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

Paul the Gnostic Ravenous Wolf

The Lies and Heresy of Paul of Tarsus

—  Page 6  —

The following is the fist reply I received from the person to whom I sent the previous multipage essay in response to his public attack on my person for my denonciations of Paul as a false prophet from HaSatan. This time he totally changes his former belligerent tone assuming now a sanctimonious one. Once again this deceived individual shows a serious problem with fabrications. Observe how he says that his first note to me was and email, when in reality it was a posting on a public forum on another website. He also says that I need to learn how not to judge, thus ignoring that our intergeange begun because he not only publicly judged me, but also condemned me. Then, he clearly infers that I cannot reason with him — due to my bad attitude, of course — while flippantly ignoring that all the pages I wrote to him were an exercise in scripturally reasoning my views for him. Following that he uses the words of Luke, one of Paul's accolites, to tray and vindicate Paul, thus eliminating all the many reasons I presented to him with one single light stroke. Then he falsely claims undue authority, since if he would do HaShem's Commands — as he thinks he does — he would pay attention to what Torah says, and consequentially he would reject Paul of Tarsus as a false prophet. And to top all, then he protests that he is not a Christian! Here is his email:

01-29-2007
Shalom Ya'akov
Thankyou for taking the time to reply to my amail i appreciate it very much and am in no way insulted. Hopeully i can dialogue with u over some of these matters. The scripture tell us "come let us reason together" and the 1st thing i would like to send u is a scriptural teaching on "Judge Not"(i do'nt believed i judged u). So i will forward that to u in the next few days and hopefully u will receive & read it. Once that is done hopefully i can reason with u over Sha'ul who Messiah said"Go, he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My Name before nations,sovereigns, and the children of Yisrael". "Blessed are those doing His Commands,so that the authority shall be theirs unto the tree of life and to enter through the gates into the city."
Thanks, Stephen. (I am not a christian)

01-29-2007
Shalom Stephen,

I am glad you did not get offended by me email; but I regret to say that your second email is as insulting to me as the first one was — although you redacted it with a different tone. Naturally, you might wonder why, so let me explain.

Stephen, I really suspect that you did not take the necessary time to completely read, and ponder over my entire email. Out of respect to you, it took me several days to think over your first hateful message — the very fist one I ever received in 10 years of webmastering. Only after having done that, did I answer you in what I consider a fairly competent way. In it I answered all your objections and attacks practically phrase by phrase. So I sent you a total of 11 pages of well-REASONED and evidenced material. Also in it I stated very clearly some of the many reasons why I so strongly denounce the wolf from Tarsus. But you simply opted for ignoring every single one of the many affirmations — and FACTS — which I presented for your careful consideration. Rather, you disdainfully chose not to respond to any one of them at all. For a person with so many rash things to say about me in your first message, you evidently had nothing to say about any of my valid points in your second one. Amazing!

I was exceedingly surprised that you dared to answer my email so fast. I thought that — if you would not have been too upset by my strong confrontation of your unprovoked and unnecessarily public assault on my person — you would take a few days to think and then thoroughly, and therefore respectfully, answer my points in the same way as I did with you. But your precipitated and pointless response leads me to wonder if in reality you are not but a thoughtless teenager whose sole intention is to entertain himself by simply bothering other people. If that is not the case with you, then what I am left with is that you are one of the countless Christians I have known all my life, who filled with an excessive but barren zeal choose as their mission to simply and ineffectually go around telling other people how wrong they are since they do not believe like them — and, of course, they call such an obnoxious practice "love"! Notwithstanding, whatever it might be in your case, I will give you the courtesy of one more answer. But if your correspondence continues being as of now, be assured this shall be my last.

As you well say, in the Jewish Scriptures the Supreme One, blessed be his Name, tell us: "Come, let us reason together." Now, there is something to be said about that, Stephen. In that verse Adonai is not asking us to reason among ourselves — frail, confused and proud humans. He asks us to do it with HIM because that is the reasoning that is ultimately profitable and fruitful. Now, it happens that in order to reason with Him, we shall have to do it — first — with our own inner selves. The reason we are to do that introspection is in order for us to responsibly arrive to some necessary, well-thought — and therefore clear — conclusions before our facing Him to then do some truly serious reasoning. In this way we will not to offend Him by babbling some vain words of emptiness when we are in His High Presence. It is only after an honest session of reasoning with ourselves that we shall surely be ready in all honesty to approach Him on any matter. Then it will be that, firstly, we shall approach Him in due humility; secondly, that we shall be able to articulate our ideas, doubts, sins or situation to Him in a genuinely responsible way; and thirdly, that we will face Him with the necessary right and open spiritual, mental, and emotional disposition, so as to receive His absolute Truth concerning anything we need to discuss with Him.

