What is the meaning of INRI on the cross above Jesus' head?

INRI is an acronym of the Latin inscription 'IESVS·NAZARENVS·REX·IVDÆORVM' (Jesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum), which translates to English as "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews." 

This was written as the "crime" that Jesus had committed on the top of the Cross and is mentioned in John 19: 19, although it was not just written in Latin (as the Romans, who spoke Latin, were the executioners), but we are told that it was also written in Hebrew (for the Jewish people to read) and Greek (which was the universal language of the whole Mediterranean area at that time - as there were many foreign visitors in Jerusalem at that time for the Feast of the Passover.

John 19: 19-22: 'Pilate wrote a title also and put it on the torture stake. It was written: "Jesus the Naz·a·rene´ the King of the Jews." 

Therefore many of the Jews read this title, because the place where Jesus was impaled was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, in Greek. However, the chief priests of the Jews began to say to Pilate: "Do not write 'The King of the Jews,' but that he said, 'I am King of the Jews.'" Pilate answered: "What I have written I have written."

Latin became the Language of the Roman Catholic Church. But, in Latin, they used the "I" for the Letter "J" (both in Jesus and Jews), their word for King was "REX", and they used the "V" for the "U" . So the sign would have been something like this one

IESVS NAZEREVS, REX IUDEA, Or using the first letters of each words: INRI

The final language on the sign was Hebrew which is the Jewish language. Now the first word wasYehoshuah (Jesus). The first letter of that is the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. It is the little yod, which looks like an apostrophe. (Hebrew is read from right to left.) Yehoshuah and according to the Bible it was "Jesus the Nazarene." The next word was ha Nazarite. The next word would be "and," which is what we call a wha. It is like a little line with a hook on top. The next one would be the king of Jews Hamelech Yudio. What you had on the cross reading from right to left in the first letter, are the four letters of the Tetragrammaton YHWH. YHWH is the covenant name of God in the Old Testament Hebrew which did not have vowels (today we know this as Yahweh). In John 19:19-22 the chief Priests wanted Pilate to take the sign down because the sign recognized Jesus as Yahweh or God.

A Fabricated Apostle? Two Different Pauls in Epistles and Acts – plus an Extra, Saul !

Saul of Tarsus – a witness for Jesus?

One is informed by Acts that St Paul's early day stance was as "Saul, the Christian persecutor". Yet if Saul really was a vigilante for orthodox Judaism at the time of Stephen's stoning (Acts 7.58-8.3), becoming the chief persecutor of Christians, no less – one wonders just where was Saul, not long before, when a supposed radical rabbi called Jesus was stirring up whole towns and villages?

Paul's role as religious policeman seems not to have awakened until shortly after the godman's death. But in itself this suggests Jesus of Nazareth had no great impact. After all, Saul was a contemporary of Jesus in time and place, raised in Jerusalem ("at the feet of Gamaliel" – Acts 22.3) at precisely the time the godman was overturning moneychangers in the Temple and generally provoking Pharisees and Sadducees.

Would not Saul, a young religious hothead ("exceedingly zealous of the traditions" – Galatians 1.14) have waded into those multitudes to heckle and attack the Nazarene himself? Would he not have been an enthusiastic witness to JC's blasphemy before the Sanhedrin? And where was Saul during "passion week", surely in Jerusalem with the other zealots celebrating the holiest of festivals? And yet he reports not a word of the crucifixion?

Paul, another "witness for Jesus", saw and heard nothing!

Two Pauls – One Illusion

The trail-blazing Christian missionary and apostle, St Paul, appears nowhere in the secular histories of his age (not in Tacitus, not in Pliny, not in Josephus, etc.) Though Paul, we are told, mingled in the company of provincial governors and had audiences before kings and emperors, no scribe thought it worthwhile to record these events. The popular image of the saint is selectively crafted from two sources: the Book of Acts and the Epistles which bear his name. Yet the two sources actually present two radically different individuals and two wildly divergent stories. Biblical scholars are only too familiar with the conundrum that chunks of Paul's own story, gleaned from the epistles, are incompatible with the tale recorded in Acts but live with the "divine mystery" of it all.Perish the thought that they might recognize the whole saga is a work of pious fiction.

