Introduction
If Yahshua was referring to Paul as a false apostle and liar in
the book of Revelation, how is it he was a liar? The claim of
apostleship itself might be considered a lie... but in my
thinking, the label " liar " implies a person who uses conscious
intent to deceive. When Paul called himself an apostle, I
believe he thought he was one. Therefore, I would have a
hard time actually labeling him as a liar on those grounds
alone. I would call him conceited and self-deceived.
Interestingly enough, just by the way Yahshua states it, he
appears to make the same distinction.
"And you have tested those who say they are apostles
and are not, and have found them liars." Revelation
2:2
Notice that the idea of apostle is completely negated first and
then the idea of liar appears to be in addition to the fact. So
if Paul was the one Yahshua was referring to, I would expect
him to be guilty of using conscious intent to deceive. Here
again I would draw a distinction and not include the many
errors he had in his doctrines because I’m sure he thought he
was right. What I am looking for are outright bold-faced lies.
If Paul’s letters are the inspired and infallible word of
almighty God, breathed through Paul by the Holy Spirit as
Christian doctrine asserts, would it have been possible for
Paul to have told an outright lie in them? I think not. So if
he did, what would that by itself directly imply concerning
the notion that his words are God’s words? Consider the
following.
Paul and the Jerusalem Council
In the book of Acts, Luke records two separate trips Paul
made to Jerusalem to discuss doctrinal matters with the head
Messianic leaders Peter and James. The first incident is
recorded in Acts 15. Here, as the story goes, there had been a
disagreement as to whether the Gentile believers needed to
be circumcised, so Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem
to find an answer to the question. When they came to
Jerusalem, the elders received them, and Paul told them of
his work among the Gentiles. At this point, a group of
believing Pharisees stated that it was necessary for the
Gentiles to be circumcised and require them to keep the Law.
This must have been the hot topic of the day, because it was
just what Paul and Barnabas had been sent there to discuss.
And it says there was "much dispute" among those who were
at the conference. Then Peter speaks and makes reference to
an event where he had been sent to the Gentile Cornelius,
and he goes on to say these words.
"So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them, by
giving them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us, and
made no distinction between us and them, purifying
their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why do you test
God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples
which neither our fathers or we were able to bear?"
Acts 15:8-10
Here Peter is referring to the Gentiles and appears to be
calling the Law an unbearable burden. Before going on to
the subject of Paul, a couple of things need to be addressed in
this quote because there are those in the Jewish community
who can’t believe Peter or James would ever call the Law an
unbearable burden. Some would rather charge Luke with
dishonest reporting. As mentioned before, I see no reason to
accuse Luke of malice. I believe Luke accurately recorded
what he saw and heard. The people he quotes may have
been in doctrinal error, and his own commentaries may have
been made in Paul-induced ignorance, but I personally have
a hard time with the notion that Luke was part of a grand
conspiracy to destroy the Law. I see Luke as a very typical
everyday person, a Gentile with honorable intentions. He
also records events which end up convicting Paul as well as
support him! When he is discredited as a reporter, nothing
he says is reliable anymore.
The key to understanding Peter’s quote which appeared to
call the Law an unbearable burden is to remember who
started the argument and who he is addressing... the
Pharisees. (see previous three verses. Acts 15:5-7) Even
Yahshua called their idea of the Law a burden. He said:
"The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat.
Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that
observe and do. But do not do according to their works;
for they say and do not do. For they bind heavy
burdens hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders;
but they themselves will not move them with one of
their fingers." Matthew 23:2-4
These words must have been echoing in Peter’s ears when he
heard the Pharisees demand that the Gentiles keep the Law.
He knew what their idea of the Law was... with all its added
oral traditions… a burden! Yahshua kept the whole Law as
found in Moses, and yet said these words.
"My yoke is easy and my burden is light." Matt.11:30
NKJV
Here is what the apostle John said about God's Law.
"For this is the love of God, that we keep His
commandments. And His commandments are not
burdensome ." 1John 5:3
The true unadulterated Law of Moses is not unbearable. But
Peter and James did not want the Pharisees dictating to the
Gentiles their idea of the Law with all its traditions, additions
and amendments. This is what Peter was referring to when
he called the Law an unbearable yoke.
As the story continues, Paul and Barnabas tell of "the many
miracles and wonders God had worked through them among
the Gentiles". Then James begins to speak, and after a short
speech says:
"Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those
from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but
that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by
idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled,
and from blood. For Moses has had throughout many
generations those who preach him in every city, being
read in the synagogues every Sabbath." Acts
15:19-21
Here James is endorsing dietary and sexual purity laws along
with Moses in general. It is reasonable to assume that James
intended for the four laws he outlined to be a kind of stop-
gap measure, to keep the new believers from defiling
themselves before they could receive the rest of the Law
through the reading of Moses in the synagogues every
Sabbath. The continued hallowing of the Sabbath is evident
in that James uses the present tense word "being", and the
attendance of the new Gentile believers to synagogue on the
Sabbath is obviously assumed. The idea of "troubling" the
Gentiles is his way of saying the Pharisaic laws were too
much of a burden. The issue of circumcision is left up in the
air. Again, it appears that James intended the new believers
to be convicted when they heard Moses read in the
synagogues and as a result, follow through with the rest of
the Law including circumcision. This was his way of trying to
keep as many of the factions together without unduly
reproaching the believing Pharisees, and allowing for the
Gentiles to receive a more unadulterated version of the Law.
The Messianic leaders then decided to write a letter to the
Gentile believers. This was to be the official position on the
issue, and it was given to Paul, Barnabas, and other leading
men of the congregation who went with them to confirm its
authenticity and see that it was delivered properly. The part
of this official decision that we will focus on is the list of
four immediate requirements concerning dietary and sexual
purity laws. They are listed a second time in the official
letter itself:
"…For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay
no greater burden than these necessary things: that
you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood,
from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If
you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
Farewell." Acts 15:28,29
Twice, these four requirements are listed in Acts 15. Later in
the book, Paul returns again to Jerusalem, only this time he
was in trouble for what he had been teaching. After a short
lecture to Paul concerning what he had been hearing about
him, James makes this statement.
"But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have
written and decided that they should observe no such
thing, except that they should keep themselves from
things offered to idols, from blood, from things
strangled, and from sexual immorality." Acts 21:25
There they are again. The same four requirements listed a
third time.