Does that mean that I do not believe that we should reason among us? No at all! But such a inter-human possibility is not the mitzvah found in that verse — as most Christians always interpret it to be. I am absolutely convinced that reasoning among humans should only be done after all the previous steps have been thoroughly fulfilled. After all, how could you reason with anyone else if you have not pondered the matter deeply inside your own heart, when you only believe it in a dogmatic and therefore shallow way? How could you ever reason (discuss, debate, dispute, argue) with anyone if you have not previously reasoned the matter with the Great and Omniscient Judge, and thus heard His Infallible Voice of Instruction guiding you into the truth at hand? How could you reason with (or much less persuade) anyone at all, if after having heard His Voice you have not reasoned it once more inside yourself so as to draw your final conclusions on hard terrain? Without a doubt, the lack of deep inner reasoning, based upon an honest dialogue with the Almighty shall necessarily lead us increasingly deeper into vain, irrational and therefore futile dogmas. Also, the lack of deep inner reasoning shall inevitably lead us to the lack of proper articulation of our own tenets to others. It precisely is this inner deficiency that shall lead us to exert offensive personal attacks, in lieu of calmly and effectively expounding our ideas while trying to reason any topic with other fellow men.

On the other hand, you should understand that reasoning with other people is not always conducive to obtaining, or clarifying, any truth — as it might be expected in a better world. This is so because the tragic human reality is that the truth is not what the majority of people want. Rather what they look for is merely maintaining their already familiar opinions in order to uphold, with such a crutch, their self-esteem and in that way feel good about themselves. Yes, sad as it is, it is very noticeable that most people simply prefer an unproductive debate with the self-serving intention of validating (mostly to themselves) what they already dogmatically believe. So, this "reasoning together" deal is most of the times a detrimental practice because it only engrosses our already fat pride. This is exactly the reason why Yeshua advised his disciples not to "throw pearls to the swine" — a thing that he obviously never did.

In the light of the above, I wonder: What is your true purpose in wanting to "reason" with me the false claims, deceptions, heresies and blasphemies of Paul the Deceiver? Do you give yourself any slight chance of changing your mind concerning him, if proven wrong of your belief just as I did? Or is it your intention to try and "save me" because, as you said before, my "claims" on ravenous Paul are "ludicrous" and "rediculous" and you feel the Christian necessity to have me "clear up yr deception" and my "misunderstanding 0f brother Shaul"? How could I reason with anyone like you who openly, and repeatedly, passes clear judgment in the text of one little message but then says, "i do'nt believed i judged u"? By saying such an outstanding thing you prove that you are incapable — due to personal unwillingness — of making any slight inner reasoning — how, then, could I reason with you, Stephen?! It is because of this that I really doubt that we have the right setting to proceed with any healthy discussion. As I told you before, my time is very limited and I like to use it in a productive way. Notwithstanding, for your benefit, I will address some issues from your second letter to me.

In that second communication — without offering any explanation whatsoever — to counter my loaded charge of putting yourself "in the Place of the Almighty by passing judgment concerning things that pertain to the heart and soul of another independent human being" (me in this case) you simply state "i do'nt believed i judged u." Then, in a completely unacceptable (for mendacious) attempt to deflect your pointed at negative issue, you proceed to infer that it was I who judged you (!!!) by saying "i would like to send u is a scriptural teaching on "Judge Not"." Well, Stephen, I do not consider that poor type of dishonest debating tactic to be respectful at all, much less spiritual — forgive me for having to state the truth again in such a strong way.