Acts

The Paul of Acts is a team player. His conversion on the road to Damascus is so important that it is repeated three times (son et lumiere). From a previous state of error (as "Saul", the persecuting Jewish zealot) he is brought into the loving embrace of the fledgling church.

Now part of the brethren ("with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem" - 9.28), he is "managed" by the elders. Disciples "took him" from Damascus (9.25) and Barnabas "brought him" to the apostles (9.27). They "brought him" to Caesarea and then they "sent him" to Tarsus. Barnabas "brought" Paul back to Antioch (11.26) and then with him was "sent" to Jerusalem with famine relief (11.30) – (as it happens, a visit to Jerusalem completely unknown to Paul himself).

Eventually the brethren "send" Paul on his first missionary journey (13.4). As a missionary, Paul is very much on the collective message:

"And as they went through the cities they delivered them the decrees for to keep that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established." – Acts 16.4,5.

From Thessalonica, Paul is "sent away" to Berea by the brethren (17.10). He is also "sent away" by sea and "brought" to Athens (17.14,15). In Cenchrea, Paul even takes a Jewish vow and shaves his head! (18.18).

Though his name is cited in Acts 177 times, "Paul" is never coupled with the familiar honorific "apostle". The closest Acts comes to bestowing the title is 14.14 where his name follows Barnabas and the plural is used. In every other instance, Paul is an entity quite separate from, and implicitly subordinate to, the apostles. The slight is striking, given that Acts was supposedly written by Luke, Paul's companion and admirer.

Epistles

In stark contrast, the Paul of the Epistles is a bombastic maverick, representing no one but himself and under no one's direction. It is Paul who is doing the directing. Full of his own importance, in all his letters Paul hammers home the point that he is an apostle and that his appointment comes directly from the divine. His "proof" of this is his own success as a missionary (e.g. 2 Corinthians 2,3) – an argument of dubious merit still used by churches today. Look at our success! We must be right!

Paul makes no reference to a "Damascene road" conversion nor to an origin in Tarsus (Jerome reported that Paul was from Galilee!). He makes no reference to Cyprus and the battle with a rival magician, nor does he refer to the edict from James on food prohibitions and fornication. Paul, it seems, owes nothing to any man. A bad-tempered bully, he wastes little sympathy on those who do not accept his point of view. Thus when he loses the support of Peter and Barnabas over eating with Gentiles, Paul rebukes Peter publicly and writes that he has reneged out of "fear" and Barnabas has been naively "carried away" (Galatians 2.12,13).

The Implausible Paul

It is curious that no Jewish rabbinic writings of the 1st or 2nd century so much as mention a renegade student of Gamaliel who, having studied under the master and vigorously enforced orthodoxy on behalf of the high priests, experienced a life-changing vision on an away mission. Not a word emerges from the rabbis about the star pupil who "went bad", a heretic who scrapped the prohibitions of the Sabbath, urged his followers to disregarded Judaism's irksome dietary regulations, and pronounced the Law and circumcision obsolete. Surely such a renegade could not have completely escaped the attention of the scribes?

How likely is it that Paul really studied under the Pharisaic grandee (Acts 22.3)? Paul clearly had difficulty with the Hebrew language: all his scriptural references are taken from the Greek translation of Jewish scripture, the Septuagint.

How likely is it that, as a young man, Paul – supposedly a Roman citizen and from the Hellenised diaspora – even got the job as chief policeman of the ultra-orthodox of Jerusalem? And if Paul really had secured such a position, he surely would have had far bigger fish to fry than a miniscule "Jesus group" in Damascus. We are told in Acts that the apostles continued to preach in Jerusalem even after the death of Stephen ("They all scattered abroad ... except the apostles." – Acts 8.1,2). So why didn't Paul go for the ringleaders, closer to hand?

"Nothing in his letters suggests that Paul had any official standing in his treatment of Christians ... Hence, in opposition to what Luke says, he could not have used arrest, torture or imprisonment as a means of forcing Christians to recognize that they had been misled." – Murphy O'Connor, Paul, His History, p19.

Given that the Jewish High Council (the Sanhedrin) had no authority to empower a heresy hunter to operate in the independent city of Damascus, Paul's road trip is even more implausible.

Convert?

