بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ

الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي أَنزَلَ عَلَى عَبْدِهِ الْكِتَابَ وَلَمْ يَجْعَل لَّهُ عِوَجَا قَيِّمًا لِّيُنذِرَ بَأْسًا شَدِيدًا مِن لَّدُنْهُ وَيُبَشِّرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ الَّذِينَ يَعْمَلُونَ الصَّالِحَاتِ أَنَّ لَهُمْ أَجْرًا حَسَنًا مَاكِثِينَ فِيهِ أَبَدًا وَيُنذِرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا اتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ وَلَدًا مَّا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ وَلَا لِآبَائِهِمْ كَبُرَتْ كَلِمَةً تَخْرُجُ مِنْ أَفْوَاهِهِمْ إِن يَقُولُونَ إِلَّا كَذِبًا فَلَعَلَّكَ بَاخِعٌ نّفْسَكَ عَلَى آثَارِهِمْ إِن لَّمْ يُؤْمِنُوا بِهَذَا الْحَدِيثِ أَسَفًا إِنَّا جَعَلْنَا مَا عَلَى الْأَرْضِ زِينَةً لَّهَا لِنَبْلُوَهُمْ أَيُّهُمْ أَحْسَنُ عَمَلًا وَإِنَّا لَجَاعِلُونَ مَا عَلَيْهَا صَعِيدًا جُرُزًا أَمْ حَسِبْتَ أَنَّ أَصْحَابَ الْكَهْفِ وَالرَّقِيمِ كَانُوا مِنْ آيَاتِنَا عَجَبًا إِذْ أَوَى الْفِتْيَةُ إِلَى الْكَهْفِ فَقَالُوا رَبَّنَا آتِنَا مِن لَّدُنكَ رَحْمَةً وَهَيِّئْ لَنَا مِنْ أَمْرِنَا رَشَدًا

A few points of linguistics must be prefaced before the subject at hand is addressed in fullness. For not only has the brutal repression of the Church blinded the masses to the historical reality of Jesus Christ himself, the Church has also concocted the Anti-Semitic lie that the term "Allah" is anything other than the `Arabic way to speak of the One Monotheistic God of the Children of Israel (as the Qur'an claims). Rather Christianity has set forth the lie that "Allah" is the name of some "moon god." This assertion is absurd, for it wasn't until the Ottoman Empire that the crescent moon and star became affiliated with the Muslim world. When the Turks conquered Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1453, they adopted the city's existing flag and symbol. Legend holds that the founder of the Ottoman Empire, `Uthman, had a dream in which the crescent moon stretched from one end of the earth to the other. Taking this as a good omen, he chose to keep the crescent and make it the symbol of his dynasty.

The `Arabic term "Allah" is a combination of two words, "Al" (ال) and "ilah" (إله). "Al" is the definite article in Arabic. Semitic linguists believe that the original root definite article of all Semitic languages was "Hal." With Hebrew it evolved as "Ha" and Arabic as "Al." Though it is not written as a letter in the Hebrew language the first consonant of the word following "the" (ה) in Hebrew is doubled just as is done by the "Lam" (ل) in the `Arabic "Al" (ال) when it precedes certain letters.

The second word is "ilah." This means "divinity" or "god." But "ilah" is not definite. It can be made feminine (إلاهة), it can be made plural (آلهة) and thus does not always convey the absoluteness of THE ONE God. So accordingly, when speaking of THE One God of Monotheism, the Qur'an says "Al-ilah" (الإله) which is conjugated into "Allah" (الله). 

Some have propagated a racist myth that the `Arabic language calls "God" by the name "Allah" because this was allegedly the name of an `Arabic "moon god." This is a lie based on white racists Christian's hatred for Semitic peoples. Christians claim that they have among them 14 Million Christian `Arabs. If that is the case, then this means that there are 14 Million Christians calling Allah by this name of "Allah" as well. The racists who tell you that "Allah is a moon god" are actually slandering the Christian faith of your brothers and sisters in Christ. 

Ironically however, the name "El" (אל) - one of the Hebrew names for God - is a name of a pagan god of the Canaanites.

"El - (also called Latipan, and possibly Dagon) He is known as the Father of the gods, 'the father of mankind', the 'Bull', and 'the creator of creatures'. He is grey haired and bearded and lives at Mt. Lel. He is a heavy drinker and has gotten extremely drunk at his banquets. Mt. Lel is where the assembly of the gods meet. It is El's abode and the source of the rivers and two oceans, as well as where those waters meet those of the firmament. It lies 'two layers beneath the wells of the earth, three spans beneath its marshes.' It had been thought to be a field and not a mountain. The mansion there has eight entrances and seven chambers."

Source: Canaanite/Ugaritic Mythology FAQ, ver. 1.2

The "Biblical Heritage Center" says the following about the Canaanite Supreme deity El: "EL is the supreme creator god of the Canaanites who lives with the other gods on Mount Zaphon (similar to Mount Olympus of the Greeks but located at the mouth of the Orontes river near the border between Turkey and Syria). He is the father of all the gods and men and is often addressed as such by the Canaanite gods. He is the god of the earth and the air who is represented by a bull. He is derived from the Sumerian god AN."

Source: http://www.biblicalheritage.org/

Certainly the similar linguistics used between the ancient Hebrews and the Canaanite pagans does not imply that their gods are the same! If there was ever an `Arabian pagan deity named anything sounding similar to "Allah" then certainly it is because "Allah" means "the God." Thus, someone naming a god would be likely to touch the linguistic root of A-L-L-H. So too is this the case with "El" being a Canaanite pagan deity and also the name of the god of the Children of Israel. 

There is no educated belief that "Allah" is a "moon God" or any other god than the God of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, John the Baptist, and Jesus (Peace be upon them all), that the Qur'an claims sameness with. If it was another god, why would their be any pretending that It is the same as the aforementioned God? The people of Arabia were already pagan. If Muhammad (Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him) called them to worship a moon god they would have been overjoyed. He would not have had to sell them on polytheism masquerading as monotheism, he could have simply maintained their existing traditions of worshiping 360 different gods.

All Arabic Bibles refer to "The One God" as "Allah." This is because any Arabic linguist knows that there is no other way - nor has their ever been - to speak of the One God of monotheism than by saying "the God." If you say "a god" or "ilah" then you are implying in the Semitic mind that there are other gods and this is "your God." This Islamic declaration of faith is "La ilaha ill-Allah" (لا إله إلا الله) meaning "There is no god besides the [One and Only] God."

Arabic Bibles translated by Arabian Christians demonstrate this: 

http://www.the-good-way.org/pdf/abible/ot/0195gen1.pdf

http://www.arabicbible.com/bible/doc_bible.htm

Taking a look at the first sentences of both the Bible and the Qur'an we notice the first line of Genesis in Arabic: "افِي الْبَدْءِ خَلَقَ اللهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضَ" meaning "In the Beginning Allah Created the Heavens and the Earth." The underlined term is "Allah" and is quite obviously the same as the following term also denoted in red: "بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِِ" meaning "In the Name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful." There is no difference between the God of the Bible and the God of the Qur'an - at the very least one must accept that linguistically this is so. One may disagree with the Islamic understanding of the Will and Law of Allah, but certainly no one knowledgeable of Arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew can say that "Allah" linguistically is any different than the Arabic version of the God of the Bible.

Furthermore, according to the Aramaic Bible Society and Aramaic dictionaries "Alah" is Aramaic for God. Aramaic was of course the vernacular "street language” of Jesus Christ's (Peace be upon him) time and region. The Aramaic Bible Society affirms that every time Jesus Christ said "God" and not "The LORD" (which is an indication he was speaking of the Hebrew proper Name of Allah, "YHWH" יהוה), that he was actually saying "Alah."

Of course one does not need to take my word for this. You can turn to a Hebrew copy of the Book of Daniyel and find that in Chapter 2, verse 42, the term "Alah/Elah" (אֱלָהּ) is used in Aramaic. Chapter 1 through 2:4a in the Book of Daniyel is in Hebrew. Chapter 2:4b through Chapter 7 are in Aramaic and then 8 through 12 are in Hebrew again. Chapter 2:24 is written in Aramaic. It clearly uses the term "Alah/Elah" EXACTLY as it appears were it transliterated from `Arabic.

"The king spoke unto Daniel, and said: 'Of a truth it is, that your God is the God of gods, and the Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou hast been able to reveal this secret.'"

עָנֵה מַלְכָּא לְדָנִיֵּאל וְאָמַר, מִן-קְשֹׁט דִּי אֱלָהֲכוֹן הוּא אֱלָהּ אֱלָהִין וּמָרֵא מַלְכִין--וְגָלֵה רָזִין:  דִּי יְכֵלְתָּ, לְמִגְלֵא רָזָא דְנָה.

In the Assyrian Aramaic script we see "Alah/Elah" called "Alaha" (ܐܠܗܐ). Regardless of this additional "Olap" in the Assyrian script, we see plainly from the ancient BIBLICAL times, that the Prophet Daniyel and those who spoke Aramaic in that time spelled "Alah" as "אֱלָהּ" in the Book of Daniyel, which would be "ܐܠܗ" in the Assyrian. This of course is almost identical with what Hebrew actually is for "God" in the Bible. In Hebrew "Allah" is "Eloah." "Elohim" also is used traditionally thought to be a denotation of grandeur although this was not in common parlance yet at the time of the Torah's writing. Orthodox clergymen will argue that the "us" and "our" (as in "Let US make man in OUR image..." and "In the image of Elohim THEY created them both male AND female") in the creation passage of Sefer Ha'Berashit are simply examples of the "royal we" used by emperors, but this rationalization is false. Sefer Ha'Berasheet was written before the "royal we" originated. It began with the first Roman emperor, Augustus, and included the emperor and his loyal civil administrators. Afterwards, it was sometimes used in pagan religious ceremonies in the pre-Christian Roman Empire, which at that time was polytheistic. Moreover, it is unreasonable to imagine that the Qur'an would employ this pagan custom, which was NOT to be found within the pages of the Torah, contrary to popular belief and wishful thinking of Trinitarians.

The term is most commonly used as "Eloah" (God) or "Elohenu" (Your God) in the Tanakh. "Elohim" is also used for the pagan gods of Egypt in the Book of Exodus 12:12 when it is said "Elohim-Mitzrayim" (אלוהי מערים), or in 18:11 where it is written that "YHWH is greater than the Elohim" (יהוה מכל האלוהים). So to simply say "God" the Nevi'im (Prophetic Books of the Tanukh), often said "Eloah." Thought the English transliteration may make it seem ambiguous through the voweling, "E" is actually the consonantal "A" or "Alef" the same as in "Allah." Eloah is actually spelled "אלוה" or sometimes “אלה.” But all Hebrew dictionaries have "Allah" as "אלוה" and "Elohim" (אלוהים) again, used in MODERN Hebrew, as a special term to mean "The Great God" or "God the Greatest" - much like the Arabic "Allahu Akbar" (الله اكبر) meaning "Allah is the Greatest." 

This is the same sort of use as in Shir Ha'Shirim (Song of Songs), 5:16 in the Hebrew Tanakh: "His mouth is most sweet: he is MUHAMAD the Great (מחמדים). This is my Beloved, and this is my Friend, O daughters of Yerushalayim."

It is narrated from Imam Abu Ja‘far who said, "Allah is distinct from His creatures and the creatures are different from Him and whatever could be called a thing is a creature except Allah Who is the Creator of all things."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 219, Ch. 2, h 5

It is narrated from Imam Abu `Abd'ullah , who said this to an atheist on being asked a question. "He (Allah) is a thing but different from all other things. I repeat my statement that speaks about Him as a thing. He is a thing in the sense of the reality of things except that He does not have a body and form. He does not have a feeling (like our sense of feeling) or touching and He does not comprehend with the five senses (as we do). Imaginations can not comprehend Him and the timeless (Dahr) times does not reduce Him and the times do not change Him."

The man asking questions then said, "Do you say that He hears and sees?"

The Imam said, "He does hear and see: He hears without a hearing organ and sees without a means. He Himself hears and He Himself sees. My saying "He hears without a hearing organ and sees without a means. He Himself hears and He Himself sees" does not mean that He is a thing and His-self is another thing but that I only meant to express my self thereby as I was questioned and explained to you as you had asked a question. Thus, I can say that He hears with the whole of His-self but not in the sense that His whole self has parts but that I intended to explain it to you and to express my self. All I meant thereby is that He does hear, see and He is all-knowing and is the expert in knowing without any multiplicity in His-self or meaning."

The man asking questions then said, "What then is He?"

The Imam said, "He is the Lord. He is the One Who is worshipped and He is Allah. When I say Allah, it does not mean establishing the proof for these letters (of alphabet) like Alif, Lam, Ha’, al-Ra’ or al-Ba’ but I intend thereby the meaning of a thing and a thing that is the Creator of all things and the Designer of all things. These letters only refer to the meaning that is called Allah, al-Rahman (the Beneficent), al-Rahim (the Merciful), al-‘Aziz (the Majestic) etc., of the other such names and He is the One Who is worshipped, the Majestic, the Glorious One."

The man asking questions then said, "Given the above, whatever we can think of is but a creature."

The Imam then said, "Were it to the way you said we would not have had any responsibility to believe in the Oneness of the Creator because we will not have any responsibility towards something of whose existence we can not even think of. In fact we say that whatever is thought of in our senses is comprehended thereby by means of drawing limits around it and is analogized, thus, such a thing is a creature. (It then becomes necessary for us to find proof for the existence of the Creator of things. (We must find that is) clear of the two invalid and confusing aspects) if the meaning of negation would be nullification and nothingness or as is the case of the second aspect, the similarity and analogy which is of the attributes of the creatures that under go manifest composition and assemblage. It becomes necessary to prove the existence of the Creator. It is because of the existence of the creatures and their evident dependency on Him as His creatures and that their Creator is something other than them and that He is not similar to them because something similar to them would resemble them in manifest composition and assemblage. It would be as such also in the matters such as coming into existence from nothing and their changing from a smaller size to a full grown size, from blackness to whiteness from strength to weakness and other existing conditions that we do not need to explain their existence."

The man asking questions then said, "You have already defined and limited Him in your proving His existence."

The Imam then said, "I did not limit Him. I only proved His existence if (as you think) there is no difference between proving and disproving."

The man asking questions then said, "Can His existence be proved through a reasoning from the effect to the cause or the cause to the effect?"

The Imam said, "Yes, there is nothing whose existence can be proved without adopting either of the two above process of reasoning."

The man then asked, "Does the question how apply to Him?"

The Imam said, "No, this question does not apply to Him because it is the aspect of qualities and limitations. However, it is necessary to avoid abandoning and analogizing Him because negating Him is denying His existence and refusing to accept Him as the Lord and abandoning Him altogether. Whoever would analogize Him with other things from His creatures he has proved the qualities of the creature in Him, the creatures that do not deserve being called the Lord. It, however, is necessary to believe that the question how applies to Him only in a way that would not apply to things other than Him and things other than Him would not deserve and share Him in it. The how question can not apply to Him if it would limit Him or make Him the subject of knowing for others."

The man then asked, "Do things make Him tired?"

The Imam then said, "He is far Exalted and above experiencing such conditions. Such conditions are due to coming into physical association or dealing with the creatures. They are of the qualities of the creatures who can only associate with others through physical contact but He is the Most High and His will and demand are effective and He does whatever He wants."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi H 220, Ch. 2, h 6

As can clearly be seen from the words of the Imams - the A'immah of the Ahl'ul-Bayt, the family of Muhammad and his progeny - our Lord is not some anthropomorphic "god" like the polytheists imagine. Our "God" (the ONLY God and ONLY Reality), does not move from one place to another within Space-Time. Allah is the ONLY Reality that is; this is the meaning of "La ilaha ill-Allah." Nothing exists save the Divine Mind's Thought Construct, and within that Thought Construct are thoughts themselves and the individual identities of ego-selves (nufus), they come to be fomented and identified by. These are the "you" and the "i."

However, in Islam, these things are nothing save thoughts within the Mind of Allah. Thus, an atheist may demand proof of the Existence of God, but this stems from their ignorance in presuming that their own independent and separate Existence can be proven and taken for granted. So before such people wish to see proof of God, they should prove that they themselves exist, and then demonstrate how their existence is separate from that Whole, that Totality that is the very Construct of Allah's Mind.

Previously i mentioned that the Name "Allah" is a conjunction of the prefix "Al" and the term "ilah." Though this is linguistically an obvious matter, there are some (even some raised Shi'a), who are unaware of this and erroneously believe "Allah" to be the proper and Supreme Name of God. This is simply not the case.

