Back to Home Page

Church Myths -

Church of Christ or Paul?
-June 23th 2005-

Church Myths Part 2


Are you a follower of Jesus Christ, or a disciple of Paul? Here is a question. What is the one thing that most Christians do, and if they don't do it, they feel guilty. The answer is go to church. Christians have been mind controlled into thinking that they must go to church to be a real Christian and to please God. Yet when people go to church, they never really learn anything about Christ Jesus and God. They sing a few happy songs, shake hands, and yell out "Amen!" But is this truly walking with God? To walk with God means we must learn from Him and this is not what is happening in the churches.

The churches of today are built upon the doctrines of Paul. So do we never question his writings and blindly follow him? What if I told you that you must believe everything I write in this article or be accursed forever. What if I were to tell you my authority comes from Jesus Christ who appeared to me in a vision while driving along the highway. What if I were to also say stay away from those that question my gospel. Well you would have this article in the delete bin in no time at all! Paul says the same things, and they give their lives to his every word, yet Paul has no regard for Jesus' teachings or the role of women in his churches.

Churches today are nothing more than social centers that should be called Jesus clubs. At the club you can socialize as well as be entertained by the best rock gospel and singing in town while the children are shuffled off to Sunday school. In church you can view the latest in women's fashion and hair styles. You can also sit back and listen to a warm and fuzzy sermon that makes you feel good. Much better than television. It is a happy world where people pretend to love one another while they chat over tea and cookies afterwards. All is well in the church Matrix as long as you never talk about deeper subject or bring up subjects like sin, repentance, hell, wrath, and judgment of God.

So who created the institutionalized church of today. Believe it or not it was Paul. Unlike the Apostles, he traveled the country establishing churches that were controlled and guided by Paul. With his letters he pontificated his views that were never to be questioned. In fact he states that if any other person other than him and his followers preach what was contrary to Paul's decrees and doctrines, they should be damned to hell, (Gal 1:8) Some feel that Paul was speaking for him and the Apostles as a whole, but this is not so. If you read Acts which was written by Paul's disciple Luke, you will then see that Paul had very little to do with the Apostles. Seldom did they ever come in contact. And as far as leadership was concerned, it was Paul who acted as a Pope in charge of the Gentile churches. Paul is the foundation of of the modern institutionalized church. The real church of Christ is made up all the believers and is not a building made of human hands. Christ is the head of this Church and not Paul.

In church do the sheep learn all about Jesus and what He instructs? Not as a rule. They are taught the gospel of Paul and not the gospel of Jesus. Well you may ask what is the difference. Well the main difference is that Jesus was God proclaiming the good news of the Kingdom. Jesus was to be our perfect example on how to live, yet Paul Paul in his letters tells us how to live. Jesus told us to follow Him alone, yet Paul says 1Co 4:16 "Wherefore I beseech (beg) you, be ye followers of me."

Jesus while on earth never instructed His disciples or the Apostles to go around and build churches. Why is because all believers are the true Church and Bride of Christ. Christianity is an organism and not an organization. Jesus never told anyone to start churches all over the country and then Lord over them with decrees that you see Paul do. Paul planted "his" churches and then pontificated over them through letters known as the Epistles. In these letters he instructs "his" churches on how to act, think, and do according to his endless instructions. When you read through Paul's dictates, you will soon notice that he never elaborates on the teachings of Jesus, but only on his endless commentaries of decrees. In fact he never builds upon the sayings of Christ and establishes his own teachings. No wonder he begs us to follow him! All he teaches about Jesus is Christ crucified. This fits in well with Catholic doctrine because they teach Christ crucified and in fact wear an idol of Christ crucified around their neck. Even satanists believe in a crucified Christ.

What Jesus taught and what Paul taught was two different things. Here is a few quick example. Jesus instructs us to feed the poor. Paul says, "For even when we were with you we gave you orders, saying, If any man does no work, let him not have food. For it has come to our ears that there are some among you whose behavior is uncontrolled, who do no work at all, but are over-interested in the business of others." 2Th 3:10 Jesus said to feed the poor. He did not say feed the poor unless they are over interested in other people's business. This is what Paul does. He pontificates endless rules of conduct, yet from the other side of his mouth he says we are free in Christ?