The Lie
In Galatians 2, Paul makes mention of the same first trip to
Jerusalem as mentioned above. It is obvious from the subject
matter alone that it is a reference to the same Jerusalem
council meeting.
First, let's take an overview of the subject matter of the book
of Galatians.
Christianity fondly refers to Galatians as "the Magna Carta
of spiritual emancipation" . One reference says, "…it
remains as the abiding monument of the liberation of
Christianity from the trammels of legalism." It is evident
to the reader of Galatians that Paul’s position against the Law
is quite hostile. His intention is to convince the Galatian
believers not to give the time of day to the "Judaizers" like
Peter who were teaching the Law of Moses including
circumcision. As mentioned in the previous chapter, Paul
twice commands the Galatians to curse anyone who teaches
anything other than his doctrine. Galatians 1:8,9 Among his
numerous anti-Law (anti-nomian) arguments are these
quotes:
"…for by the works of the Law no flesh shall be
justified." Galatians 2:16
"But that no one is justified by the Law in the sight of
God is evident…" Galatians 3:11
Deuteronomy 6:25 rebuffs these statements when
Moses says: "Then it will be righteousness for us,
if we are careful to observe all these
commandments before the Lord our God, as He
has commanded us."
"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law…"
Galatians 3:13
The law is not a curse , nor does it of itself bring
one. Breaking the law brings a curse. Therefore it
is man and not the Law that is the problem.
" Indeed I , Paul, say to you that if you become
circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing . And I
testify again to every man who becomes circumcised
that he is a debtor to keep the whole Law. You have
become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be
justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace.
Galatians 5:2-4
He even drops his own name as the foremost
authority before telling the Galatians a doctrinal
lie.
"For all the Law is fulfilled in one word, even this: ‘You
shall love your neighbor as yourself’". Galatians 5:14
This is only the second greatest commandment.
Matt. 22:36-40 says; "Teacher, which is the great
commandment in the law?" Yahshua said to him,
"’You shall love the Lord your God with all your
heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
This is the first and the great commandment.
And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your
neighbor as yourself.’ On these two
commandments hang all the law and the
prophets." 1 John 5:3 describes how we are to
fulfill the first and greatest commandment to love
God with all our heart: "For this is the love of
God, that we keep His commandments. And His
commandments are not burdensome."
Paul is so filled with malice toward those who preach
circumcision that he wishes they would take the knife and cut
their own joysticks off! Galatians 5:11,12 He refers to
circumcision as "the mutilation" in Philippians 3:2. His
attitude toward the Law and those who teach it is obviously
quite hostile.
Now, keeping Paul's anti-Law rhetoric in mind, take a look at
Paul’s recollection to the Galatians of his first meeting with
the Jerusalem council.
"Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem
with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went
up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel
which I preach among the Gentiles… But from those
who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it
makes no difference to me; God shows personal
favoritism to no man— for those who seemed to be
something added nothing to me . But on the contrary,
when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised
had been committed to me, as the gospel for the
circumcised was to Peter… and when James, Cephas,
and John who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace
that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas
the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the
Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They desired only
that we should remember the poor, the very thing
which I was also eager to do." Galatians
2:1,2,6-7,9-10
This is Paul’s version of what happened. When he said that
the church in Jerusalem desired "only" that he remember the
poor, how could this be anything less than an outright lie?
Remember, Paul was forcefully trying to persuade the
Galatians to not be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses.
This is the foundational theme of the entire book. What's
more, Paul was clearly telling the Galatians that he had
Jerusalem’s full support... in spite of the fact that he didn't
think he needed it from those who only "seemed" to be
something and "added nothing" to him. In light of his
message, he could not afford to tell the truth, that the official
edict from Jerusalem included four requirements from the
Law of Moses, three of which were dietary. So he told them a
lie when he said, "They desired only that we remember the
poor". The official letter read that the Gentiles were to
"keep themselves from things offered to idols, from
blood, from things strangled, and from sexual
immorality." And this lie isn't just a matter of conveniently
leaving some things out, he left all the commands out, and
then replaced them with one that wasn't even in the official
letter. Nowhere in the letter is there any mention of "the
poor"! And then Paul has the gall to state it like, "...and they
didn't need to tell me that. I have always been eager to
remember the poor. See, those who only seemed to be
something can't even add that to me." What is it going to
take for Christianity to see the lies and incredible arrogance
of Paul? Read the passage above again if necessary.
Paul begins telling the Galatians of his contacts with the
Jerusalem Messianic leaders in Galatians 1:18. Just before
this, in verses 11 and 12, he had told them that his doctrine
was given to him by divine revelation. In other words, it
didn't come from the original apostles who had spent three
and a half years with Yahshua and only "seemed" to be
pillars of the church. When Paul tells of his meeting with the
Jerusalem leaders, his attitude was that the original apostles
were of no significance to him, but... if it mattered to the
Galatians... he indicated in Galatians 2:9 that he still had
Peter, James, and John’s full support anyway. This is the
picture Paul is painting.
After mentioning his contact with Peter, James and John the
first time in Jerusalem to discuss what should be required of
the Gentiles, he says these words.
"Now concerning the things which I write to you,
indeed, before God, I do not lie." Galatians 1:20
Paul actually had the gall to preface a lie with an oath of
honesty! One has to ask the question why he felt compelled
in the first place to assure the Galatians he was not lying!
Yahshua had a few words to say concerning this type of oath:
"Again you have heard that it was said to those of old,
‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your
oaths to the Lord.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all,
neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne’ nor by the
earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is
the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your
head, because you cannot make one hair white or
black. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’, and your ‘No’ be ‘No’.
For whatever is more than these is from the evil
one." Matthew 5:33-37
Paul’s own words convict him again. He was a liar, along
with being a false apostle just as Yahshua had commended
the Ephesian church for exposing. He was a liar regardless of
whether or not the Ephesian church was aware of this
particular lie. But it is not at all unlikely that the Ephesian
church was very familiar with both Paul’s letter to the
Galatians and the official letter from the Jerusalem council.
The Jerusalem council letter would have been circulated to all
the Gentile churches, and we know that Paul’s letters were
being copied and circulated among the churches as well .
Peter makes this apparent in 2 Peter 3:15,16 when he speaks
of Paul and the content of " all his epistles". Peter could not
say this without being familiar with most if not all of them!
One can also see from the passage that he assumes his
readers are aware of them as well. (2 Peter 3:15,16 is the
passage in which Peter appears to call Paul's letters
Scripture. I deal with this issue in chapter 10.)
The fact that Paul lied to the Galatians is by itself enough to
establish him as a liar, but once a person crosses that line he
will likely continue the practice. His lie to the Galatians is by
no means his only lie.

