Paul

| Index

In the murky waters of the new-covenant,
Paul and the unknown writer to the Hebrews circle for the kill...

For this reason I tell you:
people can be forgiven any sin and any evil thing they say;
but whoever says evil things against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
Anyone who says something against the Son of Man can be forgiven;
but whoever says something against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven - now or ever.
Matthew 12:31-32 GNT

Paul's Background

[5] circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; [6] as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. (Philippians 3:5-6 NRSV)

Points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are historical facts over which Paul had no control whatsoever. Paul's historical background is known to be true, not something he has falsified.

Being of the tribe of Benjamin, Paul had no legitimate historical claim to the Levitical Priesthood. So, in claiming he was a Pharisee, Paul was admitting membership of a gang which had discredited Moses and usurped his authority:

[1] Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
[2] “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. (Matthew 23:1-2 NIV)

Neither was Paul's zeal (point 6, above) something to his credit. In persecuting Jesus' followers, Paul was showing a single-minded commitment to the priesthood in the Order of the Synagogue of Satan:

[9] I know your afflictions and your poverty---yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. (Revelation 2:9 NIV)

[9] I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars---I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. (Revelation 3:9 NIV)

As Jesus' denunciation of the Pharisees and teachers of the law confirms (q.v.), Paul's claims to blameless righteousness under the law (point 7, above) are a total lie. Jesus goes so far as to warn the Jewish leaders that Moses, who advocated obedience to the Law, would eventually be their accuser:

[45] “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. [46] If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. [47] But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” (John 5:45-47 NIV)

Evaluating Paul's list of personal attributes is necessary. But that doesn't go far enough - more is required!

It is necessary to establish the context of his self-commendation.

Paul's list commences with historical facts which are known to be true. But then, having established a front of truth and integrity, he inserts content which can be shown to be nothing other than lies.

Consequently, Paul's self-aggrandisement becomes another instance of the half-truth paradigm.

Following this through, Paul's claim to the authority and guidance of the Lord Spirit (q.v.) will transform what started out as a half-truth paradigm into an instance of Paul's Paradigm of Evil.

Paul's Commission

[3] As he [Saul] neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. [4] He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” [5] “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. [6] “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” (Acts 9:3-6 NIV)

The Lord explains to Ananias what he is to do:

But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.” (Acts 9:15 NIV)

This was the Lord's explanation that Ananias was to convey to Paul.

Paul, before King Agrippa, provides a little more information:

[12] "With this in mind, I was traveling to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests, [13] when at midday along the road, your Excellency, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and my companions. [14] When we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.' [15] I asked, 'Who are you, Lord?' The Lord answered, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. [16] But get up and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and testify to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you." (Acts 26:12-16 NRSV)

Both Ananias' and Paul's accounts are consistent:

Just as the Gospel accounts are descriptive and free from pontification, Paul's function is, in like manner, to narrate events. Paul is to be an impartial observer reporting the facts.

When Paul carries out his commission, he is carrying out the Lord's orders:

[19] ...Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. [20] At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. [21] All those who heard him were astonished and asked, “Isn't he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn't he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?” [22] Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Messiah. (Acts 9:19b-22 NIV)

Paul, however, comes undone when he starts pontificating and laying down the law. He ceases to be an impartial witness to events, instead setting himself up as an authority on the Covenant and its Law.

Paul's Qualifications

Paul's Qualifications are restricted to the limitations imposed by his commission. In stepping outside the limitations of his commission, he forteits the help and support to which he was entitled under the terms of the Primary Contract.

Paul's new-covenant doctrine - unlike Moses' writings - was never endorsed by Jesus.

His claim to being an expert regarding the Covenant and its law was delusional. A serious case of self-deception which has had immeasurable fatal consequences ever since.

Paul's machinations have made a significant contribution to the destruction of David's Tent.

Paul's ineptitude

[Essay: The sheer ineptitude of Paul's new-covenant doctrine.]

