DANGEROUS FALSE TEACHING ON PAUL: PART THREE

37). “Paul says it’s better to not get married like him. The Torah says otherwise. “It is not good for man to be alone”.

REBUKE: In 1 Corinthians 7:6-9, Paul states the following: “But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn”. 

Here, Paul is talking about the “spiritual gift” of “singleness” vs. the “spiritual blessing of marriage”. He says that “singleness” is a slightly higher spiritual calling than being married.

However, Paul doesn’t discount marriage but rather, upholds it. Paul is confirming that married souls are to “be as one flesh”, “one body”, “one soul” and “one mind” (more or less AFFIRMING Jesus’s words in Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9!) Paul says that some people are CALLED to be married, while OTHERS are NOT called to be married! And that’s very much TRUE, according to the bible! Look at Hosea, who was called to be married to a prostitute! And to Jeremiah, who was CALLED TO BE SINGLE ALL HIS DAYS!?

And when Paul is saying that he wished all men were like him, it was NOT for selfish, egotistical purposes as it might first appear on the surface. But rather, he was saying in his heart that he wished ALL men had “24/7” to devote to Christ and Christ’s gospel! For a married spouse is more concerned with “worldly things” (such as how to please their spouse, rather than how to please God!) However, like I said, Paul is NOT denouncing marriage. He talks all throughout 1 Corinthians 7 on the IMPORTANCE of marriage, about how two “become as one”, etc.

And as far as I can see, Paul gives a very easy descriptor of those that are “called” to marriage; they simply “can not control their lusts” for a very specific person of the opposite gender! For he says that those who are called to “singleness”, by CONTRAST, will, by the power of God, easily be able to DEFEAT any lustful thoughts or temptations and remain “pure” and live a “celibate lifestyle”. We also don’t know if Paul was NEVER married OR if he was at some point and was “widowed” by the time he was called to ministry! But what we DO know is that Paul is making some very clear “distinctions” between “married life” and “single life”.

38). “Paul’s teaching of abstinence above all lead to sexual immorality among church leaders for centuries, and it still continues”.

REBUKE: Paul did NOT preach “abstinence ABOVE ALL”. Lets re-examine 1 Corinthians 7:2 again! 1 Corinthians 7:2-5 says the following: “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency“. 

So in other words, Paul ONLY taught abstinence OUTSIDE of marriage. While INSIDE a marriage, Paul taught husbands and wives to GIVE SEXUAL AFFECTION TO ONE ANOTHER – for to do otherwise – in a MARRIAGE – was “sin” and giving a foothold to Satan! And true, several “religious leaders” over time HAVE taken Paul’s words OUT OF CONTEXT and started whole “religious movements of abstinence” (i.e. Catholic priests, Buddhist Monks, etc.) But that is NOT Paul’s fault!

If I myself were to write a memoir and people 100 years into the future misinterpreted what I said and started a “false religious movement” BASED off that MAJOR “misinterpretation” of MY written work, how would that be MY fault? Think about it, folks! Answer: It wouldn’t be! And just like it wouldn’t be MY fault but the misinterpreters’ own fault(s), neither is it Paul’s fault for “religious leaders” MISINTERPRETING his written words SEVERAL years after his death!

Also as well: how is Paul (now long dead) responsible for THEIR SEXUAL SINS *due* to their misinterpretation/false teaching OF his written words? If those same people who, 100 years from now, misinterpreted my written words then partook of a MAJOR sin DUE to that misinterpretation, would “I” (a person long dead by then) then be responsible for THEIR SINS? I think NOT! So it is with Paul!

39). “Paul says he, “being crafty, caught you with guile”.

REBUKE: Being “crafty” doesn’t necessarily mean that one is being “malicious” or “evil”. Let me think of an example. If a 19-year old boy still lives at home and has no job and his father is trying to get “junior” to get a job. So the father goes out and strategically and secretly places tree branches under junior’s tires to see rather or not junior had gone physically job-applying that day or not. And then, at the end of the day, the “sticks” were still in the same spot under junior’s tires, so the father KNEW his son had NOT gone physically job applying like he promised his father he would. The father, by non-evil “craftiness”, found his son “full of guile” and “deceit!”

And so it was with Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:16 in which Paul states, “But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile”.

So in other words, this is the moment in time when Paul (I’m assuming this is when Paul went to go back and “check” on a church he had originally planted, earlier?), being non-maliciously crafty (much like the “father” in the example above), found “deceit/guile” IN the church (the one he had planted or taught in, earlier?) When Paul says in the passage: “I DID NOT BURDEN YOU”, Paul is letting us know how much he LOVED this “church” that he was so-called “going back to check on/inquire about”. That tells me that the type of “crafty” Paul employed was NOT evil or malicious but yet, humble, loving and long-suffering.

Afterall, the father in the above example only LOVINGLY wants what’s BEST for his son, just like Paul only LOVINGLY wants what’s best for God’s people! “Caught you with guile”. OUCH! Think about those words, folks! Think about how it must’ve grieved Paul AT HIS VERY HEART to have to think, then to verbally SAY those words! Like, imagine in the example given up above when the father is FORCED to confront his son with the TRUTH that he’s discovered: “Junior! You LIED to me! You didn’t go job-applying like you told me you would!”

When and if junior tries to defend himself (just as I’m sure it’s likely the church tried to defend ITSELF against Paul’s accusation of “guile” being found among them – atleast at first, anyways), the father then would’ve had to say to his beloved son: “WITH CRAFTINESS, I CAUGHT YOU!” And then when he SHOWED “Junior” the PROOF of what he had found, “Junior” would’ve then had nothing to say for himself, just as the church would’ve had nothing to say for ITSELF once confronted with the PROOF that Paul had that THEY were full of deceit and guile!

40). “Paul says it’s OK to lie, as long as it leads people to Christ (Romans 3:7)”.

REBUKE: This one, like many before, was taken WAY OUT OF CONTEXT! Romans 3:7 states: “For IF the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?”

There, Paul is asking his congregants a philosophical question. Many at the time were persecuting Paul, calling him a false prophet, accusing him of lying and everything else under the sun. So Paul, in his defense, more or less asked the congregants a question of rational and deductive reasoning: “IF my lie caused the gospel of salvation to prosper and glorified God in the process, then why am I still judged as a sinner?“

In other words, Paul is saying between the lines that God is a God of truth and can NOT lie, so neither can HE, for it would serve NO THEOLOGICAL OR PRACTICAL PURPOSE! In another sense, he’s also implying that LIES can NOT prosper the gospel of salvation but if they ever do, it would serve the person telling the lie NO PURPOSE since that individual will have given all that “testimony of God” FOR NOTHING since they would be eternally judged as an “unrepentant sinner!” And Paul, as we know, was about as “religious” and “over-zealous” for Jesus/the gospel as one can GET!

