Click Here & Make this
Your Start Page!
Thank You!

Paul the Gnostic Ravenous Wolf

The Lies and Heresy of Paul of Tarsus

—  Page 5  —

A New Teaching After Messiah?

Long before Yeshua appeared in history the Jewish people were already saying: "When Messiah comes he will teach us ALL things," because Messiah had been prophesied by Moses to be a prophet like him, i.e. a perfect teacher.

Deuteronomy 18:15
¹⁵ YHWH your Elohim will raise up for you a prophet like myself from among your own people. Him you shall heed.

Since the majority of Jews still do not recognize Yeshua as our national Messiah, they still repeat the same truism. But if Messiah truly came two thousand years ago, then he must have taught us "ALL things" in a complete way during that visit. Therefore, IF Yeshua was the Messiah, no new revelation on how to deal with the Almighty was necessary after him at all, because he would have taught us ALL things at that time.

Now, please pay attention to this. If Yeshua did not teach us "ALL things" at that time — i.e. if more teaching was needed after him — that would consequentially mean that he was not the Messiah! Do you believe he was the Messiah? Do you believe that he taught "ALL things" not leaving room for any new teaching after he finished? The answer is a simple "yes" or "no". It cannot be a "yes, but" because he was, or he was not, the Messiah. It cannot be a "yes he was the Messiah, but ..."

Now, if you believe that Yeshua was the Messiah, then, how could any post-messianic teacher ever have had a wider-ranging and deeper (i.e. more complete) teaching than Messiah's? Is it possible that Paul could come after Messiah with an entirely novel and cryptical "gospel" of which Yeshua never said anything about — rather the opposite? Do you realize that if Paul taught "ALL things" and in a deeper way than Yeshua, then he was the Messiah not Yeshua as you think you believe? Without a doubt, at least one of them was a fake. Now, whom of the two do you choose as Messiah? This choice is unavoidable since you cannot select both and because, in many ways, they are irreconcilable. Do you realize how much juggling do you need to exercise in order to align them both in front of your eyes at the same time? Are you a mere spiritual juggler, or are you an honest person looking for Truth in a world full of many lies?

Due to the enormous importance of this vital point allow me to repeat this vital concept. If Yeshua did not teach us "ALL things," then he was an incomplete or defective Rabbi (teacher), which is something totally inconsistent with the traits of the true Messiah. Such an eventuality would immediately disqualify Yeshua as the Messiah of Israel. On the other hand, if he truly was the Messiah — and thus he taught us "ALL things" — any and all alleged subsequent "revelations" concerning human's dealings with Elohim were/are false teachings! Therefore, the likes of Paul of Tarsus, Mohammed and Joseph Smith (to only mention three) were false prophets. They were false prophets because no subsequent new teaching or new doctrine was/is necessary — or even possible! — after the complete Teaching of Messiah!

If Yeshua was the Messiah of Israel, what business had Paul teaching a new gospel — "his gospel" as he called it — after Messiah's complete Teaching?

Romans 2:16
¹⁶ on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christos Iesous

Romans 16:25
²⁵ Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Iesous Christos, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past

2 Timothy 2:8
⁸ Remember Iesous Christos, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel

Well, so much for your condemnation of my "ridiculous claim of Paul,Rabbi Shaul of Tarsus"! Like I said before, you are completely free to believe the opposite to the above propositions; but the burden of proof is on you not on me, as you demand — and, of course, the proof should be to you and for you, and not to me or for me.