Paul's negligence

We know that, prior to his conversion, Paul was a member of the House of Desolation:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" (Matthew 23:37-39 NIV)

Paul never asked the question because he claimed that the religious leaders were innocent of treachery because God's 'secret wisdom' was impossible to know at that time:

No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Corinthians 2:7-8 NIV)

Disbelief in Jesus was 'universal' within the ranks of the rulers of the Pharisees, as they themselves confirm:

[45] Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and the Pharisees, who asked them, “Why didn't you bring him in?”
[46] “No one ever spoke the way this man does,” the guards replied.
"You mean he has deceived you also?" the Pharisees retorted. 48 "Has any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? 49 No!^† But this mob that knows nothing of the law---there is a curse on them." (John 7:45-49 NIV)

[^† The Pharisees themselves confirm the truth of Jesus' condemnation of their order.]

Paul's incompetence

[Essay: Paul's incompetence.]

Paul's recklessness

[Essay: Paul's recklessness.]

Paul's blindness

Jesus poured oil of vitriol on the teachers of the law and the Pharisees:

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous.
...
33 "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" (Matthew 23:29,33 NIV)

And Jesus confirmed their guilt:

Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?"
41 Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.” (John 9:40-41 NIV)

Paul, on the other hand, is in denial:

No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Corinthians 2:7-8 NIV)

When we compare Paul's statement with what Jesus said, then Paul's blindness and error are only too apparent!

Paul contradicts Jesus' earlier condemnation of the experts in the law and the Pharisees (Matthew 23:29,33 NIV). It is a contradiction which forces the question: 'Who is lying, Paul or Jesus?'' To which there can only be but one answer. Since Jesus' statement predates that of Paul, we also confirm Paul's failure to learn about Jesus' teaching. We can state, without fear of contradiction, that Paul was never retrained as a teacher in the Law - compare:

He [Jesus] said to them, "Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old." (Matthew 13:52 NIV)

Had Paul retrained as a teacher of the Law, he would have brought forth the old treasure from Moses' version of the Covenant, together with the new treasure of Jesus' teaching and amendments.

And so, rather than confess his blindness and seek to put matters right, he annuls the Mosaic Contract and replaces it with his 'new covenant'. Paul then proceeds to build his 'doctrine', justifying it with the authority of a bogus knowledge and understanding of the Mosaic Contract.

Paul's religious education came from a corrupt priesthood destined for Death (Matthew 23:33 NIV). His failure to learn about Jesus from the Twelve (Galatians 1:15-19 NIV) was shameful. And his failure to question where he and the priesthood had gone wrong, amounted to culpable, professional negligence.

How can Paul justify his claim to being a master builder (1 Corinthians 3:10a NIV) when his doctrine of a 'new covenant' is predicated on a knowledge and understanding of the Mosaic Contract which warranted only Death?

Paul's Errors

[17] The Lord said to Moses, [18] “Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites and say to them: 'If any of you---whether an Israelite or a foreigner residing in Israel---presents a gift for a burnt offering to the Lord, either to fulfill a vow or as a freewill offering, [19] you must present a male without defect from the cattle, sheep or goats in order that it may be accepted on your behalf. [20] Do not bring anything with a defect, because it will not be accepted on your behalf. [21] When anyone brings from the herd or flock a fellowship offering to the Lord to fulfill a special vow or as a freewill offering, it must be without defect or blemish to be acceptable. (Leviticus 22:17-21 NIV)

“When you bring injured, lame or diseased animals and offer them as sacrifices, should I accept them from your hands?” says the Lord. [14] “Cursed is the cheat who has an acceptable male in his flock and vows to give it, but then sacrifices a blemished animal to the Lord. For I am a great king, ” says the Lord Almighty, “and my name is to be feared among the nations. (Malachi 1:13b-14 NIV)

As might be expected from a study of the Prime Axioms, blemished offerings will be rejected.

Paul's new-covenant doctrine is no less an offering than a goat or a lamb. However, Paul's new-covenant doctrine is not merely blemished; it is of s degree of evil which is sufficient to ensure its content be included in the terms of the Blacklist.

