Questioning Paul

Chapter 4

part 5


It should be noted here that Satan’s Gratia is said to fulfill and satisfy as a result of incapacitating corruptions, while the same sickening perversions promoted by Paul reside with Christou. This not only equates the Ma’aseyah with a pagan deity, but also with Paul’s profanity. As a result, Satan’s fingerprints appeared on Paul’s letter when he wrote, speaking of the Lord: "And he has actually spoken this to me (kai eiphon moi), ‘It is sufficient and satisfactory for you, and you should be content to possess (arkeo soi) my (mou) Charis or Grace (Charis), because (gar) the supernatural ability and power (dynamis) in (en) weakness and perversion, sickness and corruption (astheneia), is fulfilling and complete, brought to fruition (teleo).’ Gladly (hedeos), therefore (oun), more willingly and readily (mallon) I will boast, glorifying myself (kauchaomai) in the (en tais) lack of insights and inadequacy derived from such perversions and corruptions (astheneia) of mine (mou) in order that (hina) it might take up residence (episkenoo) on me (epi eme) the (e) ability and power (dynamis) of the (tou) Christou (ΧΡΥ)." (2C12:9)

In other words, not only is Sha’uwl’s Christou a perverted corruption, he isn’t nearly as satisfying, nor are his fulfillments as relevant, as those of the Charis. And that means Paul’s Christou bears no resemblance to the actual Ma’aseyah.

While we have received more than we could have anticipated through this review of Paul’s correspondence with the Corinthians, let’s remain a little longer. It is not often we are invited to visit such insanity. And seldom is malignant malfeasance so prominently displayed as it is in these words.

"Therefore (dio – for this reason it should be self evident), I am pleased with and prefer, delighting in (eudokeo en – I enjoy and take pleasure in, I consider good and consent to) sickening perversions (astheneia – the inadequacies and infirmities caused by corruptions, illness borne of dishonesty, weakness which results from the tendency to defile, to profane, and to dishonor that which is set apart as common, incapacitation, weakness, and lack of insights derived from a willingness to pollute and sully the established conditions), in (en) presumptuous maltreatment and outrageously damaging insults (hybris – injurious treatment and harmful behavior, the invasion of the basic rights of others, ignominious hardships and impudent insolence, pride and haughtiness, wanton violence, and tempestuous wrongdoing), in (en) the necessity and inevitability of compulsion and punishment (anagke – obligatory trouble, unyielding pressure, the destiny and advantage of distress and tribulation as well as imposed calamity), in (en) persecution and oppression (diogmos – harassment and molestation which causes people to flee in fear, driving them away through terror), and (kai) the difficulty of the distressing restrictiveness (stenochoria – the troublesome narrowness and resulting calamity and extreme affliction) regarding (hyper – associated with and because of) Christou (ΧΡΥ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey Ma’aseyah) is the reason (gar – indeed, because) I am sickened by my perversions (astheneia – I am inadequate and infirmed through my corruptions, ill as a result my dishonesty, weakened by my tendency to defile, to profane, and to dishonor that which is set apart as common, incapacitated with a lack of insights derived from my willingness to pollute and sully the established conditions), and at the same time (tote) I am (eimi) empowered, competent and capable (dynatos – plausible, expert, and important, mighty, powerful, and influential)." (2 Corinthians 12:10)