It is the Pope of Rome that instructs "his" church to be followers and imitators of himself. As a follower of Christ, I would NEVER tell some one to follow me. We follow Jesus only! Paul says,"Brothers, be imitators together of me, and mark those who walk this way, for you have us for a pattern." Phi 3:17 For the ones not following Paul, Paul says, "And I exhort you, brothers, to watch those making divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them." Rom 16:17 We see here that Paul tells his followers to avoid those who would disagree with his gospel of instructions. This is how religious cults operate. The religious leader lays down his decrees that his flock can never question. The leader can never be questioned or they will be snubbed by the rest of the followers (avoided). This is how the Jehovah's Witnesses operate. A cult leader says to follow after him and to never question his teaching. Paul takes it further by saying, "But even if we (Paul and his followers) or an angel from Heaven preach a gospel to you beside what we preached to you, let him be accursed (damned). Gal 1:8 Again, this is the same thing Jehovah's Witnesses say if members should dare to question their doctrine. Memebers that do are told htey will suffer untold horror from the the battle of Armageddon. Paul says you will go to hell for questioning his doctrine. This is the same man who preached love. Another meaning of accursed is excommunicated. Truly Paul was the Pope of his churches.

One of those that was on Paul's damned list was Jesus, the Apostles, and particularly James. Paul preached the heresy that we could be saved on the bases of faith alone without works. If we love God we will keep his commandments. Paul paints a picture of us being free from the law because of Jesus' sacrifice. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jesus came to fulfill the law and to empower us with His Holy Spirit so that we can keep the law. Yet Paul says, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds (works) of the law." Rom 3:28 Elsewhere he sates that God "...imputes righteousness without works." Rom 4:6 Paul is saying here that salvation is through faith alone and that we do not need works such as works repentance and works of righteousness. Jesus says, "And why do you call Me Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?" Luk 6:46

Paul goes on to preach that Jesus Christ was cursed of God. This is sheer heresy and demonic. Only the spirit of antichrist says Jesus was or is cursed."Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree..." (Gal 3:13) Was Jesus Christ accursed? Let us look at just one example of Paul manipulating scripture out of context to prove "his" doctrine.

"And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled." Deut 21:22,23 The context of this is that it is talking about criminals and has nothing to do with prophecy as Paul tries make it out to be. Many times Paul strips OT scripture out of context to prove his strange doctrine. But does he quote the words of Jesus to prove his point? Never.

According to Galations, James the brother of Jesus is cursed because he preaches "another gospel." Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by his works was made perfect?" (James 2:19-22)

"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." James 2:18-24 James was an Apostle of Christ and brother to Christ. He walked with the Lord for a number of years and was taught directly from Jesus Himself. Paul on the other hand studied with no man, and never walked with Jesus, and claimed he was given all knowledge in a quick vision given to him by the Lord. Paul's says, "...knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." Gal 2:16

Since James and Paul totally disagree, one of them could very well be a planted deceiver. Which one is it. Paul a "reformed" butcher of God's people who suddenly claimed that God had now been placed in charge of a new Gentile Christianity? Paul was a maverick that had nothing to do with the other Apostles who strongly denounced his lone doctrine of faith without works.  So how does Paul react to the Apostles. He reacts with intense condemnation of the Apostles. Let's look at what he says in Galatians My comments are in brackets:Gal 1:1-24

1 Paul, an apostle (never verified by the others) not from men (the Apostles who walked with Jesus) nor through man, (Paul refuses to learn from them) but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead,
2 and all the brethren who are with me
(his disciples Luke, Timothy and such) To the churches of Galatians:
6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,
(The Apostles preaching particularly James)
7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. (the Gospel of faith WITH works is a perversion of Paul's gospel)
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (accursed means "a thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and if an animal, to be slain; therefore, a person or thing doomed to destruction.")
9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. (At this point Paul has lashes out against the others to curse them for apposing his doctrine.)
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? (Does not care if the other Apostles agree or not)
Or do I seek to please men? (Does not wish to please the Apostles) For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. (Basically he is saying that the Epistles of John, Peter, and James is just words of men.)
12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Paul believes, and wants us to believe that he received all knowledge in a blinding flash of light while on the road to butcher more of God's people.) 13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it.
14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, (Here Paul brags and gloats) being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. (His intense ego now really shows).
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace,
16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood,
(It amazes me how Paul shows no remorse for what he had done)
17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. (Totally has nothing to do with the Apostles because they will have nothing to do with "his" doctrine)
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. (That's it? Only 15 days?)
19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother. (Who he no doubt singled out)
20 (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.)
So if we are to believe that Paul does not lie, then the Apostles are all liars and I refuse to believe that since they walked with Jesus and trained under him.

The problem is that Paul does lie. Here is one example.

