Questioning Paul

Chapter 4

part 3


Paul is displaying signs of the psychosis of schizophrenia, as well. There is a complete breakdown of rational thought processes in his writings. His arguments, even the best of them, are borderline insane. His emotional outbursts are atypical and inappropriate. His speech and thinking are disorganized. His antagonism toward Yahowsha’s Disciples screams paranoia – it’s most telling symptom.

Paul is even projecting bipolar tendencies, a mood disorder characterized by manic or prolonged periods of irritability. This manic expression of bipolar psychosis is evidenced by his extravagant claims, by his egotistical self-esteem, and by what’s known as the "pressure of speech." Here, the psychosis is present in his frenzied style, an approach that is cluttered and often unintelligible, tangential and unrelenting, all motivated by an urgency which is not apparent to the audience.

Therefore, when we compare what we are reading in Paul’s letters to the most common and telling symptoms of psychoses, we discover a near perfect match. It has become evident that the founder of the Christian religion was mentally ill.

And if not psychotic, then surely nauseating. This is making my stomach turn... "Because (gar) you put up with (anechomai – you accept as valid or true and forebear) someone who and something which (ei tis – whosoever and whatever (singular masculine)) makes you subservient, completely enslaving you (katadouloo umas – imposes their unrelenting authority over you), someone who and something which (ei tis – anyone and whatever) is exploitive (katesoiei – devouring and destructive, taking complete advantage by being divisive), someone who and something which (ei tis – anyone and whosoever) is controlling (lambano – grasps hold of and acquires, possesses and takes advantage of), someone who and something which (ei tis – anyone and whatever) is exalted (epairomai – is highly regarded), even someone who or something which (ei tis) flays the skin (dero) of your (umas) person (prosopon – being and head, frontal proximity, appearance, and presence)." (2 Corinthians 11:20)

Before I share why I’m especially troubled by this, let’s first consider the rendering proposed by the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear: "Endure for if some you enslaves thoroughly, if some eats up, if some receives, if some lifts up on, if some into face you beats." The reason for the wide variation is that ei, as a standalone concept, conveys "if," but when used in conjunction with an indefinite pronoun, ei tis becomes "whoever, whatever, anyone who, or whosoever." Also, while the verbs "katadouloo – makes subservient," "katesoiei – is exploitive and destructive," and "dero – flays the skin" are decidedly detrimental, "anechomai – put up with," "lambano – grasp hold of and control," and "epairomai – is exalted" can be good or bad depending upon the subject and context. Also, while prosopon means "face" in Greek, it also conveys "person, frontal appearance, outward presence, and a particular place in front of an individual demonstrative of a relationship." It is a compound of "pros – before and with regard to" and opt, a "visage or feature which allows one to be seen in a particular way."

Moving from grammar and etymology to content, Paul’s statement is very troubling for multiple reasons. It starts off suggesting that the Corinthians willingly accepted someone who and something which enslaved them, making them subservient. To this ill treatment the Corinthians allegedly endured, Paul added exploitation and control mechanisms. So what’s bothersome about this is when we return to Galatians, we will discover that Paul contends that Yahowah and His Torah are responsible for this abusive influence. He refers to them as "paidagogos – a pedagogue who instructs in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using strict, old-fashioned methods, with an overbearing demeanor as slave-trainer, being a harsh, arcane, and enslaving, taskmaster," in Galatians 3:4. Furthermore, in the context of history and Paul’s letters, apart from Yahowah and His Torah, there are no other candidates. None.

At this time the Greeks living in Corinth weren’t being enslaved, they weren’t being exploited or controlled, much less flayed, by anyone. They had become beloved and highly esteemed members of Roman society. But if you think that there was a political, religious, economic, or military presence in Corinth between 50 to 55 CE that was actually enslaving Greeks, forcing them to be subservient, that was exploiting and controlling them while savaging their bodies, then please share this history with me.