If nothing else, we have Paul’s stamp of approval on our working definition of "astheneia – sickening perversions," and we now know that he is in favor of them, and worse. But this is so bad, it takes your breath away... "Therefore, it should be self-evident (dio), I am pleased with and prefer, delighting in, I enjoy and take pleasure in, even consider good and consent to (eudokeo en) sickening perversions, the inadequacies and infirmities caused by corruptions, and weakness borne of dishonesty (astheneia) in (en) presumptuous maltreatment and outrageously damaging insults which are injurious and arrogant (hybris), in (en) the necessity and inevitability of compulsion and punishment, the advantage of obligations and unyielding pressure (anagke), in (en) persecution and oppression, harassment and molestation (diogmos), and (kai) the difficulty of the distressing restrictiveness and troublesome narrowness (stenochoria) associated with (hyper) Christou (ΧΡΥ) is the reason (gar) I am sickened by my perversions and made inadequate by my corruptions (astheneia), and at the same time (tote), I am (eimi) empowered, competent and capable, plausible, expert, and important, mighty, powerful, and influential (dynatos)." (2C12:10) That may be the single most perverted and twisted thing I’ve ever read. If this man is your apostle, if he is a spokesman for your god, I’d recommend replacing both.

At this point I am beginning to think we are witnessing the impossible, a miracle of sorts. Paul is actually driving nails into his own coffin while burying himself. I’m surprised that he didn’t list this among his achievements.

Christian apologists will claim that Paul is saying "what doesn’t kill me makes me stronger," but that isn’t permissible, not only because Paul claims to have been killed multiple times, but also because our suffering is irrelevant. The message of the Miqra’ey is that Yahowsha’ suffered so we wouldn’t have to. Also, those who speak on behalf of God should never claim that their problems empower them, making them competent or capable, because it is Yahowsha’s fulfillment of Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuw’ah that accomplishes these things on behalf of the His testimony, and thus His influence, not ours.

So by claiming these things, Paul is saying that his sacrifices and sufferings matter, making him a more credible and capable influence in the lives of others. By doing so, he is positioning himself as the savior of his religion.

No sane individual delights in or prefers any of the horrible things on Paul’s list. By saying that he has come to enjoy them, he is affirming the consequence of being demon-possessed. These are the kinds of things Satan delights in.

Galatians, as we will learn, perverts and corrupts Yahowah’s testimony to infer the inadequacy of His Torah. Thus far in it, we have read Paul outrageously insult Yahowsha’s Disciples, presumptuously maltreating them. Then in the manner of all hypocrites, after besmirching Yahowah’s Torah, calling it enslaving, and thus unyielding in its obligations, Paul says that he is in favor of compulsion, calling the threat of punishment advantageous. And I suppose this is why he favors oppression, harassment, and molestation.

And yet these problems pale in comparison to "‘stenochoria – the difficulty of the distressing restrictiveness and troublesome narrowness’ associated with Christou." At its root, stenochoria wouldn’t be so bad if not for its associated baggage, in that it is comprised of "stenos – narrow strait" and "chora – the space lying between two places." The path to God is indeed "narrow and straight," and as a result, few find it. But unfortunately, Sha’uwl uses stenochoria to speak of "anguishing tribulation" coming upon the "doers of evil" in Romans 2:9. It is presented as a "distressful tribulation" leading to "persecution" in Romans 8:35. Earlier in this letter, stenochoria was deployed in 2 Corinthians 6:4 to convey "affliction." So by concluding his statement with "...the difficulty of the distressing restrictiveness and troublesome narrowness (stenochoria) associated with (hyper) Christou (ΧΡΥ) is the reason (gar) I am sickened by my perversions and made inadequate by my corruptions (astheneia), and at the same time (tote), I am (eimi) empowered, competent and capable, plausible, expert, and important, mighty, powerful, and influential (dynatos)," Sha’uwl is associating what he perceives to be the negative effects of Yahowah’s unyielding and unrelenting specificity regarding His Way to redemption, the way Yahowsha’ lived, with his rise in influence. And while nothing is truer, nothing is more devastating.

If we were to distill the whole of Pauline Doctrine down to one thought it would be the negation of the narrow path Yahowah presented and Yahowsha’ walked by replacing it with unspecified, unsubstantiated, and unrestricted faith. This is what made Paul popular, and thus influential. And the more popular he became, the more plausible and credible his letters were perceived to be. But unfortunately for those who have bought into the myth that salvation comes to those who "believe Jesus died for their sins," the source of that deception lied as a result of being demon-possessed and insane.