"After this, king Agrippa, I did not disobey the heavenly vision. But to those first in Damascus, and Jerusalem, and to all the country of Judea, and to the nations, I made known the command to repent and to turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance Because of these things, having caught me in the temple, The Jews tried to kill me." Act 26:19-21

People read this and think what a fine Christian Paul was telling people to repent and suffered for it. Notice in this verse that he also preached works of the law (commandments). Again Paul speaks from both sides of his mouth. Now remember here Paul is almost killed by the Jews for preaching repentance. This is a blatent lie. Luke is a liar and so is Paul because Luke was a devout follower of Paul.

Act 21:27 And when the seven days were about to be completed, the Jews who were from Asia, having seen him in the temple, stirred up all the crowd and laid hands on him,
Act 21:28 crying out, Men, Israelites, help! This is the man who teaches all everywhere against the people and the Law and this place. And even he brought Greeks into the temple and has polluted this holy place.
Act 21:29 (For they had seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city before, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)
Act 21:30 And all the city was moved, and the people ran together. And laying hands on Paul, they drew him outside of the temple. And immediately the doors were shut.
Act 21:31 And as they were seeking to kill him, the news came to the chiliarch of the cohort, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar.
Act 21:32 He immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down to them. And seeing the chiliarch and the soldiers, they quit beating Paul.

We see here that Paul was preaching against the Law and works. The Jews were not trying to kill him for preaching repentace but for preaching against the Law and according to Acts 21:21, forsaking Moses. "But they have been told that you are teaching those who live among the Gentiles to disobey this Law. They claim that you are telling them not to circumcise their sons or to follow Jewish customs." As we all know Paul was against circumcision, yet Paul the hypocrite has Timothy circumcised! "...and Paul wanted him to go with them. But Paul first had him circumcised, because all the Jewish people around there knew that Timothy's father was Greek." Act 16:3

Conflicting Doctrine

 Let us say that both men James and Paul are here with us now. There is a man who sits in a bar getting drunk every night. He never goes home to his wife and kid's and often has affairs with the loose women of the bar. There is a Christian that comes into the bar and gives him a tract and tells him that he needs to repent and come to Jesus. The man cries and begs the Christian to pray with him. The man then claims that he is now born again. As the weeks go by he is still there in the bar. His children still go to bed hungry and his wife still waits up for him. Now is this man truly saved? What would James and Paul say? James would say NO. "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?" James 2:14

"But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?" James 2:20 James indicates here that if the man is truly saved, he will leave the bar, rebuild his relationship with his wife and be a good father to his children. He will have "works" to show his faith.

"But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness." Rom 4:5

"knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." Gal 2:16

According to Paul's doctrine, the man need not do anything. He can simply remain in the bar because he has faith in Jesus and the grace of God is upon him.  Paul also says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." Eph 2:9. As disciples of Christ, why would we be boast?  

James says, "But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe-- and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?" James 2:18-20

Paul preaches a gospel that is taught in all the churches today. It states that as long as you have Jesus you are saved. The works of true repentance are viewed as works of the law. Today because of Paul's teachings, repentance has become a foul word. More and more churches now preach love and unity. This is not too surprising since King James made sure that all of Paul's writings were included in the New Testament while filtering out other more valuable Epistles since it was the Catholic church that decided which sacred writings were of God and which weren't. Catholism is comfortable with Paul's writings because all they need is faith. Where are all the writings from the other Apostles? 

Paul preached faith without works, and yet most Christians have been held in bondage by his demands of strict obedience to his gospel. "But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered." 1 Cor 11:5-6 Here Paul's states that a disobedient woman are an offense. A woman that does not cover her head is just as bad as a woman that has her head shaved. At this time it was prostitutes that shaved their heads. Paul CLEARLY says here that a woman not covering her head is no better than a hooker.  Is this the "love" that Paul taught in Corinthians 13? Also look at 1 Cor 14:34-35

"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church." The word for "speak" means to speak as in normal speaking manner. It also can include preaching. Jesus would NEVER tell a woman to be silent and not to talk in church. Paul seems to rule over the churches he started with an iron hand. This was normal for Pharisees since women were considered to be not much better than a dog in their eyes. 