When we say "God" we mean "Allah." For in `Arabic "God" is "ilah" (إله). The term "God" or "ilah" (إله), can be made feminine (إلاهة); thus attributing gender to God. Or it can be made plural (آلهة); thus associating partners with God. This is why Muslims use the Name "Allah" because it is not subject to genderization, nor pluralization, as is the term "ilah" in `Arabic or "Eloah" in Hebrew. Thus, when i speak of "God" throughout this teaching i use the term "Ha'Eloah" which would be the Hebrew way of grammatically expressing what "Allah" expresses in `Arabic.

So when the Muslim says "God" we do not mean "ilah" we do not mean this term that can be made gendered or plural. We mean THE ONLY GOD. The first principle of Islam is the Shahadah, or declaration of God's Unity. It is to say that one bears Witness to the Reality of "La ilaha ill-Allah" (لا إله إلا الله) meaning "There is no god, but The God." The definite article in English is "the" in Hebrew it is "Ha" in `Arabic it is "Al." So instead of "God" the Qur'an refers to God as "The [ONLY] God" which is said "Al-ilah" or "Allah" in `Arabic. With that said, that we do not associate partners with God, nor do we identify Him with anthropomorphic traits, reproductive organs, nor the position of sexually reproducing, i will continue.

The collection of oral Traditions called "Hadith (plural "Ahadith") called "Usul al-Kafi" explains that the A'immah themselves taught that Allah is a combination of Al-ilah.

`Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from his father from an-Nadr ibn Suwayd from Hisham ibn al-Hakam who has said that he asked Abu ‘Abd'ullah about the names of Allah and their derivations and roots.

"What is the root from which the word Allah is derived?"

The Imam replied, "O Hisham, the word Allah is derived from 'ilah,' that is, the One Who is worshipped and the One who is worshipped is supposed to be worth worshipping. The name of Allah is different from His Own self. Whoever worships the name not the meaning has become a heathen and has, in fact, worshipped nothing. Whoever worships the name and its meaning jointly, he becomes a polytheist because of worshipping two gods. Whoever worships the meaning of the word Allah only he, in reality, has worshipped the One Allah (Allah). O Hisham, did you grasp it?"

Hisham requested, "Kindly enlighten me more."

The Imam added, "Allah has ninety-nine names. If each name had a separate meaning then each meaning would have been a god. Allah is One only and all His names stand for just One Reality and all these names are other than Allah Himself. O Hisham, bread is the name of something to eat. Water is the name of something to drink. Dress is the name of something to wear on. Fire is the name of something that burns. O Hisham, did you fully grasp the point so you can defend your belief and contest successfully against our opponents, who, along with Allah, the Exalted, the Great, except things other than Him?"

Hisham replied, "Yes, I did understand."

The Imam said, "O Hisham, may Allah benefit you thereby and grant you steadfastness."

Hisham (the narrator) says, "I swear by Allah, no one has ever defeated me on the issue of the Oneness of Allah until now."

Al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi: H 310, Ch. 16, h 2

As well, the authoritative "Tafsir" or "exegesis" of Allamah Tabatabai called "Al-Mizan" states in volume 1 that: "'Allah' (= the divine name) was originally al-Ilah; the 'I'; in the middle was omitted because of frequent use. al-Ilah is derived from alaha ( = he worshipped) or from aliha or waliha (= he was bewildered). It is on paradigm of al-fi’al in meaning of al-maf’ul (= object-noun). For example, al-Kitab means al-Maktub (= the written); likewise al-Ilah means al-Ma’luh that is, the One who is worshipped, or the One about whom minds are bewildered."

"And your Ilah (God) is One Ilah (Gpd), La ilaha ila huwa (there is no god who has the right to be worshipped but He) the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful." Al-Qur'an, Sura 2:163

وَإِلَـهُكُمْ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ لاَّ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ الرَّحْمَنُ الرَّحِيمُ

The collection of Ahadith entitled "Bihar al-Anwar" explains that Imam `Ali and other A'immah performed miracles through the "Supreme Name" of Allah which is in Hebrew. Of the prophesied "Mahdi" who will rise at the "End of the Age" with Jesus Christ himself - these being the "Two Witnesses" of the Book of Revelation - it is said:

"After receiving permission [to manifest himself], the [hidden] Imam will pronounce the Hebrew Name of Allah; then his Companions, 313 in all, will gather around him in Mecca, in the same way that small clouds come together in the autumn."

An-Nu'mani, Kitab al-Ghayba, ch.20 p.445

Of this Hebrew Name we are told: "[In the beginning] Allah created a Name with non-sonorous letters, with an unpronounced vowel, an entity without a body; [a Name] indescribable, of a colorless color, unlimited, veiled, though not covered with a veil, from all the senses and from all imagination. Allah made a perfect word out of it; a word composed of four parts, none of which existed before the others; from these four parts, He showed three Names, in order to respond to a need felt by the creatures, keeping one of them veiled: the Hidden, Secret Name. Of the [three] Names shown, the exoteric name is Allah, the Exalted, the Most High. Then He gave each of these three Names four Pillars, a total of twelve Pillars in all, and created thirty Names for each Pillar... These Names added to the Most Beautiful Names make a total of 360 Names, all coming from the [first] three Names that are the Pillars and the Veils of the Single Secret Name, hidden by these three Names..."

Al-Kulayni, Usul, "Kitab al-Hujja," Bab huduth al-asma, vol. 1 p.151-52, num 1; Ibn Babuye, Kitab al-Tawhid, ch.29, p. 190-91, num 3.

Interestingly, we are told that the Hidden Name of Allah is composed of four parts. From these four parts we are given three names totaling 12 parts altogether. In the mystical text Sefer Ha'Zohar, it is said that the Four Letter Name YHWH manifested 12 Primordial Powers, that were pre-existent beings in the Universe. We are furthermore told in Shi'a Ahadith that like the Name YHWH the Supreme Name of Allah is Hebrew and also of four letters. This is the veiled Name which only the Mahdi, the return of Elijah the Prophet, and the Messiah himself have understanding of.

So in summarization when either the term "God," "Ha'Eloah" or "Allah" are used in teachings, they are used in accordance with who is being spoken to. When i address my Christian Brothers and Sisters, then i primarily use the term "God" and often the pronoun "He." However, when speaking to Jews, or Jews and Christians, i will tend to revert back to the original Hebrew language that the Tanakh was written in, which is the language of the Supreme Name of Allah in the Shi'a tradition. Some Western Christians might find this somewhat awkward as might some of my Muslim Brothers and Sisters reading this who are more familiar with the `Arabic names for these Prophets and for God. From the context, the individual specified is fairly clear. If there is any confusion, one can easily consult a Bible or the like for clarification.

As well for the sake of our Brothers and Sisters in the West who are not familiar with the true names used by `Isa Al-Masih, the Greek "Jesus" and "Jesus Christ" will be used for clarity. However, this should not be seen as a concession to the Roman Antichrist false image of this Prophet and Messiah. When the Greek Bible says kurioV (koo'-ree-os) it means: "he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord; the possessor and disposer of a thing; the owner; one who has control of the person, the master; in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor; is a title of honor expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master." In the original Hebrew, this term was "Reb" (רַב) as in "Rabbi."

As well, when the Seal of the Prophet's (Muhammad), is mentioned, it is traditional and out of respect that we Muslims say: "Sal Allahu `alayhi wa-alhi wa-Salaam" (صل الله عليه واله وسلام). The respect for Muhammad and his progeny, should also be apparent; and every time they are mentioned herein, even in passing, a Blessing is implied. With that said, let us begin in the Name of Allah the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful...

Introduction

Imagine that the world you were living in was completely different than what you had been indoctrinated from birth to believe. If the Nazi's would have conquered the world, then you would have been raised to believe that Jews were in fact the source of all misery, and they would be spoken of as the oppressors who were secretly destroying Western Civilization from the inside. Imagine if slavery in the United States was never outwardly abolished. Imagine if schools still taught that people with more melanin in their skin were genetically inferior to Europeans. Though most in the West consider themselves "free thinkers" and vainly imagine that they make decisions and shape their own beliefs - independently from the incessant culture indoctrination that they receive from books, movies, television, the media, advertising, the government, ad infinitum - the reality of the situation is that people all over the world are more or less the same machine, only different in the type of actual "information" (and disinformation), that they are indoctrinated with from birth.

"And surely, We have created many of the jinn and mankind for Hell. They have hearts with which they understand not, they have eyes with which they see not, and they have ears with which they hear not (the truth). They are like cattle, no even more astray, they are the heedless ones" Al-Qur'an, Sura 7:179

وَلَقَدْ ذَرَأْنَا لِجَهَنَّمَ كَثِيراً مِّنَ الْجِنِّ وَالإِنسِ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ لاَّ يَفْقَهُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ أَعْيُنٌ لاَّ يُبْصِرُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ آذَانٌ لاَّ يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَا أُوْلَـئِكَ كَالأَنْعَامِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ أُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْغَافِلُونَ

So entrenched are we in the belief systems of our religion, society, genre, or cultural meme, that it is almost impossible for the average individual to seek the truth with the light of objectivity. Though many in this age - feeling disillusioned with the empty promises of Western so-called "civilization" - have broken from the "mainstream" systems of indoctrination, there are a myriad of "backup" systems that are in place to lure them into more or less identical belief and action patterns that serve the status quo of the Western Beast (that is nothing more than an extension of the Roman Empire and ancient Babylon on a resurrected, Global level).

Thus, a Christian may realize that something isn't quite right with their religion, so they venture off into the ocean of cults and speculatory theosophical orders that give them a tiny morsel of truth in exchange for their very mind, body, spirit, and often life savings. All the while mankind remains in the shackles of mental and physical slavery; still ignorant as to the simple realities of our human origins, the origins of civilization as well as the history behind what is destroying our planet, our people and our minds.

Again, imagine if you will, that for the past 2,000 years you have been lied to. Imagine that what you believe is not a product of your own objective investigation, but rather a product of what your parents, your school, your country, your everything has told you is right. Where would you be? What would you do? The thought itself is terrifying to most. So terrifying in fact that it is easier to accept inconsistencies and contradictions in one's belief system so as to not have to face the inevitable reality that one's belief system is largely the same prefabricated pagan mythology found throughout civilizations across the globe, spanning the whole of recorded human history.

This book explores the historical reality behind the lies that your parents, your schools, your churches, your government have told you from the beginning. Were it possible to merely come out and explain the matter all at once, then this is what would be done. However, certainly there is no mystery in the analogy of someone who turns the lights on while you are sleeping. Your instinctive reaction will be to cover your eyes, squint them tight and shut out the illumination. Rather than the light guiding you, in the midst of darkness and slumber it will blind you. Rather than do this, we seek to see you guided by the Light of the One and Only God of All Existence, the God who exists to the exclusion of all other. The God whose Face is wheresoever you turn. The God who is nearer to you than your jugular vein, not seated on a cloud somewhere in the sky, nor on Mount Olympus. A God that is One (Achad, אֶחָד), not Three (Shloshah, שְׁלוֹשָׁה), nor a schizophrenic God who is three separate entities in One spiritual container, not a so-called "Trinity" (Shlesheeyah, literally "trio" שְׁלִישִׁיָּה). The God that Itself is understood through Reason and Logic, not a god that contradicts even the most fundamental of empirical understanding.

Thus, there will not be one text containing everything you should know about these matters. There will be much mentioned herein, and there will be much that is deliberately excluded at this time. Some matters will be further expounded upon in later texts, and some will be told only by word of mouth to those who prove the most sincere and purified from the filth Ar-Rijs (الرِّجْسَ) of the ego-self.

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that change darkness into light, and light into darkness; that change bitter into sweet, and sweet into bitter!" Isaiah 5:20

הוֹי הָאֹמְרִים לָרַע טוֹב, וְלַטּוֹב רָע: שָׂמִים חֹשֶׁךְ לְאוֹר וְאוֹר לְחֹשֶׁךְ, שָׂמִים מַר לְמָתוֹק וּמָתוֹק לְמָר.

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits." Matthew 7:15-20

prosecete apo twn yeudoprofhtwn, oitineV ercontai proV umaV en endumasin probatwn, eswqen de eisin lukoi arpageV. apo twn karpwn autwn epignwsesqe autouV: mhti sullegousin apo akanqwn stafulaV h apo tribolwn suka; outwV pan dendron agaqon karpouV kalouV poiei, to de sapron dendron karpouV ponhrouV poiei: ou dunatai dendron agaqon karpouV ponhrouV poiein, oude dendron sapron karpouV kalouV poiein. pan dendron mh poioun karpon kalon ekkoptetai kai eiV pur balletai. ara ge apo twn karpwn autwn epignwsesqe autuV.

Paul, before becoming the founder of so-called "Christianity," was known as "Sha'ul HaTarsu" or "Saul of Tarsus." When Jesus Christ asked, "Are grapes gathered from thorns" he was alluding to the fact that Paul was a thorn, from amongst a people of thorns, lacking fruit and good works. This "Paul" himself speaks of the "thorn in his side."

If Paul was a "sound tree" as Christians assert, then he could not have born the evil fruits of lying, of abrogating the Torah by his own admission, by going against Jesus' own Brother James, even of drinking alcohol, and eating flesh that he was caught eating after it had been sacrificed to a pagan deity. So before this deceitful Beast ever emerged from the "Gates of Hades" in Tarsus, Jesus Christ warns us that fruit cannot be gathered from amongst thorns.

"But Saul ravaged the assembly, entering into every house, and dragged both men and women off to prison." Acts 8:3

sauloV de elumaineto thn ekklhsian kata touV oikouV eisporeuomenoV, surwn te andraV kai gunaikaV paredidou eiV fulakhn.

Many more questions will arise to mind regarding the statements that were made by Paul, who allegedly converted to the Nazirene Faith of Islam or "Hashlamah" (הַשְׁלָמָה) in Hebrew. This "conversion" experience allegedly occurred after Paul seeing Jesus confront him on his journey to persecute the Damascus community. However, upon claiming conversion to this religion of Jesus which was never given such a name as "Christianity," Paul takes it upon himself to name the "Din" or "Spiritual Path" of "Hashlamah" after "the Christ" which he claimed lived in him and spoke through him; originating his words. Among such early "Damascus" believers was James "the Just" (Ya'qob Ha'Tzodeq, יַעֲקֹב הָצוֹדֵק) the brother of Jesus along with many of the Qumran Community of the now infamous "Dead Sea Scrolls."

Paul was the self-proclaimed "Apostle of Jesus Christ," who didn't arrive on the scene until after the departure of the one who Paul called by the Romanized name "Jesus." He began his purported ministry after spending years persecuting members of the Nazirene uprising that Jesus was a part of. Of the small sect of fundamentalists called the "P'rushim" (Pharisees, פְּרוּשִׁים), Jesus said:

"You are of your father, the Deceiver ("diablos" diaboloV or "iblis" إبليس), and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and doesn't stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks on his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it." John 8:44

umeiV ek tou patroV tou diabolou este kai taV epiqumiaV tou patroV umwn qelete poiein. ekeinoV anqrwpoktonoV hn ap archV, kai en th alhqeia ouk esthken, oti ouk estin alhqeia en autw. otan lalh to yeudoV, ek twn idiwn lalei, oti yeusthV estin kai o pathr autou.

Even after Paul's alleged "conversion" there was much controversy as to whether he was genuine in his beliefs or not. However, this skepticism predates the all out war to destroy him by the Disciples and Jerusalem Community at large. Soon it became clear that Paul had not in fact "converted" to Jesus' teachings. Rather, Paul was making up a new religion altogether, where he, rather than the historical Christ took on the prime significance.

Jesus said clearly: "Then if any man tells you, 'Behold, here is the Messiah,' or, 'There,' don't believe it. For there will arise false messiahs, and false prophets, and they will show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the chosen ones." Matthew 24:23-24

tote ean tiV umin eiph, idou wde o cristoV, h, wde, mh pisteushte: egerqhsontai gar yeudocristoi kai yeudoprofhtai, kai dwsousin shmeia megala kai terata wste planhsai, ei dunaton, kai touV eklektouV:

Paul said: "For in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel. Therefore I beseech you, be imitators of me." 1 Corinthians 4:15-16

ean gar muriouV paidagwgouV echte en cristw, all ou pollouV pateraV, en gar cristw ihsou dia tou euaggeliou egw umaV egennhsa. parakalw oun umaV, mimhtai mou ginesqe.