Paul's lie before the Sanhedrin
When Paul was arrested in the temple during his last visit to
Jerusalem, he had to be rescued from the Jews by the
Romans. On the following day, the Roman commander
allowed Paul to be taken before Ananias the high priest and
the Sanhedrin to defend himself from the charges against
him. During this trial of sorts, Paul makes an interesting
claim.
But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees
and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council,
"Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a
Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the
dead I am being judged !" And when he had said this,
a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the
Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. Acts 23:6,7
This was a divide-and-conquer ploy in which there was not
one shred of truth. For Paul to say he was being judged on
the issue of the resurrection of the dead was an outright lie.
It had nothing to do with his arrest. The truth concerning
why he was arrested is recorded a little earlier in Acts.
...the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred
up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out,
"Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all
men everywhere against the people, the law, and
this place ..." Acts 21:27,28 NKJV
The truth is that Paul was being judged on the matter of
bringing to nothing the importance of Israel, the Law of
Moses, and the temple. For Paul to suggest otherwise was a
lie. He had said earlier that he was willing to die in
Jerusalem for what he believed. The question is, when it
finally came down to it, why didn't he have the courage to
stand by what he had been teaching the Gentiles?
Paul's lie to King Agrippa
Later in Acts, Paul lied to King Agrippa when recounting his
conversion experience on the road to Damascus.
The story of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus is
recorded three times in the book of Acts. The first is
documented in the narrative by the author, Luke.
And as he journeyed he came near Damascus, and
suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. Then
he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him,
"Saul Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" And he said,
"Who are You, Lord?" And the Lord said, "I am
Yahshua, whom you are persecuting, It is hard for you
to kick against the goads." So he, trembling and
astonished, said, "Lord, what do You want me to do?"
And the Lord said to him, " Arise and go into the city,
and you will be told what you must do ." Acts 9:3-19
The second account is Paul's personal account of his
experience as given before the angry Jews in Jerusalem.
"Now it happened, as I journeyed and came near
Damascus at about noon, suddenly a great light from
heaven shone around me. And I fell to the ground and
heard a voice saying to me, "Saul, Saul, why are you
persecuting Me?' So I answered, 'Who are You, Lord?'
And he said to me, 'I am Yahshua of Nazareth, Whom
you are persecuting.' ...So I said, 'What shall I do,
Lord?' And the Lord said to me, 'Arise and go into
Damascus, and there you will be told all things which
are appointed for you to do.' Acts 22:6-15
There is no significant problem or conflict in these two
accounts. Even with the slight variations, the main points
remain basically the same. The fact is, they are consistent
and corroborate each other.
The third record of Paul's conversion experience is given by
Paul in his own defense before King Agrippa. Here is how the
story goes now.
"While thus occupied, as I journeyed to Damascus with
authority and commission from the chief priests, at
midday, O king, along the road I saw a light from
heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and
those who journeyed with me. And when we all had
fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and
saying in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why are you
persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the
goads.' So I said, 'Who are You , Lord?' And he said, 'I
am Yahshua, whom you are persecuting. But rise and
stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for
this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness
both of the things which you have seen and of the
things which I will yet reveal to you. I will deliver
you from the Jewish people, as well as from the
Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes
and to turn them from the power of Satan to God,
that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an
inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith
in Me.' Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient
to the heavenly vision..." Acts 26:12-19
Now wait just a minute Paul! According to what you and
Luke have previously testified, when you asked Yahshua what
you were to do, he told you to do absolutely nothing other
than to go to Damascus, and there you would be told " all
things " you were to do! Now you want us to believe Yahshua
told you all of this on the spot?
This is not just a simple case of information having been left
out of the first two accounts. If in fact Yahshua had actually
come out and said anything like, "Here is the reason why I
have appeared to you...", what Yahshua said immediately
following this would naturally be the focal point and
highlight of every recollection of the encounter! But nothing
of the sort can be found in the first two accounts. On the
contrary, what Paul said he was told to do in the first two
accounts proves that what he said in the third account was a
fabricated lie. Was he told all things he was to do by Yahshua
himself on the road, or did Yahshua tell him to go to
Damascus where he would be told all things he was to do?
It should be apparent that Paul wanted to paint a picture for
King Agrippa that he believed was his unavoidable destiny,
so he embellished the account of his vision with a lie. The
part of his story in bold print above is a total fabrication...
sounding far more like something Paul would say than
something Yahshua would say. The main purpose for
Yahshua confronting Paul is obvious and found in his first
words: "Why are you persecuting me?" Yahshua's purpose
was to stop the persecution ! The fact that Paul didn't reject
Yahshua but submitted to him with the words, "What would
you have me do?" is a secondary outgrowth from the event.
Had Paul stubbornly tried to continue on his way to
Damascus to arrest the Messianic believers, it would have
been the end of him on the spot. The scene is very
reminiscent of Balaam being stopped by the Angel of the
Lord because he intended to curse Israel. The parallels
between Paul and Balaam are striking. They both started out
as enemies of God on their way to curse God's people when
they were stopped by a blinding vision on the way. They
both repented, converted and served God for a short while,
then turned on Him and His people again. If it can happen
to Balaam, why not Paul? For more details on this incredible
parallel, read ' Jesus Words Only' by Douglas DelTondo.
From Paul's fabricated story, it is evident that he designed it
to impress upon King Agrippa the picture that it was
Yahshua's plan that he be delivered from the Gentiles by
him. But Yahshua never said those words, and as proof that it
was one big fat lie, Paul never was delivered from the
Gentiles.
A little later in the story, Festus and Agrippa mock Paul (Acts
26:24,28) and come to the conclusion that Paul was little
more than a harmless crackpot. This is when Paul opts for
making an appeal to Caesar for justice in the matter.
Christianity has generally thought of Paul's appeal to Caesar
as a brilliant tactical maneuver. But something King Agrippa
said to Festus seems to go unnoticed.
"This man might have been set free if he had not
appealed to Caesar." Acts 26:32
Paul's appeal to Caesar is the subject matter of the next
chapter.