Since an offering need only be blemished for it to be rejected by the Lord, it is only necessary to show some errors in Paul's new-covenant doctrine for it too to be rejected. There is no requirement to provide an exhaustive list of his errors and confused thinking - the time would be better spent studying the Covenant!

In the light of this, there is perhaps little need to catalogue all Paul's errors. Here are a couple of instances.

The matter of original sin is such an obvious error that it could easily be left as a beginner's essay.

Paul's offensive treatment of Peter at Antioch was shameful. If his conduct was in the Jewish tradition (Google), then it is little wonder Jesus trashed their traditions (q.v.). Since Peter was unable to defend himself, we must speak for him and restore his honour, integrity, and authority.

Paul's denunciation of Peter

Peter had none of the advantages and education of Paul. The Jerusalem Council noted his lack of education:

[13] The members of the Council were amazed to see how bold Peter and John were and to learn that they were ordinary men of no education. They realized then that they had been companions of Jesus. (Acts 4:13 GNT)

Peter, one of the Twelve, was never able to defend himself against Paul's attack. It is time to redress the injustice and to restore Peter's honour, good name, and authority.

Prior to Paul's arrival

[The crucifixion of Christ took place in about 30 CE (FF Bruce).]

After Jesus ascended into Heaven, the Book of Acts shows us that Peter remained committed to the Covenant.

We can see where Peter was coming from. For, on the day of Pentecost he addresses the whole of Israel thus:

"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off---for all whom the Lord our God will call." (Acts 2:36-39 NIV)

Peter was addressing Israel (Acts 2:22a; Acts 2:36). The context was that of the amended Covenant - something which would have been understood by those present and therefore not requiring special mention. And within that context of the Covenant, Peter calls upon those present to repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus.

Peter may not have been aware of all the amendments to the Covenant following Jesus' sacrifice; nevertheless, he was on the right track in immediately updating the Covenant by declaring that Jesus was the Messiah promised of old.

So, in Acts 2:36-39, we see Peter encouraging the people to acknowledge Jesus and to return to the Fold. In other words, we may say that Peter was already working towards the prevention of the collapse of David's Tent!

Later on, Peter tried to draw the Gentile converts into the updated Covenant. We see Peter intuitively aware of the ongoing nature of the Covenant even though he was not perhaps aware of the detailed amendments beyond Jesus' life and sacrifice. But one would not have expected Peter to have been able to produce a detailed study of the amendments to the Covenant: after all, he was a fisherman by trade (Acts 4:5-7,13); he lacked education and training (Acts 4:13); and he was committed to carrying out the commission he had received from the Lord Jesus (Matthew 28:18-20). That commission was entirely within the context of the now amended Covenant; and within that context, Peter would have been aware of the Covenant requirement to draw Gentile converts into the fold (Isaiah 56:6-7 (Tanakh); thus Gentile-convert integration would result in one single Fold.

Enter Paul!

Enter Paul, a person who had encountered Jesus, but whose background and qualifications were those of the priesthood of the Synagogue of Satan.

To put it bluntly, Paul - although restored to Jewish citizenship - remained a closet priest in the Synagogue of Satan who lacked even the knowledge and understanding of a child who had successfully reached the Age of Discretion. Paul needed retraining in the Covenant, starting with the basic education given to a child.

But because Paul never questioned where he, his teachers, and his mentors had gone wrong (1 Corinthians 2:6-8), he remained a liability: the appearance of an apostle, but still a closet priest in the Synagogue of Satan. The stage was set for error, sin, and tragedy.

Paul attacks Peter at Antioch:

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
15 "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. 17 "If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19 For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" (Galatians 2:11-21 NIV)

Peter's fear of the circumcision group (Gal. 2:12) is very revealing. We see:

Paul's attack was unwarranted - an attack arising from a failure to correct his own corrupt understanding of the Covenant. The Torah requires one to, 'Reprove your kinsman but incur no guilt because of him' (Leviticus 19:17b (Tanakh)); but this entails wrongdoing on the part of one's kinsman, and a knowledge of right and wrong on the part of the one doing the reproving: blind Paul fails on both counts. Paul was blind as to what was right and what was wrong. And what is almost unforgivable is Paul's use of lies to put Peter down.