Recognizing how horrendous this statement and the one which follows becomes when we realize that Paul is calling Yahowah and His Torah enslaving, exploitive, destructive, controlling, and mutilating, I conducted an investigation to see if something else may have been afoot in Corinth at this time. But there was no Roman Legion garrisoned there. In fact, Corinth enjoyed a return to prominence during the 1st century CE. Paying homage to Poseidon, the Isthmian Games were recommenced, second in their fan appeal only to the Olympics. The isthmus put Corinth in control of two major harbors, both of which were booming, as well as in command of the most popular trade route between Asia and Rome. While much of Corinth had been torched by Rome in 146 BCE for being a member of the Achaean League, the Romans left the old marketplace and Apollo’s Temple intact. And then showing that bygones could be bygones, between 46 and 44 BCE, Julius Caesar used Roman capital to rebuild Corinth, naming the shining new metropolis "Corinth – the praise of Julius." All of the old temples were restored, even enlarged, while new shops and public buildings were constructed. The Romans rewarded this thriving metropolis with a grand 14,000-seat amphitheater and a combined agora forum edifice that was larger and more beautiful than any in Rome. Even new waterways were built to quench the growing city’s thirst. The population, which was almost entirely Greek, with a smattering of retired Romans, Phoenicians, and Phrygians, lived in what historians consider then to be the most beautiful, modern, and industrious community in the whole of Greece.

Further, there was a very small Jewish presence there. And they had no political or religious authority in what was an overtly pagan place. Roman law made it illegal for them to proselyte. So there is no rational way to attribute rabbis or their oral law into this equation.

Therefore, recognizing that the Pauline adversary could be none other than Yahowah and His Torah, the final atrocity becomes circumcision – which Paul sees as a cruel and counterproductive mutilation of the flesh. The symbol of the Covenant would become his primary foe. Therefore, set in the midst of this Corinthian lecture, and aware of what Paul has written in Galatians, the most rational interpretation of this train of thought is that Satan is suggesting through Paul that Yahowah is someone only a fool would accept.

The NASB published: "For you bear with anyone if he enslaves you, if he devours you, if he takes advantage of you, if he exalts himself, if he hits you in the face." Considering the fact that Paul will soon say that his enemies are "Hebrews, Yisra’elites, and descendants of Abraham" who ran afoul of him by promoting the merits of the Torah, this is clearly an attack on Yahowah’s witness and witnesses.

In his next statement, Sha’uwl is now saying that Yahowah and His Torah are an "atimia – disgrace," and that they are "disparaging and dishonorable." Rather than prescriptions for living, according to the pretend apostle, God’s guidance "astheneo – weakens" mankind, "incapacitating" people, while causing humanity to be "powerless." And the solution to this tragedy is "tolmao – to dare to become extremely" "aphrosyne – stupid, irrational and ignorant, thoughtless. If that isn’t psychotic and delusional, then Webster needs to redefine its terms.

"Relative to (kata) this disgrace and shame (atimia – this dishonorable approach, this vile ignominy and disparaging way), I say (lego), in this manner (os) that (oti) we (emeis) have been weakened and have become powerless (astheneo – we have become incapacitated and diseased, infirmed and feeble, through corruption and perversion).

But (de) in (en) this (o), whomsoever (an tis) might dare be so extreme (tolmao – may be so bold and fearless, defiantly go so far regardless of the opposition (present active subjunctive)) in (en) foolishness (aphrosyne – thoughtless ignorance, foolish folly without reflection or consideration, reckless stupidity, and rash senselessness and irrationality), I say (lego), I also (kayo) am extremely daring and bold in opposition (tolmao kago – have the courage to actually and actively defy (present active indicative))." (2 Corinthians 11:21)

If you think that the Creator of the universe, the Architect of life, the Author of the Towrah, the Father of the Covenant, and our Savior is a "disgrace," and that "the way" He provided for us to "approach" Him is "dishonorable and ignominious, disparaging" us, in addition to being "enslaving, exploitive, and controlling," then you may be aphrosyne. But better that than tolmao – or if you prefer English, psychotic and delusional.

