How can you possibly believe Paul was an apostle?
Paul- The blindfold of Christianity
Dear Pastor/ Evangelist/ Bishop/ Prophet/ Apostle/ Father/ G.O/ Pope, how can you possibly believe Paul was an apostle? How can you possible believe Paul was a believer? How can you possible believe Paul was a Christian?
- If you believe Paul is an apostle just because Paul’s books are present in the Bible (BBPPO: backed by prophesy- proving omniscience) which itself must be the infallible word of God,
- If you believe Paul is an apostle just because you were taught so in the seminary,
- But if you believe Paul is an apostle because you have actually researched the topic under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as admonished by John [1 Jn 4:1] who urged us to test every spirit before believing them,
then you have simply missed the fact that just because all scripture are inspired by the Holy Spirit doesn’t necessarily mean that all scripture were compiled (into one book called the Bible) by the Holy Spirit. When [2 Ti 3:16] was penned down, the Bible as a book had not been born. The Bible came into the scene about 250 years later as compiled by the Catholic Church and as directed by the unconverted Sun-God worshipping Roman Emperor Constantine beginning from the year 325 AD.
then you have simply missed the fact that man is actually fallible and so can understand wrong, teach error and thereby be sincerely wrong, which is why we must always put man on check, testing his every action, that is if we must get out truth from him.
then while your effort has of course been blessed by The Most High, your conclusion to accept Paul as an apostle may have yet been flawed however. If The Most High has blessed you with humility, we’d like you to kindly continue reading this article to discover a truth the Holy Spirit has always revealed but which you may have genuinely missed.
10 STEPS TO REALIZING WHO PAUL REALLY WAS
1 Paul was not an apostle because he did not meet Peter's Holy Spirit-inspired qualification
First things first, an apostle as derived from the Greek word "apostolos" meaning to be sent does not refer to the sending of just anybody to do whatever but specifically refers to a particular class and qualification of people sent to build the church. This class of people must meet a qualification to become apostles. So says the Bible (BBPPO).
Apostle Peter- the man on whose proclaimed faith the church was established, gave us the requirement for one to be called an apostle in [Acts 1:21-26], that person ought to have been with Jesus beginning from his baptism up unto his ascension. Paul obviously did not qualify neither does any human being alive today do, so if you accept that Paul is a true apostle, then you are saying you reject the authority of Peter as the head of the apostle appointed personally by the Messiah himself, when you understand what is at stake here, you will realize that saying Paul is an apostle is no small claim.
2Paul was not an apostle because there can only be 12 apostles
Apart from the fact that one today must meet Peter’s qualification to be called an apostle which is obviously not possible anymore, the number of apostles itself was nevertheless fixed at 12 and therefore, a 13th apostle could not exist. So says the Bible (BBPPO).
There can only be 12 Apostles, not 11 or 13 [Luk 6:13].
- Because there are only 12 tribes of Israel, not 11 or 13 [Gen 49:1-28]
- This is why the New Jerusalem has 12 gates with the names of the 12 tribes of Israel written on them and 12 Angels guarding the gates, not 11 or 13 gates and Angels [Rev 21:12]
- This is why there are 12 thrones reserved for the 12 Apostles after their resurrection, not 11 or 13 thrones [Mt 19:28]
- This is why the walls of the New Jerusalem has 12 foundations with the names of the 12 Apostles written on them, not 11 or 13 foundations [Rev 21:14].
So there are a fixed number of 12 apostles who must meet Peter’s qualification to be one, Matthias qualified to replace Judas Iscariot when Judas was lost [Acts 1:26] and so Paul does not come into the picture. This revelation also goes to open the eyes of those preachers today who unscripturally call themselves apostles.
3Paul was not an apostle because his conversion story 3 times told are contradicting and therefore lies
Liars often have a hard time remembering and keeping track of all their lies- "it’s not easy". 3 times Paul tells his one conversion story and every time he does, this one story is not consistent. Below are the 3 different versions of Paul’s conversion story:
- A light shone around him from heaven and he falls to the ground, then the voice speaks to him [Acts 9:3-4].
- The voice identifies itself as Jesus [Acts 9:5].
- The men with him heard the voice but saw no man [Acts 9:7].
- The Messiah calls out- Saul Saul, why has thou persecuteth me; it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks .
- The men stood speechless .