In a chesty display of Christian condescension you say, "YOU need to repent of this (meaning my exposing Paul as a blasphemous false prophet) and go back to the 2nd temple period to understand the issues being dealt with,u need to read and understand the Scriptures from a Hebraic or Jewish mind set." But, when it comes to repentance, I already repented — repentance meaning changing my mind. After many years of honest and thorough research, I repented of being a Christian. Yes, in the midst of much humbling but liberating pain, I had to finally acknowledge that Christianity (better characterized as 'Paulianity' or 'Paulinism') is nothing but a false religion deceptively concocted by Paul of Tarsus and developed by his Gentile minions, who arrogantly called themselves 'Orthodox' so as to sanction their heresy as being the right one. Eventually Paulinism was sanctioned by the politicized Catholic curia of the 4th century, and imposed upon the world by means of shear political force by a series of evil Roman Emperors, and later imperial Popes. On the other hand, I repented from being a Christian because Christianity has nothing to do — at all! — with what Elohim directly revealed to Israel at Sinai — even though Paul falsely said that such Revelation had been given by angels

Acts 7:53
⁵³ You received the Law by decrees of angels, but you did not obey it.

Yes, Paul was a great liar. Actually, he was the greatest liar in human history!

Finally, I repented because I realized that Christianity (i.e. Paulianity or Paulinism) was not what Yeshua had taught at all. With great sorrow I had to recognize that Paul of Tarsus was a false prophet, a blind man guiding other blind men. Worse yet, he was a true anti-Messiah on his own right — a deceptive foreshadow of the final Anti-Messiah yet to appear, the one who will embody by the same misleading unclean spirit that once possessed Paul, the ravenous wolf from Tarsus.

It is an undeniable historical fact that Gnostic Paul distorted as much as he could by syncretizing his hellenistic ideas into the simple and fresh Message of Yeshua and the life-giving Mitzvot of Torah. This lying Idumean — a wicked grandson of Herod the so-called "Great" — most probably was the man who has achieved the most against the Kingdom of Heaven in all of history. Possibly, such an undesirable "achievement" could only be disputed by Nimrod and Semiramis, but Elohim will judge that. In the meantime you need to look into that by yourself; that is, if you are honest enough as to pursuit Truth with the same intensity as you pursuit clarifications from others.

Because of all that, and much more, I returned to the religion of my ancestors, some of whom generations back had converted to Christianity — if by force or will, I do not know. But before my repentance and conversion to Judaism, I treaded a very long and interesting road.

First of all, I shall tell you the following because you so flippantly and contemptuously assumed that I am some sort of neophyte or an ignoramus, and thus harangued me to start studying the Scriptures and history because you dislike my understanding on theological and historical matters. Therefore, since as a ggod Paulinist you are so willingly excuse Paul's constant braggins, you will excuse my following personal clarification. Since I was of the most tender age I was a bookworm. I deeply studied the Scriptures since the tender age when boys are only playing with toys and thinking on cartoons. For your information, sir, when I was merely 10 years old, after having done a solitary and in depth study in Genesis, I found out — by my own calculations — that our patriarch Methuselah had died in the very same year of the Flood (something most pastors do not know, and certainly mine at that time neither). When I was 13 I held my first church conference on the life and teachings of Paul no less! For 20 long years I was very harshly persecuted on account of my sincere and deep Christian Faith in Communist Cuba. Then, after applying for permission to leave that tyrannized country for countless years, I finally came to America around 30 years ago filled with the desire to continue learning and to serve. So, I graduated from a Christian "cemetery" (seminary) — with high marks I should add, since you so doubt my intelligence and/or my education. Immediately I opened a new a church among unbelievers, without ever "fishing" members from other churches. I worked as a true I-do-not-care-about-money pastor, who mainly preached from the epistles of Paul. I have counseled for free countless emotionally disturbed people. Before my repentance and conversion I webmastered two Christian websites — now I have two Jewish ones. You should also know that I have personally translated for my use, as well as my family and friends', an entire book of the Scriptures and countless other passages. Finally, you should know that my four main fortés are History, Theology, Psychology and Languages. As you can see, I detest shallow explanations and non-researched material. And you lecture me that I need to put my nose into the Scriptures, as if I was a greenhorn, and to study the period of the 2nd Temple as if I was an ignoramus?! My friend, if yours is not a patent case of arrogant presumption, then I do not know what it is. You certainly show an impudent nerve based upon vain assumptions. Who needs repentance?

