wood, but is mostly used to describe a tree, branch, tree trunk, or any generally unprocessed piece of wood. Given the context, the instrument of crucifixion must have been a tree trunk. How do you connect two cylindrical trunks of a tree with enough strength to hang someone, without spending extra time making a notch in each piece? You simply cannot. Yet without extra processing, you can easily use a single log as an upright stake.
Sources for Further Research
Throughout this project I have found several previous works regarding similar matters to those this book covers. Most of them unfortunately were just poorly composed. When I first started this work, I erroneously concluded that all previous works were of such poor quality. As a result, I recommended to avoid studying the works of others. Such a recommendation not only slows the progression of others, but it also delegitimizes myself and the claims of this book. Nevertheless, the following are two books which I have found to be of much better quality that do justice to the matters at hand.
“Yeshua and the Law versus Paul the False Apostle” by Scott Nelson, found here: https://www.judaismvschristianity.com/.
When I first stumbled upon this book, I was in the middle of researching Paul’s falsehood for myself. Even with all that I had learned at the time, this book helped me open my eyes to the fact that there are different ways of tackling the same issue to formally discredit Paul’s self-proclaimed apostleship. There is very valuable information contained within this book that can help you see what the big deal is with Paul.
“The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception” by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, found here: https://www.amazon.com/Dead-Scrolls-Deception-Michael-Baigent/dp/0671797972.
This book made its way into my collection after seeing Scott Nelson’s mention of it in his writing. The book is packed with historical documentation of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and how the Catholic Church conspired to hide the contents of these scrolls from you and I. Being in the times we live today, ‘Conspiracy Theories’ are often laughed at as claims without standing. This book, however, shows that not only is there standing to such a claim, but that it actually happened. The scrolls that we have today show why Paul’s apostleship is being tested 2,000 years later. This is no coincidence; such a conclusion ought to have been drawn in the early 1950’s after the discovery of these scrolls. But as powerful organizations such as the Catholic Church love to do, they successfully hushed the controversy to stay in control.
Keep an eye out here for more information as I make it available. I want to do everything I can to help open peoples eyes to the truth, and this is one way I can do just that. Want to receive an email alert when the book is ready? Visit ‘Customer Support’ for more information.