Paul, blinded by his own arrogance and ignorance and incompetence, rode roughshod over Peter. But it wasn't only Peter he attacked, for he attacked and destroyed the Covenant. Paul undermined the Lord Spirit, whose function is to encourage people to obey the Law. Furthermore, Paul succeeded in demolishing the truth of the witness of the Twelve which had taken place up until that point in time - something Paul never even considered.

And so, with the public humiliation of Peter, Paul was able to claim equality with the Twelve, if not leadership. Yet it was a pyrrhic victory, for Paul missed out on a golden opportunity to encourage Peter to explain himself and to speak about Jesus; and, with it, an opportunity to correct his own misunderstanding of the Covenant. It is not unreasonable to expect Paul - with his education, training, and background - to have had the wit to listen to Peter and to draw out from Peter what was there in the back of his mind^†.

[^† I used to teach and examine in the local branch of the BSAC (British Sub-Aqua Club). The viva was my preferred approach. It was important, when conducting an oral exam, to put people at ease, and to help those unused to such exams to express themselves in a coherent manner. I always preferred the viva to the written exam for it gave me the opportunity to discover, perhaps through rephrased or supplementary questions, if they really knew and understood the subject matter or not.]

What amount of damage did Paul do to Peter and the other Eleven? Although we may never know, the Lord knows. I sense - and this is a personal view - that we see evidence of damage in 1 Peter, chapter 3^‡, where Peter seems to be aping Paul in subscribing to the subjugation of wives (q.v.). To what extent, too, did Paul's annulment of the Covenant damage the mission of the Twelve?

[^† There is some doubt as to whether 1 Peter was actually written by Peter. However, it is quite possible that Silas (1 Peter 5:12) put Peter's words into well-styled and grammatical language.]

Before proceeding, a word of caution: the church assume that Paul knows what he's talking about. It is a false assumption since Paul's qualifications are those of a priest in the Synagogue of Satan, and whose doctrine is predicated on a falsification of the Covenant (see Paul's background).

In defence of Peter

Paul's false accusation of Peter is based on a false understanding of the Law:

"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.” (Galatians 2:15-16 NIV)

The Lord said that Daniel, Job, and Noah were 'righteous' (Ezekiel, chapter 14). The pronouncement of forgiveness (as in Leviticus, chapter 4) is always provisional where the living are concerned, since it is dependent on, amongst other things, sincerity and a correct understanding of the Covenant. Furthermore, the possibility exists of their crossing back from Life to Death at some future date. But in confirming the righteousness of Daniel, Job, and Noah - those who had died - the Lord is declaring their status as it will be on the Day of Judgement. Hence, Daniel, Job, and Noah had been justified through observance of the Law - though it must be emphasised that their obedience, unlike Paul's, was at the Spiritual Level.

Paul is necessarily wrong, since the Covenant and its Law specifically mentions Jesus, and looks ahead to his redeeming sacrifice: the representation of Jesus is indelibly written into the terms of the Covenant. Furthermore, this was fully understood by Moses_13C, who wrote about Jesus. It was also understood by Simeon at the time of Jesus' birth (Luke, chapter 2). Here is a schematic of the Mosaic Contract signing:

Fig.2: The Mosaic Covenant is signed.

We can see in Galatians 2:15-16a, just how ignorant Paul was concerning the Covenant. His ignorance is staggering; however, we shouldn't be surprised for he once had been an up-and-coming Pharisee in Israel. Galatians was written in about 48 AD (FF Bruce): in the intervening years following Jesus' ascension, Paul has learnt nothing about the Covenant; Paul remains locked in to an understanding and observance of the Covenant which merited only Death.

Paul states that no one will be justified by observing the Law (Gal. 2:16c). Yet what does God say?