Like those watching a train wreck unfold, it’s hard to divert our eyes away from what Paul is writing, even though we know that souls are dying in the carnage. And speaking of a wreck, consider the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear’s amalgamation of Paul’s next statement: "I have become unthinking you me compelled I for owe by you to be commended nothing for I lacked of the very beyond delegates if even nothing I am."

"I have come to be (ginomai – I have become) ignorant and irrational (aphron – senseless and foolish, stupid, acting rashly, essentially out of my mind, lacking judgment). You (umeis), yourselves, compelled me (anagkazo me – forced this upon me, drove me to this, necessitating it). For this reason (gar), you all (umon) are obligated to me, and under me, you owe me (opheilo upo umon – you are indebted to me and it is indispensable and obligatory that you are required) to be commended and recommended (synistemi – to be approved, established, and legitimized). For indeed (gar – because), I lacked nothing, never falling short of (ouden hystereo – I wasn’t the least bit inferior to or lacking any benefit or advantage of) the (ton) preeminent (hyperlian – super and exceptional) if even (ei kai) I am (eimi) nothing (oudeis – a worthless, meaningless, nobody)." (2 Corinthians 12:11)

Paul has already revealed that he had become a covetous and lustful libertine because of the Torah. Now he says that the Corinthians have made him stupid. And let us not forget, Satan made him humble.

It should be noted that Paul isn’t paying Yahowsha’s Disciples a fleeting and backhanded endorsement here by claiming to be as good or better than the preeminent apostles, because he uses hyperlian in 2 Corinthians 11:5 ironically, saying "I suppose I was not a whit behind the super duper apostles." And here he is so obnoxious that he says that even if he were worthless, he’d still be better than those Yahowsha’ chose and trained.

And in spite of being a self-admitted pervert, a murderer, insane, demon-possessed, and now ignorant and irrational, Paul is demanding a letter of accommodation, a recommendation from those he has deceived and demeaned. So since he claims that we owe him, that we are in his debt and are obliged, let’s all pull out our pens and give this man who says he lacks nothing the one thing he craves: approval. Or, on second thought, let’s give him what he deserves: condemnation.

While I’m normally opposed to using English translations for any purpose other than to incriminate them, the New Living Translation does such a wonderful job of indicting Paul that I thought I’d share it with you.

"You have made me act like a fool—boasting like this. You ought to be writing commendations for me, for I am not at all inferior to these ‘super apostles,’ even though I am nothing at all. When I was with you, I certainly gave you proof that I am an apostle. For I patiently did many signs and wonders and miracles among you. The only thing I failed to do, which I do in the other churches, was to become a financial burden to you. Please forgive me for this wrong!" (2 Corinthians 12:11-13)

"Some of you admit I was not a burden to you. But others still think I was sneaky and took advantage of you by trickery. But how? Did any of the men I sent to you take advantage of you? When I urged Titus to visit you and sent our other brother with him, did Titus take advantage of you? No! For we have the same spirit and walk in each other's steps, doing things the same way. Perhaps you think we’re saying these things just to defend ourselves." (2 Corinthians 12:16-19)


Previously, we witness a summation of one of Sha’uwl’s most chilling confessions. So before we press on, let’s reconsider the testimony of the ultimate chameleon and the world’s most notorious charlatan. And once again as we approach his defense, please note that this is all about Paul trying to justify his controversial tactics and mission before a skeptical audience. In these incriminating words, we find Paul refusing to abide by even his own rules. As a chameleon, he was ever ready to change his colors to take advantage of whatever audience he was trying to beguile. And here he is admitting to this very thing (in his own pathetic style):

"And (kai) I became (ginomai – I came to exist) to the (tois) Jews (Ioudaios – a crude transliteration of Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yahowah) like (hos – in such a way to show a weak relationship with) Jews (Ioudaios) in order that (hina – for the purpose that) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over (kerdaino – I may gain financially by avoiding or winning over) Jews (Ioudaios).