How likely is it that Saul/Paul converted within a year or two of the crucifixion (Irenaeus says eighteen months)? If he truly was a precocious zealot of Judaism and was completely untouched by the perambulations and miraculous deeds of the godman himself – short of the supposed blinding "miracle" – why would he, of all people, so readily embrace the heresy? The four Gospels neither mention nor even hint at a pioneering apostle called Paul.

There is also a curious parallel between the alleged "persecution" speech spoken by the celestial Christ to the blinded Paul ("Saul, Saul ... ") and thepersecution of Dionysius found in Euripides work "the Bacchae" – and both use the word "goads".

If Paul (Saul) really had apostatised to the extent of joining (or establishing) a radical new sect, how is it the rabbis did not anathematize his name? To be sure, Jewish Christians (Ebionites) did condemn Paul and did so in the harshest terms – even suggesting that in reality he had been a malcontented Greek convert, whose ardour had been rejected by the High Priest's daughter! (Epiphanius, Panarion, 16). But that was in the 2nd century, long after any life and death of the apostle.

The "persecution" of the early church seems an extraordinarily unlikely construct because once Saul, the "destroyer of the saints", transforms into Paul the apostle, and is whisked away by the brethren to safety in Caesarea and home to Tarsus, the persecution abruptly stops. The "persecution" is entirely a one man circus.

" Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, weremultiplied." – 9:31

The entire pre-Christian "Saul, the scourge of the church" makes no sense at all as history – but does make a great deal of sense as theology. "Zealous Jew sees the light of Jesus, becomes Christian." The theological purpose is as obvious as the historical vignette is bogus.

"Murderous Jews" of Damascus

How likely is Paul's "escape by basket" from the city of Damascus (Acts 9.25) ? Typically, baskets lowered by rope are used by tenement dwellers to buy bread from street vendors, first lowering the basket with payment then raising the basket with their loaf. But man-sized baskets? And why could not Paul just climb down the rope like a normal person?

And just who was Paul escaping from? According to Paul's "own" testimony (2 Corinthians 11.32,33) it was "the governor under Aretas the king". Aretas IV was the Nabataean monarch who ruled a vast area from his capital of Petra, though Paul gives no explanation as to why Aretas was out to get him. 

But Acts, consistent with its hostility to "the Jews", tells us it was Jews of murderous intent (Acts 9.23,24). Why were the Jews so murderous? Any reputation Paul had among the Jews of Damascus would have been as an enforcer of Judaism, not as a Christian heretic. The weak explanation offered by Acts is that the converted Saul had "confounded" the Jews in the synagogue with his Christ. Apparently, that was sufficient cause for them to organise the intended assassination and watch the city gates (and there were at least seven of them) "day and night" – a considerable investment of manpower. O'Connor asks the reasonable question:

"Why should the Jews watch the gates, when it would have been perfectly easy to find out where Paul was living and arrange an 'accident' there?" – O'Connor, A Critical Life, p6.

Faced with such hostility from his erstwhile co-religionists, how plausible is it that Paul, having just experienced a life-changing conversion, instead of joining the earthly companions of his newly acquired Lord, instead goes off to "Arabia" for three years –an "Arabia" that has just chased him out of Damascus?!

Surely he would seek safety with fellow Christians? Surely he would wish to speak with his Saviour's still living mother, visit the places where Jesus wrought his miracles, tread the path to Calvary and ponder on the spot where his Lord suffered his passion?(Could it be that Paul does NOT do any of these things because virgin birth, miraculous deeds and earthly crucifixion have not yet been added to the story??!!)

Council of Jerusalem?

Acts 15 reports that Paul's "long abode" at Antioch which followed his first missionary journey is interrupted by "legalizers" from Judaea who insist that salvation required circumcision. The brethren are alarmed and Paul and Barnabas are chosen to lead a delegation to Jerusalem to meet the apostles and elders. The meeting is the famed "Council of Jerusalem". Conventionally dated anywhere between the years 48 and 52, Acts reports a pretty harmonious get together, with the main issue readily resolved. Paul regales the brothers with tales of "miracles and wonders" among the gentiles (15.12) and James rules that as far as circumcising the Gentiles is concerned, "we trouble them not" (15.19). Back in Antioch, the brethren "rejoiced" (15.32).