The Scriptures reveal Paul's lie for, in Leviticus chapters 4 and 5 (and elsewhere in Scripture), the Lord God explains how - through obedience to the Law - people may find forgiveness. That forgiveness - as is the case today - amounts to the insertion of one's name in the Book of Life: for it is only those sinners whose names are in the Book of Life on the Day of Judgement, who will be forgiven:

If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15 NIV)

That pronouncement of forgiveness is only provisional since, as the Scriptures make clear, that obedience must come from the heart, and be accompanied by knowledge and understanding at the Spiritual Level. Furthermore, a person may subsequently fall by the wayside and cross back from Life to Death.

In answer to the circumcision group

Why the circumcision group were wrong to demand the circumcision of Gentile converts.

The Precedent

[44] While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.
[45] The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. [46] For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Then Peter said, [47] "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have."
[48] So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days. (Acts 10:44-48 NIV)

[Dissertation: Paul's negligence, incompetence, blindness, and assertion that he could see.]

Since the Spirit was poured out on uncircumcised Gentiles, there was no requirement for them to be physically circumcised (as demanded by the circumcision group). Baptism with the Spirit signified God's acceptance of the Gentile believers into the community of God's People at the Spiritual Level.

However, while their physical circumcision wasn't required, their spiritual circumcision, by integration into the Priesthood of Zion, was required; and they were required to bring up their children in the light of the amended Covenant.

There is a grim irony in the Lord's words to the 'circumcision':

Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer. (Deuteronomy 10:16 NIV)

The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. (Deuteronomy 30:6 NIV)

So, although Gentile converts are not required to be physically circumcised, they are to become circumcised at the Spiritual Level. They are to become integrated into the Covenant, and to bring up their children in the light of the amended Covenant. Unfortunately, this is held in abeyance pending restoration of David's fallen Tent - though there is nothing to stop immediate commitment in principle at the Spiritual Level!

Covenant integration.

Original Sin

Paul declares that Adam's wrongdoing brought Death to everyone:

For as in Adam all die (1 Corinthians 15:22a NIV)

Paul means spiritual as opposed to physical death, as can be seen from his immediate comparison of Adam with Christ:

so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22b NIV)

As if Jesus needs the puffery of such an evil comparison!

[But while it is true that mortal mankind remained mortal following the fall (Genesis 3:22-24 (Tanakh)), [spiritual] Death was the consequence of individual sin. Without the blessing of physical death, the Lord would not have been able to offer salvation to those who fell by the wayside. The fate of anyone who didn't fall into sin would not be affected by their mortality. Neither would mortality affect the fate of those children who died before reaching the Age of Discretion.]

Paul declares that, following the expulsion from the Garden, although sin remained ongoing in the world it was disregarded simply because there was no law:

...before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. (Romans 5:13 NIV)

Since, according to Paul, sin was disregarded during this period between expulsion from the Garden up until the giving of the Law, how does Paul explain how the Lord holds people to account for their sin?

The only way Paul can hold those people guilty is by resurrecting the concept of original sin - a concept angrily denounced by the Lord God at the time of Ezekiel_6C, some six hundred years earlier:

The word of the LORD came to me: 2 What do you mean by quoting this proverb upon the soil of Israel, “Parents eat sour grapes and their children's teeth are blunted”? 3 As I live—declares the Lord GOD—this proverb shall no longer be current among you in Israel. 4 Consider, all lives are Mine; the life of the parent and the life of the child are both Mine. The person who sins, only he shall die. (Ezekiel 18:1-4 (Tanakh))

Although outlawed by the Lord God, original sin was a teaching defiantly upheld by Paul's teachers:

“If this man were not from God, he could do nothing."
34 They answered him, "You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?" And they cast him out. (John 9:33-34 ESV)

Paul disregards the Lord God's teaching concerning original sin; instead, Paul reverts to the teaching he'd received at the hands of the Pharisees.

There is no confusion; there is no room for misunderstanding Paul's words:

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:18-19 NIV)

Paul clearly states that the wrongdoing of one person - namely Adam - made everyone guilty of wrongdoing.

Yet elsewhere, in his efforts to subjugate women, Paul states that it was, in fact, not the man but the woman who became a sinner!