Therefore, it stands to reason: if the gospel “so-called” prospered by Paul’s “so-calling” lying, and Paul KNEW he’d go straight to hell when he died, why would Paul put himself through all that? The threat of persecution, DEATH? The loss of “FINANCIAL SECURITY and PRESTIGE” among the Pharisees, the “loss of reputation and livelihood” among the Pharisees? Being HATED by MANY? He risked ALL THAT for a LIE? I don’t think so! A person ONLY risks all of those things if they were doing it for something or someone that they 100% BEYOND ALL SHADOW OF A DOUBT BELIEVE IN! Otherwise, a person would NOT risk everything for “said person” or “said thing”, that’s just human nature, folks! 

41). “Paul says to be all things to all people, a subtle doctrine of deceit”.

REBUKE: It’s NOT deceit to relate to people at their own pace and on their own level! 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 states: “For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you”.

At first glance, it might appear as though Paul was trying to be “the master of disguises”. But that’s NOT what Paul was doing there. He was simply meeting them at their own spiritual pace, and on their OWN level! That would be no different than if I were to learn everything I possibly could about the Hindu religion before preaching about Christ to the Hindu! I would be doing myself a SERIOUS disservice if I knew nothing firsthand about the Hindu religion BEFORE preaching about Christ to the Hindu. Not to mention the Hindu themselves would also probably think: “Oh, so you think you’re better than me and that YOUR religion is better than MINE, do you? Away with you!”

But yet, if I LEARN everything I can about the Hindu religion BEFORE preaching Christ to the Hindu, I’d have a much better chance conversing with the Hindu about Christ! Plus the Hindu would then be more “receptive” to what I was saying about Christ, if they knew that “I” knew about their Hindu religion or where they were currently “at”. Paul met people where they are “at” and didn’t expect them to be at the “same pace” as HIM! He meant them at their own pace and didn’t try to FORCE them to do ANYTHING, other than to be receptive to Christ’s love for mankind during his sacrifice on the cross for our sins! Therefore, we can all learn ALOT from Paul and his preaching style!

42). “There are only 12 foundations on New Jerusalem, with the 12 disciples’ names written on them, Paul makes 13″.

Rebuke: Paul NEVER said or claimed to be “one of the 12!” In Galatians 1:12, Paul says: “For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ”. There, Paul is letting us know that he got his authority to “teach the gospel” from Christ HIMSELF! And though he called himself “apostle” and fellowshipped with the other apostles, he never ONCE called himself a member of the original 12! He also never assigned himself a number of any sorts! Therefore, since Paul NEVER claimed to be one of the 12, and NEVER claimed any “number”, he ALSO never claimed that his name was gonna be featured on one of the 12 foundations on New Jerusalem!

[Disclaimer: Judas Iscariot “betrayed” the Lord. So will the 12th foundation STILL have Judas’s name on it? Or will it be replaced by Matthias? Or could it POSSIBLY be replaced by Paul? We simply don’t know, folks! Only God The Heavenly Father knows!]

43). “There are only 12 gates leading into New Jerusalem, where’s Paul’s?”

REBUKE: The 12 FOUNDATIONS of the walls are composed of 12 apostle names while the 12 GATES are the names of JACOB’S 12 SONS! Therefore, Paul would NOT be named on ANY of the 12 GATES since the 12 GATES are named after Jacob’s 12 sons (Reuben, Judah, Joseph, Benjamin, Simeon, Issachar, Zebulon, Naphtali, Levi, Asher, Gad, and Dan).

[Disclaimer: The tribe of Dan “disgraced the Lord” and was “cast out” – much like Judas Iscariot was. So will Dan STILL have a gate named after him? Or will it be replaced by Manasseh – Joseph’s younger son – whose tribe REPLACED Dan in the 12 tribes of Israel? Or will it instead possibly be named David after King David? Again, only God the Heavenly Father knows!]

44). “Paul quotes writings of Euripedes (406B.C.) and claims it to be the words of the Messiah (“kick against the pricks”)”.

REBUKE: The play called “Baccae” by Euripedes was written around 406B.C. while the letters of Paul are estimated to be written around 50 to 58A.D. – So yes. In retrospect, The Baccae by Euripedes was written FIRST, several hundred years before Paul’s gospels, sure. However – the Old Testament Jewish scriptures had been in circulation LONG BEFORE any “Greek play” hit the Earth. Therefore, it’s FAR more possible that Greek “plays” borrowed from the Old Testament scriptures, than the Old Testament scriptures borrowing from THEM! Therefore, if any New Testament writers borrowed from any Greek plays (who more than likely borrowed from Old Testament scriptures), then it wouldn’t mean much in retrospect.

Eusebius of Caesarea, wrote in his work “The Preparation of the Gospel”, and argued the case in great detail that Plato learned from Moses, etc., for instance. Plus we also knew that Luke was Paul’s personal secretary and was “Greek-educated”. So did Luke himself insert the words “kick against the pricks?” Quite possibly. But if so, did Luke do so with deceitful intentions? Ofcourse not. He may’ve possibly only did that so that the Greek “converts” to Jesus would have a much better, richer understanding of who Jesus the Messiah WAS! 

But regardless. Rather Paul and Luke borrowed from the ancient Greek play or not [and just for the record, I don’t think they did], it still doesn’t change the fact that A) Jesus appeared to Paul and that B) Jesus “commissioned” Paul to preach the gospel. And think about it folks, if Paul “lied” about his “spiritual visitation from the ressurected Jesus”, then why would he risk his LIFE, his REPUTATION, his FINANCES, his good, cushy societal standing in the synagogue/with Rome, etc. just to be “popular” among those he had previously severely persecuted/killed, knowing FULL WELL that now HE would now be A HUMAN TARGET at risk for being severely persecuted and possibly KILLED for his *newfound faith in Jesus?* That doesn’t make any sense, whatsoever!

Therefore, in conclusion, it’s FAR more likely that Paul REALLY DID have a supernatural experience with Jesus that filled him with SO MUCH DREAD/FEAR of going AGAINST Jesus (as he had previously done) to now desperately wanting to SERVE JESUS in any way he could, in order to save him FROM THE WRATH OF THE ONE HE HAD PREVIOUSLY PERSECUTED! And sure, it took him “three full days” to come to terms with what he had just seen and experienced. But think about it, folks. Think about if YOU had been Saul in that position and had had the total, divine visitation that he had had of the VERY THING you made an occupation out of PERSECUTING! Wouldn’t that also throw YOU for a “mental” and “spiritual’ loop for 2-3 days? Answer: it WOULD and anyone that says otherwise is most likely LYING! 

