St. Paul, Apostle or AntiChrist?

Ref. 55(c).  "Paul says it is not really him that you see, that he was crucified and it is not I but Christ living in his body.  He is claiming that he is essentially Christ and for this reason he is superior to all of Christ's disciples who opposed him at every turn.  Since Christ lived in Paul, this Christ was calling the shots.  The direction that the church would go in would now be up to the dictation of a man who may have met Jesus only once and then only to be rebuked for being an oppressor of the disciples." 

Douglas is accusing Paul of pretending to channel Jesus in order to control Christianity.  Finck responds that only an atheist would doubt the possibility of channeling and responds with quotes from the Bible that prove that channeling is possible, i.e. "You are vessels," "there are vessels of gold and silver and vessels of wood and clay and the vessels of gold and silver should stay away from vessels of wood and clay."  Finck does not address the question of whether Paul was an agent of Rome, taking advantage of the superstitions of the early Christians by faking channeling to gain control of Christianity. 

Finck points out that Paul did not claim superiority over the other apostles because many times he said he was the least of the saints but again, this does not address the conceit of Paul in claiming to channel Christ.  Finck points out that Paul was deferential to the other disciples: James and Peter.  This does not address the accusation that Paul was an agent of Rome, infiltrating the Christians.  In fact, it is evidence in favor of Paul being an infiltrator since the classic style of a secret agent is to curry favor by being deferential.  Paul's superiority did not come out except when he was speaking ex cathedra at which point he would carefully instruct the apostles not to follow the example of Jesus the gentle peace-loving intellectual, but to fear Jesus/Yahweh, the vengeful God.  Only the most profound fear will instill in the Christian the willingness to give up his faculty for reason and exchange it for absolute belief in every word in the Bible, no matter how absurd, cruel or unbelievable.  Through fear the Christian gives up that part of his brain that forms ideas and creates beliefs and imposes in its place the definitions of love and justice found in the Bible.  Sacrificing your son is love and accepting the death by torture of an innocent substitute victim is justice.

It is of interest that Paul's deference to Peter and James resulted in his being arrested.  How many times did Mark Svidic, the Communist for the FBI get himself arrested during his work as a secret agent?  It is part of being a spy.  Let's look at the story of Paul's arrest.

Paul's Arrest.  At the Feast of Pentacost the Jews obeyed Moses' law to cleanse themselves in the temple.  Paul did not believe in this law because he believed that Jesus' crucifixion put at end to the Mosaic ordinances (not the laws against stealing and murder, but the cleansing rituals).  James asked Paul to perform the ritual to prove to the Jews that he honored the law of Moses.  Paul went into the temple and performed the ceremony of cleansing as Moses had commanded.

Paul was dragged out of the temple by the mob and was beaten.  He was about to be killed when news that the whole of Jerusalem was in an uproar was brought to the captain of the Roman guard.

The captain, with a band of soldiers, ran to the scene of the riot, rescued Paul and secured him with chains. 

The Roman soldiers carried Paul on their soldiers to the steps leading up to the castle and set him on his feet so that he could speak to the mob.

He told them that Jesus had appeared to him in a blinding light and had told him to preach.

"Away with him!" they shouted, when he had finished.  He is not fit to live!"

So the Roman soldiers took Paul to Rome, where he was a citizen.

Hmmmm.  Paul was in charge of persecuting the Christians until he decided to join them as their leader and when he got in trouble the Roman soldiers saved him and took him home to Rome.

This is what would have happened to Jesus when he was being persecuted by the Jews because he was a Roman citizen by virtue of being the illegitimate son of Caeser Augustus.  It was Jesus' destiny to be the King of the Jews and bring Roman civilization to the barbaric and superstitious Jews.  He had every right to believe that, if he failed in his mission, he would be rescued and taken to Rome as the son of a Caeser.  However Augustus had died and Jesus and/or his advisors failed to abort the mission.  If Augustus had not died it is certain that he would have used his authority to enthrone Jesus as the King of the Jews. Caesar Tiberius was glad to see the death of a son of Caesar Augustus.  Jesus' astonishing gifts of beauty, wit and charm, which he inherited from his father, would have made Jesus a serious political rival to Tiberius if he was ever seen at the Imperial Court of Rome. 

Clayton Douglas has published articles critical of St. Paul, the Apostle.  He seems to have gotten much of his thinking from a Muzlim man, quoted below.  You can read Douglas' article entitled Saul of Tarsus Lawlessness in the January 2004 edition of the Free American Magazine.