Yet Paul's own report on the meeting with "those who seemed to be the pillars" is very different. He goes to Jerusalem as a result of his own "revelation" (Galatians 2.2) and records what is actually a confrontation.

If there really was a "Council of Jerusalem" at which Paul won the argument that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised why did Paul so soon afterward personally circumcise Timothy, a disciple he found in Lystra? (16.3) To be sure, Timothy we are told is a half Jew so an apologetic argument is that it was to "gain acceptance" by the Jews of the region but such an argument presupposes a huge public awareness of poor Timothy's genitals. (There's no hint that Timothy was even asked how he felt about it!) But even more curious is what Paul himself says. Paul specifically declares that, not Timothy, but his other Greek sidekick Titus, was not circumcised!

"Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves." – Galatians 2.3,4.

"False brothers", "spies", are trying to make Paul and his entourage "slaves"?!

Such love, such Christian fellowship.

Founder of Churches?

More oddities exist. Paul supposedly established the church at Ephesus (Acts 18.18ff; 19.5,7), spending more time with his acolytes in that city than anywhere else (three months during the second mission, three years during the third). We are encouraged to believe that Paul's first and second "Letters to the Corinthians" were written from Ephesus, and that it was here that Paul received troubled delegates from Corinth and presided over Christianity's first book burning (Acts 19.19).

Yet it was the apostle John, settling in Ephesus after the crucifixion, who was ever after credited as founder of the Ephesian church. At the behest of Jesus himself, the Blessed Virgin had been placed in John's care and it seems off they had traipsed to Ephesus. Here Mary's house had been lovingly built by John with his own hands – a house which is is to be seen to this very day!

John was also said to have been the teacher of the venerable Bishop Polycarp, at nearby Smyrna. Whereas Mary's ultimate fate was not dreamed up for centuries, according to 2nd century Irenaeus (quoted by Eusebius, 23) John remained in Ephesus until the time of Emperor Trajan (98-117) and, according to 3rd century Dionysius of Alexandria, had not one but two Ephesian tombs.

Thus the story has it that the apostle John was a long-term resident in the very city evangelised by Paul on his second journey, "popularly" supposed to have begun in the year 49.

Yet for all the overlap in time and place, Paul neither met Mary nor consulted with fellow apostle John. Curious, to say the least.

Just what is going on here: mutual ignorance, churlishness, hostility – at the heart of the church of love?

Reality Check

What we are dealing with are two distinct (and rival) traditions, one centred on the collective of the apostles and underscoring the leadership of Peter (and hence Roman Catholicism); the other starring the apostle Paul, the pioneering theological genius and founder of churches. And for whom does "Paul" speak? Why, the faction that lost the political struggle – the church of Marcion, the very person who first "discovered" the epistles of Paul in the mid-to-late 2nd century.

In their original form (from the pen of the Marcionites) the Pauline epistles were far too dualistic and gnostic for a "mass market", with a theology which embraced escape from the material world. But they provided useful tales of the Holy Spirit at work among the Gentiles. The core Pauline (Marcionite) theology of individual salvation – "justification by faith" – severed the attachment to an exclusive Jewish bloodline and dispensed with the irksome dictates of Mosaic law. Initially alarming to the Jewish element of Catholicism, geopolitical developments would soon make such a theology very appealing.

The protracted struggle between the pro- and anti- "Jewish" Christian factions of the first half of the 2nd century ended after the Bar Kosiba war of 130-135 and the opprobrium in Rome of all things Jewish. In a half-baked fashion, the two "traditions" came together. The book of Acts was a Catholic triumph, which cut Paul down to size and brought the hero of the Marcionites into the securing arms of would-be orthodoxy.

To be sure, Paul himself was "glorified" and credited with extensive missionary activity, replete with miracles quite unrecorded in the eponymous letters. But in the new story, Paul writes no epistles. Instead, he delivers one from the top dogs in Jerusalem! In a weakly thought out story the "leader" of the Jerusalem apostles is moved to Rome ahead of Paul, and is placed upon the "pope's" chair. Paul, the superstar of a fabricated 1st century evangelical crusade, would ever after stand awkwardly at the shoulder of a far flimsier creature fashioned by the church in Rome – St Peter.