Those who have studied past Sunday School material know that among countless Christian theologians, of all denominations, it is not so "absolutely ludicrous to claim he [Paul of Tarsus] and James are in conflict with one another" in many more than one verse. But it is not only James that flatly denounces Paul. Find out by yourself. For example, read the entire letter of Paul called Galatians — do it in one shot — and immediately after that short reading, then read the letter of Jude. In Jude you will find a clear, complete and devastating repudiation of Paul as a "prophet", as well as of the main doctrinal tenets he stated in Galatians. Jude even used the exact same figures of speech that Paul used in Galatians in order to rebuke him and disassemble his deceptive assertions! The seemingly strange question is why in their letters John, Jude, James, and even Yeshua in Revelation do not addressed Paul by name? I suppose that you know, since you are an expert in 2nd Temple era, that in those times the Jewish people would not address by name any person whom they did not deem worthy of being honored, chiefly among them: the blasphemers! What they did when talking about them was to call them by some descriptive word or phrase which would be precisely indicate their rejected traits, but never would they address them by their names. Have you not heard or read the Jewish expression "may his name be forgotten"? For the Jewish people a name was/is a very serious matter; to call any person by his name was a way to recognize and honor him. This is the reason why in the Dead Sea Scrolls — which I suppose you have read, since you talk as an expert in history — Paul is called the "Sputter of Lies." It is the reason too why in Revelation Yeshua calls him, and his followers (Luke and Silas, etc.) "Those who call themselves Jews, but are not."

Revelation 2:9
⁹ I know your agony and your poverty — although you are rich — and the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews but are not, and are a synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 3:9
⁹ Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan — who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie — I will make them come and bow down at your feet, and make them know that I have loved you.

Before finishing, allow me to address your statement that the letters of Paul "in actual fact are the FATHER'S letters".

What can I say to that? Not even the Books written by Moses rabbeinu are elevated to such a grandiose and idolatrous level as you have done with the heretic letters of blasphemous Paul of Tarsus. Only the original Ten Mitzvot were written by Elohim, nothing else. According to Torah, Moses wrote all the Words that he heard in the Mountain directly from Elohim (again, not from an angel, like Paul heretically said), as well as what He told him later on. But the sacred books that Moses wrote were not written by Elohim; they were not His books — that is why they are properly called 'the Books of Moses'. When it comes to this, you candidly exemplify one of the worst problems with Christianity (of any denomination or flavor) which is that it tends to turn into an idol anything that they disproportionately tend to love. For example, the book of Matthew — which is the "gospel" I read the most from the NT — is not a "book from the Father". It is just the book from a Jewish man called Matthew — a historical book which narrates the story of Yeshua from the standpoint of a personal witness, and more importantly which contains some of Yeshua's words. But it is nothing else betond that. Ask yourself, "why is it that I believe such a thing as that 'Paul's letters are letters from the Father'?" But do not give yourself a quick pad answer, research it deeply. Know for sure WHY is it that you believe what you believe.

Truly, literary inspiration has been grossly overrated by Christian theologians in order to turn a few good books, and many heretic ones, into mere idols; and so to have men put more their attention on the writings than on the spiritual Message of the Almighty contained in some of them. And before you think wrong again, let me say that I do not deny that at times Adonai inspired some men to write his sacred Messages for his People. But faulty as their minds may be, because of His Character and Habits, He never dispossesses men from their personal faculties, thus turning them into intellectual robots. Again, the book of Matthew, as its very name declares, is the book of one of Yeshua's disciples called Matthew; and it is a book that contains some of the stories and words of Yeshua. But the book did not come from Heaven — Yeshua did, his words did, but nothing else. Now, mind you, that even the book of Matthew — being as it is the best kept of the gospels — has been proven since the oldest times to contain deceiving interpolations — that is falsified additions to its text mainly in order to falsely "validate" the case for the Trinity. Can we call that "a book from the Father"? And, I repeat, I am talking about one of my favorite books in the NT! How do you dare, then, to so foolishly say that what was written by a blasphemous heretic are "the FATHERS letters"?! Why and how are you so sure? Have you spent long enough time performing an independent study, in the sole company of the Spirit of the Almighty, as to be so sure? In fact, you have no other point to base your belief in the NT than the Protestant/Evangelical dogma inherited from the politicized 4th century Catholic curia. Are you comfortable repeating like a parrot what you have read and heard from the same untrustworthy sources? Do you not realize that your frivolously enunciation is blasphemous (hillul HaShem)? Then, who needs to repent?