Is Paul the AntiChrist?

by Mikhayah ben David

Throughout the ages there has been great discord between the three great Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islaam. The latter, of course, having been commonly referred to derogatorily in the West for centuries (up until modern times), as "Muhammadism". This has been due to the fact that the Qur'aanic term "Islaam" itself is a more religiously purist of a term than what the latter day followers of the customs (which they ascribed to the term), themselves have often been fulfilling.

While much of this discord can be reconciled by religious purism - getting back to the "roots" if you will - there is one major sticking point of contention in the area of theological seamlessness of these faiths. That is, of course, the theology which sprung forth from the epistles of Paul, and the accounts of his disciples such as Luke (the presumed author of the Gospel account by the same name and of the Book of Acts). Both from the theological standpoint of traditional Judaism, and Islaam maintains a more or less unanimity on issues such as the Oneness of God, the illogicality of notions of "Trinity" and Divine Incarnation. When it comes to reconciling both pre and post "Christ" positions on this, we are rarely pointed to the words of Jesus himself, but are instead directed to the Epistles or Letters of the individual Christian tradition has historically referred to as the "Apostle Paul."

From the outset, before his departure from the public light, Jesus warns his followers to: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits." Matthew 7:15-20

An important question that his followers, his TRUE followers, must ask themselves is "Who were these false prophets which he spoke of?" Did this not occur? Did such false prophets not emerge? Were they of little or no consequence in the grand scheme of things? If so, why would such a wise man have made it such a point to warn against them? Furthermore, Jesus said clearly: "Then if any man tells you, 'Behold, here is the Messiah,' or, 'There,' don't believe it. For there will arise false messiahs, and false prophets, and they will show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the chosen ones." Matthew 24:23-24

Thus, it is clear that Jesus was warning of "Antichrists" or "Impostor" Messiahs, not merely people parading themselves around on the prophet auction block of public opinion. So the question arises, who could Jesus have been warning against, and if this was a legitimate and serious threat - in the same sort of crafty way that Christianity views the "coming Antichrist" - then is it not possible that this was not some low level sorcerer, or petty delusional man that Jesus was warning against on so many occasions as being a false prophet and an Impostor Messiah?

To get a small glimpse into the sort of subtle Messianic claims to which Jesus may have been referring, one need look no further than the Epistles of Paul, or "Sha'ul" (consonantally identical with the name of the Underworld "Sheol" found in the Tanakh), who said: "For in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel. Therefore I beseech you, be imitators of me." 1 Corinthians 4:15-16

Here Paul claims that HE, not "Christ" had "begotten you." He "beseeches you" to be HIS followers, HIS imitators. The impostor claims are not made out rightly so as to astonish, but to subtly influence and brainwash the masses over a long term, strategic ministry of indoctrination (one which continued well on past 65 C.E.). Thus, when Jesus said in Matthew 24:5: "Many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Messiah' and they will lead many astray," this was not merely saying that there would be a man who would stand up a few short years later claiming to be the Messiah. Rather, this was saying that there would be an underlying Messianic claim as well as claims to Prophethood, Apostleship and Divine Authority in general. And yet what did Paul himself claim? "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me." Galatians 2:20

Paul says it is not really "him" that you see, the "he" was crucified, and it is "not I but Christ" living in his body. He is claiming that he is essentially Christ, and for this reason he is superior to all of Christ's Disciples who opposed him at every turn. Christianity remarkably has no problem hypothesizing about a super-human leader rising to brainwash and lead the entire world, but for most it has become impossible to suspect that this leader could have been so clever to have not openly advertised his indoctrination right from the start. Thus, one of the greatest failings of Christianity is that they have left their theological door open to "strangers" because they naively have not believed that a stranger would enter unannounced under the guise of someone feigning noble intentions.

Yet Paul's claims make it clear what he is saying. Since "Christ" supposedly lived in Paul, this "christ" was calling the shots. The direction that "the church" would go in was now up the dictation of a man who only even claimed to have met Jesus once, and then only to be rebuked for being an oppressor (who sanctioned the murder), of the Disciples.

Jesus' Brother Yaqov or "James" is almost entirely written out of the picture, and is referred to in a butchered historical account of Acts (an account which is retold in original, more precise terms in the Dead Sea Scrolls), by a descriptive noun "Stephen" (`Atarah, or the "Crown"), rather than by his true name. However, neither the censored Gospel accounts - relegated to the "Apocryphal works" that didn't make the Council of Nicea's "cut" in 325 C.E. - nor the "early Church fathers" were silent in regards to James and this outright war on Paul. Once we hear what they have to say about James, then his works in the so-called "New Testament" become clear as a direct attack on Paul, and not mere vague generalizations that aren't in any way inapplicable to Paul.