"And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence." 1 Tim 2:12 Notice the way he says "I" do not permit. He doesn't say God does not permit or the Lord does not permit, he say he does not permit! He cannot quote Jesus on this because Jesus' words and life did not suppress women. Paul also says to the Corinthians,

"Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate (follow) me." 1 Cor 4:15-16 (NIV)

This is very disturbing! First of all it is the Holy Spirit of Christ Himself that begets us and NOT Paul! Second, I follow Jesus Christ and imitate Him ALONE! Note too that Jesus clearly told us to, "call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matt 23:9

As for Paul's usage of Lucifer's favorite word "I" goes:
 "No other epistle writer in the New Testament wrote like Paul. This would be true in several ways, but one facet is of particular interest when we are considering how Paul views himself. It is his usage of personal pronouns that is second to none. In fact, when it comes to how often he uses personal pronouns like, "I", "me", "my", or "mine", his overall average in the epistles that are generally unquestioned as his is almost three times that of his next closest rival in the practice. Many if not most scholars today believe for a number of reasons that Paul did not write the book of Hebrews. One obvious fact is that in the other epistles credited to him Paul doesn't hesitate to identify himself along with his supposed credentials. The author of Hebrews is strangely silent on these matters. To date, the best guess as to who the author of Hebrews is would be Apollos, and it's only a guess. But Paul certainly couldn't be in the running as the author of Hebrews when one also considers the statistics on the personal pronoun usage. The author of Hebrews uses approximately 1.3 personal pronouns per thousand words of text. Paul's average comes in at about 18.2 per thousand! That is a 1300% increase." 

The Apostles build their doctrines on a foundation of Jesus' words and teachings, Paul builds upon his own arguments and reasoning and does not quote Jesus. What he does is to quote Old Testament scriptures out of context and manipulates them to build a case for his own personal doctrines. He cannot quote from Jesus because the Gospel of Christ conflicts with the gospel of Paul. Yet the Apostles have no problem quoting Jesus because their foundation is of rock and not sand.  

One example of scripture tampering can be found in Romans 3. It reads like it was all one quote from the Old Testament, yet it is a cut and paste job from several scriptures that have been taken out of context. Do we trust a man that alters scripture in such a fashion to prove his point? Paul does not focus on repentance and following Jesus, he focuses on his own gospel that he calls the Gospel of Christ. It focuses on the atonement of the cross and not the person of Jesus Christ. It does not focus on a relationship with Jesus but only on the atonement and a relationship with Paul himself. It replaces the teachings of Christ with Paul's pontificating. He tells us to follow him, to let him be a father to us, and to abide in his instructions as apposed to abiding in words of Christ. 

It would appear that like Judas, Paul infiltrated the circle of God's disciples/Apostles. "If you can't beat them, then join them." King James was one of the great leaders in the movement of institutionalized churches and thus was more than happy to fill the official government Bible with Paul's teachings. Like it or not, Paul started up churches only to lord over them with hundreds of his written instructions. He started, the Church of Rome would continue on with through the centuries. They would act as mediators between God and man while replacing Jesus Christ as our covering and head.

The thing that upsets me with Paul is that he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith." Rom 3:27

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Gal 2:16

Paul says over and over that we are saved by faith alone. In other words, you do not need to change your life because you have faith in Jesus. All the Apostles taught the opposite that you needed the work to prove you had faith. Well in the end everyone including Timothy left him to his own strange doctrine and had nothing further to do with him.

Act 21:27 "And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,"

Act 21:28 "Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place."

Act 21:29 "(For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesians, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)"

Act 21:30 "And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple: and forthwith the doors were shut."

Act 21:31 "And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar."

We clearly see here how Paul stirs the pot. Not only does he say the law of Moses is done away with, but he deliberately provokes the Jews by entering the Temple. Paul fully knows that he is just going to create hatred and trouble but doesn't seem to care. After all this he stands before King Agrippa and lies about what really took place!

Act 26:20-21 "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. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me."

No! They wanted to kill him for throwing Moses and the law out the window! Now when Paul is before Ananias, does Paul boldly and loudly proclaim the blood of Jesus Christ as a testimony and witness to to all? No. He becomes a coward and begins to turn the court to fighting against each other.

Act 23:6 "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."

Act 23:7 "And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided."

Act 23:8 "For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both."

Act 23:9 "And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God."

Act 23:10 "And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle."

When the chips were down, does Paul cry out that he is a follower of Jesus Christ? No. He boldly declares he is a Pharisee. You know as well as I do that Jesus called the Pharisees vipers and sons of hell!

Scripture is clear that Paul was shunned by the apostles and was never really accepted as a replacement over James. It was James that replaced Judas and not Paul. It was Peter that was to preach to the gentiles and not Paul. Yet Paul pushes his way in and starts up churches under him acting much like a pope as he sends them all letters of decree that they were follow. 1Co 4:16 "I call upon you, therefore, become ye followers of me."