Paul claims that HE, not Christ had "begotten you." He "beseeches you" to be HIS followers, HIS imitators.

Jesus said: "Many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Messiah' and they will lead many astray" Matthew 24:5

polloi gar eleusontai epi tw onomati mou legonteV, egw eimi o cristoV, kai pollouV planhsousin.

Yet what did Paul claim? "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me." Galatians 2:20

zw de ouketi egw, zh de en emoi cristoV: o de nun zw en sarki, en pistei zw th tou uiou tou qeou tou agaphsantoV me kai paradontoV eauton uper emou.

Paul says it is not really "him" that you see, the "he" was crucified, and it is "not I but Christ" living in his body. He is claiming that he is essentially Christ, and for this reason he is superior to all of Christ's Disciples who opposed him at every turn.

Since "Christ" lived in Paul, this "christ" was calling the shorts. The direction that "the church" would go in was now up the dictation of a man who only met Jesus once, and then only to be rebuked for being an oppressor of the Disciples.

Jesus' Brother James is almost entirely written out of the picture, and is referred to in Acts by a descriptive noun rather than by his name. However, neither the censored Gospel accounts - relegated to the "Apocrypal works" that didn't make the Council of Niceas "cut" in 325 C.E. - nor the "early Church fathers" were silent in regards to James and this outright war on Paul. Once we hear what they have to say about James, then his works in the so-called "New Testament" become clear as a direct attack on Paul, and not mere vague generalizations that are in any way inapplicable to Paul.

Paul said: "Yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Torah but through the faith of Jesus Christ, even we believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Torah, because no flesh will be justified by the works of the Torah." Galatians 2:16

eidoteV [de] oti ou dikaioutai anqrwpoV ex ergwn nomou ean mh dia pistewV ihsou cristou, kai hmeiV eiV criston ihsoun episteusamen, ina dikaiwqwmen ek pistewV cristou kai ouk ex ergwn nomou, oti ex ergwn nomou ou dikaiwqhsetai pasa sarx.

James poignantly rebuked this statement, saying: "What does it profit, my brothers, if a man says he has faith, and doesn't have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled, without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it doesn't have works, is dead." James 2:14-17

ti to ofeloV, adelfoi mou, ean pistin legh tiV ecein, erga de mh ech; mh dunatai h pistiV swsai auton; ean adelfoV h adelfh gumnoi uparcwsin kai leipomenoi thV efhmerou trofhV, eiph de tiV autoiV ex umwn, upagete en eirhnh, qermainesqe kai cortazesqe, mh dwte de autoiV ta epithdeia tou swmatoV, ti to ofeloV; outwV kai h pistiV, ean mh ech erga, nekra estin kaq eauthn.

In Islam the same is said; that one needs to have "Iman" (Faith, إِيمان ) and "Din" (Spiritual practice, دِين). Iman without Din is not only dead, it is not true Iman.

In regards to Paul's egotism and boastfulness, James wrote: "If any man among you seems to be religious, and does not bridle his tongue, but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is vain." James 1:26

ei tiV dokei qrhskoV einai, mh calinagwgwn glwssan autou alla apatwn kardian autou, toutou mataioV h qrhskeia.

"So the tongue is also a little member, and boasts great things. See how a small fire can spread to a large forest! And the tongue is a fire. The world of iniquity among our members is the tongue, which defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the course of nature, and is set on fire by Hell." James 3:5-6

outwV kai h glwssa mikron meloV estin kai megala aucei. idou hlikon pur hlikhn ulhn anaptei: kai h glwssa pur, o kosmoV thV adikiaV, h glwssa kaqistatai en toiV melesin hmwn, h spilousa olon to swma kai flogizousa ton trocon thV genesewV kai flogizomenh upo thV geennhV.

"Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by his good conduct that his deeds are done in gentleness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, don't boast and don't lie against the truth." James 3:13-14

tiV sofoV kai episthmwn en umin; deixatw ek thV kalhV anastrofhV ta erga autou en prauthti sofiaV. ei de zhlon pikron ecete kai eriqeian en th kardia umwn, mh katakaucasqe kai yeudesqe kata thV alhqeiaV.

What James was talking about follows in the boastings of Paul: "Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I. Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths often." 2 Corinthians 11:22-23

ebraioi eisin; kagw. israhlitai eisin; kagw. sperma abraam eisin; kagw. diakonoi cristou eisin; parafronwn lalw, uper egw: en kopoiV perissoterwV, en fulakaiV perissoterwV, en plhgaiV uperballontwV, en qanatoiV pollakiV:

"As the truth of Christ is in me, no one will stop me from this boasting in the regions of Achaia. Why? Because I don't love you? God knows." 2 Corinthians 11:10-11

estin alhqeia cristou en emoi oti h kauchsiV auth ou fraghsetai eiV eme en toiV klimasin thV acaiaV. dia ti; oti ouk agapw umaV; o qeoV oiden.

"I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little." 2 Corinthians 11:16

palin legw, mh tiV me doxh afrona einai: ei de mh ge, kan wV afrona dexasqe me, ina kagw mikron ti kauchswmai.

Line for line, the debate matches up; point by point through the admonitions of James regarding the wickedness of Paul. Yet still there are so many who will never chose to see that their master Paul was a murderer, deceiver and imposter from the beginning, and still to this very day nothing has changed.

As well, Paul admitted to theft and swindling churches. These are his own words: "I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service." 2 Corinthians 11:8

allaV ekklhsiaV esulhsa labwn oywnion proV thn umwn diakonian,

So you see, it is nothing new when we see these charlatans and thieves stealing the money of those trying to do what they have been taught is right. When there are individuals making millions off of the ignorance of the masses, using a man-made religion to psychologically enslave tem to the status quo, such thieves are only following after their master Paul, who admitted to stealing from churches.

"What then will we say that Abraham, our forefather, has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not toward God. For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.' Now to him who works, the reward is not counted as grace, but as debt. But to him who doesn't work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. Even as David also pronounces blessing on the man to whom God counts righteousness apart from works." Romans 4:1-6

ti oun eroumen eurhkenai abraam ton propatora hmwn kata sarka; ei gar abraam ex ergwn edikaiwqh, ecei kauchma: all ou proV qeon. ti gar h grafh legei; episteusen de abraam tw qew, kai elogisqh autw eiV dikaiosunhn. tw de ergazomenw o misqoV ou logizetai kata carin alla kata ofeilhma: tw de mh ergazomenw, pisteuonti de epi ton dikaiounta ton asebh, logizetai h pistiV autou eiV dikaiosunhn, kaqaper kai dauid legei ton makarismon tou anqrwpou w o qeoV logizetai dikaiosunhn cwriV ergwn,

Paul got it all wrong again, when he emphasized only Faith. James rebuked Paul, showing the balance of Faith with actual works manifested from one's Spiritual Practice, or "Din." This is the literal meaning of "Religion" (דִּין).

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as Righteousness;' and he was called the friend of God." James 2:21-23

abraam o pathr hmwn ouk ex ergwn edikaiwqh, anenegkaV isaak ton uion autou epi to qusiasthrion; blepeiV oti h pistiV sunhrgei toiV ergoiV autou kai ek twn ergwn h pistiV eteleiwqh, kai eplhrwqh h grafh h legousa, episteusen de abraam tw qew, kai elogisqh autw eiV dikaiosunhn, kai filoV qeou eklhqh.

A person may believe that they are a great gymnast, but unless they put in the time and work, they will never be great. One may also believe they are good at any sport or at a martial art, but without time and work, their belief means nothing. If someone would claim belief without works, then as James said, their faith is dead. Such an individual is delusional in thinking that they have salvation without works, just as much as an athlete would be delusional to "run a race" without practice.

To justify his preaching of living by faith alone, Paul cites Habakkuk's "the Righteous shall live by his faith" in Romans 1:17

In a clear prophecy against Paul, it is written: "Behold, his soul is puffed up. It is not upright in him, but the righteous will live by his faith. Yes, moreover, wine is treacherous. A haughty man who doesn't stay at home, who enlarges his desire as She'ol (שְׁאוֹל), and he is like death, and can't be satisfied, but gathers to himself all nations, and heaps to himself all peoples." Habakkuk 2:4-5

הִנֵּה עֻפְּלָה, לֹא יָשְׁרָה נַפְשׁוֹ בּוֹ; וְצַדִּיק, בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ יִחְיֶה. וְאַף כִּי הַיַּיִן בֹּגֵד, גֶּבֶר יָהִיר וְלֹא יִנְוֶה: אֲשֶׁר הִרְחִיב כִּשְׁאוֹל נַפְשׁוֹ, וְהוּא כַמָּוֶת וְלֹא יִשְׂבָּע, וַיֶּאֱסֹף אֵלָיו כָּל הַגּוֹיִם, וַיִּקְבֹּץ אֵלָיו כָּל הָעַמִּים.

This prophecy mentions Paul by name in the original Hebrew. The Hebrew at the time of the Tanakh did not use diacritical vowel markings. In Hebrew the word for "Hades" or "The Grave" is "Sheol" (שְׁאוֹל) meaning simply the Netherworld. It is not synonymous with "Hell"which is "Geyhenum" (גֵּיהִנֹּם) or the "Pit." The name "Sheol" (שְׁאוֹל) and "Sha'ul" (שָׁאוּל) or "Saul" as English renders it, are identical terms in Hebrew. As well, to those who understand the true origins, nature and identity of Paul, they will understand the full prophecy of Habbakuk as relating to this figure, who all the Prophets since the time of Noah have warned their people of.

In an interpretation of the above Habakkuk 2:4, the Dead Sea Scrolls (found only 50 years ago, in caves near Jericho) tell us its interpretation "Concerns all doers of the Torah in the House of Y'hudah (Judah), whom El (God) will save from the House of Judgment because of their works and their Faith in the Teacher of Righteousness." Habakkuk Pesher 7:17-8:3

[וצדיק באמונתו יהוה]...
פשרו על כול עושי התורה בבית יהודה אשר
יצילם אל מבית המשפט בעבור עמלם ואמנתם
במורה הצדק ואף כיא הוף יבגוד גבר יהיר ולוא

The "Teacher of Righteousness," or "Rightous Teacher," leads a Messianic Movement befuddled by "The Spouter of Lies, who leads many astray in order to build his city of vanity on blood and erect an Assembly upon Lying, for the sake of his glory, tiring out many with a worthless service and instructing them in works of Lying, so that their works will be of Emptiness. And they will be brought to the same Judgments of Fire with which they insulted and vilified the Chosen of God." Habakkuk Pesher 10:9-13

פשר הדבר על מטיף הכזב השר התעה רבים
לבנות עיר שוו ברמים ולקים עדה בשקר
העבור כבודה לוגיע רבים בעבודת שוו ולהרותם
במ[ע]שי שקר להיות עמלם לריק בעבור יבואו
למשפטי אש אשר גדפו ויחרפו את בלירי אל

Unlike the Spouter of Lies "who led the simple astray," the Righteous Teacher is described as follows regarding the observance of the Torah by he and his Community:

"[Mikhah 1:5-6 What are the 'high places' of Y'hudah? Is it not Ye]rusha[layim? I will reduce Shomron] [to a country ruin, to a plot of vines.] The interpretation of this concerns the Spreader of Lies [since he has misdirected] simpletons. Mikhah 1:5 'What are the "high places'' of Y'hudah? [Is it not Ye]rushalayim? The interpretation of this co]ncerns the Teacher of Righteousness who [teaches the Torah to his council] and to all those volunteering to join the chosen of [El, carrying out the Torah] in the council of the Community, those who will be saved on the Day of [Judgment] [] [As for what He says: Mikhah 1:6-7 I will reduce Shomron] to a country ruin [to a plot of vines; I will tip her stones into the valley and lay bare her foundations. A]ll her idols." - Micah Pesher fragment 10 3 (1Q14p1737)

[ בפשע
]יעקב כול זאת ובחטאות בית ישראל מה פשע יע[קב הלא
]שומרון ומה במות יהודה הלא יר[וש]לם ושמתי שומרון[
]לעי השדה למטעי כרם [פשרו על מטיף יהודה
]אשר הואה יתעה את ה[פתאים ומה במות יהודה
]הלא ירושלם פשרו ע[ל מורי הצדק אשר הואה
]יורה התורה לעצת[ו ולכ[ו ולכ]ו[ל המתנדבים לוסף על בחירי ]אל עושי התורה[ בעצת היחד אשר ינצל]ו[ מיום
]משפט [לע] [ ] [ה
] ואשר אמר ושמתי שומרון ל[עי ]ה[שדה
]למטעי כרם והגרתי לגי אבגיה ויסדיה אגלה וכו[ל ]פסי[ל]יה[

Many of Paul's letters in the New Testament can be historically seen as directly antagonistic towards the firm beliefs of James and the Nazirene community of "Mushlamim" (מֻשְׁלָמִים) under his leadership.

Isaiah 42:19 is one of the most ambiguous references to the "Mushlam." This is primarily so not because of ambiguity in the words of the Nevi'im, but rather in the mistranslations of this passage. Translators would have their readers believe that the passage reads:

"Who is blind, but My Servant? Or deaf, as My Messenger that I send? Who is blind as he that is wholehearted, and blind as the Servant of YHWH?"

At best, this is strange. "Who is blind but My Servant?" Why would the Servant of YHWH be blind, especially to the exclusion of others. The common mistranslation is "Who is blind but" the Servant; implying that others are not blind, but the Servant, doing the Will of YHWH is. This is not rational and should not be accepted by any mind of reason. The Servant of YHWH is not blind, the Messenger is not deaf, and neither is the "Mushlam" or Perfected One not blind. Not surprisingly, this is not what the Hebrew text actually says. However, because there are some words that bear multiple translations depending upon the context and sentence structure, the translators often chose an extreme translation that linguistically makes little sense and does a lot of "paraphrasing" (meaning addition of words that are not there to get the desired translation). The word for word translation of the passage is as followed. Any "additions" are in brackets, and they represent words that are commonly to be inferred in Semitic languages. For instance, it is written "Ebed YHWH" (עֶבֶד יְהוָה), which means "[the] Servant [of] YHWH" rather than how the western mind might naturally take it as "Servant YHWH" which would be ridiculous, and is simply not how Semitic languages work.

"Who (מִי) blinds (עִוֵּר), because (כִּי) [of] My Servant (עַבְדִּי)? And (וְ) deaf (חֵרֵשׁ), when (כְּ) My Messenger (מַלְאָכִי) [is] dispatched (אֶשְׁלָח)? Who (מִי) blinds (עִוֵּר) when (כִּ) Mushlam (מֻשְׁלָם, Perfected), and (וְ) blinds (עִוֵּר) like (כְּ) [the] Servant (עֶבֶד) [of] YHWH (יְהוָה)?" Yeshayahu (Isaiah) 42:19

מִי עִוֵּר כִּי אִם עַבְדִּי, וְחֵרֵשׁ כְּמַלְאָכִי אֶשְׁלָח; מִי עִוֵּר כִּמְשֻׁלָּם, וְעִוֵּר כְּעֶבֶד יְהוָה.

The Hebrew word for equanimity is "Hashlamah" (הַשְׁלָמָה) which is directly related to the word for Peace or "Shalom" (שָׁלוֹם) and the word for Completeness or "Shlemut" (שְׁלֵמוּת).

In English, "Equanimity" derives from the Latin word "aequus" meaning balanced, and "animus" meaning spirit or internal state. This is the Faith of ALL Prophets, from Abraham, to Moses, to Jesus Christ.

We see this same concept of Peace, Equanimity and Perfection continued in the words of Jesus Christ, when he said: "Ein talmeed na'leh 'al rabbo; shekken kal adam she'Mushlam yihyeh k'rabbo."

"A Student (תַּלְמִיד) is not (אֵין) exalted (נַעֲלֶה) near (עַל) his Teacher (רַבֹּו): because (שֶׁכֵּן) every (כָּל) Adam (אָדָם, True Human Being), [that is] Perfect (Mushlam, מֻּשׁלָם) shall be (יִהְיֶה) as (כְּ) his Teacher (רַבֹּו)." Luke 6:40

אֵין תַּלְמִיד נַעֲלֶה עַל רַבֹּו שֶׁכֵּן כָּל אָדָם שֶׁמֻּשׁלָם יִהְיֶה כְּרַבֹּו

As an agent and spy of both the Roman state and these ultra-fundamentalist hypocrite sects, Paul was an active conspirator in the assault on "Stephen," in Acts 7:58. In Acts 9:22-26 it is said that Paul "baffled" the Jews living in Damascus.