For instance, Paul said: "Yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Torah but through the faith of Jesus Christ, even we believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Torah, because no flesh will be justified by the works of the Torah." Galatians 2:16

Yaqov poignantly rebuked this statement, saying: "What does it profit, my brothers, if a man says he has faith, and doesn't have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled, without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it doesn't have works, is dead." James 2:14-17

In 2 Corinthians 12:16, Paul makes a perplexing, yet revealing, statement: "But be it so, I did not burden you: being crafty, I took you in by deceit."

Does Christianity accept "taking in by deceit" as a means of "ministering," and propagandizing?

The Torah, the "Law," which Paul mocked and considered a "yoke" and "bondage," says: "Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another." Leviticus 19:11

Does Sefer Ha'Berasheet (Genesis) 3:1 not refer to the Nachash or "Serpent" who walked upright as "more crafty more subtle than any beast of the field?" Sha'ul himself boasts proudly about sharing this trait with the Serpent. Like the Serpent, Paul too is "subtle" and "crafty" in approach; not trying to deceive you with something appearing as a lie. To convince you he mixes a small portion of truth with a predominance of pagan lies. The crucifixion, resurrection, Eucharist and the like are all found in pagan mystery religions often thousands of years older than Jesus himself!

"What then will we say that Abraham, our forefather, has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not toward God. For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.' Now to him who works, the reward is not counted as grace, but as debt. But to him who doesn't work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. Even as David also pronounces blessing on the man to whom God counts righteousness apart from works." Romans 4:1-6

Paul got it all wrong again, when he emphasized only Faith. James rebuked Paul, showing the balance of Faith with actual works manifested from one's Spiritual Practice, or "Deen." This is the literal meaning of "Religion" in both Hebrew and `Arabic. Both Judaism and Islaam - from Adam, to Abraham, to Moses, to Jesus, to Muhammad - has always maintained that both "Faith" ("Emunah" in Hebrew and Emaan in `Arabic), as well as "Works" or "Spiritual Practice" ("Deen" in both Hebrew and `Arabic alike), are necessary.

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as Righteousness;' and he was called the friend of God." James 2:21-23

A person may believe that they are a great gymnast, but unless they put in the time and work, they will never be great. One may also believe they are good at any sport or at a martial art, but without time and work, their belief means nothing. If someone would claim belief without works, then as James said, their faith is dead. Such an individual is delusional in thinking that they have salvation without works, just as much as an athlete would be delusional to "run a race" without practice.

"We maintain therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Torah." Romans 3:28

In reply to this James the Brother of Jesus said: "Even so faith, if it has not works, is dead, being alone. Yes, a man may say, you have faith, and I have works: show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God; you do well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But will you know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" James 2:17-21

According the Bible Paul never met Jesus in person. He only claimed to have been told by Jesus' spirit to stop persecuting Jesus who Paul and his propagandists claim was actually in Heaven at that time.

In short, the case against Paul doesn't look too good. Aside from being named out rightly in the Habakkuk Pesher of the Qumran "Dead Sea Scrolls" and found consonantally named in the Book of Habakkuk (which, recall, didn't have diacritical vowel marking ascribed to it until absolutely no earlier than the 6th century C.E., and possibly not until the 10th or 11th century), Paul was also blind in the right eye, fitting the Book of Zechariah's prophecy of the Antichrist called "the Worthless Shepherd" (Zechariah 11:17), and also the many Islaamic "Ahadeeth" (oral traditions) speaking of the "Antichrist" (Maseehu-d-Dajjaal), as being blind in the right eye.

Beyond that, Paul was an admitted murderer who never stood trial for his crimes. He merely claimed that the "blood of Jesus" had absolved him from his sins. What civilized person would accept such a defense from admitted murderers wishing to escape justice today or 2,000 years ago?

Moreover, Paul said that "Christ" spoke his very words, that "Christ" lived within him and that this same "Christ" was his god. While this may seem quite innocent enough to the modern day Christian who was reared on Christian theology, Paul was in effect claiming to be speaking for his god, claimed to be essentially possessed by his god and accordingly claimed to be the flesh within which his god was clothed. This is a very dangerous position for one defining theology to be placing themselves in. For if "Christ" lives within you and "Christ" is the same God who Created the Universe, who you pray to, and the like, and at that same time you are claiming that your lips are moving but it is this "God" speaking the words, then you are essentially claiming to BE "God" for all PRACTICAL purposes.