Paul was not an Apostle

"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." Jhn 5:31 Paul bore witness of himself and and neither he nor his disciple, Luke, could provide the names of anybody who could confirm his vision.

"I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." Jhn 5:43. Paul came in his own name of by self-proclamation His coming was not predicted or prophesied by any biblical scripture, except the above passage.

"There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true." Jhn 5:32. The Bible says that all things must be confirmed by two or more witnesses. With Paul's conversion there were no witnesses to his great contact with the "light" of Jesus on the road to Damascus. The only witnesses were the members of his merry band of killers headed to round up more Christians. On the road Paul in Acts 9 says a light shone all around him and Jesus audibly spoke to him. Odd that the Apostles never directly heard God speak to them. Did you know that there are three versions of what happened with Paul, and all of them seriously conflict with each other! See:

Paul, blinded by the light, then sought out a man named Ananias who received a dream from the Lord about Paul. Ananias then lays hands on Paul and Paul receives his sight back. So what we see here is that Paul has only one witness and that is Ananias. Not where the plot thickens is that none of the Apostles received a dream or any word from the Lord about another Apostle being added. If in 1943 Hitler walked into to your church saying he found the Lord and wants to establish churches, would you believe him? Here we see the butcher of Tarsus do the same thing.

In the book of Revelation we see that there is only going to only be 12 Apostles. "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." Rev 21:14

"I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars." Rev 2:2

They are liars because there was to be only 12 Apostles. So is Paul a liar when he says he was a 13th Apostle? Yes he was because there is no such thing as 13 Apostles. Judas killed himself so there was only 11 Apostles. So who replaced Judas. I would say it was James the brother of Christ that replaced Judas and became the 12th Apostle.

"But other of the apostles saw I none, except James the Lord's brother." Gal 1:19

"Then he was seen by James; then by all the Apostles. And last of all, as by one whose birth was out of the right time, he was seen by me. For I am the least of the Apostles, having no right to be named an Apostle, because of my cruel attacks on the church of God." 1Co 15:7-9

It seems that Paul can't count very well. Paul's right hand man was Luke. Luke was a physician under Paul's ministry and wrote the book of Luke from second hand information of the life of Christ since Luke appears decades after the death of Jesus. Luke states that the Apostles chose Matthias as an Apostle. Since Luke was intensely faithful to Paul, he would not ever dare to say the Apostles chose James the brother of Jesus as a new Apostle. Why is because James apposed Paul's strange doctrine. While Luke attempts to hide the fact that James was chosen, Paul mistakenly admits it.

The Apostles knew Paul as a preying insect that had no remorse. So how is it that our Lord never informed them that a they were going to be approached by Paul who would be claiming to have a "new revelation" from God. Remember the Lord warns, "I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars." Rev 2:2

If Judas could infiltrate the body of Christ, why not Paul? Why would Satan just stop with Judas? What if Judas did not reveal who he was with a kiss to the Lord? What if Judas had lived and wrote letters to churches he founded. Would these churches be founded on Christ. On the surface yes, underneath there would be subtle heresy!

Paul reasons that because he could perform miracles that this was proof that he was an Apostle of Christ even when he never studied with Christ face to face when He was on the earth. He asks us to believe that he saw Jesus in the sky and that he was no longer the Nazi of Tarsus. This is what Paul uses to prove that he is an Apostle.

"Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." 2Co 12:12

In the end we are expected to take Paul's word that he is a 13th Apostle and trust his miracles. But Jesus says "For there shall arise false Christ's, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." Mat 24:24

"Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works? And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness!" Mat 7:22, 23

Wow did you catch that! Jesus is saying that the practicing of miracles is works of wickedness and evil. It is clear here that miracles are used for deception. Look at Benny Hinn. He like Paul wants us to believe that he is an Apostle of Christ because they create miracles, yet Jesus says not to trust miracles.

Paul of Babylon

Mystery Babylon is a religion of Babylon that revolved around mysteries and made them the foundation of faith. As with secret societies, the high priests would be the keepers of secret knowledge known as mysteries. If you serve the cult well, new mysteries would be revealed to you by the elders.


Through the Holy Spirit God reveals mysteries to His children freely and in abundance. "He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath." Mat 13:12,13. Jesus always preached openly and hid nothing from His sheep.