"But Paul increased more in strength, and baffled the Jews who lived at Damascus, proving that this is the Christ. When many days were fulfilled, the Jews conspired together to kill him, but their plot became known to Paul. They watched the gates both day and night that they might kill him, but his disciples took him by night, and let him down through the wall, lowering him in a basket. When Paul had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join himself to the Disciples; but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple."

sauloV de mallon enedunamouto kai sunecunnen [touV] ioudaiouV touV katoikountaV en damaskw, sumbibazwn oti outoV estin o cristoV. wV de eplhrounto hmerai ikanai, sunebouleusanto oi ioudaioi anelein auton: egnwsqh de tw saulw h epiboulh autwn. parethrounto de kai taV pulaV hmeraV te kai nuktoV opwV auton anelwsin: labonteV de oi maqhtai autou nuktoV dia tou teicouV kaqhkan auton calasanteV en spuridi. paragenomenoV de eiV ierousalhm epeirazen kollasqai toiV maqhtaiV: kai panteV efobounto auton, mh pisteuonteV oti estin maqhthV.

The above would suffice against Paul if it stood alone: that he himself was never a disciple or companion of Christ, that he was a murderer, never brought to justice as required by the Law of the Torah and the law of the land, and that Jesus' own Disciples were both "afraid of him" and didn't believe "that he was a disciple." The Dead Sea Scrolls show us that "Damascus" was the name of the Qumran community of Essenes. It was on his way to visit these revolutionaries, that Paul claims to have been stopped by a "vision." To the mystics, Prophets and revolutionaries of that day, Paul's vision seemed as nothing more than a cop-out for why he was claiming his Romanized message to be in line with the clearly anti-Roman teachings of Jesus. Many valid and initiated Nazirenes, including Jesus's own brother did not believe Paul. The debate between James, the head of the Nazirenes after Jesus's resurrection, and Paul is depicted throughout many of the books of the "New Testament," as well as other historically valid writing that didn't make the Council of Nicea's "cut" in 325 C.E.

In the Dead Sea Scrolls, Paul is referred to simply as "the Liar," for in truth he claimed that nearly every traditional facet of the Nazirene Way of life - those practices of the Nazirite oath in particular - were invalid. While Jesus stated that he taught the "Spirit of the Torah" - and did not even wish to remove one instance of the smallest of all Hebrew letters (specifically: י or "Yud") thereof - Paul completely mocked and ridiculed the Torah time and time again.

Regarding James the Brother of Jesus: "For whose sake Heaven and Earth came into existence," "Holy from his birth," "the Righteous One," "Bulwark of the People," Jerusalem falling "on account of his death"... These are strong words, and not to be lightly dismissed. They are consistent with what all early sources say about James the brother of Jesus. It is important to point out that our sources are not presenting James as the Head of "Christianity," but the popular Jewish leader of his day, the "Zaddiq" (צַדִּיק), whose death brought the downfall of Jerusalem, and in keeping with the notion - in Proverbs 10:25 and the esoteric texts of Qabalah in Seferim Ha'Zohar 1:59b - that "the Zaddiq is the Foundation" and "the Pillar that upholds the world." Paul understands this when he speaks in Galatians of going up to Jerusalem and meeting "James, Cephas, and John, those reputed to be Pillars," (Galatians 2:9), and his attitude towards them is quite helpful in determining who is the parallel character in the Dead Sea Scrolls known as the "Windbag," the "Comedian," the "Spouter of Lies," the "Man of Scoffing."

One need only look to 1 Corinthians 13:4 to see Paul's claims that the insane Roman emperor Nero, who ruthlessly slaughtered Jews and those whom the Church would later define as "Christians," was "God's servant." This should give you a glimpse into the reality that such beliefs are not authentically Biblical in origin, nor do they stem from the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Paul's defensiveness in the letters which can be clearly attributed to him, suggest that he was under constant and sustained attack from the Jerusalem Community. He denies that his message comes "...from any delusion or impure motives or trickery" (1 Thessalonians 2:3) and denies that he seeks to flatter human beings (Galatians 1:10) or seek honor from them (1 Thessalonians 2:6). His authority to preach is questioned for he comments "...you are asking for a proof that it is Christ who speaks in me" (2 Corinthians 13:3). He complains that he is not universally accepted as an apostle, writing: "Even if to others I am not an apostle, to you at any rate, I am, for you are the soul of my apostolate in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 9:2). He is also most sensitive to the charge that he lives off the church members and wants to emphasize how hard he and his companions work and how they suffer (1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:7, 1 Corinthians 4:12-13). That he was at some stage referred to as the "enemy" or in Hebrew "Satan" (שָׂטָן) is intimated in his Letter to the Galatians in which he asks "Have I turned into your enemy simply by being truthful with you?" (4:16)

However, it takes more for a matter to be "true" than to have a charismatic "man" traveling around getting paid big money to say that lawlessness justified by "faith" is truth. How convenient a message to literally "sell" to the lawless Roman pagans, literally "Goyim" (גּוֹיִים).

Paul's defensiveness over being called "the Liar" is quite clear. In his "Epistles" he says:

"The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, know that I do not lie." 2 Corinthians 11:31

o qeoV kai pathr tou kuriou ihsou oiden, o wn euloghtoV eiV touV aiwnaV, oti ou yeudomai.

"I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost." Romans 9:1

alhqeian legw en cristw, ou yeudomai, summarturoushV moi thV suneidhsewV mou en pneumati agiw,

"Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity." 1 Timothy 2:7

eiV o eteqhn egw khrux kai apostoloV alhqeian legw, ou yeudomai didaskaloV eqnwn en pistei kai alhqeia.

"Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not." Galatians 1:20

a de grafw umin, idou enwpion tou qeou oti ou yeudomai.

Were this anyone besides Paul, all would accuse him of lying, if for no other reason than for the fact that he was so redundant about claiming that he is not "The Liar" of the Dead Sea Scrolls of John, Jesus and James' Community of "Mushlamim."

One must never imagine that someone is an "Apostle" simply because they claim to be. Jesus warned us numerously of such "wolves in sheep's clothing." To this day Paul has not answered his critics. To this day he has not explained why he said one thing and Jesus said another. He has not explained why there is no positive prophecy mentioning him anywhere in the Bible, if he was in fact intended by God to be such a central, or even extant figure.

Paul has a lot to say but little or no Scripture to back it up. Likewise, he seems to either have been ignorant of, or blatantly hiding the words, contradictory to his own, that Jesus spoke. He claims to preach "the Gospel" and even "the new Gospel" yet he speaks little or nothing at all about the actual life, ministry and teachings of Jesus Christ. Instead he writes about his new doctrine of lawlessness, and spends most of the rest of his "Epistles" defending his violation of the Torah. This should be a great warning to us!

The strength of his attacks upon his opponents suggest a fierce ideological struggle between the Pauline "saved through the blood sacrifice of Jesus" school and the Jerusalem Community, advocating adherence to the Torah and the Gospel of Jesus. It is not mere coincidence that neither the Tanakh, nor even the Nicean canonical Gospels make any such references to atonement through "God-human" sacrifice. The notion that such pagan concepts had anything whatsoever to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ is the biggest lies ever told. The impression that the unsuspecting Christian is left with is that "all the prophets" had been awaiting this "sacrificial lamb" to come as "God incarnate" to atone for sin. There is literally not one statement in all of the Tanakh that says such a thing, nor is there anything remotely similar found from the mouth of Jesus in the canonical Gospel accounts. It is Paul and his companions, rather than John the Baptist, Jesus, James and their Community, who introduced this concept of redemption through unsubstantiated "faith," simultaneous with acts of lawlessness.

The Christian schizophrenia between "faith and works" stems from the fact that, naturally seeing truth in James admonitions to Paul, they attempt to fuse both the Hellenism (read that "paganism"), of Paul, with the "Hashlamah" (הַשְׁלָמָה) of James and Jesus Christ. This is futile at best; for a slave cannot serve two masters.

Paul attacks the pro-Torah advocates who have apparently had great impact upon the Galatians as "troublemakers who are seeking to pervert the Gospel of Christ" (Galatians 1:7) and goes on in the same chapter to put such people "under God's curse." He attacks them again as "false brothers who had secretly insinuated themselves to spy on the freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, intending to reduce us to slavery" (Galatians 2:4). Although it had been instituted by God, Paul claimed that return to observance of the Torah would mean that the Galatians would again "be fastened to the yoke of slavery" (5:1). He warns his followers against those who wish to obey the Torah and the Gospel, describing them as "self-mutilators" (Philippians 3:2). He accuses Cephas and Barnabas of insincerity in his account of what occurred in Antioch after some people came from James in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:13). This attack upon the very people whom he elsewhere refers to as "God's holy people in Jerusalem" (1 Corinthians 16:1-4); and "Pillars of the Church" (Galatians 2:9) suggests, at the very least, a deep ambivalence in the relationship between the friends of Jesus Christ and Paul. He can only mean the Jerusalem leaders when he states that he does not consider himself at all inferior to the "super-apostles" and writes that "those super-apostles had no advantage over me" (2 Corinthians 11:5,12:11). Paul in fact recognized no earthly authority above himself, claiming that he had been appointed an apostle by Jesus, not any human being (Galatians 1:1).

Strangely, this man, who was only shortly before murdering Jesus' disciples, now expected everyone to believe him to be infallible and above any criticism. Considering his satanic track record, it should be expected that Paul would have to prove himself through works or "fruit" if he was to be accepted. However, not only are there no works except for preaching for money, but this Satan never even publicly repents nor seeks forgiveness for his oppression.

This tremendous sense of absolute, unquestionable correctness led Paul to proclaim all opposition to him as devilish. He suggests that those who oppose him include "counterfeit apostles" and "dishonest workers" (2 Corinthians 11:13) and even Satan's servants disguised as "servants of uprightness" (2 Corinthians 11:14-15). He wishes that his opponents would "mutilate themselves" (Galatians 5:12). The advocates of the Torah were deemed self interested people who just wished to boast about their success (Galatians 6:13), wished to "stir up disagreements" (Romans 16:17) and who preached differently to Paul "out of malice and rivalry" or "out of jealousy, not in sincerity" (Philippians 1:15-19).

Although certain that he was following the correct path, Paul could not totally ignore the community of those who followed the Gospel of Jesus. The prestige of those who had walked with him and heard his Gospel as he had preached it, the Jerusalem Community and its three leaders, James, "Cephas" ("Kefa" being Hebrew for "Peter,") and John, could not be ignored. To have some credibility with the "Gentiles" and overseas Jews, Paul had to have their support or at least their apparent support. He is much concerned with the collection being taken for "God's holy people" the Jerusalem Community leaders (1 Corinthians 16:1-4), a theme continued in both his Letters to the Corinthians. That he felt it necessary to answer the charge that he might embezzle the collection (2 Corinthians 8:20-21) shows the suspicion with which he had to contend. He must claim the authority of the Jerusalem Community for the validity of his teaching to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:1-10) and he writes that "they asked nothing more than that we should remember to help the poor." This was some 17 years after his conversion, for as he states, he was in no hurry to confer with any human being as he had been selected in his mother's womb for this work (Galatians 1:15-17). Even so, he was fearful that he and his gift might not be accepted by the Jerusalem leaders, writing: "I pray that the aid I am carrying to Jerusalem will be acceptable to God's holy people." (Romans 15:31)

But still there might be another barb for these "super-apostles" for Paul throws in the line "One person may have faith enough to eat any kind of food; another less strong, will eat only vegetables." (Romans 14:2) James the Righteous, leader of the Jerusalem Community was a vegetarian and supporter of the Torah and the Gospel.

This of course is exactly as any Muslim educated about Jesus Christ, from what the Prophet Muhammad said, would presume. Of Jesus Christ's diet, Muslim "Ahadith" (Traditions) say:

"Jesus used to tell his followers, 'Take places of worship to be your homes, house to be stopping places. Eat from the plants of the wilderness and escape from this world in Peace.' Sharik said, 'I mentioned this to Sulayman, who added, 'and drink pure water.'"

Notes: Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak )d. 181/797), al-Zuhd, p. 198 (no. 563). Cf. Ibn Abd Rabbihi, al-`Iqd, 3:143; Ibn Asakir, Sirat, p. 138, no. 128 (Asin, p. 541, no. 111; Mansur, no 9; Robson, p. 73).

"Jesus used to say, 'Truly i say to you, to eat wheat bred, to drink pure water, and to sleep upon dunghills with the dogs more than suffices him who wishes to inherit paradise."

Notes: Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855), al-Zuhd, p. 98 (no. 326). Ibn Qutbayba, Uyun al-Akhbar, 2:363; Ibn Abi al-Dunya, Kitab Dhamm al- Dunya, in Mawsu'at Rasa'il, 2:275, excerpt no. 138: Ikhwan al-Safa', Rasa'il Ikhwan al-Safa', 3:34; and al-Ghazali, Ihya', 4:180 (Asin, p. 400, no. 70; Mansur, no. 152; Robson, p. 70 [shorter version]).

"Jesus was a constant traveler in the land, never abiding in a house or a village. His clothing consisted of a cloak made of coarse hair or camel stub and two hairless shirts... In his hand he carried a club. Whenever night fell, his lamp was the moonlight, his shade the blackness of night, his bed the earth, his pillow a stone, his food the plants of the fields. At times, he spent whole days and nights without food. In times of distress he was happy, and in times of ease he was sad."

Notes: Abu Rifa'a al-Fasawi (d. 289/902), Kitab Bad' al-Khalq, p. 333. Cf. Ibn `Asakir, Sirat, p. 133, no. 120.

"If you want to fast as Jesus did, he would fast all the time and lived on nothing but barley. He always wore [garments of] coarse hair, and wherever he would be at nightfall he would plant his feet and keep praying until he saw the break of dawn. He would never leave a particular place before praying two rak`as. If, however, you want to fast as his mother, the Virgin did, she used to fast for two days at a time then eat for two days."

Notes: Abu al-Layth al-Samarqandi (d. 373/983), Tanbih al-Ghafilin, p. 125 (Asin, p. 557, no. 139; Mansur, no. 39; Robson, pp. 74-75).

"Christ said, "Flesh eating flesh? How offensive an act!"

Notes: Al-Raghib al-Isfahani (early fifth/early eleventh century), Mahadarat al-Udaba', 1:610.

"If you wish, you may repeat what the Possessor of the Word and the Spirit, Jesus the son of Mary, used to say: 'Hunger is my seasoning, fear [of Allah] is my garment, wool is my clothing, the light of the dawn is my heat in winter, the moon is my lantern, my legs are my beast of burden, and the produce of the earth is my food and fruit. I retire for the night with nothing to my name and awake in the morning with nothing to my name. And there is no one on earth richer than me."

Notes: Abu Nu`aym al-Isbahani (d. 430/1038), Hilyat al-Awliya', 6:314 (Asin, pp. 374-375, no. 44; Mansur, no. 80; Robson, pp. 67-68.

The Truth is that Jesus Christ did not eat animal flesh, sacrificed to pagan "gods" or not. According to Genesis, this was the original diet of man:

"I give you all plants that bear seed everywhere on Earth, and every tree bearing fruit which yields seed: they shall be yours for food. All green plants I give for food to the wild animals, to all the birds of heaven, and to all reptiles on Earth, every living creature, it shall be theirs for food." Genesis 1:29-30??

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כָּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ, וְאֶת כָּל הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ פְרִי עֵץ, זֹרֵעַ זָרַע: לָכֶם יִהְיֶה, לְאָכְלָה. וּלְכָל חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ וּלְכָל עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְכֹל רוֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, אֶת כָּל יֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב, לְאָכְלָה; וַיְהִי כֵן

It is furthermore alluded to in the Torah, that the advent of ritualistic slaughter itself was descended from the days of more primitive spiritual misunderstanding. Likewise, it is herein alluded that sacrifice has its roots in paganism.