So ladies and gentlemen, we now have Paul’s answer to God: ignore Him. Disregard His Towrah. Don’t think. Ignorance is bliss. Faith indeed.

You can almost hear him saying, "Sure, my opposition to God is senseless, and you would have to be an idiot to believe that I’m speaking for God when I am constantly contradicting and demeaning Him, but if you don’t think about any of this, none of it will bother you."

To be "bold and senseless," at the same time, is to be patriotic, to be resolutely religious, or to be a political zealot. This mantra reflects Machiavelli’s approach to power, where the ends justifies the means, where truth is irrelevant, and where daring in the extreme becomes the ultimate weapon.

The Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear renders Paul’s words in this fashion: "By dishonor I say as that we have weakened. In what but [n/a] some might dare in thoughtlessness I say dare also I." Also dealing with 2 Corinthians 11:21, the New American Standard Bible ignored "lego – I say" toward the beginning of this rather ignorant and irrational statement, and added "my," "must," "by comparison," and "else," as well as the parenthetical, without textual support. "To my shame I must say that we have been weak by comparison. But in whatever respect anyone else is bold (I speak in foolishness), I am just as bold myself."

Noticing the parenthetical, I am compelled to tell you that the NASB added "(I speak as if insane)" in the midst of Paul’s comments in the 23rd verse of 2nd Corinthians 11. And should you wonder, it is in the 22nd and 24th verses that Paul lists his adversaries who, as I’ve mentioned, are not-so-coincidently Satan’s foes: "Hebrews, Yisra’elites, the descendants of Abraham, and Yahuwdym (Jews)." Not only have Yahowah’s Chosen People been ensconced as Paul’s enemies, there is something very troubling about Paul’s continued focus on himself, his delusions and paranoia, rather than Yahowsha’.

Before we move on, note that "astheneo – we have become incapacitated and diseased, infirmed and feeble, weakened and powerless through corruption and perversion" is the verbal form of astheneia – something Paul will revel in and boast about. Here he is attributing the incapacitation borne of corruption to God and His Torah. But soon he will ascribe this condition to himself, to Satan, and to the Graces. It is one of the most astonishing and awkward juxtapositions ever recorded.

So now that Sha’uwl has openly acknowledged that he is more daring in his pursuit of stupidity than anyone, and that he is in bold opposition to evidence and reason, let’s examine his list of those whom we must assume are his foes, and thus irrational representatives of the truth...

"Are they (eisin – presently and actually existing as) Hebrews (Hebraios – a transliteration of the Hebrew ‘Ibry – a Realm Set Apart and a Place Beyond Passover), as am I (kayo – and likewise me)? Are they (eisin – presently and actually existing as) Israelites (Israelites – an adaptation and transliteration of the Hebrew Yisra’el – Individuals who Engage and Endure with God), as am I (kayo – and likewise me)? Are they (eisin – presently and actually existing as) the seed (sperma – the descendants and offspring) of Abraam (Abraam – a transliteration of ‘Abram – Uplifting Father (from ‘ab – father and ruwm – to uplift), as am I (kayo – and likewise me)?" (2 Corinthians 11:22)

As is the case with most duplicitous individuals, Sha’uwl wants to claim every scrap of legitimacy for himself, even when trying to undermine the very same sources he is claiming affiliation. It is as if he wants the reader to believe that since he is a Hebrew Yisra’elite, that it is somehow appropriate for him to discredit them. I suppose it is like some African Americans believing that it is excusable for them to refer to their race using the "N" word, while it would be considered hateful for someone outside their community to say it.

In this light, it is telling that Sha’uwl not only changed his Hebrew name to Paulos, which is of Latin origin, but also has chosen to disregard the name Yahowah gave to Abram after he responded to the terms of the Covenant: Abraham – Merciful and Enriching Father. It speaks volumes about Sha’uwl’s disrespect for all things Yahowah and His Covenant.