[P.S.: For a Modern-day human being to compare Jesus’s own words to the words of Euripedes is the HEIGHT of spiritual blasphemy! I pray that any and ALL modern-day souls who do that WILL REPENT!!!!!]

45). “Paul taught popular doctrines of stoicism instead of the law (deny the flesh)”.

REBUKE: In Acts 17:16-21, it states, “Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him. Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoics, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)”

So in summary: Paul was waiting for some of his spiritual companions at Athens. He’s GRIEVED to discover that the city is wholly given over to IDOLATRY! Therefore, Paul starts speaking out AGAINST IDOLATRY! And the Hellenistic Epicureans and Stoics then become interested in Paul’s preaching for he seems to be preaching “a new thing” (salvation and faith in Jesus Christ, alone!) And much like Buddhism, stoicism tells its followers to “deny themselves physical pleasures – IN GENERAL – in order to attain a degree of higher spirituality”. 

Paul teaches ABSTINENCE OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE, while it may “appear” somewhat similar to stoicism and Buddhism at first glance –  is totally DIFFERENT from what the Stoics/Buddhists later taught! So I’m not seeing the point being made here…..? From what I can see in Acts 17, Paul was ANTI-STOIC…. 

46). “Paul has no witnesses to his conversion”.

REBUKE: Paul’s conversion story can be found in Acts Chapters 9, 22, and 26. Each account has slightly different literary details, yes. But one thing is consistent, all throughout. The two “witnesses” to Paul’s conversion are A) his traveling companions and B) a Christian man by the name of Ananias. Note: The internet is chalk FULL about the traveling companions of Paul AFTER his conversion. But not BEFORE his conversion. Those sources are a little bit more harder to come by. Nevertheless, if and when I find out who any of THOSE pre-conversion travel companions were of Paul’s, I will list and add them here. 

47). “The early Ebionite and Nazarene churches utterly rejected Paul as a false apostle”.

REBUKE: In Acts 24:5-6, it says: “For we [The Pharisees/Sanhedrin] have found this man [Paul] a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law”.

Verses 14-15 then go on to say: “But this I [Paul] confess unto thee, that after the way [Ebionites] which they [The Jewish Pharisees] call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: And have hope toward God, which they [The Jewish Pharisees] themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust”.

And upon reading the ENTIRE chapter of Acts 24, it becomes readily apparent that only THE PHARISEES/SANHEDRIN reject Saul-turned-Paul as a “false apostle of/to the Jews”, NOT the Nazarenes or Ebionites!  

48). “The other disciples did not believe Paul was a disciple in Acts 9”.

REBUKE: Acts 9:26-28 states: “And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem“.

Translation? The 12 disciples (now included with Matthias in place of Judas?) weren’t sure if they could “trust” Paul’s “genuineness” at first. And that’s to be perfectly understandable. For imagine if a jihadist-Christian-beheading-RADICAL-MUSLIM, who had most recently been “indicted” for KILLING Christians, then had a seeming “change of heart” and walked into a MAJOR Christian church JUST THREE DAYS LATER and said: “I’ve had an encounter with Jesus, I want to co-pastor!” Imagine how ANY Christian pastor would IMMEDIATELY REACT! They would FEAR! They would likely say: “No! You’re not gonna kill me or my congregants! Get outta here before I call the cops! NOW!” Therefore, is it ANY WONDER that the 12 disciples who were with Jesus weren’t 100% sure at first if Paul was “trolling” them or not? Think about it, folks! 

49). “The true apostles did not defend Paul when he was imprisoned and questioned”.

REBUKE: Paul’s “imprisonment” is discussed in Acts chapters 24-28, Acts 16:23-24, Philemon 1:1-25, among possible other places in the New Testament that I’m not yet aware of. At VERY first scriptural glance, it DOES appear as though no-one defended Paul as he was being imprisoned and questioned.

However, in Acts 20:36-38, [RIGHT AFTER PAUL TELLS THEM HE’S ABOUT TO BE ARRESTED OVER IN JERUSALEM], it says: “And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all. And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul’s neck, and kissed him, Sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more. And they accompanied him unto the ship”.

Then again, in Acts 21:4 “And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem“.

And again in Acts 21:8-12 “And the next day we that were of Paul’s company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy. And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus. And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem”.

Translation? Many of Paul’s friends (including some of disciples themselves, most likely) were WARNING PAUL NOT TO GO TO JERUSALEM, as to try to make Paul not get arrested! 

But in the next verse, in Acts 21:13-14, it says, “Then Paul answered, ‘What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done“.

Translation? Paul was “ready to die for Christ, if need be”. And once the disciples and Paul’s friends ACCEPTED that fact, they CEASED warning him about going to Jerusalem and all said in unison: “The will of the Lord be done”. In other words, the disciples and many of Paul’s followers tried to talk him OUT of going to Jerusalem, where they KNEW he’d be arrested and possibly killed. But Paul INSISTED on dying for Christ and couldn’t be persuaded otherwise, therefore, they [the disciples and others] were willing to “let go and let God”, as the saying goes. 

50). “Paul’s conversion story is almost identical to that of Pentheus, King of Thebes from the play titled Baccae, written 400 years earlier. Dionysus (instead of “Jesus”) is confronting his persecutor and states “You disregard my words of warning….and kick against the pricks, a man defying god”.

REBUKE: This one’s a “rehash” of number 44 on the list. Nevertheless, I will provide the same rebuke since number 44 and number 50 are practically one and the same:

The play called “Baccae” by Euripedes was written around 406B.C. while the letters of Paul are estimated to be written around 50 to 58A.D. – So yes. In retrospect, The Baccae by Euripedes was written FIRST, several hundred years before Paul’s gospels, sure. However – the Old Testament Jewish scriptures had been in circulation LONG BEFORE any “Greek play” hit the Earth. Therefore, it’s FAR more possible that Greek “plays” borrowed from the Old Testament scriptures, rather than the Old Testament scriptures borrowing from THEM! Therefore, if any New Testament writers borrowed from any Greek plays (who more than likely borrowed from Old Testament scriptures), then it wouldn’t mean much in retrospect.

Eusebius of Caesarea, wrote in his work “The Preparation of the Gospel”, and argued the case in great detail that Plato learned from Moses, etc., for instance. Plus we also knew that Luke was Paul’s personal secretary and was “Greek-educated”. So did Luke himself insert the words “kick against the pricks” specifically for his Greek-speaking audience? Quite possibly. But if so, did Luke do so with deceitful intentions? Ofcourse not! He may’ve possibly only did that so that the Greek “converts” to Jesus would have a much better, richer understanding of who Jesus the Messiah WAS! 