"They shall no longer sacrifice their slaughtered beasts to the demons whom they wantonly follow. This shall be a rule binding on them and their descendants for all time." Leviticus 17:7

וְלֹא יִזְבְּחוּ עוֹד, אֶת זִבְחֵיהֶם, לַשְּׂעִירִם, אֲשֶׁר הֵם זֹנִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם: חֻקַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה זֹּאת לָהֶם, לְדֹרֹתָם

This brings an entirely new perspective to the discussion of animal sacrifice in the Bible. It is not only a discussion of the sacrificial rite; it is also a discussion of flesh consumption as well. The idea that Jesus died as a sacrificial offering to God came from Paul alone. Jesus, himself, was opposed to the idea of sacrificial offerings to God (Matthew 9:13; 12:7; Mark 12:32-33). Similarly, in many of the prophetic Writings, sacrifices and subsequently, flesh consumption, are strongly attacked:

"I hate, I spurn your pilgrim feasts; I will not delight in your sacred ceremonies. When you present your sacrifices and offerings I will not accept them, nor look on the buffaloes of your shared offerings. Spare me the sound of your songs; I cannot endure the music of your lutes." Amos 5:21-23

שָׂנֵאתִי מָאַסְתִּי, חַגֵּיכֶם; וְלֹא אָרִיחַ, בְּעַצְּרֹתֵיכֶם. כִּי אִם תַּעֲלוּ לִי עֹלוֹת וּמִנְחֹתֵיכֶם, לֹא אֶרְצֶה; וְשֶׁלֶם מְרִיאֵיכֶם, לֹא אַבִּיט. הָסֵר מֵעָלַי, הֲמוֹן שִׁרֶיךָ; וְזִמְרַת נְבָלֶיךָ, לֹא אֶשְׁמָע.

Similarly, such strong language can be found in Isaiah 1:11-16. Verses such as Hosea 6:6, Micah 6:6-8 state that sacrifices are definitely unnecessary; long before the alleged "sacrifice" of Jesus..

"For I desire Mercy not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of YHWH rather than burnt offerings. But they like men have transgressed the covenant; there have they dealt treacherously against Me." Hosea 6:6-7

כִּי חֶסֶד חָפַצְתִּי, וְלֹא זָבַח; וְדַעַת אֱלֹהִים, מֵעֹלוֹת. וְהֵמָּה, כְּאָדָם עָבְרוּ בְרִית; שָׁם, בָּגְדוּ בִי.

"With what shall I come before YHWH and bow down before the Exalted Elohai? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will YHWH be pleased with thousands of rams, with then thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does YHWH require of you? To act justly and to love Mercy and to walk humbly with the YHWH-Eloheka." Micah 6:6-8

בַּמָּה אֲקַדֵּם יְהוָה, אִכַּף לֵאלֹהֵי מָרוֹם; הַאֲקַדְּמֶנּוּ בְעוֹלוֹת, בַּעֲגָלִים בְּנֵי שָׁנָה. הֲיִרְצֶה יְהוָה בְּאַלְפֵי אֵילִים, בְּרִבְבוֹת נַחֲלֵי שָׁמֶן; הַאֶתֵּן בְּכוֹרִי פִּשְׁעִי, פְּרִי בִטְנִי חַטַּאת נַפְשִׁי. הִגִּיד לְךָ אָדָם, מַה טּוֹב; וּמָה יְהוָה דּוֹרֵשׁ מִמְּךָ, כִּי אִם עֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט וְאַהֲבַת חֶסֶד, וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת, עִם אֱלֹהֶיךָ.

Of course it will be the first pre-programmed, knee-jerk reaction of any devout flesh eater to suppose that such verses are subject to interpretation. Were the Prophets attacking the practice of sacrifice itself, or were they simply opposing the behavior of the people of their culture; stating that their sacrifices were hypocritical or null and void due to their contrary lifestyles? To one who is insistent upon exploiting religion to condone their hedonistic desires, this will be a difficult case to prove. However, the rage of the notorious vegetarian Prophet Isaiah, must prove at least partially convincing that it was the practice of animal sacrifice itself that was being assaulted:

"The reek of sacrifice is abhorrent to me" Isaiah 1:13

לֹא תוֹסִיפוּ, הָבִיא מִנְחַת שָׁוְא--קְטֹרֶת תּוֹעֵבָה הִיא, לִי; חֹדֶשׁ וְשַׁבָּת קְרֹא מִקְרָא, לֹא אוּכַל אָוֶן וַעֲצָרָה.

"There is blood on your hands; wash yourselves and be clean." Isaiah 1:15-16

וּבְפָרִשְׂכֶם כַּפֵּיכֶם, אַעְלִים עֵינַי מִכֶּם--גַּם כִּי תַרְבּוּ תְפִלָּה, אֵינֶנִּי שֹׁמֵעַ: יְדֵיכֶם, דָּמִים מָלֵאוּ. רַחֲצוּ, הִזַּכּוּ--הָסִירוּ רֹעַ מַעַלְלֵיכֶם, מִנֶּגֶד עֵינָי: חִדְלוּ, הָרֵעַ.

In passages such as Ezekiel 20:21-26 there is insinuation that God was having second thoughts concerning some of the "Mosaic statutes." A more realistic interpretation of this would point out that it was not God whose Mind changed, but rather the modern Prophetic understanding of that day that was beginning to evolve and view the Divine Will in a more objective and clear light. Thus, they were beginning to see that it was somewhat different than the historic practices of the people. As well, the Prophets came correcting the alterations to the Torah that Jeremiah spoke of:

"Even the stork in the sky knows her appointed seasons, and the dove, the swift and the thrush observe the time of their migration. But my people do not know the requirements of YHWH. How can you say, 'We are wise, for we have the Torah of YHWH,' when actually the lying pen of the Scribes has handled it falsely? The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the Word of YHWH, what kind of Wisdom do they have?" Yirmeyahu 8:7-9

גַּם חֲסִידָה בַשָּׁמַיִם, יָדְעָה מוֹעֲדֶיהָ, וְתֹר וְסִוס (וְסִיס) וְעָגוּר, שָׁמְרוּ אֶת עֵת בֹּאָנָה; וְעַמִּי--לֹא יָדְעוּ, אֵת מִשְׁפַּט יְהוָה. אֵיכָה תֹאמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֲנַחְנוּ, וְתוֹרַת יְהוָה אִתָּנוּ; אָכֵן הִנֵּה לַשֶּׁקֶר עָשָׂה, עֵט שֶׁקֶר סֹפְרִים. הֹבִשׁוּ חֲכָמִים, חַתּוּ וַיִּלָּכֵדוּ; הִנֵּה בִדְבַר יְהוָה מָאָסוּ, וְחָכְמַת מֶה לָהֶם.

Beyond such proofs, no verse appears to us in as much clarity and no ambiguity than the mysterious addition found in early manuscripts of Daniel, between chapters 3:23 and 3:24. When it was ruled to be "heretical," it was removed. Since then it has been most readily accessible in the Apocrypha, found in between the Old and the New Testaments in the Catholic Bible under the title of "The Song of the Three," or "The Song of the Holy Three."

In this section, Daniel was away from Babylon, embarked on a journey for King Nebuchadnezzar. During his departure, his fellow vegetarian Nazirites; "Shadrach, Meshach and Abedneggo," were to be made an example of by the Babylonian forces that opposed their righteous ways. To make a long story short, they wound up being sentenced to death in the huge furnaces that were used to bake bricks for the Babylonian empire. During their purported execution in the furnace, the three Nazirites were said to have prayed, finally being saved by the Divine presence, the Shekinah (שְׁכִינָה) of God in the form of the primordial Messiah. So far, this much passed the censor's knife and remains in the book of Daniel today. However the section that was removed details just what was said in their prayers and supplications amidst the flames from which they emerged unscathed.

"There is no burnt-offering, no sacrifice, no oblation, no incense, no place to make offering before you and find Mercy. But because we come with contrite heart and humbled spirit, accept us... Accept our pledge of loyalty to You, for no shame shall come to those who put their trust in You." Song of the Three, Lines 15-17

After their prayers were heard and they were delivered from the flames, the three Nazirites rejoiced, asking the Earth to rejoice and give praises to God. They continue on instructing the same to non-human animals. With such controversial contents it is with little difficulty that we can understand why the Roman State opposed such doctrines. Furthermore, regardless of one's take on this passage, it is clear from both "heretical" and mainstream sources that these Babylonian exiles did not partake in sacrifice, yet nonetheless their prayers were heard and they did not fail to enact the Divine Will. All this with no shedding of innocent blood and no "ultimate sacrifice of Jesus."

It was only the innovation of Paul of Tarsus to eat flesh foods that were not Kosher. Certainly it was permissible for many to eat flesh under the Torah, but this had to be flesh from certain animals whose flesh was not as destructive to mankind as others. Flesh of dogs and swine which were "domesticated" animals, not created by God, but rather by Created beings, along with other most unhealthy flesh and combinations of animal products, were prohibited in all contexts.

Yet still, the superior priestly, monastic diet was "Naziri," (נְזִירִי) the "oath of Naziritism" (נָזִיר הַנֶדֶר). This diet required abstinence from alcohol, flesh foods, and as an outward sign of this the Nazir would grow the locks of his hair. Nearly all "apocryphal" Gospels are unanimously in agreement that John, Jesus and James were all vegetarian. A fact which Prophet Muhammad maintained all along regarding these individuals, which the Qur'an refers to as "Muslims" or "those who Submit to the Divine Will." Some sources have "Judas" as the only Disciple who didn't seem to catch on to the Naziri principle; even portraying him as bringing a lamb to the Pesach, or Passover, Seder; which was then rejected and Judas rebuked. Whereas in all accounts, including those canonical, the traditional Pesach meal of lamb flesh is completely absent from the "Last supper." The irregular vegetarian meal of Pesach is also a Biblical fact that Christianity has no explanation for.

The Authority of James

Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 CE), Archbishop under Constantine, tells us in his "Ecclesiastical History" that James was "The lord's brother, who had been elected by the Apostles to the episcopal throne at Jerusalem," - "Ecclesiastical History" 2.23

Knowing Jesus would soon depart from them, his Disciples, according to the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas, (buried and preserved in Nag Hammadi, Egypt), asked him who would lead them, "And Jesus said to them, 'In the place you are to go, go to James the Righteous, for whose sake Heaven and Earth came into existence.'"

Jerome (342-420 CE), basing his knowledge on Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, and the Jewish historian Josephus, also knows this when he says in his "Lives of Illustrious Men" that "He [James] alone enjoyed the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since, indeed, he did not wear woolen, but only linen clothes, and went into the Temple alone and prayed on behalf of the people, so that his knees were reputed to have acquired the callousness of a camel's knees," and that after Jesus departed "was immediately appointed Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles." - "Lives of Illustrious Men" chapter 2

Palestinian Jewish Christian Hegesippus (100-180 CE), portions of whose five books of early Church history only survive in passages cited by Eusebius, tells us, "There were many James', but this one...the Lord's brother...was Holy from his birth. Everyone from the Lord's time till our own has called him the Righteous," and that "[b]ecause of his unsurpassable Righteousness he was called the Righteous, and Oblias," (E.H. 2.23)

The second century Syriac Apostolic Constitutions tell us that James was "the brother of Christ according to the flesh... and one appointed Bishop of Jerusalem by the Lord Himself," (8.35).

In another passage surviving only in Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE) tells us that the "Gift of knowledge" was imparted by Jesus to "James the Righteous, to John, and to Peter," and that these in turn "delivered it to the rest of the Apostles, and they to the Seventy, of whom Barnabas was one," (E.H. 2.1).

Clement of Rome (30-97 CE), or someone purporting to be him, addresses his letter in the non-canonical Pseudo-Clementine Homilies of Clement to "James... the Bishop of Bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the Holy Assembly of the Hebrews and the Assemblies everywhere," as does Peter similarly in his Homilies letter.

Even Josephus (37-96 CE), who was not a Christian, but was a Jewish contemporary of James, knows about him, and even insists that James' death was the reason the Jewish people believed Jerusalem fell: "These things [the Uprising and consequent destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans] happened to the Jews in requital for James the Righteous, who was a brother of Jesus known as Christ, for though he was the most Righteous of men, the Jews put him to death."

This passage, remarked on also by Origen (185-254 CE), and Jerome, only exists in Eusebius' E.H., Jerome's Commentary on Galatians, and Origen's letter (Contra Celsus 1.47), and, interestingly, is no longer extant in any manuscript of the works of Josephus! Commenting on it, Eusebius says, "So remarkable a person must James have been, so universally esteemed for Righteousness, that even the most intelligent of Jews felt this was why his martyrdom was immediately followed by the siege of Jerusalem," (E.H. 2.23)

This contradicts Christian belief that the Temple fell because of the "death of Jesus," as Origen is well aware and at pains to "correct" in Contra Celsus. This latter also tells us that "the wonderful thing is that, though he [Josephus] did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the Righteousness of James was so great...that the people thought they had suffered these things on account of [him]." (Commentary on Matthew; 10.17)

For his part, Jerome, in his Lives, writes "This same Josephus records the tradition that this James was of so great Holiness and reputation among the people that the destruction of Jerusalem was believed to have occurred on account of his death," and in a Commentary that "So Holy was James that the people zealously tried to touch the fringes of his garment," (Commentary on Galatians 1:19); these are the fringes commanded to be worn by observant Jews in Numbers 15:38:

"Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them throughout their generations fringes in the corners of their garments, and that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue. And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that you may look upon it, and Remember all the Commandments of YHWH, and do them; and that you go not about after your own heart and your own eyes, after which you use to go astray." Numbers 15:38-39

דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם, וְעָשׂוּ לָהֶם צִיצִת עַל כַּנְפֵי בִגְדֵיהֶם, לְדֹרֹתָם; וְנָתְנוּ עַל צִיצִת הַכָּנָף, פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת. וְהָיָה לָכֶם, לְצִיצִת, וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת כָּל מִצְוֹת יְהוָה, וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם; וְלֹא תָתוּרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם, וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם, אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם זֹנִים, אַחֲרֵיהֶם.

Even the very attire of James reminded the masses that, as he retorted to Paul, "Faith without works is dead." As well we are told here that this was to be bid unto the "B'nei Yisrael," the Children of Israel, throughout their generations. This did not expire with Jesus Christ, as he also confirmed many times that there was not a single aspect, or even the smallest letter of the Torah that was to pass away on account of him. And still, despite Paul's claims to the contrary, the Torah did not expire when he came pandering to the Roman Beast.

The Dissension of Paul

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." Matthew 7:15

prosecete apo twn yeudoprofhtwn, oitineV ercontai proV umaV en endumasin probatwn, eswqen de eisin lukoi arpageV.

Paul used pseudo-philosophical arguments that went in circles. He told James that he had no right to judge him - attempting to allude to teachings of James' brother that were taken out of context.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Matthew 7:1-6

mh krinete, ina mh kriqhte: en w gar krimati krinete kriqhsesqe, kai en w metrw metreite metrhqhsetai umin. ti de blepeiV to karfoV to en tw ofqalmw tou adelfou sou, thn de en tw sw ofqalmw dokon ou katanoeiV; h pwV ereiV tw adelfw sou, afeV ekbalw to karfoV ek tou ofqalmou sou, kai idou h dokoV en tw ofqalmw sou; upokrita, ekbale prwton ek tou ofqalmou sou thn dokon, kai tote diableyeiV ekbalein to karfoV ek tou ofqalmou tou adelfou sou.

However, in Paul's crafty misinterpretation of this passage of Jesus' wonderful teaching, Paul himself judged James, for allegedly passing such judgment. In 1 Corinthians 8:2 he claims that:

"If anyone thinks he has acquired knowledge of something, he does not yet know [it] just as he ought to know [it]."

ei tiV dokei egnwkenai ti, oupw egnw kaqwV dei gnwnai:

Clearly this is nonsense, tautological and insubstantial, for if he knew so much as to make such a statement in the first place then he would be admitting that he knows nothing by claiming that he knows. This was clearly a poor attempt at integrating pagan Greek philosophy into his teachings.

But even more important is the realization of just what Paul was pitifully trying to argue. In verse one of the same chapter we read:

"Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but charity edifies."

peri de twn eidwloqutwn, oidamen oti panteV gnwsin ecomen. h gnwsiV fusioi, h de agaph oikodomei.

"Edifies?" Could Paul actually have been suggesting that he was the "better man" than James and the Jerusalem Community because he ate flesh sacrificed to pagan, polytheistic idols? There is virtually unanimous agreement that this was in fact what Paul was saying. So while Jesus Christ told us that not one letter of the Torah would pass away, and that he had come to fulfill, rather than to abolish the Torah, Paul was busy openly mocking the Torah by eating the flesh of animals killed in a non-Kosher manner and sacrificed to pagan false-gods.

Are there any Christians today who would openly eat the flesh of an animal sacrificed to Satan or to any of pantheon of Greek "gods" and "goddesses." Christians will immediately rise to Paul's defense and at the same time they refuse flesh sacrificed to the Greek "god" called by the name "Hades." Why? According to Paul it is only "lack of faith" that would cause one to abstain from the devil's meal!