- After Paul asked the Messiah what he should do, the Messiah replied him saying, "Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do [Acts 9:6]".
The second account was given in his defense to the Roman chief captain Lysias [Acts 24:7] after he went to Jerusalem [Acts 21:12-15], entered the temple and was beaten by the Jews of Asia [Acts 21:26-31]. Trying his best to convince them not to kill him after earlier boasting that he’s ready to die for the name of the Lord [Acts 21:13], he narrates this version.
- The light shone and he fell then the voice speaks to him .
- Here the Messiah then identifies himself as Jesus of Nazareth [Acts 22:8]. In this account Paul excludes the “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” statement.
- In this account, the men with Paul saw the light but heard no voice [Acts 22:9].
The third account was given at Caesarea in his defense to King Agrippa and with the chief captains, and principal men of the city present (no Jews were present).
- A light shone around him from heaven and he falls to the ground, then the voice speaks to him [Acts 26:13-14].
- The Messiah identifies himself as Jesus, and this time reintroduces the “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” statement
- Paul adds here that the Messiah spoke in a Hebrew tongue .
- In this account, the men fell to the ground with him [Acts 26:14].
- In the first and second accounts, Paul said the Messiah told him to "Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told him what he must do [Acts 9:6]" and to "Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told him of all things which are appointed for him to do.
" respectively, but in this account, Paul adds three more verses as stated below to the information the Messiah gave in the first two accounts.
"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. [Acts26:16-18]."
55th simple question for Paul: Paul needs to be asked, did the Messiah ask him to go into the city to be later told what to do according to account 1 [Acts 9:6] and 2 [Acts 22:10] or did the Messiah tell him straight away what to do, consequently assigning him a messenger to the gentiles according to account 3 [Acts 26:16-18]?
66th simple question for Paul: Paul needs to be asked why he left out such rich information contained in account 3 while relaying his account 1 and why he left out this same information while defending himself against the Jews (who would’ve very much needed to hear this) in account 2?
77th simple question for Paul: Paul needs to be asked why he only revealed this truth to the pagan king Agrippa (a person who has no personal interest in this) and not also to the Jews who this truth concerned personally?
Can anyone reconcile these 3 accounts and answer these 7 brainstorming questions deduced from Paul’s 3 conversion stories without having to conclude that Paul was desperately lying? Try answering these 7 questions and see where it leads you.
4Paul was not an apostle because he did not meet God’s standard of providing two or more witnesses for the establishment of all truth
The Lord tells us times without number that nothing whatsoever (even if it is the truth) shall be established without at least 2 witnesses.
- The father said it in [Deu 17:6] .
- The son said the same thing in [Mat 18:16].
- And John said the same thing in [Joh 8:17-18].
- Even Paul proclaimed the same in [1 Ti 5:19; 2 Co 13:1] and .
But have we ever bothered to ask how many witnesses Paul provided to establish his conversion story? Well he provided none- not even one. If the one God who cannot lie could yet back up the fact that the Messiah is his only begotten son at Christ’s baptism (by a mystery and miracle) [Luk 3:21-22] - His voice representing the father and his dove form representing the Holy Spirit, why should Paul be exempted from doing the same and providing witness to his conversion so his confession could be established? Is Paul above God’s law?
If God can keep his own law, why should Paul not keep God’s law?
- A multitude witnessed the birth, life, death and resurrection of the Messiah.
- And a multitude witnessed the life of the true apostles.
But why can’t Paul provide witnesses for his conversion story? Why couldn’t Paul provide even one of the soldiers he claimed journeyed with him to come and testify to the truth of his conversion story? Why did Paul defend himself singly (being a judge in his own case) expecting us to take his word as true when he himself had not lived up to his own words which he spoke concerning how all confessed truth should be established in [1 Ti 5:19] and [Heb 10:28]? Can you think about that for a minute? The church today believes Paul is an apostle but the early church never took him as one and Paul knew this. He once admitted that he is not seen as an apostle by others [1 Co 9:2], as if there was a proof of qualification to be one- one which they felt he didn’t meet up to. And that is the truth, he never qualified.