Part of the ancient religion of Babylon was speaking gibberish to their gods believing they were speaking mysteries. What Paul does is to create a religion of so called tongues of God. Often what happens today is that the churches will take occult practices, add the name "Jesus" to it, and then call these parctises Christian. Heavy metal rock music is one prime example. Jesus never spoke in tongues. He never instructed His followers to speak in tongues. None of the Apostles spoke in tongues. So why does Paul instruct his churches to and then brag that he speaks in tongues more than his followers? "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all." 1Cr 14:18

Speaking in tongues has always been a deep occult practice that still is practiced today by cults and satanists worldwide. Go to third world countries and you will see it practiced all the time by Shamans and witch doctors. Often they praise their gods by speaking or singing in tongues with their hands swaying back and forth to create a deeper trance.

The Apostles never wrote about tongues and never spoke in tongues. In the book of Acts written by Luke (Paul's disciple) talks about Peter endorsing the act. "And those of the circumcision, who believed (as many as came with Peter), were astonished because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on the nations also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, Can anyone forbid water that these, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we, should not be baptized?" Act 10:45-47 Remember Luke never knew Jesus and was a follower of Paul. He was also a Greek and not an Israelite. The Apostle Peter would of clearly seen this act of tongues as pagan and would never associate it with baptism! Luke lied about Matthias being an Apostle, and now he lies about Peter. Like they say, "Once a liar, always a liar!"

Luke in the book of Acts paints a picture of the Apostles being instructed to wait in Jerusalem for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. "And having met with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father which you heard from Me. For John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days from now." Act 1:4-5 So where does this come from?

"I indeed baptize you with water to repentance. But He who comes after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire; whose fan is in His hand, and He will cleanse His floor and gather His wheat into the storehouse; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." Mat 3:11,12

What is said by John here is that along with the Spirit they would be baptized in fire. Fire is always seen as judgment throughout all scripture, except in Acts where it is the Holy Spirit seen as flames of tongues over the Apostles heads. Now why do the Apostles in Acts wait for the Holy Spirit since they already had Him? "Then Jesus said to them again, Peace to you. As My Father has sent Me, even so I send you. And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit. Of whomever sins you remit, they are remitted to them. Of whomever sins you retain, they are retained." Joh 20:22,23

Notice that Jesus does not instruct them to perform miracles as seen in the last part of Mark's gospel which is commonly known to be a fabrication addition to the gospel. Also where does Luke get off trying to make what Jesus said as prophecy already fulfilled in Acts. This baptism of of spirit will not come until the Second Coming of Christ. "And you shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am Jehovah your God, and no one else; and My people shall never be ashamed. And it shall be afterward, I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh. And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy; your old men shall dream dreams; your young men shall see visions. And also I will pour out My Spirit on the slaves and on the slave women in those days. And I will show wonders in the heavens, and in the earth, blood and fire and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the coming of the great and awesome day of Jehovah. And it shall be, whoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be saved; for salvation shall be in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, as Jehovah has said, and in the remnant whom Jehovah shall call." Joe 2:28,32. All this did not take place in Jerusalem. The moon turning to blood is also found in the book of Revelation and is seen as a sign of the Second Coming.

Now back to mystery Babylon. As said the dispensing of secret knowledge is the foundation of Mystery Babylon. Revealing secret knowledge known as "mysteries" is not of God! Yet Paul sees nothing wrong with this.

"Behold, I speak a mystery to you; we shall not all fall asleep, but we shall all be changed." 1Co 15:5. Not even a hint that this knowledge came from the Lord. What it is Paul speaking Pharisee secret knowledge as the Pharisees were firm believers in the resurrection of the dead.

"If you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given to me toward you, that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I wrote before in few words, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)." Eph 3:2,4. Who does Paul think he is? This is pure Babylonian occultism of esoteric knowledge!

"And pray for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel," Eph 6:19. There is no mention here of anyone else having the knowledge of a secret gospel. Good thing Paul came along to explain the gospel since Jesus was unable to and needs Paul to do it. For decades I have studied the occult and the words of Paul make me shiver with uneasiness!

The Final Delusion

Yes I admit the topic of Paul is controversial but let's look at the real danger he represents. Paul says, "To the feeble, I was as one who is feeble, so that they might have salvation: I have been all things to all men, so that some at least might have salvation. " 1Co 9:22 This is a very shocking statement for Paul make. What he says here is that he is all things to all men. This is something Jesus would not ever say! Jesus was never all things to all men! This is pure ecumenical heresy. What this means if you preach to Catholics you become Catholic. Preach to satanists you become one.