But regardless. Rather Paul and Luke borrowed from the ancient Greek play or not [and just for the record, I don’t think they did], it still doesn’t change the fact that A) Jesus appeared to Paul and that B) Jesus “commissioned” Paul to preach the gospel. And think about it folks, if Paul “lied” about his “spiritual visitation from the ressurected Jesus”, then why would he risk his LIFE, his REPUTATION, his FINANCES, his good, cushy societal standing in the synagogue/with Rome, etc. just to be “popular” among those he had previously severely persecuted/killed, knowing FULL WELL that now HE would now be A HUMAN TARGET at risk for being SEVERELY persecuted and possibly KILLED for his *newfound faith in Jesus?* That doesn’t make any sense, whatsoever!

Therefore, in conclusion, it’s FAR more likely that Paul REALLY DID have a supernatural experience with Jesus that filled him with SO MUCH DREAD/FEAR of going AGAINST Jesus (as he had previously done) that he was now, from that point forth, DESPERATELY wanting to SERVE JESUS in any way he could, in order to save him FROM THE WRATH OF THE ONE HE HAD PREVIOUSLY PERSECUTED! And sure, it took him “three full days” to come to terms with what he had just seen and experienced. But think about it, folks. Think about if YOU had been Saul in that position and had had the total, divine visitation that he had had of the VERY THING you made an occupation out of PERSECUTING! Wouldn’t that also throw YOU for a “mental” and “spiritual’ loop for 2-3 days? Answer: it WOULD and anyone that says otherwise is most likely LYING! 

[P.S.: To put Jesus’s name in QUOTATION MARKS and to compare him to DIONYSUS (a FALSE Greek “god”) is the HEIGHT of BLASPHEMY! Therefore, I pray that any and ALL souls who do that WILL REPENT!!!!!!] 

So folks, in COMPLETE SUMMARY, there you have it. The 50 reasons why we KNOW that Paul is a TRUE APOSTLE! Not OF the original 12 (which Paul NEVER claimed to be) but an “Apostle” nonetheless! 

DANGEROUS FALSE TEACHING ON PAUL: PART ONE

It pains my heart to say this but it has most recently come to my attention that there’s now what appears to be a “prominent” false teaching circulating around the web about the apostle Paul! The FALSE teaching article tries to use 50 points to make the claim that “Paul was a false apostle!” And this teaching (atleast at the very beginning ONSET of it) was initially being sponsored by two ministries that I know of (as well as possible others). One of them is called “Parable of the Vineyard” (which I used to semi-follow before learning of the false Paul teaching) and “Christian Truthers” (who sort’ve “co-ops” with Parable of the Vineyard since 2018 – more on that later.) 

During a recent Youtube “sermon”, in the live chat, one of the listeners had typed the words: “The New Testament was Satan’s false deception against the Torah”. I was shocked TO MY CORE! And HORRIFIED! For now, it seems that Satan had apparently entered both P.O.T.V. and C.T. ministries and SCATTERED THE FLOCK!

Please note: I normally wouldn’t GO to all the trouble to write long, drawn-out REBUKE POSTS like this concerning singular “false teachings” in and of themselves, but after seeing just HOW MANY PEOPLE (INCLUDING the people who came up with or became “in agreement with” the false teaching) were starting to FALL to the GREAT END TIMES DECEPTION *OF* the false teaching on Paul, I just HAD to say something, folks! In fact, I believe the Lord Jesus Christ HIMSELF was calling on me to say something since PEOPLE’S SOULS AND ETERNAL SALVATION ARE AT STAKE, HERE! This is NO SMALL MATTER, FOLKS! This is VERY, VERY SERIOUS! 

2 Peter 3:9 “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance”.

Well, I’m personally VERY, VERY GRIEVED IN MY SOUL OVER THIS! So I’ll personally list all 50 points and REFUTE them myself down below! (Note: The “False Teachings” will appear in Red Bold Font, while the the REBUKES will appear in DARK GREEN FONT!)

1). “Paul’s testimony of his conversion is inconsistent at best and has a very close resemblance to the conversion of Joseph Smith and Muhammad”.

REBUKE: Paul’s testimony can be found in New Testament, Book of Acts Chapter 22: Verses 6-21. There are NO inconsistencies in Paul’s conversion, from what I see. It’s all pretty straight-forward in the following:

“And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, ‘Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?’ And I answered, ‘Who art thou, Lord?’ And he said unto me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest’. And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard NOT the voice of him that spake to me.

And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said unto me, ‘Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do’. And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, ‘Brother Saul, receive thy sight’. And the same hour I looked up upon him. And he said, ‘The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord’.

And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance; And saw him saying unto me, ‘Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me’. And I said, ‘Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him’. And he said unto me, ‘Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles'”.

Also: Joseph Smith’s “conversion” was around the mid 1800’s A.D., while Muhammad’s “conversion” was around 629 A.D., and Paul’s conversion was around 33 A.D.! Therefore, Joseph Smith and Muhammad weren’t even around when Paul was converted so there’s ZERO CHANCE that Paul based his conversion on the conversions of Joseph Smith and Muhammad. Instead, it’s very likely that Muhammad and Joseph Smith copied CHRISTIANS and their “Holy book” (the bible).

2). “Paul changed his own name, the Most High did not”.

REBUKE: Paul never actually changed his name. People called him both Saul (his Hebrew name) AND Paul (his Greek name) as evidenced by Acts 13:9: “Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him”.

3). “Paul doesn’t meet the criteria for apostleship, according to the Book of Acts”.

REBUKE: In Romans 1:1-7, Paul discusses his “call” to apostleship: “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ”. 

The QUALIFICATIONS to become an Apostle, according to the bible, are the following:

• Have seen the Lord Jesus AFTER his resurrection. 1 Corinthians 9:1 has Paul confirming: “Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are not ye my work in the Lord?”
• Have received their divine commission directly from Jesus Christ and God the Heavenly Father. Galatians 1:1 confirms Paul as having received just that: “Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)”
• Possessed the signs of an apostle. 2 Corinthians 12:12 states, “Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds”.
• They received the gospel not by any mean or external means but by the revelation of Jesus Christ HIMSELF. Galatians 1:11-12 once again CONFIRMS Paul: “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

4). “Paul claims the title of apostle to the Gentiles, a role given specifically to Peter”.

REBUKE: Was Peter “called” to be an apostle for the gospel of Jesus Christ? Absolutely! But so were the OTHER 11 of his disciples! All Apostles WERE disciples of Jesus Christ but not ALL disciples of Jesus Christ were Apostles! Make sense, people? Apostles were disciples of Jesus Christ WHO WERE CALLED TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO ALL! That’s what made them apostles! And while Peter appears to be “the head” of the apostles in many cases throughout the bible, he is not the ONLY “head” apostle! Quite frankly, in Acts 15, it is decided that Peter should be the “head apostle” to the Jews, while Paul should be the “head apostle” to the Gentiles! But we also know from scripture that Paul preached to both the Gentiles AND the Jews (although I’m not sure about Peter, if Peter ALSO preached to both?) 