5Paul was not an apostle because he never for once informed the 12 apostles or the Jews about his apostleship
Paul however never ever called himself an apostle in the presence of the 12 and in the presence of the Jews, (no need to wonder why for he knew they were aware that there could only be 12 apostles) but could only deceive the gentile Greeks and Hellenistic Jews calling himself the apostle to the gentiles [Rom 11:13]. You have already witnessed it that he left out of his defense the part where God appointed him to be the apostle/messenger to the gentiles in the second account of his conversion story when he was before the Jews (for though this would have gained him a little credibility in the eyes of the Jews, it would have yet implicated him because the people knew the number of apostles was already complete as 12) but revealed this to King Agrippa (who knows nothing about the Jewish customs neither does he care) in the third account of his conversion.
Using [Acts 21:20] where James and the elders referred to Paul as a brother to prove that the apostles and the Jews took Paul as an apostle does not hold water, for the church only referred to Paul as a brother because he was indeed a brother, he was a fellow Jew (from the tribe of Benjamin [Rom 11:1]). How would the Jerusalem church have concluded in the first place that Paul was an apostle when Paul himself never mentioned it or told them such?
The apostles were not even confident in regarding Paul as a follower (disciple) talk more of an apostle, they feared him because they were unsure if he was really converted [Acts 9:26], only seeing him as a person who was more interested in miracles [Acts 15:12-13].
6Paul self-abolished the law Jesus fulfilled because he hated it, after which he proceeded to steal Peter's calling
Paul self-abolishes the law saying that "Christ has abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: [Eph 2:15-16]. All against the very words of Jesus who told us to "think not that he has come to destroy the law, or the prophets:" he says "he has not come to destroy, but to fulfill. [Mat 5:17]".
The whole law hangs on two great laws:
- the love of God
- and the love for man [Matt 22:37-40].
To love God is to keep the commandments of God [1 Jn 5:2-3; 2 Jn 1:5-6; Joh 14:15], meaning that you cannot love God without keeping his commandments, okay? and abolishing the commandments is abolishing loving God. This is why James instructs us to first believe and then love, we have to love because anyone who doesn’t love doesn’t know God [1 Jn 4:7-8], but what does Paul say?
Paul hesitates to preach loving God but only preached the love for man [Rom 13:9] because he has abolished the law which we are to keep to show God that we love him [Eph 2:15-16]. This move of Paul consequently caused the 1st commandment to be substituted with morality (merely doing good, a belief the church holds now as the way to heaven) instead of holiness (keeping God’s laws). The church needs to escape this trap and return to her first love by understand that "there is no doing good without the keeping of God’s laws," it’s that simple.
The true believers even in the New Covenant yet kept the law:
- The Saturday Sabbath [Acts 13:42, 17:2; 18:4]
- The dietary laws [Acts 10:14]
- The feasts [Acts 18:21]
- And the law of circumcision [Acts 21:21-24].
Paul abolished the law to create lawlessness but no, he didn’t call it lawlessness, he called it grace. He created the replacement theology we see today where he church has replaced Israel as if Israel was never a church in the first place (body of believers which is what church means). Today the church is under the dispensation of this lawless grace of Paul and not the law of God. The church claims she loves God but has yet refused to keep his commandments as he demanded from all those who love him [Joh 14:15].
- The church says we are now to keep a new law under this dispensation of the grace of the New Covenant but John says "NO, there is no new law for we are still required to keep the old one (the Mosaic Law but in its fulfilled state) [1 Jn 2:7; 2:24]".
The church today is lawless. This is exactly why the Messiah said that these people reverence him with their lips alone but their hearts are far from him [Mat 15:8]. The church today is lawless. This is why there are too many denominations of churches today which think they all worship one God and all love each other, they actually all love each other enough to claim that they are all one but do not love each other enough to actually merge to really become one- talk about hypocrisy. The Jews wanted to be left alone and so they killed the messiah but the church rather replaced him with Paul.
Paul later proceeded to steal Peter's calling claiming that he is the apostle to the gentiles [Rom 11:13; 1 Ti 2:7; against the very will of God which instructed that it was by Peter's mouth that the gentiles should hear the gospel [Acts 15:7] (speaking about the revelation God gave him in his dream [Acts 10:1-48; 11:1-18]). So we ask the church, who do you say is the apostle to the gentiles, Paul or Peter?
7Paul the deceiver introduces his own unGodly laws by deceit
Paul says the law is fair and right but yet he will not be brought under the power of any [1 Co 6:12], he preaches right here and in your face that all things are permissible (i.e. all things are allowed). This right here is the indirect way of saying lawlessness is allowed. Having confessed not to bring himself under the power of any law and that all things are allowed for him, he further proceeded to create his own laws, for of course, this is allowed for him.