There is another aspect of this statement which is indeed troubling to those who are informed and rational. In Galatians, Paul’s first letter, he initiates his assault against the Torah by stating in 3:16 that the "seed" of Abraham was singular, and that it thereby referred exclusively to "Christos," thereby excluding all other descendants of Abraham, and thus the Hebrews and Yisra’elites – and by implication, the Torah. But now, he has expressly stated that he, himself, is the "seed of Abraam." This either means that Paul is presenting himself as the "Christos," and thus as the Christian Messiah, or that he is an irrational hypocrite because by doing this he just undermined his premise for discarding the Torah.

This next "are they" should have been cataloged with the previous three. It is designed to undermine Hebrews, Yisra’elites, and the offspring of Abraham, disassociating them from Yahowsha’, so that their testimony can be disregarded.

"Are they (eisin – presently and actually existing as) servants running errands (diakonos – helpers, attendants, and ministers) for Christou (ΧΡΥ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey Ma’aseyah)?" (2 Corinthians 11:23)

And here is the payoff line, proving that our diagnosis of Paul is valid. This man who became both psychotic and delusional wrote:

"Having become insane (paraphroneo – having become deranged, completely irrational, and out of my mind, being senseless and devoid of understanding, manic and mad; from para – of, with, and from, and phroneo – to hold an opinion of one’s self regarding the inability to be perceptive and rational (scribed in the present tense this is his current status, in the active voice he is doing this to himself, in participle form he is defining himself as deranged using a verbal adjective, in the singular masculine this pertains to Paul alone, and in the nominative the verb should be written to be irrational or having become insane)), I speak (lalo – I currently, actively, and actually say (present active indicative) for the sake of, about, and beyond (hyper – for, of, and above) I (ego – me and myself) in (en – with) exceedingly great works and extraordinary burdens (kopos perissoteros – labors beyond compare in abundance and superiority, but also beatings and bothersome difficulties beyond what others could bear) in (en – with) overwhelming imprisonment by an abundance of guards (phylake perissoteros – an exceedingly great number of prisons, jails, and posted guards, all beyond compare), in (en – with) extremely severe beatings and blows (plege hyperballontos – floggings and punishments beyond measure, a greater degree of wounds and sufferings than endured by anyone else, exceedingly severe plagues and diseases), in (en – with) death (thanatos – dying) many times (pollakis – often, again and again)." (2 Corinthians 11:23)

The man, who will admit to being demon-possessed thirteen sentences hence in this very letter, has now admitted to being insane – to being completely out of his mind. And to prove it, he is now hallucinating. Paul has lost all touch with reality. He has become the very definition of psychotic.

So how is it that the ravings of this madman have become the basis of the world’s most popular religion? How is it that billions believe him, even when he contradicts and demeans God? Why would anyone in their right mind consider this rubbish to be Scripture?

While Paulos will soon blame Satan for all of his foibles, including being beaten and guarded, at this point in his narrative, he would like us to believe that it was all the fault of those dastardly Jews. Satan’s enemy had become Paul’s foe. They had made him crazy and then they had excessively burdened him, constantly imprisoning him, savagely beating him, only to kill him over and over again – well, that is if you’re prone to believe Paul. However, if you prefer sanity, Yahuwdym (Jews) did not have the authority nor the inclination to do any of these things in Corinth, Thessalonica, Galatia, Rome, Damascus, Tarsus, or any of the other places Paulos traveled, proving once again that the founder of the Christian religion was now delusional. And if you would prefer simple logic over history, anyone who claims to have been killed often, as in many times, might not be entirely sane.