When I answered your first letter I said: "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 medicine — although I hope I have not been as insulting." That was my polite but clear admission that, and apology for, the antagonistic tone of my response to you. I knew full well that I could offend you with it — despite of me not wanting it so — therefore, I apologized to you for it. Despite of that, I did not suppress my response then — as I do not suppress it now — because you were the one who started the aggression, and it is obvious to me that you need a good lesson on ethics. However, when you posted your note on my public message board, you certainly did not apologize one bit — despite of your abundant use of denigrating, and unsubstantiated, adjectives to judge my beliefs but my very person. And, as if that was not enough, you did it for the whole world to see! So much for your irritating attempt at self-discharge when professing, "i do'nt believed i judged u"! Well, I am sure you did, sir. And I am very sorry of having now to witness your self-dismissed insensitivity and unrepentance through your second letter. Reality is that if it is true that you offended me with your first dispatch, in the second, far from diminish it, you compounded it even more. The fact of the matter is that you offended me first, Stephen, and because of that I saw me forced to fight back by asserting some factual truths about your beliefs and person — all of which I carefully substantiated in detail. But, again, even though I was the initially insulted party, out of fundamental civility, just like now I do, I apologized for having to hurt you because I found it necessary for your own sake.

And just in case that you might try to say that you did not judge my person, I draw to your attention what you so bluntly said on the public message board: "REPENT to the Covenant of LOVE for the REIGN OF YAHUAH draws near". If you cannot see that you overtly expressed by such a phrase an arrogant presumption — and judgment! — concerning my personal relationship with the Almighty through His Covenant of Love which was established with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, being afterward ratified and expanded at Sinai, later confirmed by Yeshua, and yet to be fulfilled at the coming of Messiah, again if you do not see that you are more blind than a bat and beyond any capacity for reasoning. I have seen such a blindness countless times before; it is always the sure result of the dogmatic, fraudulent and destructive teachings of Paul. I just wish you could see it, because like most Paulinists you seem not to be an evil person — although you can do more damage than you would be willing to recognize, much less admit. Yes, I know, you are an imitator of Paul, the aggressor of my ancient Jewish brethren in Jewrusalem, and like him, you find it correct to ruthlessly call people on the carpet when you disagree with them, and when they turn the tables on you then you say "I did nothing wrong, so you should not oppose m like you do. Let me teach good manners and love". That, my friend, is one of the problems of imitating a wolf: you end up biting people, and when they fight back, then you say that your were just kissing them!

Before finishing this part I should say that my message board visibly offers, to everyone who wishes to use it, the easy possibility of leaving their personal messages to me hidden from the eyes of the public. This easily accessible possibility is offered with the intent that respectful people — including those with a big axe to grind against my ideas — can courteously deliver their own naked thoughts in a private manner. In such a setting, it would not have mattered so much to me if you even had used bad language — so long as you would have offered some meaningful and cohesive explanations as to justify the reason of your ire (I surely prefer to be call names with gad language but with some understandable reasoning to back up the negative emotions that cause them, than an empty flattery without sense). But you, Stephen, did all the opposite to what civility demands — that is why I did not appreciate you correspondence at all. I really believe, since I know first hand how Christians behave, that you screamed all your offensive epithets on the message board with the main intention of frightening away my other visitors from even considering my devastating denunciations of Paul, the father of all Crusaders — of which, considering your "witch-hunt" on me, you evidently seem to be one.

Stephen, for many years I have used countless hours of painfully honest but deeply thorough study in order to arrive to what I believe these days. It certainly was not out of a whim that I recanted from Paul, abandoned Christianity and converted to Judaism. For many years too, I have been saying all the things that I accept as true into the ears of all who want to hear them and consider them; but I have never gone out of my way to intersect anyone and tell them how wrong I consider them to be or how much better is what I belief to be true. As a matter of fact, I do not even leave any disagreeing message on the many websites that I weekly visit — with many of which I have very strong and fundamental differences. What I do is to have two websites in which I strictly say to all the people who come to them, that is to me, what I think. In doing that my only intent has always been to have my visitors to consider the evidences I present to them, not to have them think like me, abandon Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Wiccan, Atheism, or whatever other particular way of creed they may have. I just want them to consider my points, and if possible give me some feedback — whether positive of negative I do not care so long as it is respectful and coherent. But, instead, this is what Christians like you do: shaming with pejoratives, coercing through intimidation, and trying to force people in many ways — subtlety and not — into aligning with their own fanatical but shaky beliefs.