- Paul calls the gospel of the kingdom
- Paul declares that man is justified by faith alone [Gal 2:16; 3:11] against the words of Christ [Joh 14:15] and of James [Jas 2:20].
- Paul says that Abraham was justified by faith alone [Rom 4:2-3] against the words of James- the very brother of the Messiah [Jas 2:21].
- Paul claims that circumcision profits nothing [Gal 5:1-6; 1 Co 7:18-19] but yet cowardly went ahead to circumcise Timotheus [Acts 16:1-3] for fear of the Jews who accused him of blasphemy.
- Paul subjects the keeping of the Sabbath day to personal opinion against the word of God [Col 3:16]. If the apostles and disciples were still keeping Saturday as the Sabbath day and worshipping on that day [Luk 23:56], who then abolished the Sabbath day worship and who changed the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday? Paul and the church did all these.
- Paul also abolishes the holy days, what is referred to here as holy days are specifically God’s feast days commanded for us believers to keep [Lev 23:1-44], today the church has replaced God’s feasts such as Passover, festival of the unleavened bread, Pentecost etc. with pagan festivals like Christmas, Easter and the rest because they are following after Paul and not Christ. Oh yes- Christmas and Easter are pagan to their core. You read that right.
If the feasts/holy days have been really abolished, how is it possible that Christ himself will yet keep them with us in his coming millennial reign [Isa 66:23-24]? Is the church trying to tell us that God who is the same yesterday, today and forever, gave us his feast laws only to pause them for a while in the church age and then resume them again in Christ’s millennial reign? Does that sound to you like a thing the unchangeable God will do? Indeed, some Christians are just hearing about the feasts of God for the very first time, and even those who knew about the feasts are just hearing for the first time that we are still required to keep them even as the apostles did after Christ died and as Jesus will do after his second coming, so much for walking after the footsteps of Paul.
- Paul urges us to eat all food, clean and unclean as long as we do it with thanksgiving and prayer [1 Ti 4:4-5] against the very word of God [Lev 11:1-47].
- Paul decrees that it is better to be unmarried than be married [1 Co 7:38] against the very word of God [Gen 2:18; Pro 18:22].
- Paul obviously hates women decreeing that it is not only forbidden but a shameful thing for women to speak in the house of God [1 Co 14:34-36]. After the Bible (BBPPO) had clearly revealed that it has always been lawful to have female prophetesses who can even lead a nation [Jdg 4:4; Exo 15:20; 2 Ki 22:14]. How could these women have been prophetesses and yet not have been allowed to speak or prophesy in the house of the Lord? Ironically, we have women who today claim they are Pastors and know their Bibles very well and they go ahead to preach and teach in church honoring Paul who clearly dishonors them. I ask the female ministers, do you think Paul will be happy with the fact that you all are preaching and teaching in the church today? Think about that for a second.
.Declaring that the gospel was committed to his trust [1 Ti 1:11],
.And also going ahead to curse anyone who preaches a gospel different from his own [Gal 1:8; 1:9].
But take note that even Christ himself never for once called the gospel of the kingdom his own gospel and the real apostles did not dare to do as Paul had done even for once, neither did Christ ever teach us to swear or curse like Paul has cursed [Mat 5:34; 5:44], is it not clear already that Paul had no respect for the Messiah and had personalized the gospel of God's own kingdom?
8Christ already did warn us about Paul
Christ cautioned us saying: "take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. [Mar 13:23]". Yes, Christ told us all things and even the truth about Paul is inclusive of this all things we are talking about, but what he told us about Paul will be very hard for Bible readers to see until they realize that indeed, "Christ never taught anything without using parables [Mat 13:34]". Christ told us the truth about Paul, in parables.
- Christ warns us not to believe anyone who says they saw him in the desert/wilderness [Mat 24:26]. Paul not only goes to Arabia (a wilderness area) after his conversion [Gal 1:17] but yet tells us that he got converted after he saw Christ on his way to Damascus (for those who don't know, the place immediately surrounding Damascus is a desert area/wilderness). Those who have ears should hear what the Spirit is saying.
- Christ warns us about the yeast of the Pharisees . Paul was an unrepentant Pharisee still referring to himself as a Pharisee even later in his life and after his dubious conversion [Phi 3:5] because he never really stopped being one [Acts 23:6]. Those who have ears should hear what the Spirit is saying.