To those (tois) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon – the means to become an heir and to be nurtured by an allotment (accusative of nomos)), like (hos – in such a way to show a weak relationship) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), not being himself (me on autos – not existing self (note: on was written in the singular nominative masculine and thus cannot be translated "myself being" and autos was scribed in the third person intensive predicative and thus does not convey "myself" either)) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), in order that (hina – for the purpose that) those under (tous hypo) Towrah (nomon) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over (kerdaino – I may gain financially by avoiding or winning over). (1C9:20)

To those (tois) Towrahless (anomois – without the Towrah, devoid of an allotment or inheritance), like (hos – in such a way to show a weak relationship with) Towrahless (anomois – without the Towrah, devoid of an allotment or inheritance), not being (me on) Towrahless (anomois – without the Towrah, devoid of an allotment or inheritance) of God (theou), to the contrary (alla – making an emphatic contrast and definitive differentiation), in the Torah (ennomos – by the allotment and inheritance) 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 – for the purpose that) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over (kerdaino – I may gain financially by avoiding or winning over) those without the Towrah (tous anomois – the Towrahless). (1C9:21)

I became (ginomai – I came to exist) to the (tois) unable and morally weak (asthenes – incapacitated and inadequate, sick and impotent), incapacitated and inadequate (asthenes – unable and morally weak, sick, powerless, and impotent), in order that (hina – for the purpose that) those (tous) impotent and sick (asthenes – incapacitated and inadequate, unable and powerless) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over (kerdaino – I may gain financially by avoiding or winning over).

To everyone (tois pasin – literally: to the in all) I have become (ginomai – I have come to exist as) every kind of thing (panta – everything) in order that (hina – for the purpose that) surely by all means (pantos – in every way with certainty) some (tinas – someone important or something indefinite, anyone or anything, everyone or a certain individual) I might save (sozo – I may deliver)." (1 Corinthians 9:20-22)

As I’ve mentioned before, even Machiavelli, the man who postured the amoral slogan of despots everywhere, saying in essence: "the ends justify the means," wasn’t this blatant.

Turning to the ultimate authority on Sha’uwl, as if he were admonishing him, Yahowsha’ used kerdaino, the very same verb deployed here four times, to warn us: "For what will be accomplished and who will be helped (tis gar opheleo – what value would there be and who would be benefited) by a man if (ean anthropos – on the condition an individual) the entire universe (ton holos kosmos – the totality of the whole world) he might gain, winning over, taking advantage of and profiting from (kerdaino), but (de) his soul (autou psyche) he forfeits (zemioomai – he damages undergoing punishment)?" (Mattanyah / Yah’s Gift / Matthew 16:26)

God’s insights are stunningly appropriate, especially when we consider Sha’uwl’s elaborate justification for personal payment in 1 Corinthians 9:1-12. If we knew where he was buried, this should be written on his tombstone.

The tactic Paul is bragging about is what we might expect from an unscrupulous politician or businessman, who will say and do anything, no matter how deceptive or fraudulent, to garner an unfair advantage. But from someone claiming to speak openly and honestly on behalf of God, this is unjustifiable. Yahowsha’ never pretended to be other than He was and is. But by admitting this, Paul has just told everyone that his words, his behavior, and his claims (such as representing the Ma’aseyah) cannot be trusted.

While He was also driving nails into an already sealed coffin, Yahowsha’ is recorded in Mattanyah 10:8 saying: "You have received without paying, give without being paid."

To eliminate any misunderstanding regarding the dubious tactics of this charlatan, the primary meaning of kerdaino, translated "I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over," is related to "gaining an advantage over someone in the pursuit of wealth, influence, and acclaim." To the common man of his day, kerdaino spoke of "desiring worldly things to such an extent that a person would cheat others while feeling no compunction against being crafty, clever, or cunning."