keep on dropping ni... am following

Old thread but an interesting one by the way deserving a comprehensive discussion

johnydon22:
Old thread but an interesting one by the way deserving a comprehensive discussion

There is a similar one I just read today, by Sarassin. It's called, The falsehoods of Paul.

Very nice read. I enjoyed it. Sarassin is quite an erudite. Both in normative science and most interestingly in initiatic sciences. I only regret he never gets deeply enough (for my liking). I guess it's because it's a public forum.

LoJ:

There is a similar one I just read today, by Sarassin. It's called, The falsehoods of Paul.

Very nice read. I enjoyed it. Sarassin is quite an erudite. Both in normative science and most interestingly in initiatic sciences. I only regret he never gets deeply enough (for my liking). I guess it's because it's a public forum.

Yes i quite enjoy sarassin's threads a lot and he is very knowledgeable in history too.

You've heard of my plans to organize a discussion forum for irreligious minds? i think diverse and eloquent minds like that of sarassin will make it something of good intellectual horn locking and a gold mine of educative discussions.

2 Peter. 3:14-16
'' 14Therefore, beloved, as you anticipate these things,
make every effort to be found at peace with Him,
without spot or blemish. 15 Consider also that our
Lord’s patience brings salvation, just as our beloved
brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom God
gave him. 16 He writes this way in all his letters,
speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of
his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and
unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the
Scriptures, to their own destruction.…''


haffaze777, Apostle Peter confirmed Apostle Paul's epistles as part of the Holy scriptures. Read the scripture above emphasis on verse 15. haffaze777,stop biting more than you can chew. LoJ johnydon22

LoJ:

There is a similar one I just read today, by Sarassin. It's called, The falsehoods of Paul.

Very nice read. I enjoyed it. Sarassin is quite an erudite. Both in normative science and most interestingly in initiatic sciences. I only regret he never gets deeply enough (for my liking). I guess it's because it's a public forum.

Thanks LoJ, I remember that thread. And yes for reasons you have alluded to, sometimes it can be a bit difficult to go into details, as well as people's sensitivities e.t.c

johnydon22:


Yes i quite enjoy sarassin's threads a lot and he is very knowledgeable in history too.

You've heard of my plans to organize a discussion forum for irreligious minds? i think diverse and eloquent minds like that of sarassin will make it something of good intellectual horn locking and a gold mine of educative discussions.

Count me in.

Sarassin:

Count me in.

You sure are in my bro

haffaze777:
The Lie
In Galatians 2, Paul makes mention of the same first trip to
Jerusalem as mentioned above. It is obvious from the subject
matter alone that it is a reference to the same Jerusalem
council meeting.
First, let's take an overview of the subject matter of the book
of Galatians.
Christianity fondly refers to Galatians as "the Magna Carta
of spiritual emancipation" . One reference says, "…it
remains as the abiding monument of the liberation of
Christianity from the trammels of legalism." It is evident
to the reader of Galatians that Paul’s position against the Law
is quite hostile.

Rather Paul's position towards those that were subverting the believers at Galatia and the Gentiles in general; a position held by ALL the elders and disciples:

Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment
Acts 15:22,24
Hence it will be wrong to attribute this to Paul alone.

His intention is to convince the Galatian
believers not to give the time of day to the "Judaizers" like
Peter who were teaching the Law of Moses including
circumcision.

But Peter was in the Council in Acts 15 ? If you claim Peter taught the Law, would you mind giving evidence thereto from the Epistles 1 & 2 Peter.