You see, I happen to be a man of well-founded but no inflexible ideas, and I do not care about the tone of any interchange if it is well-intended, meaningful and productive. What I care about is the display of a minimum of decorum, evident respect for persons and dissenting opinions, the constant use of true honesty and the careful substantiation of what is being said to me. Give me all that and, I repeat, I do not mind dissenting people speaking to me in anger if they offer valid reasons for it.

I notice that on your second letter you drastically change your first aggressive style, and you in its place you assume a sanctimonious simpering which, since I was young, I have never appreciated because it always proves to hide something behind. You cannot effectively pretend any sort of spirituality, Stephen, while denying your own evident sins and attempting to project them over the ones at the receptive end of your wrong actions and/or words. So, you make a fundamental mistake when you say to me in the same breath that you "in no way insulted. Hopeully i can dialogue with u" as if the slate was clean when it is not.

After that assertion you declare, "So i will forward that to u in the next few days and hopefully u will receive & read it. Once that is done hopefully i can reason with u over Sha'ul". Stephen, you really amaze me! After having flatly refused to accept your wrong to me, you now proceed to establish the rules of the game which I should follow. Astounding! I supposed that if you had lived in the old times when people used to commit themselves to duels, even if you had been the aggressor party you would have wanted to choose the weapons to be used. Stephen, my friend, I am about to start believing that you are so thoughtless that it is no wonder you wholeheartedly believe the tale — narrated, of course, by a personal disciple of Paul the Great Idumean Deceiver — about when supposedly someone by the name of Ananias (whose very existence has been doubted ever since the most early moments in Christian history) said that the "Spirit" had told him "Go, he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My Name before nations,sovereigns, and the children of Yisrael." Sorry, again, for holding the mirror to your face.

At the end of your letter you protest, "I am not a christian". Well, Stephen, and if you are not a Christian, then what are you? Have you been by any chance circumcised under the Covenant of Abraham and the demands of Torah? Certainly not, because you are a follower of Paul, and He absolutely forbade Brit Milah. (Of course, he took exception of his own anti-Torah rule with Timothy in order to save his own neck, but that is another matter for discussion). Being that as it is, then you certainly are not Jewish — despite of the fact that you might keep some tenets found in Torah. But the fact of the matter is that so do the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Seven Day Adventists for example and they are Christians, even though they are eccentric in respect to the mainline Christian denominations. Yes I know that mainline Christianity rejects them; but they do it because they are a little more Jewish in some respects than the rest of them. Catholics say that Evangelicals are not Christians, and Evangelicals say the same about Catholics, etc. That is just what happens with Christians, they all are Christians but they deny the Christianity of all those who disagree with them in things like the Shabbath (Seven Day Adventists Seven Day Adventists), the Trinity (Jehovah's Witnesses), or anything else. Given, in the same way they will say that you are not a Christian, but the evident lack of understanding shown above limits their very capacity to rule on such matters. What are you, then, a member of a 'Jews for Yeshua' congregation? They are also Christians — that is another Christian sub-denomination which came out of the Baptists — just as the Baptists came out of Catholicism — with the objective to convert the Jews into Christianity (with the surprising result that through them Christians are starting to find Torah!). Oh, let me see, I know, you must be part of the maverick Nazarenes! But, you see, the Nazarenes of nowadays do not have much to do with the old ones — unless the name and their good but sometimes misguided intentions — because the original ones were a denomination of Judaism (just as the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes and some others less famous were too). The teachings of the original Nazarenes (a.k.a. Ebionim or Poor Ones), which had arisen out of the direct and uncorrupted-by-Paul teachings of Yeshua were strictly Torah-centered and willfully despiteful of the heresies of the "Sputter of Lies" as they used to call the Great Corruptor from Tarsus.