Metaphorically, kerdaino can be used to speak of "winning someone over," but that option is torn asunder in the context of clandestinely and deceptively metamorphosing oneself to gain an advantage. And interestingly, the secondary meaning of kerdaino is "to avoid problems in the process of trying to spare oneself." But that connotation is only applicable when used as part of a hypothetical situation or an instructional parable.

Even if we were to give Paul the benefit of the doubt – something he no longer deserves – and render "kerdaino – win," Paul’s statement would remain lamentable for the admission that he was always willing to operate under false pretenses. It’s called "fraud," and in most places, fraud is a crime.

Since we have been so inundated by Paul’s relentless rejection of the Torah, we may now be somewhat callused to it, but nonetheless, the troubadour of troubled testimony just affirmed: "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)."

I suspect that Sha’uwl was deploying this dubious tactic in his defense, the one recorded in Acts 22:3, when he was trying to convince a Hebrew audience that he was the perfect religious Jew. However, since the Towrah provides the lone means to relationship and redemption, by the admission that he wasn’t himself beholden to Yahowah’s Guidance, he has condemned his soul.

And while Sha’uwl earned an express ticket to She’owl with those words, we must ask: what did he mean by: "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)?"

There is no "Towrahless" association with God, and the only Towrah the Ma’aseyah referenced was the one Paul disassociated himself from in the previous sentence. Further, to suggest that there are two different Torahs, one authored by Yahowah and the other by Yahowsha’ is to contradict God’s testimony on the matter. So this man’s language was as duplicitous and misleading as were the pretenses under which he operated.

If that were not enough, Paul specifically states that he "was like the ‘anomos – Towrah-less,’" a condition he explicitly associated with Satan in his previous 2 Thessalonians 2:7-9 statement. That was akin to proclaiming: "I, Paul, am just like the ‘Antichrist’." While true, it’s bad.

No matter how "asthenes – morally weak, incapacitated, inadequate, impotent, and ill" is translated, it isn’t something we ought to be bragging about. This is especially true for the Children of the Covenant who are perfected, enriched, and empowered by God.

Even his parting salvo, "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)," provides a window on this man’s grotesquely egotistical soul. Yahowah, Himself, couldn’t save everyone. And Yahowsha’ didn’t try. And while this says "tinas – some," it was for "pasin – everyone."

For those of you who have read The Prince and are familiar with Machiavelli’s infamous and immoral advice to wannabe religious and political potentates, it is likely that Sha’uwl’s statement inspired the Prince’s assertion that "the end justifies the means." All manner of horror has been perpetrated on humankind as a result of this mantra. It serves to this day as the justification for political oppression and religious terrorism.

If Paul hadn’t just wallowed in delusion and hypocrisy, not to mention deceit and pride, I might have skipped his parting salvo. But after hearing him say that he would impersonate anyone to save everyone, we are compelled to question what he meant by:

"But (de) all (pas – everything) I do (poieomai – I perform) by (dia – through) the healing messenger and beneficial message (to euangelion) in order that (hina) joint-partner (sygkoinonos – co-partner and fellow participant; from sun, with, and koinonos, partner) of his (autou) I might become (ginomai – I may exist as)." (1 Corinthians 9:23)

While you can make of this what you will, it is important to recognize there was no common ground between Sha’uwl’s message and Yahowsha’s. And Yahowsha’ explicitly condemned hypocrisy, so Sha’uwl’s approach isn’t Godly.

Lest we forget, Yahowah has no partners. That is why Yahowsha’ means "Yahowah Saves." But in this pathetic plea, we once again see Sha’uwl pretending to be his Lord’s partner, a fellow participant, and thus the co-savior.

Since we have been comparing Sha’uwl and Muhammad, detailing the similar nature of their conversion experiences and challenges with demon possession, I thought I’d share a few more interesting comparisons.