According to Paul, not Jesus, if you would not eat such flesh then you "do not know what you ought to know" and of course you are "weak of faith." What a strange theology where decadence and lawlessness makes one "know what they ought to know" while observance of the Torah makes one "weak" and not knowing "what they ought to know."

"The Crown"

One of the most interesting stories in the so-called "New Testament" in regards to Paul is the confrontation with "Stephen" or "`Atarah" (עֲטָרָה) in Hebrew. Meaning "Crown," `Atarah quite clearly indicates that this was the "Head" of the Jerusalem community. As well, there are obvious esoteric connections here that are obviously relating to the "Nazirite" oath of this individual; as both "`Atarah" (עֲטָרָה), and "Nezer" (נֵזֶר) mean "Crown." It is from this Tri-Consonantal root that we get "Nazir" (נָזִיר), meaning "Nazirite;" which John "the Baptist," Jesus and James all were, according to the earliest sources.

This quite easily gets befuddled in the translation between Hebrew, then Greek, then English. The even transpired in a Hebrew context, was recorded in the Greek of Acts, and now many modern day Christians approach it from a context of misunderstanding that is neither native to the unoriginal Greek, nor the Hebrew.

"And YHWH spoke to Moses, saying: 'Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them: 'When either man or woman shall make a special vow, the vow of a Nazir, to separate himself to YHWH, he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink. He shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of fermented drink, neither shall he drink any juice of grapes, nor eat fresh grapes or dried. All the days of his separation he shall eat nothing that is made of the grapevine, from the seeds even to the skins. All the days of his vow of separation there shall no razor come on his head, until the days are fulfilled, in which he separates himself to YHWH. He shall be holy. He shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long. All the days that he separates himself to YHWH he shall not go near a dead body. He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die; because the Nazir Crown (נֵזֶר) of his God is on his head. All the days of his separation he is holy to YHWH." Numbers 6:1-8

וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה, אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם: אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה, כִּי יַפְלִא לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר נָזִיר--לְהַזִּיר, לַיהוָה מִיַּיִן וְשֵׁכָר יַזִּיר, חֹמֶץ יַיִן וְחֹמֶץ שֵׁכָר לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה; וְכָל מִשְׁרַת עֲנָבִים לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה, וַעֲנָבִים לַחִים וִיבֵשִׁים לֹא יֹאכֵל. כֹּל, יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ: מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן, מֵחַרְצַנִּים וְעַד זָג--לֹא יֹאכֵל. כָּל יְמֵי נֶדֶר נִזְרוֹ, תַּעַר לֹא יַעֲבֹר עַל רֹאשׁוֹ: עַד מְלֹאת הַיָּמִם אֲשֶׁר יַזִּיר לַיהוָה, קָדֹשׁ יִהְיֶה--גַּדֵּל פֶּרַע, שְׂעַר רֹאשׁוֹ. כָּל יְמֵי הַזִּירוֹ, לַיהוָה, עַל נֶפֶשׁ מֵת, לֹא יָבֹא. לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ, לְאָחִיו וּלְאַחֹתוֹ--לֹא יִטַּמָּא לָהֶם, בְּמֹתָם: כִּי נֵזֶר אֱלֹהָיו, עַל רֹאשׁוֹ. כֹּל, יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ, קָדֹשׁ הוּא, לַיהוָה. וְכִי יָמוּת מֵת עָלָיו בְּפֶתַע פִּתְאֹם, וְטִמֵּא רֹאשׁ נִזְרוֹ--וְגִלַּח רֹאשׁוֹ בְּיוֹם טָהֳרָתוֹ, בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי יְגַלְּחֶנּוּ. וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי, יָבִא שְׁתֵּי תֹרִים, אוֹ שְׁנֵי, בְּנֵי יוֹנָה: אֶל הַכֹּהֵן--אֶל פֶּתַח, אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד. וְעָשָׂה הַכֹּהֵן, אֶחָד לְחַטָּאת וְאֶחָד לְעֹלָה, וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו, מֵאֲשֶׁר חָטָא עַל הַנָּפֶשׁ; וְקִדַּשׁ אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ, בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא. וְהִזִּיר לַיהוָה אֶת יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ, וְהֵבִיא כֶּבֶשׂ בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ לְאָשָׁם; וְהַיָּמִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים יִפְּלוּ, כִּי טָמֵא נִזְרוֹ.

"[T]o James alone, it was allowed to enter once a year into the Holy of Holies [the innermost sanctum of the Temple], because he was a Nazirite and connected to the priesthood. Hence Mary was related in two ways to Elizabeth [John the Baptist's mother] and James was a distinguished member of the priesthood, because the two tribes alone were linked to one another, the royal tribe to the priestly." Panarion 30

Josephus and Hegesippus - and because of them, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus (160-235 CE), Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome - even ancient Christian literature recently found in Nag Hammadi, Egypt (like the lost Gospel of Thomas above) knew of James' death, but not, oddly, Acts. Because Josephus knew of it first hand, it would seem best to use his account.

According to him, when the Roman Governor died in 62 C.E. -and the new one was still on his way to Judea - Establishment High Priest Ananus ben Ananus used the occasion to illegally try and execute Jesus' brother James, because of his role as supreme leader of the Movement of Jesus:

"[H]e assembled the Sanhedrin [the 'Supreme Court'] of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some of his companions. And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the Law, he delivered them to be stoned. But those citizens who seemed the most equitable and the most careful in the observation of the Law were offended by this." Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.1

And of course what did Jesus say about "the Law" or "Torah?"

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (Torah, תּוֹרָה) or the Prophets (Nevi'im, נְבִיאִים); I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law; until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law, you will certainly not enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Matthew 5:17-20

mh nomishte oti hlqon katalusai ton nomon h touV profhtaV: ouk hlqon katalusai alla plhrwsai. amhn gar legw umin, ewV an parelqh o ouranoV kai h gh, iwta en h mia keraia ou mh parelqh apo tou nomou ewV an panta genhtai. oV ean oun lush mian twn entolwn toutwn twn elacistwn kai didaxh outwV touV anqrwpouV, elacistoV klhqhsetai en th basileia twn ouranwn: oV d an poihsh kai didaxh, outoV megaV klhqhsetai en th basileia twn ouranwn. legw gar umin oti ean mh perisseush umwn h dikaiosunh pleion twn grammatewn kai farisaiwn, ou mh eiselqhte eiV thn basileian twn ouranwn.

However, in utter contradiction to Jesus Christ's affirmation of the eternal validity of the Torah, as long as Heaven and Earth are extant, Paul blasphemously claims that Christ came to "destroy the barrier... by abolishing in his flesh the Torah." This alone is proof that Paul is an outright Imposter and Liar, the Great Pretender.

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the Law with its commandments and regulations." Ephesians 2:13-15

nuni de en cristw ihsou umeiV oi pote onteV makran egenhqhte egguV en tw aimati tou cristou. autoV gar estin h eirhnh hmwn, o poihsaV ta amfotera en kai to mesotoicon tou fragmou lusaV, thn ecqran, en th sarki autou,

"The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the Torah made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God." Hebrews 7:18-19

aqethsiV men gar ginetai proagoushV entolhV dia to authV asqeneV kai anwfeleV, ouden gar eteleiwsen o nomoV, epeisagwgh de kreittonoV elpidoV, di hV eggizomen tw qew.

James the Brother of Jesus spoke out against "Shu'al Ha'Tarsu," Paul of Tarsus in this profound and pivotal incident:

"You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit! As your fathers did, so you do. Which of the prophets didn't your fathers persecute? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One, of whom you have now become betrayers and murderers. You received the Law as it was ordained by angels, and didn't keep it! Now when they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the Glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, 'Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Adam standing at the right hand of God!'" Acts 7:51-56

sklhrotrachloi kai aperitmhtoi kardiaiV kai toiV wsin, umeiV aei tw pneumati tw agiw antipiptete, wV oi patereV umwn kai umeiV. tina twn profhtwn ouk ediwxan oi patereV umwn; kai apekteinan touV prokataggeilantaV peri thV eleusewV tou dikaiou ou nun umeiV prodotai kai foneiV egenesqe, oitineV elabete ton nomon eiV diatagaV aggelwn, kai ouk efulaxate. akouonteV de tauta dieprionto taiV kardiaiV autwn kai ebrucon touV odontaV ep auton. uparcwn de plhrhV pneumatoV agiou atenisaV eiV ton ouranon eiden doxan qeou kai ihsoun estwta ek dexiwn tou qeou, kai eipen, idou qewrw touV ouranouV dihnoigmenouV kai ton uion tou anqrwpou ek dexiwn estwta tou qeou.

Not only are we told that James was "full of the Holy Spirit," whereas Paul "thinks" he "has the Spirit of God," but also James, or "Stephen" clearly maintains the Unity of God, and the separation between God and Jesus Christ. They are not seen as one individual, but rather as two separate individuals in separate positions; the "Son of Adam" merely in the right hand of God. There is the "Glory of God" - indicating the Reality that His true "Face" could not be directly gazed upon - and there is Jesus "standing on the right hand of God." Of course this fits perfectly with the words of Jesus Christ himself, but it is a blatant contradiction to the dogma of Paul, who tried to fit paganism's belief in Divine incarnation, and many ancient pagan "resurrection" myths into the historical person of Jesus Christ.

Clearly if the "Glory of God" and Jesus Christ can be seen as two separate individuals then they are not "one" numerically. For even the polytheistic Hindus believe that their "gods" are actually facets of one "Supreme personality of Godhead" in which they are "United." Thus the Paulian dogma is no different than a theologically developed argument for polytheism.

"But they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and rushed at him with one accord. They threw him out of the city, and stoned him. The witnesses placed their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. They stoned Stephen as he called out, saying, 'lord (kurie, from kurioV meaning master or teacher, the same as "Rabbi" in the original Hebrew being spoken by "Stephen") Jesus, receive my Spirit!" He kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, 'Lord, don't hold this sin against them!' When he had said this, he fell asleep." Acts 7:57-60

kraxanteV de fwnh megalh sunescon ta wta autwn, kai wrmhsan omoqumadon ep auton, kai ekbalonteV exw thV polewV eliqoboloun. kai oi martureV apeqento ta imatia autwn para touV podaV neaniou kaloumenou saulou. kai eliqoboloun ton stefanon epikaloumenon kai legonta, kurie ihsou, dexai to pneuma mou. qeiV de ta gonata ekraxen fwnh megalh, kurie, mh sthshV autoiV tauthn thn amartian. kai touto eipwn ekoimhqh.

"Saul was consenting to his death. A great persecution arose against the assembly which was in Jerusalem in that day. They were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judah and Shomron, except for the emissaries. Devout men buried Stephen, and lamented greatly over him. But Saul ravaged the assembly, entering into every house, and dragged both men and women off to prison. Therefore those who were scattered abroad went around preaching the word. Philip went down to the city of Shomron, and proclaimed to them the Christ. The multitudes listened with one accord to the things that were spoken by Philip, when they heard and saw the signs which he did. For unclean spirits came out of many of those who had them. They came out, crying with a loud voice. Many who had been paralyzed and lame were healed. There was great joy in that city." Acts 8:1-8

sauloV de hn suneudokwn th anairesei autou. egeneto de en ekeinh th hmera diwgmoV megaV epi thn ekklhsian thn en ierosolumoiV: panteV de diesparhsan kata taV cwraV thV ioudaiaV kai samareiaV plhn twn apostolwn. sunekomisan de ton stefanon andreV eulabeiV kai epoihsan kopeton megan ep autw. sauloV de elumaineto thn ekklhsian kata touV oikouV eisporeuomenoV, surwn te andraV kai gunaikaV paredidou eiV fulakhn. oi men oun diasparenteV dihlqon euaggelizomenoi ton logon. filippoV de katelqwn eiV [thn] polin thV samareiaV ekhrussen autoiV ton criston. proseicon de oi ocloi toiV legomenoiV upo tou filippou omoqumadon en tw akouein autouV kai blepein ta shmeia a epoiei: polloi gar twn econtwn pneumata akaqarta bownta fwnh megalh exhrconto, polloi de paralelumenoi kai cwloi eqerapeuqhsan: egeneto de pollh cara en th polei ekeinh.

"Those who were unfaithful together with the Liar, [who] did not listen to the word received by the Righteous Teacher from the mouth of God" and "who were silent at the time of the chastisement of the Righteous Teacher and did not aid him against the Liar who rejected the Law in the midst of all their Assembly" were "Unfaithful in the New Covenant in that they have not believed in the Covenant of God and have profaned His Holy Name," Habakkuk Pesher 2:1-2, 5:12, 2:3

יסופר ]... פשר הדבר על [ הבוגדים עם איש
הכזב כי לוא ]האמינו בדברי[ מורה צדקה מפיא

התורה בתוך כול עצתם ותעש הדם כדגי הים

אל ועל הבוג]דים בברית [החדשה כ]י[א לוא

This makes it clear who we are talking about. The "Teacher of Righteousness" is seen as being attacked by "the Liar" in "their Assembly."

Interestingly "the Liar" is the name that Prophet Muhammad used for the Antichrist. In Arabic he is called "Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal" (المَسِيح الدَجَّال) meaning literally "the Imposter Messiah." "Dajjal" (دَجَّال) translates as "Liar" or "Imposter." Of course Prophet Muhammad did not have copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls that we now have. The Jerusalem Community of John the Baptist, Jesus and James were forced to bury these texts with the promise that they would be revealed in the era of the Antichrist's rise. It is not without significance tha both the Nag Hammadi "Gnostic Gospels" and the Dead Sea Scrolls were miraculously discovered after 2,000 years, within a few years of each other, right around the time of the European colonialism of Palestine was officially given the IMPOSTER name of "Israel" which all true Orthodox Jews and Muslims will tell you it is not!

It is theoretically conceivable that such as Paul could have had a change of heart and stopped murdering Jesus' followers. That much could realistically happen, though it is statistically unlikely that anyone so evil as to do such things in the first place would suddenly "see the light." However, it is ridiculous to imagine that Paul was a Prophet or "Apostle" as he claimed to be. Not only was such behavior of oppressing the righteous unprecedented amongst all previous Prophets, but Paul never begged forgiveness from the Disciples, or the Jerusalem Community that followed Jesus. He was a mass murderer and was neither prosecuted, nor publicly apologized for his wicked "fruit." The very fact that Paul was such an admittedly wicked man, and never paid for his crimes, nor asked forgiveness from the families and community of the victims he sought to wipe out, and then goes so far as to contradict Jesus Christ, James and all other true Servants of God, setting himself up as "Apostle" and claiming that Christ speaks through him, serves as more than ample evidence against this Imposter-messiah.

"The Liar"

"Our lord and Prophet, who has sent us, declared to us that the Evil One, having disputed with him for forty days, but failing to prevail against him, promised that he would send Apostles from among his subjects to deceive them. Therefore, above all, remember to shun any apostle, teacher or prophet who does not accurately compare his teachings with James...the brother of our lord... and this, even if he comes to you with recommendations." Homilies of Clement 11.35

In the Recognitions of Clement, we also learn of someone named Saul -"one of our enemies"- who, upon entering the Temple with a few other companions while James was reading and interpreting Bible prophecy concerning Jesus, "began to cry out," and "while James the Bishop was refuting him" he "began to drive all into confusion with shouting, and undo what was arranged with much labor." A riot ensues, "in the midst of which, this enemy attacked James and threw him headlong from the top of the [Temple] steps, and, supposing him to be dead, cared not to inflict further violence upon him."

Though James doesn't die here, both his legs were broken, so "our friends lifted him up...and we returned to the House of James, and spent the night there in prayer. Then, before daylight, we went down to Jericho, to the number of five thousand men."

"As they spoke to the people, the priests and the captain of the Temple and the Sadducees came to them, being upset because they taught the people and proclaimed in Jesus and the Resurrection from the dead. They laid hands on them, and put them in custody until the next day, for it was now evening. But many of those who heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to be about five thousand." Acts 4:1-4

lalountwn de autwn proV ton laon epesthsan autoiV oi iereiV kai o strathgoV tou ierou kai oi saddoukaioi, diaponoumenoi dia to didaskein autouV ton laon kai kataggellein en tw ihsou thn anastasin thn ek nekrwn, kai epebalon autoiV taV ceiraV kai eqento eiV thrhsin eiV thn aurion: hn gar espera hdh. polloi de twn akousantwn ton logon episteusan, kai egenhqh [o] ariqmoV twn andrwn [wV] ciliadeV pente.