As mentioned in the previous chapter, Paul
twice commands the Galatians to curse anyone who teaches
anything other than his doctrine. Galatians 1:8,9 Among his
numerous anti-Law (anti-nomian) arguments are these
quotes:
"…for by the works of the Law no flesh shall be
justified." Galatians 2:16
"But that no one is justified by the Law in the sight of
God is evident…" Galatians 3:11

A position held by all the Apostles and disciples as Acts 15:6-11 shows!

Deuteronomy 6:25 rebuffs these statements when
Moses says: "Then it will be righteousness for us,
if we are careful to observe all these
commandments before the Lord our God, as He
has commanded us."

But remember that the Law was a part of a whole - Covenant! And that God revealed through Jeremiah how that Israel broke this covenant!! That quote by Moses came before the OT could settle down, note the phrase IF WE ARE CAREFUL TO OBSERVE. Did they? NO.

"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law…"
Galatians 3:13
The law is not a curse , nor does it of itself bring
one. Breaking the law brings a curse. Therefore it
is man and not the Law that is the problem.
" Indeed I , Paul, say to you that if you become
circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing . And I
testify again to every man who becomes circumcised
that he is a debtor to keep the whole Law. You have
become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be
justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace.
Galatians 5:2-4
He even drops his own name as the foremost
authority before telling the Galatians a doctrinal
lie.

He was an Apostle to the Gentiles. Besides, we should wonder whence the audacity to write a recognized Epistle if the addressee did not recognize him as their leader!

As regards his apostleship, even Peter acknowledged it and that is why they could send the letter in Acts 15 by him. (why didnt they go like they did in Acts 8?)

"For all the Law is fulfilled in one word, even this: ‘You
shall love your neighbor as yourself’". Galatians 5:14
This is only the second greatest commandment.
Matt. 22:36-40 says; "Teacher, which is the great
commandment in the law?" Yahshua said to him,
"’You shall love the Lord your God with all your
heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
This is the first and the great commandment.
And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your
neighbor as yourself.’ On these two
commandments hang all the law and the
prophets." 1 John 5:3 describes how we are to
fulfill the first and greatest commandment to love
God with all our heart: "For this is the love of
God, that we keep His commandments. And His
commandments are not burdensome."

Correct. These and Paul in Galatians agree when we refer to God's promise of the New Covenant to write His Laws in the heart.

Paul is so filled with malice toward those who preach
circumcision that he wishes they would take the knife and cut
their own joysticks off! Galatians 5:11,12 He refers to
circumcision as "the mutilation" in Philippians 3:2. His
attitude toward the Law and those who teach it is obviously
quite hostile.

Just as Jesus said anyone that deceives believers was better off at the bottom of the sea (thanks to a millstone).
A tour of the Bible will show you God's reaction to deceivers.

Now, keeping Paul's anti-Law rhetoric in mind, take a look at
Paul’s recollection to the Galatians of his first meeting with
the Jerusalem council.
"Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem
with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went
up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel
which I preach among the Gentiles… But from those
who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it
makes no difference to me; God shows personal
favoritism to no man— for those who seemed to be
something added nothing to me . But on the contrary,
when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised
had been committed to me, as the gospel for the
circumcised was to Peter… and when James, Cephas,
and John who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace
that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas
the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the
Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They desired only
that we should remember the poor, the very thing
which I was also eager to do." Galatians
2:1,2,6-7,9-10
This is Paul’s version of what happened. When he said that
the church in Jerusalem desired "only" that he remember the
poor, how could this be anything less than an outright lie?

Note the highlighted and realise that this was not a rehearsal of the happenings at the Council but a private meeting for a different purpose. You omitted this:

2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, [size=14pt]but privately to them[/size] which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
Galatians 2:2

Remember, Paul was forcefully trying to persuade the
Galatians to not be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses.
This is the foundational theme of the entire book. What's
more, Paul was clearly telling the Galatians that he had
Jerusalem’s full support... in spite of the fact that he didn't
think he needed it from those who only "seemed" to be
something and "added nothing" to him.

Sure!

In light of his
message, he could not afford to tell the truth, that the official
edict from Jerusalem included four requirements from the
Law of Moses, three of which were dietary. So he told them a
lie when he said, "They desired only that we remember the
poor". The official letter read that the Gentiles were to
"keep themselves from things offered to idols, from
blood, from things strangled, and from sexual
immorality." And this lie isn't just a matter of conveniently
leaving some things out, he left all the commands out, and
then replaced them with one that wasn't even in the official
letter. Nowhere in the letter is there any mention of "the
poor"!

Again remember, that Acts 15 shows us the council that decided the error brought in as Acts 15:1,2 shows. However, this session on accountability by Paul and the Apostles was not recorded! Their acceptance of his apostleship to the Gentiles is seen in their sending him to them with the letter, introducing him therein!

And then Paul has the gall to state it like, "...and they
didn't need to tell me that. I have always been eager to
remember the poor. See, those who only seemed to be
something can't even add that to me." What is it going to
take for Christianity to see the lies and incredible arrogance
of Paul? Read the passage above again if necessary.
Paul begins telling the Galatians of his contacts with the
Jerusalem Messianic leaders in Galatians 1:18. Just before
this, in verses 11 and 12, he had told them that his doctrine
was given to him by divine revelation. In other words, it
didn't come from the original apostles who had spent three
and a half years with Yahshua and only "seemed" to be
pillars of the church. When Paul tells of his meeting with the
Jerusalem leaders, his attitude was that the original apostles
were of no significance to him, but... if it mattered to the
Galatians... he indicated in Galatians 2:9 that he still had
Peter, James, and John’s full support anyway. This is the
picture Paul is painting.