With Paul's doctrine one is allowed to be what ever you want to be just as long you have Christ. Just as long as pedophile has faith he can continue on abusing young children since he is working out his salvation. Phil 2:12. A drunk can remain in the bar and drink because he has Jesus in his heart. Hey he has faith. No wonder the churches are chanting "judge not" he has Jesus!

Jesus does not ever once in scripture command us to invite Him into our hearts for salvation. As seen in part one He calls us to repent and do the works of salvation. We are called to keep His commandments (works). Also Jesus does not offer salvation to anyone. The premise of what He is saying is that if you are saved, then you will act a certain way. Its not that you have to act a certain way to be saved, you must act a certain way if you are saved. God calls His children out of the world through His son to repent from sin. In other words do the works befitting salvation. His sheep are being called out of this world through Jesus Christ.

Paul says we need not do the works of the law/commandments. We just need to have faith. Yes this is true. Paul spreads confusion though his teachings that has leads to  many denominations that have broken up the unity of Christ. Note that God establishes all things through two or more witnesses. Where are the witnesses to Paul's vision? Did any of the Apostles witness it? Did God tell the Apostles that a 13th Apostle would be added? Was there a prophecy? Did Jesus say there was coming a replacement for Himself? Why do the words of Christ conflict with only Paul's and non-of the other Apostles? Why are the Apostles expected to take the word of the butcher of Tarsus as he claimed to "see Jesus"? Benny Hinn and others have visions from God all the time. People take these men's word alone concerning their visions and follow them as a replacement for Christ.

Like it or not, Paul's self-absorbed teachings have replaced Christ's and Paul has become the foundation of the churches of today. The real danger of this is that we get the doctrine of tongues from Paul's teaching. Jesus never spoke in tongues, the Apostles never taught it, but Paul has dozens of verse on it. The only other time we see it preached is in the Gospel of Mark that has proven to be an addition to the original writing and therefore a fraud. Then there is the book of Acts written by Paul's disciple Luke where we are taught that even the Apostle Peter had to recognize the fact that tongues were a sign from God. In the book of Acts we see the Apostles waiting for the Holy Spirit which comes to them like tongues of fire. Fire in the Bible is always seen as judgment and never a blessing! And how is it that the Apostles wait for the baptism of the Holy Spirit when it was already given to them in John 20.

In the book of Acts we read "And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them." Act 2:3 Cloven tongues of fire? Where in scripture do we find in the Bible an example of the sate of being "cloven" seen as something good and holy? In the OT cloven is seen as unclean. "But these you shall not eat, of those which chew the cud, or of those that divide the cloven hoof: the camel, and the hare, and the rock badger, for they chew the cud, but do not divide the hoof. They are unclean to you." Deu 14:7

What we have here is two conflicting accounts of being given the Spirit. One account is from Luke a disciple of Paul who appeared decades after the death of Jesus and studied under Paul's ministry and not Jesus'. He never knew Jesus nor was he taught by Jesus. Also we have Paul that appears decades after Christ and hunted Christians down for execution and was given much authority from the Chief Priest. Paul never knew or studied under Jesus and claims his authority to a vision he had which was never confirmed by any reliable witnesses.

Now on the other hand we have a different version of Holy Spirit from the Apostle John. John studied under Christ's ministry and was taught by Jesus in person. He was also very much favored by Jesus. So in the end I would have to trust John's version of the story and call the whole tongues story in Acts a fabrication in order to bolster Paul's false doctrine of tongues.

So why is tongues such a big issue? Why because it is from Babylon and is not Christian in any stretch of the imagination. What it does in the churches is to open the door for new revelations through channeling. Bibles are left closed so the churches can receive so called messages from God. There is an ever growing apostasy that will manipulate and control the churches in to a new age of signs and wonders. Paul warns us of lying signs and wonders that will be used by the antichrist. I have to wonder if could it be that the two prophets of God seen in the book of Revelation will be seen as the false prophet and antichrist with tongues used to confirm. No wonder the world is seen rejoicing when they are killed.

Today tongues are often used to confirm every form of Christian paganism there is. They explain why tongues is gibberish by saying it is the language of angels. As mentioned Jesus never spoke in tongues nor did his Apostles dwell on it or teach it like Paul did. Also because the book of Acts was written by a devout disciple of Paul, I have to question all the so called birth of the church by the baptism of the Holy Spirt which had already been given in John chapter 20. I also question the validity of miracles found in Acts. Things like healing shaddows and cloths does not sound valid at all. Jesus never acted in such a manner when He healed the masses.