While I’ve had more than my share of near death experiences, having nearly lost my life seven times, boasting about them would never occur to me. I’d much rather share the joy associated with living in Yah’s Covenant. And while I’ve taken more than my fair share of lumps for opposing Muhammad and Paul, the abuse I’ve endured pales in comparison to the satisfaction associated with sharing Yah’s Word. I’ve never once been anxious, not even during any of the many thousands of radio interviews. I’ve never wanted for anything that God did not provide. I’ve never felt alone. I have always recognized that I’ve gained vastly more than I’ve given. So based upon my personal experience, as someone devoted to conveying Yahowah’s message, it’s obvious to me that there is something dreadfully wrong with Paul.

Continuing to hallucinate, the delirious and deranged wannabe apostle wrote...

"By Yahuwdym (Ioudaios – a rather pathetic attempt to transliterate Yahuwdym – Related to Yah; further corrupted to Jews) five times, forty besides one, I received. (2C11:24) Three times I was beaten with sticks, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked. A night and a day (nychthemeron – for 24-hours), I was caused to drown in the depths (bythos – plunge to the bottom, sinking into the deep or abyss; from bythizo – sinking, plunging, and drowning as cause and consequence and bathos – deep and depth). (2C11:25)

Many times in perilous journeys, in dangerous rivers, in threats from bandits, from perilous kin, from dangerous races, in a threatening city, in perilous solitude, in a dangerous body of water, by pseudo brothers, (2C11:26) in bothersome and difficult work and in toilsome hardship, in constant sleeplessness, in prolonged, severe hunger and thirst, in frequently going without food, in cold and nakedness, (2C11:27) independently and by myself (choris – without help, apart, alone, disassociated, and separated, estranged without a relationship), besides the addition of the constant stopping to quell rebellions (o epistasis – of halting to suppress attacks and upheavals, of the pressure, concern, burden of authority, and disturbing hindrance associated with riotous mobs) of the extent of my daily anxiety and distracting care of all of the called-out assemblies. (2 Corinthians 11:28)

Yes, not only was Paulos killed multiple times, evidently facilitating his own personal resurrections, he was the first to cruise in a submarine, having spent twenty-four hours at the bottom of the sea. In that the maximum depth of the Aegean Sea is 11,624 feet just east of Crete, it’s easy to see why he put this remarkable feat on his resume.

Every reference to that which was perilous, dangerous, and threatening came from kindynos. It was repeated after journeys, rivers, bandits, kin, races, a city, solitude or perhaps a desert, and a body of water, which I suppose was a lake because he’d already mentioned his misfortune on the high seas. So maybe it’s just me, but if in addition to all of this, I had been overburdened, severely beaten, and killed multiple times, and had received thirty-nine lashes five times, had been attacked by sticks and stones, even shipwrecked, I might look for a better god. I realize that Yahowah isn’t a micromanager, but He protected the Children of Yisra’el when they were in the wilderness with Him. He fed them, quenched their thirst, and tended to their clothing. He bore their burdens, doing all of the heavy lifting Himself. He even quelled their rebellions. So it is obvious that the God of Yisra’el and Paulos’s god are remarkably different.

Pathetic as ever, the naked, emaciated, and mutilated apostle of an absentee god was annoyed because he had to "epistasis – constantly stop what he was doing to quell rebellions, to halt upheavals, and to suppress attacks from riotous mobs which became a disturbing hindrance." So the world’s most infamous punching bag must have simultaneously been a one-man army. And all the while there was anxiety over the distracting care of all of those assemblies. Quite simply, in his own mind, he was the most important and interesting man in the world. He was also demon possessed and insane, but who of us is perfect?

Rather than explaining Yahowsha’s journey through Passover and Unleavened Bread, and His suffering on these days to enable the Torah’s promises to facilitate our salvation, Paul was fixated on delineating his personal afflictions, both real and imagined, even though they are absolutely of no value to anyone, nor do they have any bearing on anyone’s salvation.

Moreover, based upon the fact that Paul described three different variations of what happened to him on the road to Damascus, that his accounting of his time thereafter as well as his depiction of the Yaruwshalaym Summit were all contradictory and inaccurate, the likelihood that Paul endured any of these things is remote. And yet it is hard to miss the intent: it appears as if Satan was auditioning Paul for the role of his Messiah.