"As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and hauling men and women committed [them] to prison." Acts 8:3

sauloV de elumaineto thn ekklhsian kata touV oikouV eisporeuomenoV, surwn te andraV kai gunaikaV paredidou eiV fulakhn.

And Saul, yet breathing out threats and slaughter against the Disciples of the lord, went unto the high priest, And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem." Acts 9:1-2

o de sauloV, eti empnewn apeilhV kai fonou eiV touV maqhtaV tou kuriou, proselqwn tw arcierei hthsato par autou epistolaV eiV damaskon proV taV sunagwgaV, opwV ean tinaV eurh thV odou ontaV, andraV te kai gunaikaV, dedemenouV agagh eiV ierousalhm.

It is on this trip (according to Acts) that Paul first "sees Jesus," but the manner in which he "proved this was the Christ," "confounded the Jews who dwelled in Damascus," and that, after this, "the Jews took council to kill him," watching the gates "night and day to kill him," (Acts 8:3-9:23).

In 2 Corinthians 12:16, Paul - a zealous persecutor of the disciples that overnight became a fervent propagator of "Christianity," makes a perplexing statement:

"But be it so, I did not burden you: being crafty, I took you in by deceit."

estw de, egw ou katebarhsa umaV: alla uparcwn panourgoV dolw umaV elabon.

Does Christianity accept "taking in by deceit" as a means of "ministering," and propagandizing? Does Genesis 3:1 not refer to the Serpent as "more crafty more subtle than any beast of the field?" Paul himself boasts proudly about sharing this trait with the Serpent. Like the Serpent, Paul too is "subtle" and "crafty" - not trying to deceive you with something appearing as a lie. To convince you he mixes a small portion of truth with a predominance of pagan lies. The Torah, the "Law," which Paul mocked and considered a "yoke" and "bondage," says:

"Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another." Leviticus 19:11

לֹא, תִּגְנֹבוּ; וְלֹא תְכַחֲשׁוּ וְלֹא תְשַׁקְּרוּ, אִישׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ

"Her rich men are violent; her people are liars and their tongues speak deceitfully." Micah 6:12

אֲשֶׁר עֲשִׁירֶיהָ מָלְאוּ חָמָס, וְיֹשְׁבֶיהָ דִּבְּרוּ שָׁקֶר; וּלְשׁוֹנָם, רְמִיָּה בְּפִיהֶם

Another of Paul's testimonies that reveals what a compulsive liar he was is given in Acts 26.4-20. Paul is speaking to the king Agrippa, and was again responding to the Jews' accusations against Paul's blasphemies.

"My manner of life from my youth - which was at the first among my own nation at Jerusalem - know all the Jews which knew me from the beginning. If they would testify, they would tell you that after the straightest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee." Acts 26:4-5

thn men oun biwsin mou [thn] ek neothtoV thn ap archV genomenhn en tw eqnei mou en te ierosolumoiV isasi panteV [oi] ioudaioi, proginwskonteV me anwqen, ean qelwsi marturein, oti kata thn akribestathn airesin thV hmeteraV qrhskeiaV ezhsa farisaioV.

Why did Paul say "if they would testify?" Because first of all Gamaliel, the father of the Talmud which spouts lies and blasphemy against Jesus Christ and his mother Mary, whom Paul claims to have been "raised up at the feet of" had died by the time Acts was written. Put simply there was no one to verify Paul's claims. People had merely seen him amidst the Pharisees after the departure of Jesus Christ. Paul himself never claims to have been witness to the preachings of Jesus Christ during his ministry. Yet if Paul was a Pharisee then he certainly would have been amongst those to whom Jesus Christ constantly said:

"Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites!" Matthew 23:13, Matthew 23:14, Matthew 23:15, Matthew 23:23, Matthew 23:25, Matthew 23:27, Matthew 23:29, Luke 11:44

ouai de umin, grammateiV kai farisaioi upokritai

Far from being "the straightest sect of our religion" as Paul heretically claimed it was, the Pharisees were among the most crooked. So who is the liar, Jesus or Paul?

"And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise of resurrection made by God to our fathers. Unto that promise of resurrection our twelve tribes instantly serve God day and night praying for that hope to come. For that hope of the resurrection's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead?" Acts 26:6-8

kai nun ep elpidi thV eiV touV pateraV hmwn epaggeliaV genomenhV upo tou qeou esthka krinomenoV, eiV hn to dwdekafulon hmwn en ekteneia nukta kai hmeran latreuon elpizei katanthsai: peri hV elpidoV egkaloumai upo ioudaiwn, basileu. ti apiston krinetai par umin ei o qeoV nekrouV egeirei;

Paul was lying through his teeth again. Paul's promotion of the belief in the Resurrection after our physical bodies die had nothing to do with the Jews' accusations against Paul. Paul was charged with blaspheming the Jews and the Torah of God period. Paul couldn't deny this because he knew good and well that he had blasphemed against the Torah by claiming that it was a "yoke of slavery" and was "destroyed" by the very man who told us that he had not in fact come to destroy the Torah. Paul was merely inserting a red herring in an attempt to distract Agrippa's attention away from the legitimate charges at hand.

"The Resurrection from the dead" is a common theme amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Jews of Jesus' time as well as the Holy Qur'an, sent to God's Seal of Prophets Muhammad, prophesied even by name in the original Hebrew of the Tanakh (the so-called "Old" Testament). When the Canonically "acceptable" books of the so-called "New Testament" have the Disciples speaking of "the Resurrection" they are speaking of the "Day of Resurrection" just as was their Community in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in the Qur'an. Bear in mind that Muhammad could not possibly have had any contact with the buried Dead Sea Scrolls that were only unearthed about half a century ago. Yet remarkably the tone and terminology of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qur'an are parallel. This is one of the many reasons that many modern day "Christians" and the imposter state of "Israel," wish the Scrolls would have stayed buried.

Paul was merely promoting himself as the new Savior of mankind when he claimed that his "God" said: "I have appeared unto you for this purpose: to make you a minister and a witness both of these things which you have seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto you. I will deliver you from the people, and from the Gentiles unto whom now I send you to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." Acts 26:15-18

egw de eipa, tiV ei, kurie; o de kurioV eipen, egw eimi ihsouV on su diwkeiV. alla anasthqi kai sthqi epi touV podaV sou: eiV touto gar wfqhn soi, proceirisasqai se uphrethn kai martura wn te eideV [me] wn te ofqhsomai soi, exairoumenoV se ek tou laou kai ek twn eqnwn, eiV ouV egw apostellw se anoixai ofqalmouV autwn, tou epistreyai apo skotouV eiV fwV kai thV exousiaV tou satana epi ton qeon, tou labein autouV afesin amartiwn kai klhron en toiV hgiasmenoiV pistei th eiV eme.

Imagine Paul living today, and put yourself in the shoes of the people who were victimized by him. Imagine yourself genuinely obeying Jesus, striving to "be Perfect as your Father in Heaven is Perfect," and "be like their Rabbi," so that you can do "greater works than these" thus, living your life for God. Suddenly, a storm-trooper breaks into your home and assaults you. He gags and binds you, your spouse, and your children, he says he is going to imprison you because you follow a man preaching "the Kingdom of Heaven" on Earth, here and now, as soon as we stand up against the forces of physical and spiritual oppression and take hold of the reigns of our Destiny.

While holding you hostage - on behalf of the Roman Antichrist state, and their other infiltrators in your religious community - he proceeds to ransack your house, and steals everything of material value that he and his henchmen can haul off. Then he takes you and your family outside so you can watch while he burns down your home. Thereafter he hauls you and your family off to prison. Many of your closest friends are imprisoned there under the same conditions and by the same Adversary. In addition, you have no idea of the whereabouts and condition of your children. Your spouse and some of your friends and neighbors are executed. You, however, miraculously escape from prison.

Many years later that terrorist comes back claiming to be a new man and the greatest "apostle." This Satan does not ask for your forgiveness for what he did to you, your wife, children, property, and friends, and expresses no remorse whatsoever for having murdered people. Instead, he brags about how bad he was. He boasts about his acts of terrorism, and exalts himself for having become so rich from stealing all your possessions. Would you trust that man to be the greatest of God's "apostles" or Messengers? Would you trust that he had become an apostle at all?

Paul, the self-appointed "Apostle"

A denial of Paul's early message is not a subject open to debate. He admit that many of his statements were subjective, and clearly NOT prophetic in nature. To substantiate the above claim, refer to 1 Corinthians 7:25-26 and 7:40.

"Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that has obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I think therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be."

peri de twn parqenwn epitaghn kuriou ouk ecw, gnwmhn de didwmi wV hlehmenoV upo kuriou pistoV einai. nomizw oun touto kalon uparcein dia thn enestwsan anagkhn, oti kalon anqrwpw to outwV einai.

"But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God."

makariwtera de estin ean outwV meinh, kata thn emhn gnwmhn, dokw de kagw pneuma qeou ecein.

It is understandable that Paul used his conjecture to arrive at his conclusions. That much is obvious. However, he says "I have no commandment of the Lord." Since when did "the Lord" begin revealing to him on other unmentioned occasions in the first place? Last the readers of Acts heard Jesus Christ attacked Paul and blinded him. Once his eyes were healed by outside intervention, then Paul's eyes literally shed like snakes skin, as though he were not biologically what we consider "human" at all.

Just because one boasts that he late had dreams of Jesus that he never truly describes, are we to accept his astonishing claims without substantiating them? Why is there no mention of this "apostle of Jesus Christ" anywhere in the Bible before he showed up? How does Jesus Christ interrupting one's trip to go massacre his followers now make one a Prophet or a "Messenger?"

Clearly, it is Paul who appointed himself as "Apostle." God did not give him revelation, nor inspiration. For if it were from God there would not be this clear contradiction between his "judgment" with "no commandment of the Lord" and what the Torah and even Jesus Christ himself said.

Paul writes; "I give an opinion," "in my opinion" and twice he says "I think." Whereas, Jesus Christ - the Prophet and Messiah of God, admitted;

"I do nothing on my own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught me." John 8:28

eipen oun [autoiV] o ihsouV, otan uywshte ton uion tou anqrwpou, tote gnwsesqe oti egw eimi, kai ap emautou poiw ouden, alla kaqwV edidaxen me o pathr tauta lalw.

One has to differentiate "my opinion" and "my thought" from the Divinely "inspired" Book.

Paul claims that he "thinks" he has "the Spirit of God." He must do more than "think" he does, he must KNOW that he does and he must bring forth the Book without contradiction or conjecture if he comes in the Name of God! But in his own writings there is nothing but subjectivity, contradiction and uncertainty. Any real seeker of Truth - not guesswork - has no use for this "man's" personal "opinion" of his own guesswork.

Imagine, you are at a crossroad. There are four signs. The modern apostate church transcribes; "Take the Left turn to reach the Destination." The Old Testament transcribes; "Walk the Straight Path and reach the One." Jesus Christ transcribes; "Walk the Straight Path and reach the One." Five hundred years later the "Paraclete" - the "Menachem" the "Achmed" or "Desire" of the Nations prophesied in the Tanakh, "the Prophet" foretold in the Torah, who would be differentiated from the false prophet in that this Prophet "like unto Moses" would not be killed, but would die a natural death - that was prophesied by Jesus declared that we must walk the Straight Path as well. You have three signs, all Divinely Inspired in origin, that tell you to walk the Straight Path. Then you have one sign that says to turn down the left hand, crooked path of destruction and lawlessness. Which way should you be headed if you wish to reach the Destination with certainty? Bare this viewpoint in mind, while comparing various passages from the Torah, the Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings), with the later personal letters from Paul and the modern false-doctrines of the Antichrist church.

"Declare you, and bring them near, yes, let them take counsel together: Who has announced this from ancient time, and declared it of old? Have not I YHWH? And there is no God but Me, a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside Me. Look unto Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:21-22

הַגִּידוּ וְהַגִּישׁוּ, אַף יִוָּעֲצוּ יַחְדָּו: מִי הִשְׁמִיעַ זֹאת מִקֶּדֶם מֵאָז הִגִּידָהּ, הֲלוֹא אֲנִי יְהוָה וְאֵין עוֹד אֱלֹהִים מִבַּלְעָדַי--אֵל צַדִּיק וּמוֹשִׁיעַ, אַיִן זוּלָתִי. פְּנוּ אֵלַי וְהִוָּשְׁעוּ, כָּל אַפְסֵי אָרֶץ: כִּי אֲנִי אֵל, וְאֵין עוֹד.

Unveiling the Lies

"If you have bitter jealousy and contentiousness in your heart, do not boast and lie against the Truth. This is not the Wisdom that comes down from above, but earthly, man-made, demonic. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace." James 3:14-18

ei de zhlon pikron ecete kai eriqeian en th kardia umwn, mh katakaucasqe kai yeudesqe kata thV alhqeiaV. ouk estin auth h sofia anwqen katercomenh, alla epigeioV, yucikh, daimoniwdhV: opou gar zhloV kai eriqeia, ekei akatastasia kai pan faulon pragma. h de anwqen sofia prwton men agnh estin, epeita eirhnikh, epieikhV, eupeiqhV, mesth eleouV kai karpwn agaqwn, adiakritoV, anupokritoV: karpoV de dikaiosunhV en eirhnh speiretai toiV poiousin eirhnhn.

"Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up. Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaks evil of his brother, and judges his brother, speaks evil of the Torah, and judges the Torah: but if you judge the Torah, you are not a doer of the Torah, but a judge." James 4:10-11

tapeinwqhte enwpion kuriou, kai uywsei umaV. mh katalaleite allhlwn, adelfoi: o katalalwn adelfou h krinwn ton adelfon autou katalalei nomou kai krinei nomon: ei de nomon krineiV, ouk ei poihthV nomou alla krithV.

In modern Trinitarian Christianity, Paul, called "the apostle," assumes central importance. It is his epistles which form the foundation of the religion of the 'crucified Christ' teaching salvation through faith in the resurrection. There is very little in his writings about the Gospel revealed to Jesus or of the life of Jesus. In fact Paul claimed to be proclaiming a new gospel. It was a gospel of accommodation with the Roman rulers of Palestine and their Herodian puppets. Paul wrote in his Letter to the Romans:

"You must all obey the governing authorities. Since all government comes from God, the civil authorities were appointed by God, and so anyone who resists authority is rebelling against God's decision, and such an act is bound to be punished. Good behavior is not afraid of magistrates; only criminals and revolutionaries have anything to fear... The State is there to serve God for your benefit." Romans 13:1-4

pasa yuch exousiaiV uperecousaiV upotassesqw. ou gar estin exousia ei mh upo qeou, ai de ousai upo qeou tetagmenai eisin: wste o antitassomenoV th exousia th tou qeou diatagh anqesthken, oi de anqesthkoteV eautoiV krima lhmyontai. oi gar arconteV ouk eisin foboV tw agaqw ergw alla tw kakw. qeleiV de mh fobeisqai thn exousian; to agaqon poiei, kai exeiV epainon ex authV: qeou gar diakonoV estin soi eiV to agaqon. ean de to kakon poihV, fobou: ou gar eikh thn macairan forei: qeou gar diakonoV estin, ekdikoV eiV orghn tw to kakon prassonti.

Time and time again Scripture tells us that "the authorities" were oppressive and to be resisted. What about Egypt? What about Babylon? Paul successfully makes Christians forget about history and truth, so long as they can cling to their security blanket of "faith" without works that are not the fruit of and ulterior motive of "conversion." In short, Paul tells the masses exactly what their itching ears want to hear. He speaks as a false-prophet of the State. He preaches against the Law, the Torah of God, sent to Prophet Moses; who himself opposed the State, and who himself warned of the "False-Prophet."

Paul's attitude was very different from that of those thousands of Jews who accepted the Gospel and who were "zealous for the Law" (Acts 21:21). They abhorred pagan rule and the pollution of the Temple and of the land which it brought. I would dare say that most Christians today do not even believe this lie of Paul regarding the Roman occupation of the Holy Land 2,000 years ago. Since the Bible speaks out against this so staunchly it is difficult for a follower of the Bible to accept Paul's words condoning the murderous, racist, and oppressive occupation forces.

Paul's departure from the teachings of the prophets was further highlighted by difference over the Torah itself. The purpose of the Torah, according to Paul, was to control the evil and was in no way of benefit to the good.