- Paul is from the tribe of Benjamin [Rom 11:1], a tribe having the wolf as its insignia. Jacob cursed Benjamin to be a wolf in [Gen 49:27]. Christ eventually speaks about wolves in sheep clothing and these wolves being around the true believers [Mat 10:16]. Those who have ears should hear what the Spirit is saying.
- Christ says in [Rev 2:2] that the Ephesians have tested apostles and found them liars. And Paul is known to start a church in Ephesus [Acts 18:19; 20:16-18; Eph 1:1]. Those who have ears should hear what the Spirit is saying.
- Christ rebukes a woman from Thyatira called Jezebel who taught false doctrines causing the people to commit idolatry (fornication and adultery are both symbolic terms for idol worship as used by scripture) by eating foods sacrificed to idols [Rev 2:18-24] and Paul who himself teaches that eating foods sacrificed to idols is okay on some conditions [1 Co 8:1-13; 10:19, 25-33] baptizes a rich woman from Thyatira [Acts 16:14-15]. Those who have ears should hear what the Spirit is saying.
- Christ said the Jews reject him who has come in his Father’s name but will accept another who will come in his own name . Paul comes along and says that "the world has been crucified unto himself and himself unto the world", thereby making himself the Christ [Gal 6:14]. Those who have ears should hear what the Spirit is saying.
Christ never taught the people without a parable and he gave his reason for doing this, he said it was because, "seeing, the people saw not and hearing, they heard not neither do they understand. [Mat 13:13]". But can you see? Can you hear very well? Do you have understanding? If the last point above doesn’t open your eyes to make you see, hear and understand, then nothing will.
94 reasons why you may have fallen for Paul’s deceit
- You thought just because all scripture were written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it therefore means that all scripture were compiled by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit too. This is a wrong thinking.
- Because of point 1 above, it became hard for you to see the doctrinal contradiction presented by Paul as imputed into the Bible.
- Paul further strengthened your confusion regarding the origin of the Bible by asking you not to examine the fruits of men, try the spirit or judge anything to know the spirit behind them but wait till Jesus comes [1 Co 4:5] against the very words of the Lord in [1 Jo 4:1; Mat 7:15-16; 24:4-5; Deu 13:1-5; Rev 2:2].
This is the very reason why anyone from brethren to pope will fall for Paul, the refusal to study and test him like John instructed in [1 Jo 4:1] and like the Christ himself instructed in [Mat 7:16, 20] but blindly believing in him out of fear of not maybe touching the Lord’s anointed and doing his prophets no arm. For anyone who studies Paul cannot escape discovering his deceitfulness.
- Lastly, you may have fallen for Paul’s deceit because Paul actually spoke with 3 different conflicting spirits that consequently created in your understanding, a confusion:
1Paul did not only speak lies by the spirit of the devil to instill in us deception saying:
- "We are no longer under the law but now under grace" [Rom 6:14].
- And that "let no man judge you in respect of a holy day" [Col 3:16].
- And also saying that "for now we see through a glass and know in part" [1 Co 13:12] (implying that we shouldn’t become too conclusive about spiritual matters just like the church is adhering to and consequently dying by today).
2Paul also spoke truth too by the spirit of God to instill in us righteousness saying:
- But shall we continue to sin because we are not under the law but under grace? God forbid [Rom 6:15] (if Paul says we are no longer under the law but under grace but then turns around to say we are not to continue sinning for this reason, then he has just confused you with a hyperbole. It’s like saying something is black-white. It doesn’t make practical sense. The truth is that sin is the transgression of the law just like John taught [1 Jn 3:4] and so if Paul says we are not to continue sinning just because we are now under grace, he is actually telling us that "even in grace, the law should be kept". You see the trick? This is how Paul mixes truth with deception just to cause confusion in our understanding. He does this so often that we do not have enough time here to elaborate on them all.
- Paul also spoke truth too by the spirit of God to instill in us righteousness by saying I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem [Acts 18:21]. He said this right after making the keeping of the feast optional mind you.
- Paul also spoke truth too by the spirit of God to instill in us righteousness by saying "Study to show yourself approved…rightly dividing the word of truth [2 Ti 2:15]", (the Paul who once said we see in part turns around and says here that we should study so as to be able to divide truth from lies. Another trick. But it's a good trick nevertheless. We are presently doing what Paul admonished us to do right? We are studying him.