[11] Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. [12] I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. [13] For Adam was formed first, then Eve; [14] and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Timothy 2:11-14 NRSV)

[Assignment: Discuss Paul's inconsistency. What are the implications?]

Since, according to Paul, everyone was necessarily guilty by reason of original sin, what purpose did the Law serve? Again, there is no room for misunderstanding, for Paul clearly states:

The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, (Romans 5:20 NIV)

Paul is saying that the Law was added in order that the magnitude of a person's sinfulness might be increased; Paul then concludes that the increase in the magnitude of sinfulness resulted in an increase in the magnitude of God's grace!

Paul - with reckless disregard for the Prime Axioms, God's standards, the Primary Contract, and God's House Rules - accuses God of deliberately increasing the magnitude of sinfulness by adding the Law. And he implies that God deliberately increased the amount of sin in the world for the aggrandisement of Himself and His Son: by adding the Law, God increased the amount of sin in the world, thereby inflating the 'unmerited favour' of Himself and His Son! God, a narcissist? I don't think so!

From the Book of Revelation, we learn that the Book of Life dates right back to the creation of the world:

Written from the creation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain (Revelation 13:8 NIV alternative translation)

This is confirmed by the necessary implication of Rev. 21:27:

Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life. (Revelation 21:27 NIV)

Since the Book of Life dates back to the creation of the world, and since the Book of Life is updated in real-time, then there must necessarily have been laws in operation which, if broken, resulted in the insertion of the sinner's name and wrongdoing in the Books of Record. Those laws would have had to include guidance as to how a sinner might find forgiveness. Okay, the Law wasn't as complex as it would become with the introduction of the Mosaic Contract; but it nevertheless existed in the context of its times. The insertion of one's name in the Book of Life is the endpoint of a sequence of events: the sinner breaks the current Law; the Lord inserts name and wrongdoing in the Books of Record; the sinner becomes aware of wrongdoing; the sinner repents and seeks forgiveness in accordance with the current laws; the Lord inserts name in the Book of Life (See: Prime Axioms; Primary Contract; Rescue Contract.). However, since the Book of Life is updated in real-time, then a name can subsequently be deleted if warranted. Because we haven't been made aware of all the laws which were in existence prior to the Mosaic Contract, that doesn't mean to say that those laws didn't exist. Job, for example, had a good grasp of God's laws^†!

[^† In the Book of Job, chapter 22, Eliphaz accuses Job of great wickedness and endless sins. Yet the truth of Job's righteousness can be seen in the Book of Job, chapter 29. It is a righteousness later confirmed by the Lord (Ezekiel, chapter 14).]

In attributing guilt to original sin, Paul is necessarily wrong. He has done that which was expressly forbidden by the Lord God:

The word of the LORD came to me: 2 What do you mean by quoting this proverb upon the soil of Israel, “Parents eat sour grapes and their children's teeth are blunted”? 3 As I live—declares the Lord GOD—this proverb shall no longer be current among you in Israel. (Ezekiel 18:1-3 et seq (Tanakh))

Having forbidden the concept of original sin, the Lord God explains why it is so wrong:

4 Consider, all lives are Mine; the life of the parent and the life of the child are both Mine. The person who sins, only he shall die (Ezekiel 18:4 et seq (Tanakh))

These words from the book of Ezekiel state a timeless truth; they are a confirmation - in so many words - of the existence of the Primary Contract (q.v.). Recall that the Primary Contract is designed to keep people from falling into sin and error: obedience to the Primary Contract will ensure that individuals are able to dwell with the Lord God in safety. However, the Primary Contract contains a penalty clause. Break the Primary Contract, and the consequence is spiritual death, permanent exclusion from God\s presence. The child - Eze. 18:4 - will not be tainted by the parent's evil; children will become accountable for their own actions, however, on reaching the Age of Discretion.

[Assignment: The Lord assigns guilt only on the basis of existential wrongdoing, and not on the expectation of wrongdoing. Discuss.]