Rather what I find is the fact that we only retain our honour when we are true to the faith in other words, NO man is bigger than the Word (Peter himself wrote that he and others were to be examples to the believers 1 Peter 5). This position was necessary because of the influence such dissimulation of Peter might have (being a top leader) and lest the believers excuse themselves by that action!

After mentioning his contact with Peter, James and John the
first time in Jerusalem to discuss what should be required of
the Gentiles, he says these words.
"Now concerning the things which I write to you,
indeed, before God, I do not lie." Galatians 1:20
Paul actually had the gall to preface a lie with an oath of
honesty! One has to ask the question why he felt compelled
in the first place to assure the Galatians he was not lying!

Yes, the judaizers (like you are doing)sought to sell their lies by , among other things, slandering Paul! (see 2 Corinth 10 - 13)

Yahshua had a few words to say concerning this type of oath:
"Again you have heard that it was said to those of old,
‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your
oaths to the Lord.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all,
neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne’ nor by the
earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is
the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your
head, because you cannot make one hair white or
black. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’, and your ‘No’ be ‘No’.
For whatever is more than these is from the evil
one." Matthew 5:33-37

And what did Paul swear by? NOTHING! I perceive it was his own way of saying Jesus', "verily verily I say to you"

Paul’s own words convict him again. He was a liar, along
with being a false apostle just as Yahshua had commended
the Ephesian church for exposing. He was a liar regardless of
whether or not the Ephesian church was aware of this
particular lie.

A liar they exposed while the same Paul was the one that preached Christ to them (Acts 19:6,9,10,11,17-20)? And also wrote an Epistle to them? What evidence of 'lies'do you see in that Epistle to the Ephesians?

But it is not at all unlikely that the Ephesian
church was very familiar with both Paul’s letter to the
Galatians and the official letter from the Jerusalem council.
The Jerusalem council letter would have been circulated to all
the Gentile churches, and we know that Paul’s letters were
being copied and circulated among the churches as well .
Peter makes this apparent in 2 Peter 3:15,16 when he speaks
of Paul and the content of " all his epistles". Peter could not
say this without being familiar with most if not all of them!
One can also see from the passage that he assumes his
readers are aware of them as well. (2 Peter 3:15,16 is the
passage in which Peter appears to call Paul's letters
Scripture. I deal with this issue in chapter 10.)
The fact that Paul lied to the Galatians is by itself enough to
establish him as a liar, but once a person crosses that line he
will likely continue the practice. His lie to the Galatians is by
no means his only lie.

Whoever you,the op,copied this from must have been or is one of the descendants of the crew of judaizers who crucified Jesus and persecuted the Apostles and Paul (using the same weapons of slander and murder) simply because they were moved with envy.

haffaze777:
■If Yahshua was referring to Paul as a false apostle and liar in the book of Revelation, how is it he was a liar? The claim of apostleship itself might be considered a lie... but in my thinking, the label " liar " implies a person who uses conscious intent to deceive. When Paul called himself an apostle, I believe he thought he was one. Therefore, I would have a hard time actually labeling him as a liar on those grounds alone. I would call him conceited and self-deceived. Interestingly enough, just by the way Yahshua states it, he appears to make the same distinction. "And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars." Revelation 2:2 Notice that the idea of apostle is completely negated first and then the idea of liar appears to be in addition to the fact. So if Paul was the one Yahshua was referring to, I would expect him to be guilty of using conscious intent to deceive. Here again I would draw a distinction and not include the many errors he had in his doctrines because I’m sure he thought he was right. What I am looking for are outright bold-faced lies.
■ If Paul’s letters are the inspired and infallible word of almighty God, breathed through Paul by the Holy Spirit as Christian doctrine asserts, would it have been possible for Paul to have told an outright lie in them? I think not. So if he did, what would that by itself directly imply concerning the notion that his words are God’s words?

1. Jesus Christ was instead referring to the many false teachers and false prophets who He warned would come to dissuade His followers from following the way of Truth.

1 “Write this to the angel of the church in Ephesus: “Here is a message from the one who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands.
2 “I know what you do, how hard you work and never give up. I know that you don’t accept evil people. You have tested those who say they are apostles but are not. You found that they are liars.
3 [/b]You never stop trying. You have endured troubles for my name and have not given up.
[b]4 “But I have this against you: You have left the love you had in the beginning.
5 So remember where you were before you fell. Change your hearts and do what you did at first. If you don’t change, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.
6 But there is something you do that is right—you hate the things that the Nicolaitans do. I also hate what they do. - Revelations 2 vs 1 - 5

There were lots of false teachers and false prophets — all of them pretending to be apostles even at that time, the Nicolaitans for instance.

2. The words of Paul are merely his opinions and views regarding the one who is the Infallible Word of God, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the everlasting infallible Word of God. Paul was just a man who had opinions and views, some of which may have been inspired and others no so much. So, it is against God for any man to attempt to substitute the word of Paul for the word of God. Even Paul said, "Let God be True, and let all men(including Paul) be liars."