3And lastly, Paul spoke by his own spirit as a confessor as if to open our eyes to realise who he really was- saying:
- "I speak not after the Lord but as a fool [2 Co 11:17-31]." Good we can see that.
- "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner [Rom 3:7]." (Can you make sense of what Paul is saying here)?
- "For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve [Acts 27:23]." (Can you make sense of what Paul is saying here, is he serving an angel or is he serving God? tricky right?)
If you had understood the 3 conflicting spirits by which Paul spoke, you would have immediately realized his crookedness.
10Your religion is Paulanity and not
As you can now see, the church does not follow Christ or his 12 appointed apostles but follow Paul. Evidence of this is seen in the fact that majority of the errors of Christianity (mostly incurred by the acceptance of Paul as an apostle) cannot be confidently justified and backed up by the writings of the 12 apostles but by only those of Paul. The doctrines of the church are doctrines of Paul ONLY, not those of the Messiah and his 12 apostles.
Some of these doctrines we speak about are as follows:
- The gospel (the law):
- The calendar (the Messiah’s only sign of deity):
- Tongue speaking:
- The nature of God and of man:
- The rapture:
The church keeps no law as the apostles in the New Covenant (as activated after Christ had resurrected) kept. Only Paul taught to do this.
The church believes in an apostleship (of unlimited number of members) not by Christ’s direct selection or of Peter’s qualification. Only Paul taught this.
The church believes the Messiah died on a Friday evening and rose the next Sunday morning rather than him spending 3 days and 3 nights only like he said he would. The church is on its own with this one; Paul has nothing to do with this.
The church believes that one only receives the indwelling Holy Spirit at a special Holy Ghost baptism rather than practically before or during water baptism and also that speaking in tongues is the one evidence that proves this reality. The church is on its own with this one; Paul has nothing to do with this.
The church believes in a tongue speaking not of real understandable languages but of gibberish (thereby needing an interpreter) and one not spoken to edify the body of Christ but self, other than a tongue speaking of real world languages needing no interpreter to decode it and one spoken to edify the body of Christ. Only Paul taught this.
The church believes that God is a body of 3 persons (the trinity) and that man (created in God’s image) is consequently tripartite rather than believing the truth- that God is one. The church is on its own with this one; Paul has nothing to do with this.
The church believes in a rapture that entails the taking up of the entire church- at once, rather than the taking of a selected particular few- at intervals. Only Paul taught this.
The church believes that believers are mandated to pay tithes (of money only rather than agricultural products only). The church is on its own with this one; Paul has nothing to do with this.
As you will come to realize, it is safe to say that 50% of the greatest errors of today’s church are founded on the teachings of Paul, with the remainder on man’s vain traditions. This is why God’s last days awakened believers scattered all over the world say: the church follows Paul in Paulanity and not Christ in Christianity. Your religion is Paulanity because you give no regard to the teachings of the Messiah and his 12 apostles. If you insist that the above 8 stated errors of the church are not errors indeed, then you must be able to clarify the questions posed by the true church below. Until you are able to self-satisfactorily answer the questions below regarding the very many inconsistences of the teachings of today’s church, you cannot be considered sincere and a genuine shepherd by The Most High and by his last days awakened believers.
28Simple questions about Christianity
for the Church to answer
- If the law has been abolished, what then did Christ mean when he said in [Mt 5:17] think not that I have come to abolish the law?
- Scripture says that the Father will magnify the law [Isa 42:21]; can the church explain to us exactly what this verse is talking about?
- If Christ abolished the law when he fulfilled it by his death and resurrection thereby immediately activating the New Covenant, how is it that the 12 apostles (in this New Covenant dispensation) yet were keeping the law?
- If the Mosaic Law has been abolished giving way to the new non-Mosaic Law of grace, how then can we say God is the same yesterday, today and forever?
- God made a covenant with Noah which is inclusive of the Mosaic Law-bound old covenant, not to destroy the earth with water anymore, and the sign of this covenant was a rainbow [Gen 9:13-17].
If Christ’s New Covenant abolishes the Old Covenant which is inclusive of Noah’s covenant, why do we still see the rainbow today? Can the church answer that?