Interestingly, Paul himself never once admits that he was from Tarsus, Greek mythology's entrance to "Hades" or "Sheol" in Hebrew (consonantally the same spelling as Paul's Hebrew name "Sha'ul"). This fact is written in his biography, the book of Acts, after his mysterious disappearance and presumed death in 65 C.E. Why does Paul himself keep his Roman origins from us if not for the fact that Jews has long known from oral tradition that the Antichrist or "Armilus" was to be a "Roman Jew?"

Though Paul spoke of his preaching of "the Gospel" he himself tells us little to nothing of the historical Jesus. What biographical information could an individual who had never been around the Messiah possibly tell us about him? The "Gospel" or "Good News" that Paul was preaching was not the "Good News" of the Messiah and his Torah-based teachings, it was instead the "Good News" that the pagan Roman Imperialists could continue to eat the flesh of swine, eat flesh sacrificed to satanic idols, disregard the Torah that Jesus told us would never pass away (Matthew 5:17-20) and still attain "salvation" through "faith," alone. This was the very notion that James the Brother of Jesus vehemently attacked in the canonical Book of James.

Finally, 500 years after these events, the `Arab prophet Muhammad - who was foretold throughout the Torah and also by Jesus himself - claimed that the "Antichrist" was a bowlegged individual, blind in the right eye, who had for some time been held captive in chains beneath a monastery on an island in the Mediterranean Sea. Barring the seemingly strange accounts of his long life-span and subterranean imprisonment, this description fits that of Sha'ul, down to every last detail and is admitted by Christian historians and in the non-Canonical accounts of Paul and Thekla.

"Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by his good conduct that his deeds are done in gentleness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, don't boast and don't lie against the truth." James 3:13-14

What James was talking about follows in the boastings of Paul: "Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I. Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths often." 2 Corinthians 11:22-23

"As the truth of Christ is in me, no one will stop me from this boasting in the regions of Achaia. Why? Because I don't love you? God knows." 2 Corinthians 11:10-11

"I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little." 2 Corinthians 11:16

Line for line, the debate matches up; point by point through the admonitions of James regarding the wickedness of Paul. Yet still there are so many who will never chose to see that their master Paul was a murderer, deceiver and impostor from the beginning, and still to this very day nothing has changed.

As well, Paul admitted to theft and swindling churches. These are his own words: "I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service." 2 Corinthians 11:8

Paul's defensiveness over being called "the Liar" in the Dead Sea Scrolls is quite clear. In his "Epistles" he says:

"The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, know that I do not lie." 2 Corinthians 11:31

"I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost." Romans 9:1

"Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity." 1 Timothy 2:7

"Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not." Galatians 1:20

Were this anyone besides Paul, all would accuse him of lying, if for no other reason than for the fact that he was so redundant about claiming that he is not "The Liar" of the Dead Sea Scrolls of Yochanan (John the Baptist/Immerser), Jesus and James' Community?

One must never imagine that someone is an "Apostle" simply because they claim to be. For Jesus Christ warned us numerously of such "wolves in sheep's clothing." To this day history leaves us no record of Paul having answered his critics. To this day he has not explained why he said one thing and Jesus said another. He has not explained why there is no positive prophecy mentioning him anywhere in the Bible, if he was in fact intended by God to be such a central, or even extant figure.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (Torah) or the Prophets (Nevi'im); I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until Heaven and Earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law; until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these Commandments (Mitzvot) and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of Heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of Heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law, you will certainly not enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Matthew 5:17-20

However, in utter contradiction to Jesus Christ's affirmation of the eternal validity of the Torah, as long as Heaven and Earth are extant, Paul blasphemously claims that the Messiah came to "destroy the barrier... by abolishing in his flesh the Torah." This alone is proof that Paul is an outright Impostor and Liar, the Great Pretender.

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the Law with its commandments and regulations." Ephesians 2:13-15

So who is right? Is Jesus correct when he says "I have not come to abolish the Law" or is Paul right when he says that Jesus "destroyed the barrier... by abolishing in his flesh the Law with its commandments and regulations?" Was Jesus Christ right when he said that Heaven and Earth would sooner pass away than "one letter of the Law," or should we instead follow Paul who said the anti-thesis of Messiah's words: "But now the Law has come to an end with Christ and everyone who has faith may be justified." Romans 10:4

Again i ask you, did Jesus not say himself that a slave cannot serve two masters?