Just like Muhammad, Sha’uwl was a sexist. In his world, men would lord over women: "But (de), I want and propose to (thelo – desire, hold the opinion, take pleasure and delight in, and intend to impose upon) you (umas) to be aware (oida – to realize and remember) that (oti) every (pas) man (andros – adult male) is of preeminent and superior status as head (kephale – uppermost). The Ma’aseyah exists as (estin) the head, and thus is superior (kephale – hold preeminent status). But (de) [with] woman (gunaikos), man (aner) is of preeminent and superior status as the head (kephale – uppermost), and then (de) of the (tou) Ma’aseyah God (theos)." (1 Corinthians 11:3)

They would be considered shameful, and women would be forced to covered up for fear of being abused. "But (de) all (pas) women (gune) praying or prophesying (proseuchomai e propheteuo), uncovered (akatakalyptos), the head (te kephale) shames (kataischyno) her head (autes ten kephale). For one (gar en) it is (eimi) also the same as (kai to auto) having been shaved (xyrao). For if (gar ei) the woman (gyne) is not covered up (ou katakalyptomai), (kai) let’s shear her (keiro – cut off her hair) but (de) on the condition (ei) the disgraceful and shameful (aischros) woman (gyne) to be sheered (keiro) or (e) shaved (xyrao) is covered up (katakalyptomai)." (1 Corinthians 11:5-6)

Just like Muhammad, Sha’uwl wanted women veiled and out of sight: "In (en) you (umin – plural second person, dative (speaking of indirect objects for whom something is done) these things (autois – plural masculine dative) exist which are (estin) fitting, proper, and appropriate (prepei): Separate and judge (krino –evaluate) a woman (gunaika) who is uncovered (akatakalyptos – unveiled, literally not hidden by a veil) praying (proseuchomai) to God (theo)." (1 Corinthians 11:13)

Just as in Muhammad’s Qur’an, Sha’uwl wanted men to lord over women. So he wrote: "The (ai) woman (guvaikes) [to her] own individual (idios) man (andrasin – adult male) like (os – as) the Lord (kurio – master, owner, ruler, and supreme authority)." (Ephesians 5:22)

For those who may protest, suggesting that Yahowah said something similar to Chawah in the in Bare’syth / Genesis 3:16, such claims are based upon errant translations. God actually said: "And toward your husband and man your strong emotional feelings is why he will liken this to you and he will govern with you (mashal ba – he will make a proverb of this similarity and he will have his way with you, he will rule with you, he will speak of himself in comparison to you)." The concluding preposition, ba, means "with," not "over."

Also, just as Muhammad created a religion named "Islam – Submission," Sha’uwl served his Lord by demanding submission: "To the contrary (alla), just as (os) the called-out assembly (ekklesia) is submissive to and controlled by (hypotassomai – is subordinate, submits and obeys, is brought under firm control, is yoked and subdued, is subjugated and placed in submission under) the Ma’aseyah in this way (houto). And the woman (gunaikes) to the (tois) man (andrasin) in (en) everything (pas)." (Ephesians 5:24)

Hypotassomai is a compound of hupo, meaning "under," and tasso, "an assigned and orderly arrangement." It is the antithesis of freewill. And it should be noted that the "mal’ak / aggelos – spiritual messengers" errantly known as "angels" or "demons," based upon their allegiance, are "saba’ – arranged as conscripts in a command and control regimen in which they are required to fall in line and submit." It is little wonder Paul’s entire Damascus Road affair smacks of falling in line and surrendering – all of which is the antithesis of freewill. Sha’uwl, on behalf of Satan, wants to completely control mankind, raping humans of their freewill, so that they will suffer his fate. It is a destiny far worse than returning to bondage in the crucible of Egypt.