But, you might wonder, why do I insist in cataloguing you as a Christian? I do it because, Stephen, you are a card-carrying Paul fanatic. That is exactly why. The historical fact is that Christianity was strictly founded above the filthy shoulders of Paul — that is why it is also called Paulianity or Paulinism. In Christianity everything without exception — including the very teachings and prophecies of Yeshua — has got to be filtered through the theological strainer which the immoral Teacher of Deceptions, commonly known as Paul, created in order to distort, and destroy the efficacy of the Truth of the Almighty as explained by Yeshua. Therefore a Christian is that religious person that when presented with any idea — or "discomforting" verse from the True Scriptures ... even from Yeshua!!! — will immediately object by saying the Christian mantra of "Yes, but Paul says …" It is an unquestionable historical fact, Stephen — admitted even by some Christians — that the self-proclaimed prophet Paul was the true founder, of the Christian church. But I also say that, in fact, he constituted himself as the first informal Pope of it — and surely the most bounding and universal Pope for all Christians without exception. Therefore, my friend, for all effects and purposes, you are a Christian — nothing more, nothing less. Allow me to remind you, Stephen, 'denial' is not a big river in Egypt, it is the incapacity that people may have to detect, or admit to themselves, their own issues — issues which many times are very flagrant to others who are in some kind of contact with them.

I am most gladly to agree with you when you cite "Blessed are those doing His Commands,so that the authority shall be theirs unto the tree of life and to enter through the gates into the city". Still, there several things about that verse that if I tell you ... well, you would have a conniption, so I will save you the bother.

Finally, in your second message you decree, "Once that is done hopefully i can reason with u over Sha'ul". But, since you are the one who challenged me, and not the other way around, the rules of the game (our discussion on Paul) are not to be according to your wishes, but mine.

So, these are my rules, which are applicable to both of us:

1. If Paul is proven as having stated at least ONE lie, he shall immediately be established — and openly declared by both of us — a 'false prophet', and therefore his person (and that of his disciples) worthy of all discredit, derision and condemnation, as well as all his writings to be wrong, spurious and deceptive — and those of his disciples. On the other hand, if you succeed at demonstrating that he was a true prophet from Adonai, by not contradicting Torah, the Prophets and Yeshua, then we shall both proclaim him in unison to be a true prophet, and his words, and those of his followers, to be binding.
2. If Paul is proven to have contradicted at least ONE time Torah, the Prophets in Tanakh or the words of Yeshua, he shall immediately be established — and openly declared by both of us — a 'false prophet', and therefore his person (and that of his disciples) worthy of all discredit, derision and condemnation, as well as all his writings to be wrong, spurious and deceptive — and those of his disciples. On the other hand, if you succeed at demonstrating that he was a true prophet from Adonai, by not contradicting Torah, the Prophets and Yeshua, then we shall both proclaim him in unison to be a true prophet, and his words, and those of his followers, to be binding.
3. If the claims of Paul, and his disciples, that he was a prophet of the Almighty are unsubstantiated by lack of clear and indisputable evidence, or otherwise by clear and indisputable evidence to the opposite, he shall immediately be established — and openly declared by both of us — a 'false prophet', and therefore his person (and that of his disciples) worthy of all discredit, derision and condemnation, as well as all his writings to be wrong, spurious and deceptive — and those of his disciples. On the other hand, if you are able to efficiently validate his claims regarding himself (and/or that of his disciples) by means of clear and indisputable evidence, then we shall both proclaim him in unison to be a true prophet, and his words, and those of his followers, to be binding.
4. It shall be required from both of us an absolute high level of honesty and good conduct during our intended deliberation. We shall both agree to be accountable and liable in as in the Presence of the Almighty on account of our honesty and ethical conduct toward the subject matter under scrutiny, as well as toward each other during this intended debate.

[ Honesty, respect, reciprocity and other such fundamental ethical aspects of human conduct, are a must which shall be expected from both of us, knowing that the Almighty shall be our Witness and Judge. ]

5. The burden of proof shall not be upon me, rather it shall be upon you. This burden is not to be on you for any capricious desire, but because you are the one who sustains that Paul was a "true prophet" from Adonai; and by your contention that he spoke truth from the Highest One, you intend to convince me that I should accept his teachings as if they were perfect, and therefore binding as Word from the Almighty. On the other hand since Paul, his teachings and his disciples came after what I consider to be the final truth, and since with their teachings they changed things around from how Yeshua had left them, they are the ones to be proven correct, or else denounced as false. So, it is because of all of this that it is you who must unmistakably prove to me all their claims.