haffaze777:
■ Consider the following. Paul and the Jerusalem Council In the book of Acts, Luke records two separate trips Paul made to Jerusalem to discuss doctrinal matters with the head Messianic leaders Peter and James. The first incident is recorded in Acts 15. Here, as the story goes, there had been a disagreement as to whether the Gentile believers needed to be circumcised, so Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem to find an answer to the question. When they came to Jerusalem, the elders received them, and Paul told them of his work among the Gentiles. At this point, a group of believing Pharisees stated that it was necessary for the Gentiles to be circumcised and require them to keep the Law. This must have been the hot topic of the day, because it was just what Paul and Barnabas had been sent there to discuss. And it says there was "much dispute" among those who were at the conference. Then Peter speaks and makes reference to an event where he had been sent to the Gentile Cornelius, and he goes on to say these words. "So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers or we were able to bear?" Acts 15:8-10
Here Peter is referring to the Gentiles and appears to be calling the Law an unbearable burden. Before going on to the subject of Paul, a couple of things need to be addressed in this quote because there are those in the Jewish community who can’t believe Peter or James would ever call the Law an unbearable burden. Some would rather charge Luke with dishonest reporting. As mentioned before, I see no reason to accuse Luke of malice. I believe Luke accurately recorded what he saw and heard. The people he quotes may have been in doctrinal error, and his own commentaries may have been made in Paul-induced ignorance, but I personally have a hard time with the notion that Luke was part of a grand conspiracy to destroy the Law. I see Luke as a very typical everyday person, a Gentile with honorable intentions. He also records events which end up convicting Paul as well as support him! When he is discredited as a reporter, nothing he says is reliable anymore. The key to understanding Peter’s quote which appeared to call the Law an unbearable burden is to remember who started the argument and who he is addressing... the Pharisees. (see previous three verses. Acts 15:5-7) Even Yahshua called their idea of the Law a burden. He said: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do. But do not do according to their works; for they say and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers." Matthew 23:2-4 These words must have been echoing in Peter’s ears when he heard the Pharisees demand that the Gentiles keep the Law. He knew what their idea of the Law was... with all its added oral traditions… a burden! Yahshua kept the whole Law as found in Moses, and yet said these words. "My yoke is easy and my burden is light." Matt.11:30 NKJV Here is what the apostle John said about God's Law. "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome ." 1John 5:3 The true unadulterated Law of Moses is not unbearable.

But Peter and James did not want the Pharisees dictating to the Gentiles their idea of the Law with all its traditions, additions and amendments. This is what Peter was referring to when he called the Law an unbearable yoke.
As the story continues, Paul and Barnabas tell of "the many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles". Then James begins to speak, and after a short speech says: "Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath." Acts 15:19-21 Here James is endorsing dietary and sexual purity laws along with Moses in general. It is reasonable to assume that James intended for the four laws he outlined to be a kind of stop- gap measure, to keep the new believers from defiling themselves before they could receive the rest of the Law through the reading of Moses in the synagogues every Sabbath. The continued hallowing of the Sabbath is evident in that James uses the present tense word "being", and the attendance of the new Gentile believers to synagogue on the Sabbath is obviously assumed. The idea of "troubling" the Gentiles is his way of saying the Pharisaic laws were too much of a burden. The issue of circumcision is left up in the air. Again, it appears that James intended the new believers to be convicted when they heard Moses read in the synagogues and as a result, follow through with the rest of the Law including circumcision.
This was his way of trying to keep as many of the factions together without unduly reproaching the believing Pharisees, and allowing for the Gentiles to receive a more unadulterated version of the Law. The Messianic leaders then decided to write a letter to the Gentile believers. This was to be the official position on the issue, and it was given to Paul, Barnabas, and other leading men of the congregation who went with them to confirm its authenticity and see that it was delivered properly. The part of this official decision that we will focus on is the list of four immediate requirements concerning dietary and sexual purity laws. They are listed a second time in the official letter itself: "…For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." Acts 15:28,29 Twice, these four requirements are listed in Acts 15. Later in the book, Paul returns again to Jerusalem, only this time he was in trouble for what he had been teaching. After a short lecture to Paul concerning what he had been hearing about him, James makes this statement. "But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality." Acts 21:25 There they are again. The same four requirements listed a third time.

OP, I believe this here reads more like a gross misunderstanding of

■ the intentions of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15
■ Peter's intention for pointing out that the Old Law of Moses was a heavy yoke that they all failed to live up to, and should hence not be imposed on anyone else. Recall that Jesus Christ came to call sinners — those who failed at living up to the expectation of the Old Law of Moses and were hence slated to be condemned by God, to begin with.
■ what John wrote in his epistle. Your reference to what John wrote in his epistle - 1 John 5 - is in error since John wrote, not of the Old Law in that passage but of God's New Law and Covenant, Jesus Christ in that particular passage of 1 John 5 vs 1 - 5.
■ James' intention as far as suggesting that the Gentiles — all of whom happen to be of the blood of Israel — abide only by the laws that the foreigners in the land are expected to

A look at the fact that the letters were broadcasted only to Gentiles in 3 particular places - To all the non-Jewish brothers in the city of Antioch and in the countries of Syria and Cilicia — should give you a better understanding of the reason behind the letters which was primarily to help broker peace between the Jewish residents— mostly Old Law adherents aka non-followers of Jesus Christ — and the non-Jewish believers in Jesus Christ.

haffaze777:
The Lie
■ In Galatians 2, Paul makes mention of the same first trip to Jerusalem as mentioned above. It is obvious from the subject matter alone that it is a reference to the same Jerusalem council meeting. First, let's take an overview of the subject matter of the book of Galatians. Christianity fondly refers to Galatians as "the Magna Carta of spiritual emancipation" . One reference says, "…it remains as the abiding monument of the liberation of Christianity from the trammels of legalism." It is evident to the reader of Galatians that Paul’s position against the Law is quite hostile. His intention is to convince the Galatian believers not to give the time of day to the "Judaizers" like Peter who were teaching the Law of Moses including circumcision.

To understand Paul's insistence on separating entirely from following the Old Law of Moses, it is important to clearly understand what it means to be born-again particularly born of water.
▢ To be born of water means to submit oneself to the Baptism of Repentance which was first preached by John the Baptist and was reaffirmed by Jesus Christ. According to John the Baptist, the Baptism of Repentance mandates a complete abandonment of the following of the old Law of Moses and nation — and the old man who lived under the stipulations of the old Law — embracing fully, in its place, life and living under God’s new Law and Nation of Priests — becoming a new man whose life is lived under the stipulations of the new Law.