5). “Paul was rejected and sent away from the apostles on multiple occasions”.

REBUKE: Acts 21:17-26 says the following:

“And when we were come to Jerusalem, THE BRETHEN RECEIVED US GLADLY. And the day following PAUL WENT IN WITH US unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. AND WHEN THEY HEARD IT, THEY GLORIFIED THE LORD, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee:

We have four men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them”.

Acts 15:4 “And when they [PAUL AND BARNABUS] were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them”.

Galatians 1:18 “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days“.

And many more………..

6). “Paul teaches against circumcision and then deflects when confronted”.

REBUKE: When Paul/Saul was a Jew, he went with the flow of Jewish law and was “overzealous” for “Jewish law”, including the spiritual law of circumcision. However, AFTER Paul’s conversion, there were several “Judaizers”, attempting to make Christianity “legalistic” (based solely on the LAW, rather than on the GOSPEL ITSELF). Paul was apparently very troubled in his soul over this. He did NOT want the Christian church to become too “legalistic”. So he sort’ve left it up to each individual rather they wanted to be circumcized or not, in order to keep the integrity of the gospel of salvation. And some of the Pharisees, overseeing that, then accused Paul of “preaching against cirumcision”. And Paul didn’t DEFLECT when confronted per say, he was just trying to “keep the peace” among Jewish and Gentile believers in Messiah, something that Jesus commands us all to do!

7). “Paul calls the actual disciples hypocrites”.

REBUKE: In Galatians 2: 11-16, Paul is “hinting” at Peter for being a hypocrite since Peter (being a Jew) ate with uncircumsized Gentiles (thus BREAKING Jewish law), but then afterwards (after having been rebuked by James and OTHER circumsized Jews) STOPPED eating with Gentiles but yet, at the same time, commanded those same uncircumsized souls to FOLLOW Jewish law by BEING circumsized. Paul raises A VERY GOOD POINT THERE and had EVERY RIGHT to call out Peter for his behavior! (Note: There’s NO evidence that Paul didn’t correct Peter lovingly!)

8). “The only source of Paul’s confirmation (2 Peter) wasn’t written by Peter”.

REBUKE: While we don’t know for 100% sure if 2 Peter was written by Peter, we also don’t know for 100% that it WASN’T. My best educated guess says that 2 Peter was likely DICTATED BY PETER and written by a “scribe”, “secretary” or “assistant”. This would explain the “linguistic differences” between 1 Peter and 2 Peter! Biblical books were not only HIGHLY SCRUTINIZED when they were being put together but also oftentimes had “scribes” writing down what the apostles told them to say. So if 2 Peter wasn’t “legit”, it wouldn’t have the made the cut, it’s as simple as that.

9). “Paul calls himself an apostle 20 of the 22 times it’s mentioned. The only other time was 2 Peter (not written by Peter) and by Luke, Paul’s traveling companion”.

REBUKE: It really doesn’t matter that Paul called HIMSELF an apostle since, like I stated earlier up above, Paul FIT the criteria to BE an apostle! So the fact that only TWO other people called him one (or just ONE person, if 2 Peter was written by Luke) is a moot point. Luke, ONE of the 12 apostles, CALLING Paul an apostle, in and of itself, should be enough to convince ANYONE that yes indeed, Paul WAS an apostle. Not OF the original 12 apostles, true, but an “apostle”, nonetheless. Enough said.

10). “Paul didn’t obey the Messiah’s Matthew teachings”.

REBUKE: I can only assume that what’s being alluded to here is The Sermon On The Mount, in New Testament, Book of Matthew, Chapters 5 through 7. In Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus is quoted as saying: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”.

Okay, so IN that passage, Jesus is talking about the importance of the law and Jesus is likely talking to a Gentile AND Jewish audience? Paul, however, preached to both a Jewish AND a Gentile audience. So Paul was therefore trying to reconcile the “Jewish law” with the gospel of “grace” throughout his entire ministry. I don’t believe Paul openly disobeyed The Sermon on The Mount teachings (in fact, quite the contrary!) I just believe Paul was talking more of the “risen Christ” in his ministry, rather than the “Kingdom Christ”. In other words, Paul was trying to denounce “legalism”. Look at the “Orthodox Jews” of today who (over the years) have ADDED alot of burdensome requirements to the “law” (i.e. Talmud, etc.) That’s exactly what Paul was preaching AGAINST! Paul wasn’t saying that the law wasn’t important but that relying on nothing BUT the law for salvation would get a person NOWHERE! 

11). “Paul boasted incessantly”.

REBUKE: There’s over 22 verses of Paul’s boasting in the bible, according to the following website: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Paul~s-Boasting

However, if you actually READ all the verses that deal with Paul’s boasting, he’s boasting about his WEAKNESSES, about the grace of God/Jesus, and about OTHER Christian/Jewish brethren who KEPT THE FAITH WHILE ENDURING SEVERE PERSECUTION! In other words, there’s TWO types of boasting/bragging: A) Unrighteous Boasting that’s focused on ONE’S OWN ABILITIES (PRIDE) and B) RIGHTEOUS Boasting, which is focused on JESUS/GOD/OTHERS and/or ONE’S WEAKNESSES/SHORTCOMINGS. Paul’s boasting was DEFINITELY a Category B, which was RIGHTEOUS BOASTING!

12). “Paul tried to discredit Peter and shared his grievance with him openly in a letter. (Matthew 18 not followed)”.

REBUKE: Matthew 18:15-17 states that we are to rebuke others using the following formula:

• “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
• But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
• And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican”.

So in other words, the formula states that we are to first go the person privately. And then, if they won’t listen, we have to take 1-2 more witnesses and try again. And if they STILL refuse to listen, we are to take the matter up with the “church” (or ecclesia, the body of believers or within a specific group). In other words, a loving group confrontation with the person/individuals. And if they STILL refuse to listen, then and ONLY then are we to declare that person/those people a “heretic“.

Again, this one is point #7 rehashed a bit. It’s ofcourse referring to the time that Paul PUBLICLY denounced Peter for Peter’s “hypocrisy” concerning “Jewish law”. And the REASON Peter was “in the wrong”, according to (https://bible.org/seriespage/6-peter-s-capitulation-and-paul-s-correction-galatians-211-21) was for the following FOUR reasons:

• (1) The actions of Peter and the others were wrongly motivated. Peter, we are told, acted out of a fear for the “party of the circumcision” (v. 12). It is safe to say that the others were also motivated out of a desire not to offend, either the Judaizers or Peter. Peter, as well as those who followed him in his capitulation to the circumcisers, was guilty of acting as “men-pleasers.”