In fair debates no one has ever to demonstrate a negative proposition. For example, I declare the following five points to you, which I am under no compulsion to demonstrate. It is the person who believes them in a positive sense — in this case, you — who has to prove such his grammatically positive belief by validating each of them. And these are our five points of contention which you are to clearly prove with the use of solid and reliable evidence:

1. I do not accept Paul of Tarsus as a true prophet.
2. I do not believe that Paul of Tarsus spoke truth.
3. I do not believe that Paul's claims are worth to be accepted.
4. I do not believe that Paul's doctrinal philosophy, teachings and writings are worth to be considered true, and therefore binding.
5. I do not believe any of his followers' claims, testimonies, teachings and writings to be coincident with those of the Almighty and his true servants.

These five negative declarations of mine in reference to Paul, his writings, teachings and associates I most can defend — but I would only do it if I feel inclined to it. I surely can present plenty of unfailing and consistent evidences, along with deep reasoning based upon such dependable evidences. Having said that, though, it is to be understood that I am not compelled by any formal obligation to prove any these negative pronouncements of mine to you because, again, it is not my belief the ones on trial, it is yours that are.

On the other hand, you are the one who initiated the entire discussion by stating your so far dogmatic grammatically positive belief in that Paul of Tarsus was "true prophet" and that his writings (plus those of his followers) are completely dependable and binding. That is precisely the hypothesis that you shall have to prove to me by showing reliable evidences and by accurately presenting a well thought reasoning which shall be based upon trustworthy evidence. The statements of your defense shall have to be qualitatively far above the dry and boring repetition of mere traditional dogmas. Remember, you shall have to endorse your position with unfailing and consistent evidences. ]

6. Torah, the rest of Tanakh and the true — non-interpolated! — words of Yeshua are the only already validated, and therefore true, points of reference which can be freely used to demonstrate anything.

[ What has not been proven yet as true shall not be used as evidence. The up-to-this-moment dubious letters of Paul, his not-yet-validated teachings (as well as those of his followers') are on trial. Therefore, they can never be used as any point of reference for their own validation, nor to validate the true character of Paul and his disciples. Such and action would immediately constitute a circular line of reasoning, which is absolutely improper and totally invalid. But, since the burden of proof is on you and not on me, I can use Paul's and his follower's own words to prove their contradictions and ultimate fallacy. Again, you can never use them while trying to validate your point, because they have not been validated yet. ]

7. The original languages of the Jewish Scriptures take precedence far above any translations for clarifying points of contention.

[ This is simply obvious and not worth expanding ]

8. Assumptions and dogmas cannot be used as proof or evidence in order to jump to any conclusion, or even making any point

[ The only acceptable predetermined assumption or preset dogma is that Torah, the rest of Tanakh and the words of Yeshua are right as points of reference for the debate. ]

9. Unproven theological interpretations cannot be used as valid proof or evidence

10. Only reliable historical facts can be used as evidence

11. Skipping or deflecting any previously proposed relevant point is not allowed.

[ Any and every relevant point that has been raised has to be efficiently dealt with — to the fair satisfaction of the opponent — before passing to a new one ]

12. Shallow and/or poorly articulated reasoning is not allowed.

[ Every single relevant point raised has to be analyzed in detail and with complete accuracy ]

Dear (name deleted), these rules are not unfair for either one of us. They are a good pattern after which we can develop ideas in a healthy and constructive way. If you agree with them, I shall commit myself to a debate with you on the issue of Paul the Deceiver. On the other hand, if you do not agree with them, then it is unnecessary — and probably detrimental — to continue ahead with our correspondence. But if you agree to acquiesce to the above rules, then the next time you write to me you are to answer — in detail and with solid evidence — all the objections which I raised against blasphemous Paul and his heretical teachings in my first email to you. If you do not comply with this logical request, be assured you will not hear from me again.

Whatever you decision might be, I will always gladly wish you the very best — as well as to your family and friends. In the same token allow me to express my most profound regret for having to be so strong with you; but if your study these two letters carefully, you might find some jewels that you seem to need in order to enhance your character for Messiah and yourself.

L'Shalom,

Ya'akov Ben Avraham
Webmaster

P.S.:  I really wish for your own sake that you would read these two excellent books:

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

Important Note: This is just the end of the first wrting. There are more on the next pages.