Acts appears to be a working manual for a modern new age church. Paul was not the father of the Apostlistic Church of Jesus Christ but the father of the modern corporate institutionalised chrurch system. It has little to do with the Bible and presents a warm fuzzy matrix for people who do not seek after God. It is now (with the help of Paul's scriptures), being transformed into a New Age Church of Babylon.

Paul also makes a great revelation in Romans 11 how through Christ's death the Gentiles have been grafted in to the root of Israel. The fact is that Abraham was a Gentile. So what is Paul trying to do in Romans 11? Note to that the term Jews does not mean Israel. All Israel is not just Jewish. The word Jew applies to the tribe of Judah and there are 12 Tribes of Israel. May I suggest that one take the time to do the research on this subject.

Paul talks about a Third Heaven in 2 Cor 12:2 "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven." In Jewish mysticism known as the Kabbalah, the Third Heaven is well known and refereed to as Ma'on. The Pharisees were well steeped into the black arts and Jesus called them the sons of hell. If Paul was truly converted he would have never mentioned the Third Heaven. As a Pharisee he knew full well what he was revealing Kabbalahistic magic.


Is there a Paul plot? The reader must decide, but he does appear to be a Pharisee infiltrating the original faith of the Apostles. He appears to pickup where Judas left off. He does have certain knowledge, but one must be very careful when one forms doctrines around his writings. Do we adhere to his doctrine on how to raise children when he had none of his own? Do we take advice from a man regarding the treatment of women when he was never married? Do we (unlike Jesus), demand that they wear head coverings in church or have their heads shaved and be silent (gr. without opinion) in the church of Paul. Do we become imitators and followers of Paul when he says he is all things to all people? Jesus was NEVER all things to all people. Christ was not a fake and stood for the truth. He did not become a drunk for drunk's sake nor a womanizer for men's sake. He demanded repentance and not just saying we have faith. Do we cast them out for asking un-educated and simple questions? Do we curse those to hell as Paul does for not believing the way we do? (Click here to hear Benny Hinn pronounce the same doctrine of damnation as Paul does in Galatians 1:8) Benny Hinn like Paul also claims authority by a vision given to him by Christ Jesus.)

The main danger that Paul brings to the Church is doctrines. Paul, unlike the Apostles, focuses on doctrines and not Christ. The Apostles focused on Jesus Christ. Because of Paul's endless dictation of double speak doctrines, no one can agree on what he is actually saying. Because of this, Paul's doctrines have created many denominations and has broken the unity of faith in Jesus Christ alone. If Paul was an Apostle of sent by God, then why would God desire to spread confusion though the body of Christ? Before Paul there was only one doctrine and one faith, and that was in Jesus Christ alone. Paul removes us from the simplicity found in Christ to endless doctrines of what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. There is much division in the body of Christ from a man in his own words says, "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." 1Co 14:33

If you desire advice for everyday problems, then why not read the book of Psalms Here we find real practical teaching and not self absorbed writings of a man obsessed with telling people what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. Nor will you find the word "I" used over and over again and listen to what the writer likes and dislikes. If you want teaching on salvation there is the Epistles of John. As also with the writings of Jude, James, and Peter. Here you do not find any pontification of doctrine because the Apostles realized that we are free in Christ and not under the bondage of Paul's endless detailed doctrine of his demands. God tells us that he will find him only when we search for Him with all our hearts. We can not do this if we search for Paul.

My question to all readers is this. Are you a follower and disciple of Jesus Christ, or a disciple of Paul? Sorry Paul. I am a follower of Jesus Christ and there is none other! Only He is my Savior!

"I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found themto be liars." Rev 2:2


-The End-

Must see link on Paul

Anti-churchanity links:

Related Articles:

The origins of Christianity and Judaism -

What the Early Church Really Believed

Paul or Jesus?

Paul and Ananias - You have to read this

Paul, James, and the Dead Sea Scrolls

The Excommunication of Paul

Paul, Apostle or Heretic?

The Synagogue of Satan

13 Apostles?

The Role of Women in Paul's Church



Paul the False Apostle

Is Paul a Liar

Paul the Coward

Did Peter Endorse Paul?

Who was the 12th Apostle?

Why the Apostles Rejected Paul

Who wrote the book of Hebrews

The Law was a Curse?

The Role of Women in Yahshua's Teachings

Paul was the Founder of Paulianity

Click here for complete list of Stargods articles