Right and wrong were not only defined in the period prior to the Law, but were also understood. For example, the Lord God expected Cain to understand right and wrong, and the reason why his offering was unacceptable in God's sight:

Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.
6 Then the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it. (Genesis 4:2b-7 NIV)

The Lord God expects Cain to understand what is a difficult topic and to examine his motives and conduct.

Many years later, though still back in the mists of time, Job had a sound understanding of right and wrong. Not only did he instruct his children to sanctify themselves (ie, to seek God's forgiveness and to remain set apart for God's service), but he would offer up a burnt offering for each of them:

It was the custom of his sons to hold feasts, each on his set day in his own home. They would invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. 5 When a round of feast days was over, Job would send word to them to sanctify themselves, and, rising early in the morning, he would make burnt offerings, one for each of them; for Job thought, “Perhaps my children have sinned and blasphemed God in their thoughts.” This is what Job always used to do. (Job 1:4-5 (Tanakh))

Not only was Job aware of defiant sin, but he was also very aware of unintentional sin. The GNT conveys the underlying reason for his practise:

He always did this because he thought that one of them might have sinned by insulting God unintentionally. (Job 1:5b GNT)

We are not privy to everything God said to people during this interval before the formal declaration of the Law; we don't have the need to know. As Jesus expressed it in another context, we should mind our own business and pay attention to our own situation (cf, John 21:21-22). Though, having said that, there is sufficient information for us to infer a working knowledge of what went on, and to give us reassurance as to the consistency of the Covenant across the timeline.

With God's condemnation of original sin, Paul's comparison of Adam with Christ collapses into sin and error.

The Most High declares: "The person who sins, only he shall die" (Eze. 18:4b T). And we know, from the Rescue Contract, that Jesus' shed blood offers expiation for sin; it is a lifeline offered to everyone who falls into sin, should they so desire it.

The Lord God promises Jeremiah_7-6C that He will do away with this evil proverb, once and for all:

See, a time is coming—declares the LORD—when I will sow the House of Israel and the House of Judah with seed of men and seed of cattle; 28 and just as I was watchful over them to uproot and to pull down, to overthrow and to destroy and to bring disaster, so I will be watchful over them to build and to plant—declares the LORD. 29 In those days, they shall no longer say, “Parents have eaten sour grapes and children's teeth are blunted.” 30 But every one shall die for his own sins: whosoever eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be blunted (Jeremiah 31:27-30 et seq (Tanakh))

The Lord's condemnation of original sin totally destroys Paul's doctrine of the law and 'accountability and guilt through original sin'. Jer. 31:29-30 shows us that the doctrine of original sin has no future whatsoever: henceforth those who hold to that doctrine will be guilty of defiant sin.

Were original sin a valid concept, then the Pharisees words would have been true when they said,

34 They answered him, "You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?" And they cast him out. (John 9:34 ESV),

making salvation and redemption an impossibility.

The only way in which Jesus could avoid being contaminated by original sin would be by denying His humanity. But if you deny Jesus his humanity, then you deny His salvation since, with regard to the Primary Contract, only a sinless human being could provide the redemption price demanded by the penalty clause.

The concept of original sin leads Paul to claim that there will be a 'block salvation' of the Jews (Romans, chapter 11).

[Analysis: Romans, chapter 11.]

But what Paul conveniently overlooks and fails to mention is, how did those who died before the Mosaic Contract came into being find salvation? Since these people were not Jews, they did not fall within Paul's 'block salvation of the Jews'! So how - according to Paul - were people like Abel, Noah, and Job to find forgiveness?

To say that God can do as He likes, is hardly an answer pleasing to Him or helpful for us! It is the kind of crass dogma which comes from those committed to the new-covenant doctrine.

The reality is that the Most High - who is a party to the Covenant contract - is as bound by its terms as are the other parties. This is seen in the consideration of the Primary Contract of the Eden Covenant:

Fig.3: Primary Contract - Consideration.

Herefordshire Carol

The Herefordshire Carol is clearly built on Pauline doctrine:

[Critique: The Herefordshire Carol.]