Problems abound in his last statement. First among them: by using "parektos – in addition" and "choris – separately and estranged" in succession, we are compelled to render choris as "without any help," as in "independently, apart from any relationship," as opposed to translating it "besides." In other words, Paul isn’t saying "in addition besides," but instead, "in addition to being beaten up, and going to bed hungry and cold, I alone have borne the burden of suppressing riots and caring for all of the assemblies." So now, even the pretense of representing the real Ma’aseyah is gone. It is Paul against the world in addition to being against God.

It isn’t often that we are afforded a window into a deranged and psychotic mind, but Paul in addition to being insane was a megalomaniac, so he was ever ready to share his afflictions and affinities. And now he seems to be telling us that when he is empowered, Yahowah and His Torah are weakened, becoming incapacitated and impotent. And that so long as he isn’t shot down in flames, God’s credibility is questioned, with His Towrah becoming unbelievable as a result of having been slandered and scandalized.

"Who is weak and incapacitated (tis astheneo – what is powerless, incapable, and impotent by being corrupted and perverted) when I am not incapacitated nor weak (kai ouk astheneo)? Who stumbles, ceasing to be credible (tis skandalizomai – what is slandered and scandalized becoming unbelievable, even offensive, being trapped, distrusted and deserted) when I am not (kai ouk ego) myself destroyed in the fire (pyroomai – myself consumed by flames, burning with passion, greatly worried and distressed, tempted with desires, or aroused sexually, incensed or indignant)? (2C11:29) So since it is necessary to brag (ei kauchasthai dei) of my limitation and weakness (ta tes astheneia mou – of this infirmity, lack of insight, frailty, incompetence and inadequacy of mine), I will boast (astheneia – I will brag, glorifying myself)." (2 Corinthians 11:30)

Commenting upon 2 Corinthians 11:21, I alerted you to the fact that Paul would transition from attributing the process of astheneo, and thus the concept of astheneia, from God to himself. That is beginning here. Paul is saying that the negative aspects of astheneo / astheneia befall God when they are not attributed to him. Therefore, it is germane for you to realize that astheneo / astheneia depict: "perversions which have made us ill, inadequacies and infirmities caused by our corruptions, sicknesses borne of our dishonesty, weakness which results from our tendency to defile, to profane, and to dishonor that which is set apart, and incapacitation, weakness, and lack of insights derived from our willingness to pollute and sully the established conditions." And while I will prove the validity of this amplified definition, especially in the context of the work of the Ma’aseyah, when we consider 2 Corinthians 12:9 in concert with Satan’s influence on Sha’uwl’s life, and with the effect of the Graces, for now, just pause long enough to consider the implications of what this man just wrote in this light.

The implication is that Paul is suggesting that even bridled by Satan, even beaten and bruised by Jews, even starved and naked, even distracted by riotous mobs, even fighting off pesky thieves, even fording perilous rivers and dangerous waters, oh my, that he is still able to thwart God by perverting His testimony? And if these afflictions are not what he is bragging about overcoming to incapacitate the most trustworthy and noteworthy foe, then what and who is he boasting about?

The notion of glorifying oneself in association with God makes me nauseous. When individuals mistakenly credit something I’ve written with being somehow responsible for them coming to know Yah, I cringe. All I’m doing is conveying His message. It is His testimony, not mine, and He’s doing all of the work. I’m just along for the ride. So at most, I’m nothing more than a flawed implement, and I know it. So to brag about besting God is beyond my comprehension. It is beyond my capacity to understand why anyone would knowingly and purposefully try to slander and undermine the most brilliant, powerful, wonderful, loving, and generous individual in the universe. I love my Dad, and I’m grateful for everything He has done for me – especially since I’m so undeserving. This is therefore hard for me to deal with. It is insane.