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of LAWLESSNESS (anomian).'" Matthew 7:21-23

Post from hwarmstrong.com/email_082.htm

8 Jan 04 -- Expect No Ministerial Apologies

The section provided for ministerial apologies does not seem to grow very much, but why should it?  Why should anyone claiming to preach Christianity, regardless of its brand name, owe any apologies to anyone? After all, they are only imitating the godfather of modern Christianity, Paul.  Can anyone show me a scriptural passage in which he apologizes to the apostles or to anyone for the following?: (1) Stephen's stoning (Acts 8:1); (2) a Gestapo mentality (Acts 8:3, 9:1-2, 26:10-11; Gal. 1:13); (3) speaking falsehoods (Rom. 3:7); (4) inability to understand his own actions (Rom. 7:15-19); (5) preaching the necessity of foolishness (1 Cor. 1:26-29); (6) sentencing a misdoer to be killed (1 Cor 5:5); (7) admitting he was in it for the money (1 Cor.9:14); (8) admitting he would rather die than be deprived of boasting (1 Cor 9:15-16); (9) admitting he was a panderer (1 Cor. 9:19-23); (10) using the "can't out give God" ploy (2 Cor. 9:6-8); (11) robbing other churches to make it look like he was serving free (2 Cor. 11:7-9); (12) admitting to being crafty (2 Cor 12:16); (13) admitting he would be severe in his authority "which the Lord has given me for building up. . .",(2 Cor. 13:10) or, " I am doing this for your own good"; (14) preaching that wisdom is futile and that true wisdom comes from foolishness (1 Cor. 3:18-20) (15) preaching that "love is blind". (1 Cor. 13:7); (16) boasting of being a fool who does not speak with God's authority. (2 Cor. 11: 16-19).

     Paul had other qualities that would endear him to his imitators.  He claims to preach "the Gospel" and yet speaks very little or nothing about the actual life, ministry and teachings of Jesus.  Instead he gives us a laundry list of his new doctrines and spends most of the rest of his "Epistles" defending them.  He expected everyone to believe him to be infallible and above any criticism.  Indeed, he proclaims all opposition to him as devilish.  Those who oppose him are "counterfeit apostles" and "dishonest workers" (2 Cor. 11:13) and Satan's servants disguised as "servants of uprightness" (2 Cor. 11:14-15).  He even wishes that his opponents would "mutilate themselves." (Gal. 5:12)  Odd behavior for one who had only shortly before been instrumental in murdering people of "The Way?"  Maybe not when your method of ministering is "taking in by deceit" (2 Cor. 12:16) and propagandizing.

     Paul's imitators can also be heartened by his example of narcissism.  He claims to have been crucified with Christ yet exclaims, "Nevertheless I live." (Gal. 2:20)  He is celebrating his life, not that of Christ.  "He gave himself for ME."  Paul wants his followers to forget his desire to kill Jesus and his eventual hideous death by the hidden hands of the Pharisees who hated him so.  Instead Paul would have us think of Christ's death as a "celebration" and that "Christ died for Paul."  He says it is not really "him" that you see, the "he" was crucified, and it is "not I but Christ" living in his body.  He is claiming that he is essentially Christ, and for this reason he is superior to all who oppose him.  When he survived the viper attack (Acts 28:1-6) and the natives declared that he must be a god, there is not a word to the contrary from Paul.   Since "Christ" lived in Paul, this "Christ" was calling the shots.  Small wonder that Elmer Gantry wannabes gravitate toward Paul instead of Jesus who told those who desire to be first "shall be last of all." (Mark 9:35)  You can't build a cult on that philosophy.

     As a side note, I quote from the article "Jefferson and his Contemporaries" by Jaroslav Pelikan in the Beacon Press edition of THE JEFFERSON BIBLE:  "Like other Enlightenment rationalists, Jefferson was convinced that the real villain in the Christian story was the apostle Paul, who had corrupted the religion OF Jesus into a religion ABOUT Jesus, which thus had, in combination with the otherworldly outlook of the Fourth Gospel, produced the monstrosities of dogma, superstition, and priestcraft, which were the essence of Christian orthodoxy. The essence of authentic religion, and therefore of the only kind of Christianity in which Jefferson was interested, needed to be rescued from these distortions, so that the true teaching of Jesus of Nazareth  might rise from the dead page - the only kind of resurrection Jefferson was prepared to accept."  (pp. 153-154)

     Paul was Orwellian long before Orwell:  Wisdom comes through foolishness; knowledge is anathema to faith and strength comes through weakness.  Irrationality tends to boosts self confidence.  "Ignorance more frequently begats confidence than does knowledge."  (Charles Darwin)  Such are the wiseguys of the godfather of modern Christianity.  Why should we expect anything more out of them than what we see in their progenitor?

JWG

Mean old Paul at the age of 25 and stupid Peter, Age 50.

Mark the Beautiful, John the Divine, Matthew the Passionate, Luke, the Sweet Artist and Poet, and James the brother of Jesus.  What are these two demons doing with these angels?