"We know, of course that the Torah is good, but only provided it is treated like any law, in the understanding that laws are not framed for people who are good. On the contrary, they are for criminals and revolutionaries, for the irreligious and wicked, for the sacrilegious and irreverent: they are for people who kill their fathers or mothers and for murderers, for those who are immoral with women or with boys or with men, for liars and for perjurers - and for everything else that is contrary to the sound teaching that goes with the Good News of the glory of the blessed God, the gospel that was entrusted to me." 1 Timothy 1:8-11

oidamen de oti kaloV o nomoV ean tiV autw nomimwV crhtai, eidwV touto, oti dikaiw nomoV ou keitai, anomoiV de kai anupotaktoiV, asebesi kai amartwloiV, anosioiV kai bebhloiV, patrolwaiV kai mhtrolwaiV, androfonoiV, ??pornoiV, arsenokoitaiV, andrapodistaiV, yeustaiV, epiorkoiV, kai ei ti eteron th ugiainoush didaskalia antikeitai, kata to euaggelion thV doxhV tou makariou qeou, o episteuqhn egw.

Clearly we see that Paul is attacking the Jewish Resistance against Roman occupation. In Paul's mind, the Jews should just bend over and take it. They should have submitted to the occupational rape by the Romans just as the Torah tells us the Nefilim raped our ancestors.

Paul claims that the Torah, revealed by God to Moses, is good only insomuch as any secular legislation is "good." Are there any Christians alive on the face of the Earth who actually agree with Paul on this issue? This is your "Bible," this is the sort of thing that Paul has deluded you into believing is "Divinely Inspired," yet he claims that secular legislation is on equal ground with the Torah of Moses!

Furthermore, Paul claims that the Gospel was "entrusted" to him! Where is this "Gospel?" In all my years of familiarity with Paul's "work" i have yet to read the quotes from "the Gospel" which he claims to have been preaching. Consider the fact that it is because he was not teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but rather the "gospel" of the "Christ" that he claimed lived within him. This is a different "christ" altogether than the historical Jesus, the Prophet and Messiah who blinded Paul on his path to continued murder.

Known by a god

"But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat, and fastened on his hand. When the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said one to another, 'No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he has escaped from the sea, yet Justice has not allowed to live.' However Paul shook off the creature into the fire, and wasn't harmed. But they expected that he would have swollen or fallen down dead suddenly, but when they watched for a long time and saw nothing bad happen to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god." Acts 28:3-6

sustreyantoV de tou paulou fruganwn ti plhqoV kai epiqentoV epi thn puran, ecidna apo thV qermhV exelqousa kaqhyen thV ceiroV autou. wV de eidon oi barbaroi kremamenon to qhrion ek thV ceiroV autou, proV allhlouV elegon, pantwV foneuV estin o anqrwpoV outoV on diaswqenta ek thV qalasshV h dikh zhn ouk eiasen. o men oun apotinaxaV to qhrion eiV to pur epaqen ouden kakon: oi de prosedokwn auton mellein pimprasqai h katapiptein afnw nekron. epi polu de autwn prosdokwntwn kai qewrountwn mhden atopon eiV auton ginomenon, metabalomenoi elegon auton einai qeon.

Here we are told that the natives, though receiving Paul well at first realize that it was an aberration of nature for a snake to attack someone who is in fact laying sticks on a fire. Snakes themselves are repelled by fire and it would be quite abnormal for a viper to attack a man without any provocation who is so near to the fire that he is in fact laying sticks in it. When the natives saw this they realized that Paul's ship wreck was not merely coincidence, he had in fact been subject to the wrath of God, the same as Prophet Jonah was said to have been in the Tanakh for his reluctance. Just the same as in that case the stormy sea was a sign of God's anger. Here Paul's Antichrist cult does not allow us any such interpretation. Nonetheless this was the first and natural understanding of the natives of Malta. Paul's devotee Luke tells us in the book of Acts that when Paul did not die from the bit of this abnormal viper, they said - that is, they uttered, not merely thought to themselves - that he was "a god." Nowhere in this passage does the devotee Luke tell us that the apostate Paul said one word to the contrary. Doesn't that seem a little strange for an allegedly "god-fearing" man to not deny a claim that he is a god?

However, the natives of Malta thought he was a god, for the simple reason that the "gods" of Greece were said to be anthropomorphic beings, who tangibly walked among men. They appeared as human beings, but if they were fought by "mortals" or by other "gods" or "demi-gods" then they would - according to legend - "shape-shift" into a reptilian or amphibious sort of anthropomorphic being who was immensely strong. Thus, it was commonly believed not only that these beings were relatively "immortal" - though legend held that they could be killed in certain manners - but also because of their serpent like nature, they were naturally impervious to the harm of venom. Thus, here we have Paul being bitten by a viper who under any other empirically recorded circumstances would not approach a flame. Paul survives this without even getting sick. This might be possible if such an individual would have prayed and said "O God, Creator, Sustainer and Nourisher of my Soul - in whose hands rests my life - please, if it is your Will, protect me from the venom of this viper that i might continue on teaching your Gospel to these people, and that your Power alone might be glorified through this miracle." Yet there is no mention of even a short prayer by Paul. Instead the glory is ascribed to him alone; so much so that the natives that Paul to be "a god" rather than glorifying the Creator, Sustainer and Protector of the Universe.

Moreover, let us not forget the Freudian slips of Paul in Galatians when he said: "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God - or rather are known by God - how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you." Galatians 4:8

alla tote men ouk eidoteV qeon edouleusate toiV fusei mh ousin qeoiV: nun de gnonteV qeon, mallon de gnwsqenteV upo qeou, pwV epistrefete palin epi ta asqenh kai ptwca stoiceia, oiV palin anwqen douleuein qelete; hmeraV parathreisqe kai mhnaV kai kairouV kai eniautouV.

Here Paul refers to the Nefilim of Greek and Roman mythology, who masqueraded as "gods" and "goddesses." These were the originators of the pantheon of anthropomorphic gods of many pagan traditions. Paul himself says "those who by nature are not gods" saying that they are not gods, yet not claiming that there is no god but the One and Only God. Thus he still leaves the door open to the believe that there are some who "by nature are" gods.

He continues on in disbelief in the One and Only God by saying that rather than "you knowing God" they are now "known by God." Thus he claims that his "god" - which is himself, the "Christ that speaks within" which he said quite clearly is "co-equal" with "God the Father" - was formerly not aware of those who he is addressing, but now they are "known by God." This so-called "god" is thus dependant upon awareness of his own purported creation. This is not God, but rather a false deity from among the Nefilim who professed to be a god, though in the most crafty of ways.

The imposter Messiah Paul continues on after that to say: "I beg you, brothers, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You did me no wrong, but you know that because of weakness of the flesh I preached the Gospel to you the first time. That which was a temptation to you in my flesh, you didn't despise nor reject; but you received me as an Angel of God, even as Jesus Christ." Galatians 4:12-14

ginesqe wV egw, oti kagw wV umeiV, adelfoi, deomai umwn. ouden me hdikhsate: oidate de oti di asqeneian thV sarkoV euhggelisamhn umin to proteron, kai ton peirasmon umwn en th sarki mou ouk exouqenhsate oude exeptusate, alla wV aggelon qeou edexasqe me, wV criston ihsoun.

Yes my misguided Christian Brothers and Sisters, of the Antichrist's One-World-Religion, you have been deceived all along. All the while that you were day dreaming in church of what you would do once the pastor let you get on with your day, while you were contemplating who would win the Sunday afternoon football game, all the while Paul had claimed in clear words to have been received as both and Angel and even as Jesus Christ. Surely he was not Jesus Christ, thus there is only one word for what he was: IMPOSTER.

Moreover, in the city of Lystra, Paul causes a riot by supposedly healing a man. During the riot the people shout in their native dialect that Paul and Barnabas are gods come to earth. Again, there is no denial of these claims recorded in Acts. The people called Barnabas Zeus and Paul Hermes. The fact that Paul never disputed such claims can be seen in the fact that number of inscriptions, in the city of Lystra, have been discovered that are dedications to the two "gods," linked in a common worship. The Roman poet Ovid, writing in the first century, portrays, in his poem "Metamorphoses," an appearance of these two gods to an old couple living not far from Lystra.

Paul is the central figure in Acts, so it may appear strange that the people of Lystra identified Barnabas as Zeus, who was the more important of the two gods. Luke does not tell us why this identification was made. However, historical evidence reveals that it was a common belief in the ancient world that when two gods walked among the mortals, the lesser one did the talking. Since Paul did the preaching, the people most likely concluded that Barnabas must be the greater god.

The fact that Paul did not dispute their claims that he was a "god" is not at all an insignificant matter. When Apollonius of Tyana was supposedly tried before the Emperor Domitian at the end of the first century, one of the charges against him was that he had supposedly allowed himself to be worshipped as a god - more or less the same charges falsely applied to Jesus Christ - despite the fact that he never claimed godhood, nor did anyone else attribute it to him. Even when any type of special status was alluded to regarding him, Jesus abrogated it by saying "Why do you call me good, one alone is good," (Mark 10:18) and humbly proclaiming that even "Greater works than these shall you do" (John 14:12)

So not only does Jesus humbly renounce the praise that was given to him, but he also does so at even the mention of him being good. Never did anyone come out and claim him to be God, yet still he is vehemently humble. Contra distinct to this is Paul who time and time again is called a "god" by the pagans, yet he is never once recorded renouncing such praise and giving Glory to the Most High alone! All Paul had to say is, "i am no god, there is no god but the one and only God who sent the Torah to the Children of Israel." Why do we never see such a statement from Paul even once? It is clear that he didn't say this because he simply didn't believe it.

A Slave Cannot Serve Two Masters

"Say: 'Blessed the upright for he will feed on the fruit of his deeds; woe to the wicked, it will go ill with him, for he will be treated as his actions deserve." Isaiah 3:10-11

אִמְרוּ צַדִּיק, כִּי טוֹב: כִּי פְרִי מַעַלְלֵיהֶם, יֹאכֵלוּ. אוֹי, לְרָשָׁע רָע: כִּי גְמוּל יָדָיו, יֵעָשֶׂה לּוֹ.

So who is right? Is Jesus correct when he says "I have not come to abolish the Law" or is Paul right when he says that Jesus "destroyed the barrier... by abolishing in his flesh the Law with its commandments and regulations?" (Hebrews 10:19-20) Was Jesus Christ right when he said that Heaven and Earth would sooner pass away than "one letter of the Law," or should we instead follow Paul who said the anti-thesis of Christ's words: "But now the Law has come to an end with Christ and everyone who has faith may be justified." Romans 10:14 Again i ask you, did Jesus Christ not say himself that a slave cannot serve two masters?

"You cannot be the slave of two masters! You will like one more than the other or be more loyal to one than the other. You cannot serve both God and money." Matthew 6:24

oudeiV dunatai dusi kurioiV douleuein: h gar ton ena mishsei kai ton eteron agaphsei, h enoV anqexetai kai tou eterou katafronhsei: ou dunasqe qew douleuein kai mamwna.

So which "master" do Christians serve? With their mouths Christianity says to Jesus "Lord, Lord" as he prophesied against them.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of LAWLESSNESS (anomian).'" Matthew 7:21-23

ou paV o legwn moi, kurie kurie, eiseleusetai eiV thn basileian twn ouranwn, all o poiwn to qelhma tou patroV mou tou en toiV ouranoiV. polloi erousin moi en ekeinh th hmera, kurie kurie, ou tw sw onomati eprofhteusamen, kai tw sw onomati daimonia exebalomen, kai tw sw onomati dunameiV pollaV epoihsamen; kai tote omologhsw autoiV oti oudepote egnwn umaV: apocwreite ap emou oi ergazomenoi thn anomian.

In their deeds, in their fruits they show that Paul is their master, their lord. They demonstrate this by abrogating the teachings of Jesus and walking in the ways of lawlessness taught by Paul. When someone does not follow the Law, they are a criminal. Paul was a criminal to the Torah.

Paul said that we are "justified by faith:"

"We maintain therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Torah." Romans 3:28

logizomeqa gar dikaiousqai pistei anqrwpon cwriV ergwn nomou.

In reply to this James the brother of Jesus said:

"Even so faith, if it has not works, is dead, being alone. Yes, a man may 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: the devils also believe, and tremble. But will you know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" James 2:17-21

outwV kai h pistiV, ean mh ech erga, nekra estin kaq eauthn. all erei tiV, su pistin eceiV kagw erga ecw. deixon moi thn pistin sou cwriV twn ergwn, kagw soi deixw ek twn ergwn mou thn pistin. su pisteueiV oti eiV estin o qeoV; kalwV poieiV: kai ta daimonia pisteuousin kai frissousin. qeleiV de gnwnai, w anqrwpe kene, oti h pistiV cwriV twn ergwn argh estin; abraam o pathr hmwn ouk ex ergwn edikaiwqh, anenegkaV isaak ton uion autou epi to qusiasthrion;

Is it not written: "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few." Matthew 7:13-14

eiselqate dia thV stenhV pulhV: oti plateia h pulh kai eurucwroV h odoV h apagousa eiV thn apwleian, kai polloi eisin oi eisercomenoi di authV: ti stenh h pulh kai teqlimmenh h odoV h apagousa eiV thn zwhn, kai oligoi eisin oi euriskonteV authn.

Is Christianity the "narrow gate?" Of course not! It is the broadest gate there is; that which Jesus said leads to destruction. The majority are almost destined to be in error. Even amongst those professing "Islam" in this age, Muhammad said:

"There will come a time for my people when there will remain nothing of the Qur'an except its outward from and nothing of Islam except its name and they will call themselves by this name even though they are the people furthest from it. Their mosques will be full of people but they will be empty of right guidance. The religious leaders (furqaha) of that day will be the most evil religious leaders under the heavens; sedition and dissension will go out from them and to them will it return."

Notes: Ibn Babuya, Thaqab al-Amal, quoted in Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar (old ed.), Vol. 13. p. 152

This was given as a sign of the active reign of the Antichrist. Similarly, it was given as a sign that the long awaited "Mahdi" and Jesus Christ himself - the "Two Witnesses" of the Book of Revelation - were returning in that very age, to lead the true Believers towards Islam (Submission to God), just as all Prophets, sent to all nations before them did. All authentic Prophets are Prophets of Islam according to the Qur'an; and there is not a nation but a Warner has been sent to them from God Almighty.

A road that requires nothing of you but to "have faith" is the broadest road imaginable. But as James the brother of Jesus Christ said to Paul "Faith without works is dead!" Thus we see the dead state of so-called "Christianity." We see that there is neither faith nor works without an ulterior motive. A motive of "converting" people or spreading a "faith" that teaches passivity and complicity with the status quo in regions which European colonialism is spreading genocide, exploitation, slavery and apartheid.

From it's inception, Paul's "Christianity" was purported to pacify the oppressed and maintain the European colonial system of oppression and injustice. For if there were even true faith in the quantity of a mustard seed then Christianity would be saying to the very mountains, move from "here" to "there." Instead Christianity has only served to help the oppressor oppress, and to give comfort to the poor and downtrodden while they are being raped, exploited and killed. Itself, Christianity has been the cause of the genocide against Native American tribes, ethnic minorities in Europe, the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and Southern slavery itself. It initiated the Crusades and oppressed Jews and Muslims alike during the Spanish Inquisition. All so-called "Muslim terrorism" has without exception, only emerged in response to such "Christian" state provocation - just the same as the Boxer Rebellion of China did not just wantonly attack Christian missionaries before they came there hand-in-hand with the European colonists. Yet, incredibly, it is Islam which is given the image as "the Religion of the Sword." Christians would do well to recall the words of Jesus Christ when he said:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:35

hlqon gar dicasai anqrwpon kata tou patroV autou kai qugatera kata thV mhtroV authV kai numfhn kata thV penqeraV authV.

My Brothers and Sisters this is but half of the story about Paul. You have only begun to hear of his apostate teachings. Those of you with eyes to see and ears to hear now know of the apostate teachings of Paul, but still you do not know the truth about who this individual is. Truly this is only a fraction of the real story behind the history which the Church and Western "civilization" itself have suppressed all along.

Some of you who know the Scriptures and have insight might now be wondering in your heart about Paul's true identity. Insha'Allah (if God Wills), then the pure of heart amoung you will be led out of the Constriction of the One-World-Religion of so-called "Christianity," towards the Din, the Religion, the Spiritual Practice of the Torah, of the true Gospel and of the Qur'an. May God guide the faithful amoung to seek the Truth, then find the Truth and finally to bow in SUBMISSION (إِسْلَام, Islam) to the Truth.

May God hasten the end of suffering, and the destruction of the Beast and his False-Prophet, through the Rise of the Two Witnesses; Imam Mahdi And Hazrat Issa (as) , Son of Virgin Maryam(as)