And speaking of psychosis, after what we have just read, Paul’s next statement borders on schizophrenic.

"The God (o ΘΣ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey ‘elohym, the Almighty) and father (pater) of the Lord (tou ΚΥ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey ‘edon, the Upright One, or Yahowah’s name) Iesou (ΙΗΥ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey Yahowsha’, meaning Yahowah Saves) has known (oida – has actually and completely been aware of and has recognized and acknowledged) the one being (o on) praised and worthy of commendation (eulogetos – one being blessed; from eulogeo – with praiseworthy words and beneficial speech) throughout the universe and forever (eis tous aion) because (hoti) I absolutely cannot lie (ou pseudomai – could never deceive or mislead by speaking falsely or conveying anything that is not true)." (2 Corinthians 11:31)

While God is our Father, Yahowsha’ as the diminished corporeal manifestation of Yahowah is the antithesis of "the Lord." The Lord is Satan’s title because it describes his ambition.

That mistake acknowledged, in the midst of this braggadocios diatribe, and with Sha’uwl presenting himself as the source of universal and everlasting truth, the most rational conclusion is that Paulos is presenting himself as commendable and praiseworthy – the source of healing words and beneficial speech. As further affirmation, he has already told us that God knew him and chose him before he was born. As such, this may be Sha’uwl’s most presumptions, egotistical, and delusional statement thus far.

However, there may be a glimmer of truth in these words, especially when we recognize that Sha’uwl’s Lord is auditioning for the role of God. Through Paulos, Satan wants to father a different covenant by way of his new testament, thereby causing the existing one to be considered obsolete. And as the means to this madness, the Adversary needs to recast Yahowsha’ as his ally and Yahowah’s adversary. So what the Devil could not achieve by tempting Yahowsha’ in the wilderness, he would accomplish by having Paul claim that he was the lone authorized apostle for Iesou. This enabled him to change His identity, to corrupt His testimony, and to counterfeit every aspect of His life. By claiming to be the chosen one, the one whose words were praiseworthy and commendable, the one whose message was universal and eternal, and as the one who could never lie, for the gullible, it was mission accomplished. All Sha’uwl and his Lord had to do now was play the cards from the hand they had dealt to themselves.

As for Yahowsha’, He never seeks commendation or praise. His every inclination was to direct our reverence and esteem toward where it is deserved, which is toward the Father not the Son. So there is no rational way to see this as anything other than Paul not only claiming that his every word was eternally true, even beneficial, but also that he could never deceive nor mislead. Once those lies are ingested, believers begin to see his testimony as Scripture. Then it is mission accomplished. The Devil is worshipped as if he were God.

While every aspect of this premise is delusional, especially since Paul is an egregious liar and also insane, once the poison is ingested, the antidote, which is the Torah, is discarded. And with the remedy removed, the venom paralyzes each victim. For example, this very statement is irrational. In the midst of discrediting and invalidating God’s previous testimony, Paulos is claiming that this same unreliable source can be trusted to provide him with this stellar endorsement. Equally absurd, God whose testimony is to be forgotten is being presented as knowing and remembering, while the newly minted source of universal and everlasting truth is unaware and forgetful.

Only an insane man would say that he cannot lie. It is yet another telling sign of his insecurity. Those who suffer from this infirmity habitually deceive, all while claiming that they are "truth tellers." Paul is a classic case. And few things he said were more incriminating than what he had previously stated to this same audience: "And (kai) I became (ginomai) to the (tois) Jews (Ioudaios – a crude transliteration of Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yahowah) like (hos) Jews (Ioudaios) in order that (hina) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over (kerdaino) Jews (Ioudaios).