• (2) The actions of Peter and the others caused some to stumble. Verse 13 informs us that Peter’s actions set an example which was followed by the “rest of the Jews,” and that their hypocrisy caused “even Barnabas” to follow. What Peter did, others did after him, following his lead.

• (3) The actions of Peter and the others were hypocritical. In verse 13 Paul wrote that the rest of the Jews, including Barnabas, “joined him [Peter] in hypocrisy.” The hypocrisy of their actions was based on the fact that what they still believed, they had ceased to practice. They had not deliberately departed from right doctrine: they had simply deviated from it in practice.

• (4) The actions of Peter and the rest were a practical denial of the gospel. Paul acted decisively when it became apparent to him that “they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel” (v. 14). What Peter did compelled the Gentiles to live like Jews (v. 14), which was, in Paul’s words, “another gospel” (cf. 1:6-7). The major argument of this section is concerned with this deviation.

And the reason why Paul rebuked Peter PUBLICLY is because Peter “sinned” PUBLICLY and “caused many to stumble”, thus, it needed a PUBLIC REBUKE! Only if Peter had sinned “privately” (outside of public view/practice) would it have first required a “private rebuke” starting off.

13). “Paul doesn’t turn the other cheek but curses his oppressors”.

REBUKE: Galatians 1:8-9 state: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed“. (I believe that’s what this point #13 here is referring to). And, you got to put this one into context.

“Turn the other cheek” just simply means to let small “contentions” (that don’t have ANYTHING to do with the preaching of the gospel of salvation) slide because afterall, the small “contentions” don’t have people’s souls at stake! So, for example, if two Christian/Jewish brethren are arguing rather 2 Peter was influenced by Jude or not, that’s a small “contention” between them and them, ONLY! It (as far as it’s discussed privately and ONLY discussed between the two individuals) does NOT affect the souls/salvation of others! However: If one or both of these SAME two people decided to PUBLICLY make a proclamation about the gospel of Salvation that was NOT biblical, then what Galatians 1:8-9 is saying, in retrospect, is that we are to do anything BUT “turn the other cheek” and “let it slide” since people’s ETERNAL SALVATION IS AT STAKE!

So that being said, was Paul technically “cursing” anyone who would DARE to preach a false gospel to the Lord’s people? Definitely! But was he well within reason to do so? YES! For there is a huge DIFFERENCE between RIGHTEOUS CURSING (those spiritual cursings that are done to PROTECT a soul from a false gospel that would have the ability to send a soul to eternal condemnation if not repented of) and UNRIGHTEOUSNESS CURSING (which is just done for selfish, prideful, sinful reasons such as we don’t like someone or want to see a person fail or the like). What Paul did was DEFINITELY classified as RIGHTEOUS CURSING; a cursing that’s done for the SPIRITUAL PROTECTION and BENEFIT TO OTHERS!

That would be sort’ve like placing a “protective firewall” around a person’s soul in order to try to help them from being deceived….Jesus more or less said in the scriptures that we are to FOREVER KEEP THE “LOST SHEEP” IN MIND! This is evident in Matthew 18:10-14 which states, “Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish”.

Now…..that being said, does that mean we are to “hate” on bible teachers that publicly proclaim a “false teaching?” Ofcourse not! It just means that we need to view them as a “lost sheep” and to try to gently but firmly lead them back to the truth! Ofcourse, if SEVERAL other people have tried to lovingly correct them and they STILL insist on PUBICLY teaching what they are teaching (i.e. the “false teaching), then we have no choice but to PUBICLY rebuke them (in person or in writing) but must also still PRAY for them! NEVER CEASE PRAYING FOR THEM! God is a God of miracles! 

14). “Paul had his very own gospel, which he called ‘my gospel'”.

REBUKE: In 2 Timothy 2:8-9 and Romans 2:16, Paul DOES in fact say the words “My Gospel”.

“Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.” [2 Timothy 2:8-9]

“In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel” [Romans 2:16]

CONTEXT: Think about people who’ve had a near-death experience (NDE) or that have “come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ” through some other way. They’ll call it “MY EXPERIENCE” or “MY TESTIMONY”. However, it’s NOT a different “testimony” of Jesus or salvation but rather, CORROBORATES the message of salvation IN Jesus Christ. So the fact that Paul says “My Gospel” is of no true concern, for Paul simply means to say the words “MY EXPERIENCE” and/or “MY TESTIMONY”.

15). “Paul claims he didn’t benefit at all from the other disciples’ wisdom”.

REBUKE: Not sure what specific biblical passage(s) this one is referring to, but perhaps it’s Galatians 2:11 which states: “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed”. But that aside, there’s several times in which Paul “stays” with the apostles for several days. And so it’s assumed he stayed with the apostles in order to pray with them, possibly break bread with them and benefit from their “wisdom”. Such a case is recorded in Galatians 1:18 and Acts 11:26, amongst others.

Galatians 1:18 “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days“.

Acts 11:26 “And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch“

And many more…..

16). “Paul claims he is the one who laid the foundation that others build on”.

REBUKE: 1 Corinthians 3:10 “According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon” DOES appear to make it seem like Paul is saying that HE and HE alone, is the “foundation” by which people need to “build on”. But lets look at this in CONTEXT….

Paul is NOT calling himself the “chief cornerstone” (for ONLY Christ is the “chief cornerstone) but is rather speaking to those who be pastors AFTER him. Here, Paul is sending the would-be pastors a WARNING to NOT deviate in any way, shape or form from the gospel of grace, but rather, to preach what HE Paul preaches since WHAT Paul preaches came DIRECTLY from the RISEN CHRIST HIMSELF, if that makes any sense?

In Ephesians 2:20 it says: “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone”. In 1 Corinthians 3:10, Paul is using the term “foundation” loosely, just simply to mean that OTHER would-be pastors were to BE CAREFUL not to preach any OTHER gospel than the gospel of grace/salvation that was preached to them in the synagogues every Sabbath Day! For please remember that many “false gospels” were proliferating in Paul’s day and so Paul was just informing would-be pastors what the true spiritual “foundation” of preaching the gospel should be!

17). “Paul calls himself a ‘Father’, contrary to Messiah’s teachings”.

REBUKE: 1 Corinthians 4:15 states: “For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye NOT many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel”.

Here, Paul alludes to being called a “spiritual father” to “the church” but yet, NEVER calls himself a “father” specifically. What Paul means here in this passage is that there were many, many “spiritual teachers/pastors” around during that time. However, not very many OF those teachers truly CARED about their “flocks” but only about THEMSELVES, thus, acting like a “parent” who had NO true care for their own “children”. So what Paul is saying is that THROUGH Jesus, he had been given a “personal charge” over “the flock” and was likely told by Christ to see this flock as “spiritual sons and daughters of the one, true living God” of which HE Paul, was a true servant OF!