- If the covenant with Abraham bound by the circumcision sign [Gen 17:11; Acts 7:8; Exo 31:17] has also been abolished in the Mosaic Law, why then does the church ironically still circumcise boys today? Is it that the church doesn’t even know what she is doing or what? Can the church help us clarify this?
- If not circumcising our boys is to break the Mosaic Law [Joh 7:23], why then does the church which still circumcises her boys claims the Mosaic Law has been abolished? Is it that the church doesn’t even know what it’s doing or what? Can the church help us clarify this?
- The former Abrahamic covenant is one signified by circumcision [Acts 7:8] and the later mosaic covenant is one signified by keeping the sabbath day [Exo 31:16-17; Ezek 20:12], yet not keeping circumcision which is a sign of a former covenant can break the entirety of the later mosaic covenant and law . Now the question is, how can rebelling against the former covenant break the later one if all these covenants are not indeed unified as one and are not all running simultaneously at the same time? How can rebelling against the former covenant possibly break the later one if the later mosaic covenant really did abolished the former Abrahamic one? Can the church answer this question?
- If after the death of the Messiah, an apostle could only be selected by the qualifications set down by the head Apostle- Peter [Mt 16:18], why is it then, that we take people who never even met Jesus today as Apostles? Or don’t we recognize the authority placed upon Peter by Jesus himself?
- If the scripture reveals that the Messiah will be cut off (killed) in the midst of the week , how then does Friday (the 6th day of the week) become the midst of the week when the Messiah was supposedly killed according to the church?
- If scripture says there is only one baptism , how then does the church explain the Holy Spirit baptism received after water baptism? Could it be that there is another Holy Spirit in which the church believes in?
- If the 7 men chosen to be laid hands upon (to impart in them the gift of speaking in tongues of course) in [Acts 6:3-5] were already filled with the Holy Spirit (of course from water baptism) before they were laid hands upon, how then does the church explain where these 7 Holy Spirit-filled men got their Holy Spirit from outside water baptism?
- If speaking in tongues is the only evidence that one has received the Holy Spirit, why then did the 12 Apostles not speak in tongues just after Christ blew in them the Holy Spirit in [Joh 20:22] but only after it came with power on the day of Pentecost [Acts 2:1-4]? Does it mean that the Apostles didn’t really receive the Holy Spirit in [Joh 20:22] but received something else?
- If the people whom the 12 Apostles spoke tongues to could hear for themselves what the Apostles were saying without needing any interpreter [Acts 2:8-11], why then can we not hear the tongues of today's tongue speakers and why do they specially need interpreters?
- If speaking in tongues could only be transferred by the hands of the 12 Apostles [Acts 8:18; 6:1-6; 8:5-17], how then did these Christians of today receive their own powers to speak in tongues?
- If the Holy Spirit is a different person from the Father, why doesn’t he have a personal name like the Father (Yahuah/Yaweh) and the son (Yahushua/Emmanuel/Jesus)?
- If the Holy Spirit is a different person from the Father, why then is he the only one excluded from all the greetings in the epistles of the head Apostle Peter [1 Pe 1:3; 2 Pe 1:2]?
- If the Holy Spirit is a different person from the Father, why then is he the only one excluded from all the greetings in the epistles of the man the church takes as the greatest Apostle- Paul [Rom 1:7; 1 Co 1:3; 2 Co 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; Php 1:2; Col 1:2; 1 Th 1:1; 2 Th 1:2; 1 Ti 1:2; 2 Ti 1:2; Tit 1:1; Php 1:3; Heb 1:1-2]?
If [2 Co 3:14-16] says: "But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty".
And the church says: the Holy Spirit is not the spirit of Jesus.
How then does the church answer this question?
- Since the veil is done away in Christ [2 Co 3:14] and he is the Lord [2 Co 3:16], is [2 Co 3:17] therefore referring to Jesus as the spirit of the Lord?
- If spirit and soul don’t refer to the same one thing and if man is a tripartite being because God himself is tripartite (instead of one being), then will the fact that the scripture reveals to us that Yahuah/Yaweh, the Father yet has a spirit and a soul [Mt 12:18], make us abandon our trinity of God doctrine now and add (soul) to (Father, son and Holy Spirit) so as to arrive at a Godhead of 4 persons? Are you awake yet?
- Who then is this man child caught up to heaven?
- And who are the remnants who gave glory to the Father after the great earthquake hit the land in the great tribulation [Rev 11:13]?