Thus was Paul, erstwhile hero of the heretics, refashioned into the "13th apostle" and assimilated into the Catholic collective, even as the Marcionite churches were being integrated into the greater and universal Roman church. The epistles ascribed to Paul – too useful and too popular to be erased from the record – were expropriated and doctored for the Catholic cause and augmented by others composed by the Catholic ecclesia.

These so-called "pastoral" epistles, addressed to the pastors or "shepherds" of the flock, reined in maverick and independent clergy and underscored episcopal authority. Nascent Catholicism, organizing itself in Rome, was very much of this world, and saw its future glory in accommodation with the imperial order. The approved "canon" followed, closing the door on further creative theology.

The fabricated Paul

"As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye havereceived, let him be accursed ... For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." – Galatians 1.9,12.

A Catholicised sainthood was the ultimate fate of our hero Paul but from where did the super-apostle arise? If, as seems likely,Marcion created what would become the New Testament Paul as a messenger for his own ideas, he almost certainly used biographical material from his own life, particularly the power struggle he waged with the collective in Rome. Marcion, like "Paul", alone knew the truth, a mystery made manifest to him by revelation.

As a shipping magnate from Sinope (a Black Sea port, a hundred miles north of Galatia) Marcion enjoyed financial independence and was able to travel extensively. At one point he even financed the church in Rome before being excommunicated and returning to the east. He would have been familiar with the sea lanes and attendant dangers that figure so prominently in the Pauline story. To give his theology added "authority" it had to be back projected into an earlier "apostolic age". He may have chosen the name Paul (meaning "small" or "humble") as reflective of his own position.

When Catholicism commandeered Marcion's creation, the novelists in Rome would undoubtedly have used the works of Josephus, the all-purpose source books of the Christians, for additional material. And here they found not a Paul but a Saul, an Herodian aristocrat of unsavoury character. This material became the core for the preamble to Paul's story, his "life in Judaism". And the life of Josephus himself certainly was plundered: episodes in the Jewish historian's biography resonate just too closely with the Pauline story, particularly the shipwreck on the way to Rome.

Josephus was not just an historian. Before the war, he had been appointed by the high priest Ananias as governor in Galilee, with a brief that meant suppressing ("persecuting") radical movements. One of the bandit groups he had to deal with in and around Tiberias was led by a bandit chief called ... Jesus.

"So Jesus the son of Sapphias [chief magistrate of Tiberias], one of those whom we have already mentioned as the leader of a seditious tumult of mariners and poor people, prevented us, and took with him certain Galileans, and set the entire palace on fire ... Jesus and his party slew all the Greeks that were inhabitants of Tiberias, and as many others as were their enemies before the war began." – Josephus, Life 12.

Apostle Paul TOTALLY DEBUNKED!

Paul, or Saul of Tarsus is undoubtedly one of, if not the most important figure within Christianity. Many notable scholars and historians testify to this point. For example, Michael H. Hart called Paul the founder of Christianity in his book titled “The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History”. The reasoning behind Paul’s importance in the Christian faith is due in part to his contribution to the New Testament. According to mainstream, Christian scholars Paul is the author of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philemon and Galatians, Philippians and 1 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus.

It is because of Paul’s great influence and presence in Christian history that he has been given the title “Apostle”, but was he really an Apostle? Was he a Prophet? Or was he indeed an Apostle, but not in the sense that most understand him to be? If we look to the Bible for an answer to this we do indeed see Paul being referred to as an Apostle. In the Bible we read: 

“Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,” (1 Corinthians 1:1)

“Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,” (Romans 1:1)

The Christian contention here is that since Paul is referred to as being an Apostle in the Bible he must have been a true Apostle in the sense of the word. The problem with this argument is the fact that the author of the two quotations I mentioned above were written by Paul himself. This fact should automatically disqualify these quotations as being offered as tangible evidence of Paul’s authenticity because one could easily conclude that Paul is doing nothing more than “Blowing his own horn”. One would expect to see Paul referring to himself as an Apostle in his own writings because this was the image Paul wanted to display for the masses he was preaching to.