18). “Paul was incapable of casting out HIS Demon and was the only apostle with this issue”.

REBUKE:

2 Corinthians 12: 6-9 states: “For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me. And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me”. 

Note: A “thorn in the flesh” is just an expression. Was it a LITERAL demon or was it just something that Paul was forced to struggle with everyday (like physical pain, depression, etc.?) We simply don’t know. But what we DO know is that the Lord EMPLOYED the “thorn in the flesh” over Paul in order to HUMBLE PAUL and ensure that Paul NEVER got too prideful or arrogant! In other words, it was the Lord’s way of keeping Paul in line/on his spiritual toes! In the next verse, the Lord is telling Paul that IN Paul’s “weakness”, the Lord is GLORIFIED! Therefore, Paul is COMFORTED in his spirit and then goes on to REJOICE and GLORY in his infirmities/weaknesses since Paul realizes that the power of Christ will be fully manifested IN his weaknesses/inequities!

P.S.: Out of ALL the apostles, Paul labored for Christ THE MOST! So then is it any wonder that Paul was also the MOST SPIRITUALLY ATTACKED out of ALL the disciples? In fact, Acts 19:15 says the following (when the disciples were attempting to cast OUT a demon and were NOT successful): “And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?”.

19). “Paul lied to the Sandhedrin when confronted with allegations of teaching against the Law and Circumcision”.

REBUKE: Paul’s “trial” before the Sanhedrin can be found in New Testament, Book of Acts 22:30 [Chapter 22, verse 30] through Acts 26:18 [Chapter 26, Verse 18]. Note: Unless there’s something I’m not seeing there, I don’t find ANY accusations against Paul by the Sanhedrin concerning circumcision there.

However, what I DO see is Paul noticing that there are both Sadducees (those who DIDN’T believe in the Resurrection, angels, etc.) and the Pharisees (who DID believe in those things) and then boldly mentioning about the resurrection in front OF the Sanhedrin in order to DISTRACT and CONFUSE and DIVIDE the Sanhedrin “Council” (as evidenced in Acts 23: 6-9).

Starting off in Acts 23, Verse 6, Paul says: “But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question“. Here, Paul isn’t exactly lying, (for Paul really WAS being persecuted by the Jews for his preaching about the resurrection). However, it’s also likely Paul wasn’t being completely honest either, since part of the reason he was likely “on trial” in the first place was concerning the “circumcision controversy” over Timothy (whose mother was Jewish and father was Greek) BEING CIRCUMCIZED, while Titus (full Greek?) was NOT!

Acts 16:1-3 states: “Then came he [Paul] to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek”.

Acts 2:3 says: “But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised“

Okay, so that seems to be a dissention there. Why would Paul have TIMOHTY (the “half-Greek”) circumcized, and yet, not have Titus (the so-called full Greek) circumcized? That’s a good question. Lets dig a bit deeper into this. First of all, Paul wanted Timothy to be his travel companion on mission trips. And Paul knew they’d be going through Jew-dominated areas. Since Timothy was “half-Jewish”, Paul knew the Jews would seen Timothy as “unclean” if he weren’t circumcized so he decided to circumcize him.

Titus, on the other hand, was full Greek and someone Paul used as a poster child to illustrate the point of Galatians 3:28 which states: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” and Galatians 5:6 which states: “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love”.

In other words, Paul is telling “the church” that there’s a HUGE DIFFERENCE between circumcision of the BODY – which produces nothing, in and of itself – and *spiritual* circumcision of the HEART! Paul is saying that a person must have a SPIRITUAL circumcision of the HEART in order to receive salvation by the grace of God! This is even echoed in Jeremiah 4:4 in the OLD TESTAMENT [Old Testament, Book of Jeremiah, Chapter 4, Verse 4] which states: “Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings”.

Summary: The Jews of Paul’s day were too “legalistic” in their approach to salvation and so Paul was trying to change that. Even at the Last Supper, Jesus said he was making a “new covenant”. That was BEFORE Jesus was crucified and resurrected. And what Paul saw was the heavenly, RESURRECTED Christ that was ALREADY resurrected.

Therefore, it makes perfect sense why cirumcision would no longer be a “required mark” of salvation for the Gentiles, who were now under a “new covenant” at Jesus’s crucifixion. Hebrews 8:8-9 puts it THIS way: “For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord”. 

20). “Paul repeatedly tries to reassure people that He’s not lying”.

REBUKE: Okay, lets put this one into context. Lets say you have a dog killer, who goes out and kills what he perceives to be “vicious dogs” at vet clinics, thinking he’s doing God and/or the people there “service”. And then, a couple days later or a few months later, that same “dog shooter” then turns around and claims he “had a divine vision/visitation from God” and wants to “get a job” at said vet clinic place that he was once a “shooter of” just days/months prior and that he now wanted to HELP THE DOGS/REHABILITATE THEM AND *NOT* SHOOT THEM….WHO IS GOING TO BELIEVE HIM, AT FIRST? Practically NO-ONE right? In fact, many vet clinic people would likely IMMEDIATELY threaten to call the cops/security upon seeing said guy enter there, am I right?

Therefore, Paul (at first) had a HECK of a time convincing people that’s he was “for real” in wanting to help SPREAD the Christian message, a message he once persecuted and KILLED CHRISTIANS FOR! Do you see where I’m going with this, folks? People were constantly “unsure” if they should fully trust Paul’s genuiness or not (which is perfectly understandable – given Paul’s previous “occupation” of Christian imprisonment/KILLING). 

Nevertheless, Paul has to keep reassuring these people that he’s not lying and that he’s telling the truth, in order to set them at ease. Paul also preached from a RISEN CHRIST perspective, rather than a “Kingdom Christ” perspective, which no doubt probably created some questions from the “Kingdom Christ perspective” disciples that were like: “Really? How do we know you’re not lying, Paul?” So yeah, I can see it, why Paul would feel compelled from time to time to assure people he wasn’t lying.

21). “Paul tells his followers to imitate HIM, not the Messiah”.

REBUKE:

1 Corinthians 11:1 says: “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ”.

1 Corinthians 4:16 says: “Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me”.

Okay, as far as I know, those are the two passages which were brought into question. However, Paul NEVER explicitly states for anyone to IMITATE him, per say. But rather, Paul is asking them to follow his EXAMPLE OF following Christ, therefore, an imitation OF an imitation of sorts. Paul follows Christ, and is “zealous” about following Christ and being a good, Christ-like example unto others (as a whole), therefore, he wants his followers to ALSO be “zealous” about following Christ and being a good Christ-like example unto others (as a whole). Make sense?