Just as the old Law was the fountain of living waters for those who lived under it, so also the new Law becomes the new fountain of living waters which those who are born of it are to quench their thirsts from hence born of water. What the baptism of repentance in Matthew 3 vs 7 - 11 & Luke 3 vs 2 - 18 & Mark 1 vs 1 - 8 means is one is no longer to venture back to the old Law in search of rules to live by. This baptism is marked by the washing of a person with water to mark the end of the old and the beginning of the new. And it is not how it is done that is of importance but rather the reasoning behind the ritual that matters.

So, Jesus Christ did warn His followers of catastrophic consequences when New Wine is mixed with Old Wine. So Paul is right to insist that the believer stay away from mixing Old Wine with New Wine.

2. Not certain that Peter was a Judaizer as I have yet to find any evidence of this in all of my own readings through the epistles.

haffaze777:
■ As mentioned in the previous chapter, Paul twice commands the Galatians to curse anyone who teaches anything other than his doctrine. Galatians 1:8,9 Among his numerous anti-Law (anti-nomian) arguments are these quotes: "…for by the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified." Galatians 2:16 "But that no one is justified by the Law in the sight of God is evident…" Galatians 3:11 Deuteronomy 6:25 rebuffs these statements when Moses says: "Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us." "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law…"
■ Galatians 3:13 The law is not a curse , nor does it of itself bring one. Breaking the law brings a curse. Therefore it is man and not the Law that is the problem. " Indeed I , Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing . And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole Law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace. Galatians 5:2-4 He even drops his own name as the foremost authority before telling the Galatians a doctrinal lie.

1. The coming of Jesus Christ meant the Last Days of the people under God's Old Law of Moses. God had promised, during the time of Daniel the prophet to put a seal on the Old Law, the Prophets, and visions, after the time of the prophecy of Seventy weeks of seven was concluded. The end began when Jesus Christ died, and it was for this reason that Paul rightly announced to the Galatian believers that they could no longer put their hopes in the Old Law.

2. Yes, God's Old Law was not itself a curse on us. Rather, we incurred the curse of the Law of Moses by refusing to live our lives in obedience to the Letter of the law - Deuteronomy 28 vs 1 - 55. We brought the curse upon ourselves by our disobedience of God's Law of Moses. However, after turning to Jesus Christ, we took an oath to abandon the Old Law in order to adopt and live under the New Law by which we are then able to obtain redemption which was not available to us via God's Old Law of Moses for the fact that We had already been cursed by the Old Law of Moses. Eternal damnation is the end that awaits all those who after being born-again go back to serving God by the Old Law of Moses, pretty much.

All shady speculations with no valid proof.

hashtagged:
All shady speculations with no valid proof.

How did you come to the conclusion that all are shady? Do you mean you have already carefully examined every claim?

Kobojunkie:
How did you come to the conclusion that all are shady? Do you mean you have already carefully examined every claim?

I examined and saw only speculations of a misguided man

haffaze777:
The Lie...
■ He even drops his own name as the foremost authority before telling the Galatians a doctrinal lie. "For all the Law is fulfilled in one word, even this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’". Galatians 5:14 This is only the second greatest commandment. Matt. 22:36-40 says; "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" Yahshua said to him, "’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and the great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
■ 1 John 5:3 describes how we are to fulfill the first and greatest commandment to love God with all our heart: "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome." .

Two issues here... on paying close attention to the context of Paul's message as dictated in Galatians 5 vs 1 - 15 you would almost immediately find that spoke in reference to those who already believed in God - those who were already living in the fulfillment of the first greatest commandment.

1 We have freedom now, because Christ made us free. So stand strong in that freedom. Don’t go back into slavery again.
2 Listen! I, Paul, tell you that if you start following the law by being circumcised, then Christ cannot help you.
3 Again, I warn everyone: If you allow yourselves to be circumcised, then you must follow the whole law.
4 If you try to be made right with God through the law, your life with Christ is finished—you have left God’s grace.
5 I say this because our hope of being right with God comes through faith. And the Spirit helps us feel sure as we wait for that hope.
6 When someone belongs to Christ Jesus, it is not important if they are circumcised or not. The important thing is faith—the kind of faith that works through love.
7 You were doing so well. Who caused you to stop following the truth?
8 It certainly wasn’t the one who chose you. 9 Be careful! “Just a little yeast makes the whole batch of dough rise.”[a]
10 I trust in the Lord that you will not believe those different ideas. Someone is trying to confuse you. Whoever it is will be punished.
11 My brothers and sisters, I don’t teach that a man must be circumcised. If I do teach circumcision, then why am I still being persecuted? If I still taught circumcision, then my message about the cross would not be a problem.
12 I wish those people who are bothering you would add castration[b] to their circumcision.
13 My brothers and sisters, God chose you to be free. But don’t use your freedom as an excuse to do what pleases your sinful selves. Instead, serve each other with love.
14 The whole law is made complete in this one command: “Love your neighbor[c] the same as you love yourself.”
15 If you continue hurting each other and tearing each other apart, be careful, or you will completely destroy each other. - Galatians 5 vs 1 -15 The above speaks to those who already believe in loving God with all of their hearts, minds, and souls.

As for the core message, of the above, it is to call those who are in Jesus Christ away from going back to following the Old Law of Moses, something Jesus Christ warned His followers against doing in His Gospel.

2. As for what is written in 1 John 5 vs 3 , it isn't a reference to the Old Law commandment found in Deuteronomy 9 vs 6 but rather to what Jesus Christ taught His followers instead in God's New Covenant in John 14 vs 15 - 23.