Before I continue we must lay the groundwork for what it means to be an Apostle. In order to do so we must look for a definition for this word so we can have a clear understanding of what an Apostle is. In the dictionary we read the following definitions for the word Apostle:

“any of the original 12 disciples called by Jesus to preach the gospel: Simon Peter, the brothers James and John, Andrew, Philip,Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas Iscariot.” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apostle)

I want you to notice that in the definition given Paul or Saul of Tarsus is not mentioned. Since he is not mentioned here we can not refer to Paul as being an Apostle like the original 12 disciples of Jesus. It is interesting to note that EVERY English dictionary on the planet fail to mention Paul’s name along with the 12 disciples of Jesus.

When this evidence is shown to educated Christians they respond by giving a secondary definition of the word Apostle that they claim is better suited to Paul. This definition is as follows:

“a title borne by persons sent on foreign missions.” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apostle)

The argument here is that since Paul was sent to preach Christianity to the Gentiles (Non Jews) he could be considered an Apostle, since he was sent on a mission to preach Christianity to people who were foreign to Jewish rights, customs and religion. During the ministry of Jesus the religion of the Jews (Old Testament) was preached and taught to Jews only. They often referred to themselves as being “the children of Israel” or “the lost sheep of Israel”. Everyone else were referred to as being a Gentile. This satire was not lost when Jesus came upon the scene. Jesus makes himself quite clear of this fact when he said:

“But he (Jesus) answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)

Now that we have established the fact that Jesus himself testifies that he was sent for the Jews only let us focus back on Paul. Paul portrayed himself as being an Apostle for the Gentiles in various parts of the Bible. In the Bible we read:

“For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office” (Romans 11:13)

“Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.” (2 Timothy 1:11)

Once again we see the character of Paul proclaiming himself an Apostle for the Gentiles. The problem with such a proclamation is the fact that it contradicts Peter’s proclamation as being the Apostle for the Gentiles. We see Peter giving himself this title in the following Bible quotation:

“And when there had been much disputing, PETER rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that THE GENTILES BY MY MOUTH SHOULD HEAR THE WORD OF THE GOSPEL, AND BELIEVE.” (Acts 15:7)

The obvious question here is who should we believe? Should we believe Peter, who was an original disciple of Jesus? A man who knew Jesus personally, who spoke with Jesus, walked with Jesus and heard Jesus speak. Or should we believe Paul, a man who was not an original disciple, a man who never knew Jesus personally or heard or seen Jesus during his ministry. I leave this decision to the reader but the choice should be as clear as crystal.

There is a third definition of the word Apostle but I would like to set this aside and address it at a later stage in this essay. What I would like to do now is re-examine Paul’s character, using different standards. I would like to see if Paul meets the requirements of one who is considered a Prophet.

In order for us to properly look at this aspect we must first define what it is to be a Prophet. We must then examine Paul’s conversion to Christianity to see if it meets the requirements of Prophethood. Again, if we look to the dictionary for a definition of the word Prophet we read:

“a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration.”

“a person regarded as, or claiming to be, an inspired teacher or leader.” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prophet)

Paul refers to himself as being an appointed teacher to the Gentiles in the Bible:

“Whereunto I am APPOINTED a preacher, and an apostle, and a TEACHER of the Gentiles.” (2 Timothy 1:11)

The question we must ask at this point is who appointed Paul to be a teacher to the Gentiles? In order to understand this we must look at the accounts of Paul’s conversion to Christianity. Paul’s conversion is mentioned in three places in the book of Acts. The first account is as follows:

“And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.” (Acts 9:3-7)

The second account is as follows:

  

“And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.” (Acts 22:6-10)

The Third account is as follows:

“Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,” (Acts 26:12-17)

It is obvious that the one who appointed Paul to teach the Gentiles was Jesus. It is the Christians contention that Jesus was God made flesh or God incarnate. If this is indeed the truth (I do not believe it to be) then Paul’s vision of Jesus was an act of divine intervention. Paul’s encounter is very different from the 12 disciples because they knew Jesus personally. They took what they had heard and learned directly from Jesus and went out to preach to the Jews. Paul never new Jesus personally and was instructed by Jesus via a vision to preach the gospel. If Jesus is indeed God or part of a triune God then there is no difference between Paul being instructed by Jesus (God incarnate) to preach the word and God instructing Moses to preach the word. In both instances God came via a vision to instruct and bring good tidings.