Those who trust Yahowah, rely upon Him. There is never a reason to be anxious. As children of the Covenant, our job isn’t to quell rebellions or to stew over the called-out assemblies. And that is because the sacrosanct nature of freewill precludes us from hindering the choice to rebel. Moreover, the Set-Apart Spirit is responsible for nurturing and protecting Her children—not us and not Paul. And Yahowah is responsible for us because He is our Heavenly Father. And yet Sha’uwl, in competition with God, inappropriately put himself in that role: "I do not write this to shame you, but to warn you as my beloved children." (1 Corinthians 4:14)

Yahowah encourages us to expose lies and witness to the truth. We do this by observing and reciting the Torah, and by following Yahowsha’s example. All we are asked to do beyond this is to clear the dirt off of the table, set Yahowah’s invitation upon it, let people know that it is there, remain available to answer their questions, and then let them make up their own minds. His is a take it or leave it proposition. There is no debate, no negotiation—and most certainly nothing for us to contribute or worry about. We do not bear any responsibility for what happens, good or bad.

Further, if we are reciting Yahowah’s Word, and affirming His plan, we never have to say: "know that I am not lying," as Paul does in Galatians, and then again in the 31st verse of 2nd Corinthians. But since he was doing neither, he was actually doing precisely what he denied.

If we say anything in the name of God which is contrary to the Torah and Prophets, we are lying, and it is obvious to those who care. And if we convey His Word accurately, it makes no difference whether or not we are liars. No one is saved based upon our credibility. Other than to determine whether or not he is a false prophet, Paul’s veracity is irrelevant. And that makes his focus on himself, and his unsupported protestations, completely inappropriate.

So you may be wondering why Satan would be this overt regarding his relationship with Paul, and why he would encourage Paul to disparage the "Adversary" elsewhere in his letters. And yet the answer is obvious. By having Sha’uwl dismiss the Adversary, Satan makes it appear as if he isn’t the Adversary. This is precisely how Allah, who was modeled after Satan, positions the Devil in the Qur’an. And thus while it’s blatantly obvious that Allah is the Adversary, this ruse is sufficient to fool most Muslims. Satan has to shed the Adversary title to be worshipped as God, which is why that aspect of his nature is assailed in Paul’s letters and Muhammad’s Qur’an.

But what bothers me the most about all of this is that Satan and his accomplices are so "bold in their foolishness," it is obvious that they think people are essentially stupid—too "ignorant and irrational" to figure out who they are or what they are doing. It is as if Satan was thumbing his nose at God, saying: "Why do you care about these morons? They are complete idiots and will believe anything. Just watch, I’ll tell them exactly who I am, and with whom I work, and they will still willingly drink the poison right out of my hand." So while the evidence in favor of Paul being a false prophet is overwhelming, my purpose in sharing Paul’s Corinthians commentary was simply to encourage you to think about the distinct possibility that there is more to all of this than one man foolishly speaking for himself.

And now that we are on the subject of Satan, and before we return to the book of Acts, since I had mentioned that Paul referenced "signs and wonders" to affirm his calling and to expose Satan’s and Torah-lessness, here is what the Devil’s Advocate had to say about himself and the spirit who apparently facilitated and empowered him. Harkening back to the confession found in Galatians 2:8, we read:

"For (gar) the one (o) of mystery who is the essence of religious doctrine (mysterion – secrets concealed in the symbols, slogans, rites, and rituals of religions which are known only to the faith’s initiates and participants) is already (ede – at this present time, even right now) currently and actually functioning (energeo – presently and reliably producing, operating, effecting, and at work granting the ability and power) of Torah-lessness (tes anomias – of negating the Torah).

Only the One alone (monon o – all alone, exclusively without help, a single solitary masculine individual) currently restrains this, holding fast, actively trying to prevent this (katecho – is continuously controlling, unwilling to change His mind, steering and holding the course) now (arti – presently) until (hoes – up to the point) the One might appear, existing (ginomai – the One may arrive and could become known in the flow of human history) from out of (ek) the midst (mesos)." (2 Thessalonians 2:7)