You sink yourself even deeper into the mud hole of antimessianic blasphemy by increasing the tone of your drivel when you continue, "This attack on Paul is an actual attack on YAHUSHUA so to reject Paul is to reject Yeshua"! Your spiritual Mathematics is not even at the level of Kindergarten. Do you realize, by any chance, up to what heavenly level you have thoughtlessly elevated a denizen of Hell? By your missive I gather that you, most probably, are a Trinitarian — I most certainly am not. So, if you are a Trinitarian, you believe that Yeshua is YHWH in bodily form. And you elevate Paul to that level?! My friend, you have just achieved for Christianity some new height in heresy: the "Tetrarchy"! (Well, it would be a "Pentarchy" for Catholics, being the fact that they made Mary to be the 'queen of Heaven'). Should I congratulate you?

Seriously, not even in the times that the true Prophets of Elohim were attacked such an action was qualified as "trying to attack YHWH." Do you not realize the equivalency you are establishing? If Yeshua was the Messiah and came from Heaven, then only he could say that his words were the Father's. Did Paul come from Heaven? Oh yes, I know that he said he went to Heaven and came back and, of course, you believe it. But do you arrange your theology around the testimony of people who have had NDEs (Near Death Experiences)? No? Then, why do you believe Paul? Because he said so? Do you know that Mohammed came with the same tale of heavenly visits? But is it true in either case? You believe by dogma what you believe, just as all Christians and Mohammedans, out of blind faith, based upon the unvalidated self-testimony of people like Paul or Mohammed, or in the forceful regulations of a church or a mosque where their lies are constantly repeated to this day. Now, WHY do you know it is true what they say? Well, It is obvious you trust in the testimony of Paul about himself. But do you know that according to Torah Paul's testimony has to be ruled completely invalid because he needed two or more witnesses and he NEVER had even one. Even IF his accounts concerning his so-called "conversion" would have been without the contradictions they have, according to Torah his tale and teaching cannot be received as true because he is giving testimony about himself! Ah, but Yeshua had already predicted Paul's reception by the gullible hellenistic-oriented people.

John 5:43
"I have come in My Father's Name, and you do not receive me. But if another comes in his own name, you will receive him."

Why do you think that Moses and Elijah appeared talking with Yeshua on the night of the Transfiguration in the presence of three of his disciples? Because Yeshua, who said he had come from Heaven, needed to present at least two witnesses from Heaven to validate his heightened claim. Miracles alone do not mean anything without the proper validation of the performer. As you know, witchcraft makes miracles, but they are from Satan; so they do not mean anything heavenly. Paul may or not have performed miracles, but they did not mean anything in order to validate Paul's false claims.

For more on these matters I would recommend to you these two excellent books:

"Jesus' Words Only"
"When Jesus Became God"

Dear Stephen, I would like to have written a softer-toned letter to you, but the uncalled for tone of yours made me give you a taste of your own medicine — although I hope I have not been as insulting. It would be good if, after reading this for the first time, you could pray and read it again some other day so as to analyze it without any sense of surprise or unwished-on-my-part hurtful emotions. I wish that you understand that with the same intensity that you would like me to conform to your dogma, I would like you to grasp my approach to studying the Scriptures, even if you still would not agree with me in the end. Should it be that the case you would certainly leave aside all judgment to the Ultimate Judge in Heaven. It would be very liberating and empowering for you, to say the least. But even if you do not do it, I will consider you my friend because I am not your Judge.

Be well.

Shalom

Ya'akov Ben Avraham
Webmaster