If we study these three accounts carefully we start to see inconsistencies in Paul’s account of what happened on the road to Damascus. Here are those inconsistencies:

1. In the first and second account we are told that when Paul seen the light, he was the only one who fell. “And HE fell to the earth” (Acts 9) and “. And I fell unto the ground” (Acts 22). In the third account Paul states that everyone who was with him fell after seeing the light “And when WE WERE ALL FALLEN to the earth” (Acts 26)

2. In the first account the men who were travelling with Paul heard a voice, but saw nothing “And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, HEARING a voice, but SEEING NO man.” (Acts 9). In the second account we are told the men saw something and heard nothing “And they that were with me SAW INDEED the light, and were afraid; but they HEARD NOT the voice of him that spake to me. The third account makes no mention of this event.

The inconsistencies in Paul’s three accounts can only lead us to the conclusion that Paul was lying. If we examine the three stories, in the order that they were given we can also see an evolution of the story, which accounts for the inconsistencies I mentioned above. In the first two accounts Paul claims that the light he saw from the heavens shone around him alone “suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven” (Acts 9), “suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.” (Acts 22). This account evolves in the third account in an attempt to legitimize Paul’s account of seeing a light. In the third account everyone who was with him saw the light “, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.” (Acts 26). Also, in the first account Paul merely says that Jesus spoke to him. In the third account, however, Paul tries to legitimize his account by adding that the voice he heard spoke to him in Hebrew “heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” (Acts 26).

To call Paul a liar is a serious statement. In order to prove this I will refer to the “experts” and what they say about the nature of lying. Web Md, a medical website, has an article titled “10 ways to catch a liar”. In this article they compile a list a ways by which one can catch someone lying. The number 1 way, according to them, is:

““When you want to know if someone is lying, look for inconsistencies in what they are saying," says Newberry, who was a federal agent for 30 years and a police officer for five.” (http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/10-ways-catch-liar)

This is a very popular tactic utilized by police detectives. If a police detective is sure of a person’s guilt they will ask that person to tell their story more than once during an interrogation. The reasoning behind this is because if the suspect is lying, his/her story of what happened will change, evolve or have inconsistencies. If Paul’s three accounts were offered into a court of law, they would not be accepted as matter as fact because of these major inconsistencies in his three accounts.

The obvious question at this point in the article is why Christians do not refer to Paul as being a Prophet? To answer this question we must look to the Bible and what Jesus was reported to have said. It says:

“Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (Matthew 24:23-24)

If we take this saying of Jesus into account it makes perfect sense as to why Christians do not refer to Paul as being a Prophet. If they claim him to be a Prophet he is automatically deemed a false Prophet according Matthew 24:23-24. It is also important to point out that in verse 23 Jesus says “Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.” If Jesus did in fact say this then Paul’s accounts of having a vision of Jesus while on his way to Damascus is false because Jesus says whoever claims to see him; believe him not. Another point of interest in these verses is that these false prophets will “shew great SIGNS and WONDERS” (Matthew 24:24). Paul is reported to have said, of himself:

  

“Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in SIGNS, and WONDERS, and mighty deeds.” (2 Corinthians 12:12)

Jesus says a false prophet will come with signs and wonders and Paul offers his authenticity as an Apostle by mentioning his signs and wonders.

Did Jesus make mention of Paul as being a false Apostle? To find an answer to this question we can look within the Bible itself. It says:

“Unto the angel of the church of EPHESUS write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou HAST TRIED THEM WHICH SAY THEY ARE APOSTLES, AND ARE NOT, and hast FOUND THEM LIARS:” (Revelations 2:1-2)

  

Who is the false Apostle in this verse who visited the Ephesians? In order to come to an answer we can look at the following passage from the bible:

“PAUL, an APOSTLE of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at EPHESUS, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: (Ephesians 1:1)

Also, Jesus warned his followers about the Pharisees and Sadducees. In the Bible we read:

  

“Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” (Matthew 16:6)

  

Could this warning from Jesus be applied to the character of Paul? Indeed it can be because Paul makes the following statement in the Bible:

“But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, HE CRIED OUT in the council, Men and brethren, I AM A PHARISEE, THE SON OF A PHARISEE: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” (Acts 23:6)

  