- If tithes were given to the Levite priests because they had no inheritance [Num 18:24] and to the poor because they had nothing [Deu 14:28-29; 16:12-15], why do Pastors with inheritances and even jobs today demand for tithes?
- If Pastors insist that they are the physical Levites of today, why then don’t they pay a tithe of the tithes they receive just as God demanded the Old Covenant Levite priests to do [Num 18:25-30]?
- If tithe is food and not money [Lev 27:30, 32; Deu 14:22; 2 Ch 31:5-6; Neh 13:12], why doesn’t the church collect food stuffs today as tithes but demand for money? Could it be so as to capture the income of both farmers and non-farmers thereby maximizing their income?
- If God himself has commanded that we should not add to or remove from his word according to [Deu 12:32], why then did the church change tithe from being food to money?
- If the church is not all interested in our money alone, why is the third time tithe (which cuts down the total tithe that comes into the church) [Deu 14:28-29; 16:12-15; Amo 4:4; Tobith 1:7-8] excluded from practice and the first time tithe (which brings the whole 10% of tithe) [Num 18:21-24] established? of course you as a brethren probably never knew that the tithes also went to the levites, widows, fatherless and the strangers and not really "all to the church". The church never taught you that right? they have probably been scaming you for how many years now?
- If the tithe of Abraham and Jacob were only voluntary [Gen 14:18-20] and [Gen 28:20-22] respectively and the only compulsory tithe is dependent on the Mosaic Law [Lev 27:30-34], a law the church believes has been abolished, why then still demand for tithes?
.The dietary laws [Acts 10:14]
.The feasts [Acts 18:21]
.The law of circumcision [Acts 21:21-24].
.If you answer no, then you disagree with these scriptures.
.If you answer yes, then you have just admitted that Jesus is the Holy Spirit.
If the rapture really refers to the taking of the entire church into heaven so they do not see the great tribulation, and the scripture refers to those who will be keeping the commandment of God even as they reverence Christ as Messiah (after the man child had been caught up to heaven [Rev 12:5] as the remnant [Rev 12:17].
The Bible (BBPPO) is today’s Garden of Eden. The father allowed the devil to corrupt his Edenic garden in the beginning and has allowed Paul to corrupt his scriptural garden today. So if you think God will always preserve his own the way you think so that the Bible couldn’t have possibly been corrupted under the watch of a God who had said he would preserve his word, then please think again. However, quoting [Mat 5:18; Isa 40:8; Psa 12:6-7; 1 Pet 1:25] as proof that God has promised to preserve his written word does not hold water because if it did and if it was practically impossible to alter the written word of God, God wouldn’t turn around and warn us against adding or subtracting from his written word would he? [Deu 4:2; 12:32; Pro 30:6; Rev 22:18-19], that's common sense isn't it? God indeed has not promised to preserve his written word but rather his spoken word [Psa 89:34; Num 23:19]. Like [Mat 5:18] has said, God’s preservation of his word is speaking about the fulfillment of his every spoken and written word and not the preservation of "his written word". Hello??? The church needs to get this.
The question now is, why would God permit his written word to be corrupted by Paul under his very watch? Why did God permit his Garden to be corrupted by the devil even under his watch? We need to wake up to the fact that God doesn’t always work the way we think he should- he works in mysterious ways. And one of those ways is what God’s true believers have revealed to you here.
- The reason why God allowed the devil into his garden was to test man to see what moral action man would take. Would man obey his commandment or not when tested by the devil?
- The reason why God allowed Paul into the Bible is to test the believers to see where their heart and loyalty really lies. Would the church obey his laws or not when tested by Paul?
Paul was a deceiver, Paul is the blindfold of Christianity and God’s last days awakened believers are now Christ-like and no longer Christian.
- If God could test our first parents (who were inclined to holiness) with both the forbidden tree and the devil in the garden.
- And could test Israel as a nation with the un-driven 8 wicked tribes in their own land [Jdg 2:20-23; 3:1-5].
- And could also test his only begotten son (who had no sin whatsoever in him) with the devil in the wilderness.
What then stops God from testing us (a fallen people inclined to sin) with Paul in the Bible? Are we above God’s law? Well both Paul and the church say yes, but what do you say?
TheTrueacademy © 2018 The only Copyright we have is that you copy it right | designed by bizbuuk
TheTrueacademy © 2018 The only Copyright we have is that you copy it right | designed by bizbuuk