To those (tois) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), in such a way to show a weak relationship (hos) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), not being himself (me on autos) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), for the purpose that (hina) those under (tous hypo) Towrah (nomon) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over (kerdaino). (1C9:20)

To those (tois) Towrahless and thus without the Towrah (anomois), in such a way to show a weak relationship with (hos) Towrahless (anomois), not being (me on) Towrahless (anomois) of God (theou), to the contrary and making a contrast (alla), in the Torah (ennomos) of Christou (Christou – foolishly transliterated from the Greek as "Christ" and errantly used as if a name; from chrio – which speaks of the application of drugs and medicinal ointments) in order that (hina) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage and winning over (kerdaino) those without the Towrah (tous anomois). (1C9:21)

I came to exist (ginomai) to the (tois) unable and morally weak (asthenes), incapacitated and inadequate (asthenes), in order that (hina) those (tous) impotent and sick (asthenes) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over (kerdaino).

To everyone (tois pasin) I have become (ginomai) every kind of thing (panta) in order that (hina) surely by all means (pantos) some (tinas) I might save (sozo)." (1 Corinthians 9:20-22)

I would be remiss if I did not tell you that when Paul admitted to being "weak and sick" he used asthenes, the adjective variation of the verb astheneo and the noun astheneia. Therefore, he was admitting to being: "weak as a result of his corruptions and sick due to his perversions."

But we don’t have to turn back the clock to find a deliberate lie. What follows is not only inaccurate, it is both irrelevant and incongruous.

"In Damascus (en Damasko), the official appointed by (ethnarches – the governor with the royal authority of) King Aretas (tou basileus Areta) was posting guards against the city (phroureo ten polis) of Damascus (Damaskenon) to capture and arrest me (piazo me – to catch and seize me). (2C11:32) But through a small opening in a wall (kai dia thuridos – and by a diminutive aperture, tiny window, or little door) in a woven basket (en sargane – with a twine hamper), I was let down (chalao – I was lowered, released gradually by slackening the line) through a city wall (dia tou teichos) and I fled, escaping (kai ekpheugo – I ran away to avoid) the hands of him (tas cheir autou)." (2 Corinthians 11:33)

In Galatians 1:18, Paul wrote that three years transpired prior to his initial visit to Yaruwshalaim. He said that he traveled throughout Syria and Cilicia thereafter in 1:21. Then in Galatians 2:1, Paul stated that another fourteen years passed before he, Barnabas, and Titus went back to Yaruwshalaim for the summit with the Disciples Yahowchanan, Shim’own, and Ya’aqob. That meeting took place in 50 CE. King Aretas was assigned administration of Damascus no earlier than 37 CE. You do the math and subtract eighteen years from 50 CE and see if it doesn’t place the basket rescue in 32 CE, a year before Yahowsha’s fulfillment of the first four Miqra’ey, and at least five years before a Damascus official could have been appointed by Aretas. Moreover, there would be no reason that Sha’uwl would be sought out for arrest by anyone, much less by a Nabataean king, within days of his encounter with lightning bolt.

Further discrediting Sha’uwl’s testimony, in Acts 9:23-26, we were told that "Jews plotted together to do away with him," and that "their plot became known to Sha’uwl." These same Jews "were watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death," which is why "his disciples took him by night and let him down through the wall, lowering him in a basket." But now the foe is King Aretas, a Nabataean, and therefore not Jews.

Even more incriminating, Aretas would never have deployed Jewish guards. His daughter had married Herod Antipas, but when Herod divorced Phasaelis to take his brother’s wife, Aretas, to avenge his daughter’s honor, invaded Yahuwdah and defeated Herod, capturing the West Bank of the Jordan River. When Herod complained to Emperor Tiberius, he dispatched the governor of Syria to attack Aretas, an action which wasn’t actually carried out because of the emperor’s death in 37 CE. So, suffice it to say, there is no chance that Aretas had control over Syria, and thus Damascus, prior to 37 CE, and at the time, the last people he would have assisted would have been Jews. Therefore, by reviewing Aretas’s history, Paul’s evolving and conflicting stories are exposed as complete fabrications.

This means that Paul was not only a false prophet, he was unable to keep his own history straight. So much for the myth that he wasn’t able to lie.