22). “Paul is not eloquent but confusing. YAHUAH is not the author of confusion”.

REBUKE: First of all, let me start off by stating that there’s a few reasons why I refuse (atleast at this point, anyways) to call the Heavenly Father by the name “Yahuah”. Not only have I not yet been able to biblically confirm it yet (in my mind) but there’s a couple other reasons, too. I need to learn Hebrew AND do far more research on the name first before coming to any final decision rather to address the Heavenly Father by that name or not.  

That being said, I feel that insisting one should call the Father and Son by those names (in and of itself) causes GREAT “confusion” among the Lord’s people since NEITHER of those names are mentioned in the King James bible! And not only that, but I believe with all my heart and soul that we’re FAR more likely to be judged by Jesus/Yeshua for calling He and the Heavenly Father possibly IMPROPERLY pronounced names NOT found in the bible, rather than for addressing them as names that ARE found in the bible! That’s why I call God the Heavenly Father “Jehovah”, “Adonai” or “Yahweh” and why I call the Holy Son “Jesus” or “Yeshua”, the two names that Jesus HIMSELF told me to call him by during a Near-Death experience! (To specify, Jesus is ofcourse, the English “transliterated” name while Yeshua is his Hebrew/Aramaic name?)

Not to mention that there is still POWER in the name of Jesus! Why do demons FLEE at the name of not ONLY Yeshua but of Jesus? Because the demons KNOW who a person is talking about: (the resurrected AND now FULLY GLORIFIED/ASCENDED) Jesus of Nazareth (the Son of the Living, True God!) And if the demons “don’t listen” to the name of the Jesus/Yeshua, either the person has a sin they need repent of first, the person doesn’t have the TRUE FAITH that Jesus/Yeshua can “cast the demon out” or it’s one of those types that ONLY come out by prayer and fasting that Jesus/Yeshua talked about in the bible. 

Now, that being said…….I first will start off by asking the question “was Jesus/Yeshua always eloquent?” No? He spoke in parables? Okay then, so why then is Paul, who preached of the RISEN CHRIST, required to speak “eloquently?” Some of the most “eloquent” speakers on the TV you’ve ever seen preach nothing but LIES, LIES, LIES! Therefore, speaking “eloquently” is NOT necessarily a requirement for “truth” when it comes to the gospel!

And true, some of Paul’s teachings definitely seem somewhat confusing and even the apostle Peter HIMSELF says as much. However, that doesn’t automatically make Paul a “false apostle”. It just means that people need to spiritually dig a bit deeper to get the context of what Paul was saying. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing, folks. Ever had a biblical dream that you just could NOT understand the meaning of right away and the Lord took his sweet time dissecting the dream for you over a period of days, weeks, years?

Why did the Lord do that? Did He do that to CONFUSE YOU? No, ofcourse not! He did it that way so you’d MEDITATE upon the MEANING of the dream, a little tiny bit at a time for the Lord simply knew if He revealed ALL the dream to you at once, you’d be OVERWHELMED and you wouldn’t remember ALL the symbolism and what each individual “symbol” meant.

Lets face it. If Paul’s teachings were EASY to understand right off the bat, they’d be easily misconstrued by false teachers, wanting to lead others astray. People would likely take the teachings for granted and not truly mediate upon them and apply them to their lives. Not to mention that people wouldn’t seek the Lord as hard to try to find the true meaning of what Paul was preaching. Plus the Bereans “possibly” wouldn’t have adamantly searched the scriptures daily “to see rather or not these things are so” (Acts 17:10-12).

23). “Paul contradicts himself repeatedly”.

REBUKE: I can only assume this is referring to Paul’s “three” mentions of his conversion story in Acts and about how those 3 different accounts have “minor fluctuations” or “minorly divergences”. These accounts can be found in Acts 9: 1-19, Acts 22: 1-21 and Acts 26: 4-20. So let us examine those in order, real quick:

In Acts 9: 1-19 we get:

“And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, ‘Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?’

And he said, ‘Who art thou, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks’. And he trembling and astonished said, ‘Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?’ And the Lord said unto him, ‘Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do’. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink. And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, ‘Ananias’. And he said, ‘Behold, I am here, Lord’. And the Lord said unto him, ‘Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight’.

Then Ananias answered, ‘Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name’. But the Lord said unto him, ‘Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake’.

And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, ‘Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost’. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus”.

In Acts 22:1-21, we get:

“‘Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defense which I make now unto you’. (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) ‘I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went [TOWARD] to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. And it came to pass, that, AS I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.

And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, ‘Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?’ And I answered, ‘Who art thou, Lord?’ And he said unto me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest‘. And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard NOT the voice of him that spake to me. And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said unto me, ‘Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do’.

And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, ‘Brother Saul, receive thy sight‘. And the same hour I looked up upon him. And he said, ‘The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.

For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord’. And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance; And saw him [THE LORD] saying unto me, ‘Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me‘.

And I said, ‘Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him’. And He [THE LORD] said unto me, ‘Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles“.

And in Acts 26: 4-20, we get:

^“My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straightest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God, unto our fathers: Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.

Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities. Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,

At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, ‘Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks’. And I said, ‘Who art thou, Lord?’

And he said, ‘I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me‘.

Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance”.

Okay, so in the FIRST account, Saul is being talked about in THIRD PERSON (likely by Barnabus). Barnabus is trying to “advocate” for Saul’s authenticity to the other disciples by telling them about Saul’s conversion and he (Barnabus) is relating Saul’s conversion story to the disciples, second-hand. So if there’s any minor discrepancies, it’s the fault of Barnabus, NOT Saul! 

The 2nd and 3rd accounts ARE told and described by Saul in a FIRSTHAND account. In the 2nd account, Saul is speaking to a VERY hostile audience. And in the 3rd account, he’s speaking to a less hostile, more humble audience (King Agrippa). However, NONE of the major details in ANY of the accounts were changed and EACH separate account shows the “flow” of the story. Minor discrepancies in the details don’t really matter since the overall narrative of the story is still the same! 

Note: It’s really no different than if a person were to tell the story of their near-death experience one day later vs. a week later. When they tell it a day later, a person’s so excited that they leave some minor details out, in their excitement and their “haste” to tell the story of their experience. But after a whole week is up and their mind has had more time to “ruminate” on what they spiritually heard/experienced during the N.D.E., they start to remember the minor details that they left out before. It doesn’t mean that they’re lying or that they’re “embellishing” the story in any way but rather, remembering more “in-depth” details of the experience way after the fact, as they start to have spiritual flashbacks!

Summary: If there’s any OTHER areas of the bible in which Paul “appears” to contradict himself in the bible, I haven’t seen them yet. I will update this post when and if I do! Please continue on to PARTS TWO AND THREE to read about Rebukes to #24-50! Amen.