Baptism ≡ adoption

[3] Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
[4] Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4 NRSV)

[12] when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:12 NRSV)

[18] For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, [19] in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, [20] because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
[21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:18-21 ESV)

[There is little doubt in my mind that the disciples were mislead by Paul to a greater or lesser extent. And here, in 1 Peter 3:18-21 ESV, is an instance which confirms it.]

Today, 15-Oct-2023, the sermon from St Salvator's, St Andrews Scotland, linked baptism with adoption.It's easy to see how this can come about! Total immersion signifies death to sin; emergence from the water then entails a life free from sin with the Lord Jesus. This, of course, is a nonsense!

Paul's blind ignorance with regard to baptism reveals his failure to understand sin, repentance, and forgiveness. Just another example of Paul's failure to live up to his own hype.

The reality is that baptism is a commitment, either to the Messianically Amended Covenant or, for those already committed to the Mosaic Covenant, as an acceptance and agreement to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Messianic Amendment.

Paul's Trump Card

Speaks truth confirmed by the Spirit:

I speak the truth in Christ---I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit--- (Romans 9:1 NIV)

Note the context of control by the indwelling Spirit is the possession of the mind of Christ (see following).

Possesses the mind of Christ:

"For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2:16 NIV)

Controlled by the Spirit:

The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; (Romans 8:6 NIV)

You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. (Romans 8:9 NIV)

Speaks words taught by the Spirit:

This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. (1 Corinthians 2:13 NIV)

Paul does not distort God's words:

Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2 NIV)

Paul writes with spiritual ink:

Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? 2 You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everybody. 3 You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. (2 Corinthians 3:1-3 NIV)

Paul's competence is God-given:

Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant---not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Corinthians 3:4-6 NIV)

Paul confirms ownership of his doctrine:

Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, (Romans 16:25 NIV)

Discussion

Careful study shows that Paul's trump cards, played above, amount to nothing more than self-endorsement. Unlike Moses, who was ringingly endorsed by Jesus (John 5:45-47), there is no such endorsement of Paul's claims by Jesus.

To view the Lord's words and the miracles He worked through Paul as conclusive evidence of the Lord's endorsement of Paul and his doctrine, would be a Fatal Mistake! Recall Paul's commission, which was to take Jesus' Name to the world, and to impartially report everything which Jesus said and did. Therefore, by adventuring into personal comment and theology, Paul is stepping outside the boundaries of his commission, and will be held to account for his error and wrongdoing. Paul's taking ownership of his doctrine confirms the absence of any endorsement by Jesus.

Paul's doctrine can be shown to be false and can be shown to have been attributed to the authority and guidance of the Lord Spirit. Necessarily, therefore, Paul's doctrine - which also includes that of the unknown writer to the Hebrews - has been Blacklisted.

Consequences

The epigraph, above, contains an uncompromising warning. So, while Paul - being God's agent in the destruction of the temple^† - may escape Death, those who hold to Paul's evil doctrine will not be so lucky.

[^† Having its origins here: [27] A ruin, a ruin, a ruin- I will make it! (Such has never occurred.) Until he comes whose right it is; to him I will give it. (Ezekiel 21:27 NRSV)]

Because Paul invokes the authority and guidance of the Lord Spirit for his evil doctrine, Paul's doctrine is Blacklisted. Necessarily, therefore, those who hold to doctrine which has been Blacklisted will - themselves - be Blacklisted.

[Dissertation with full analysis: Paul and his ineptitude, negligence, incompetence, recklessness, spiritual blindness, errors, and consequences.]

Avoidance

Determining one's commission

In order to discover one's commission, there must necessarily be discussion with the Lord.

There is a fall-back in the event that the Lord appears to be silent, and that is through an understanding of the commission given to the Priesthood of Zion - genuine Jewish citizens - within the Covenant framework.

Determining one's accountability

Where there is a specific commission from the Lord, then He will also detail its accountability. Again, the default accountability is that of the Priesthood of Zion.

[Essay: Commission and accountability form the basis for a contract between the Lord and the individual/group.]

Version: 15-Feb-2024