Also, Paul admits that he s a liar in the Bible. Many devote Christians are aware of this fact but they choose not to make mention of this because of its implications. If Paul is exposed as a liar, then we must doubt his authenticity because the word of God is truth, and truth never lies. So, what does the Bible say? Are my claims of Paul being a liar valid or invalid? In order to answer this question, I offer the following quotes from Paul in the Bible:

  

“Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I CAUGHT YOU BY TRICKERY!” (2Corinthians 12:16)

  

The New Living Translation of the Bible has translated the verse as follows:

 “Some of you admit I was not a burden to you. But others still think I WAS SNEAKY AND TOOK ADVANTAGE OF YOU BY TRICKERY.” (2 Corinthians 12:16)

  

“For if the truth of God hath more abounded through MY LIE unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?” (Romans 3:7)

 In 2 Corinthians Paul admits that he caught the people by using trickery and in Romans Paul admits he lied to further glorify God. It is also interesting to point out that in Romans Paul asks “why yet I am also judged as a sinner?”. It would appear as if Paul thought there was no problem in utilizing trickery and lies to gain an audience, as long as the people accepted his version of Christianity. To answer his question we can look to the Bible. It states:

 “CURSED be he that DOETH THE WORK OF THE LORD DECEITFULLY, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.” (Jeremiah 48:10)

“He that WORKETH DECEIT SHALL NOT DWELL WITHIN MY HOUSE: he that TELLETH LIES SHALL NOT TARRY IN MY SIGHT.” (Psalms 101:7)

In these two Bible verses we are told by God that people who lie and deceive people are cursed and that these people will not be in the presence of God. God is letting us now that liars to his faith are not blessed people and since Paul himself admits to lying, shall we consider him a true man of God? I leave that to the reader of this article to answer.

Some lesser educated Christians are also quick to point out that Paul had a great relationship with the Apostles of Jesus. They make this claim in ignorance of their very own scripture. If one examines the Bible we see that the relationship between Paul and the Apostles of Jesus was shaky at best. Paul’s discontent for the Apostles of Jesus is self evident when we read the following Bible verses:

  

“But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference ADDED NOTHING TO ME:” (Galatians 2:6)

  

“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I WITHSTOOD HIM TO THE FACE, because he was to be blamed.” (Galatians 2:11)

“But when I saw that THEY WALKED NOT UPRIGHTLY according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Galatians 2:14)

So, to surmise Paul said the Apostles of Jesus added nothing to him, the Apostles of Jesus walked not uprightly and he publically rebukes Peter to his face, which is a sign of supreme disrespect; not to mention ungodly.

So where does this leave us? Although I have provided ample evidence disproving Paul as being an Apostle (as most understand the word to mean), the Christians will still say he was a genuine Apostle. Although I have shown that Paul can be considered a prophet (Which means he was a false Prophet according to Jesus in the Bible), the Christians will still say he is an Apostle. In the beginning of my article I gave two definitions of the word Apostle from the dictionary. I also said there was a third definition for this word and believe this definition of the word Apostle fits Paul perfectly. The third definition of the word Apostle is as follows:

“a pioneer of any reform movement.” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apostle)

What this definition is saying in plain English is that an Apostle can be considered a person who was/is the first to change something. The word “reform” is often associated with change that is an improvement to something that is corrupt or wrong but in this case it is impossibility because Paul is reforming or “improving” the teachings of Jesus. Since Christians regard Jesus as being God incarnate it is foolish for them to promote such an idea because it implies that Paul is better than Jesus. Therefore, we must conclude that Paul’s reform to the original teachings of Jesus is a negative reform. Christians will often make the claim that Paul did not reform the original teachings of Jesus and that Paul’s message is in complete unity with the original teachings of Jesus. Like I said, this is a claim but is it a sound claim? Is it reliable? To answer this question we must look at what Jesus taught and compare it to Paul. If they taught the same thing there should be no difference in the underlying theme of each person’s mission.

In the Bible Jesus was recorded as saying:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-19)

In this passage Jesus tells us that his mission is not to destroy or change the law but to fulfill or abide or follow it. He further states that not jot or the smallest of things shall be changed. He also says that anyone who breaks the law and teaches others to do so will be amongst those who are the least in the kingdom of heaven.

This message is contrary to what Paul taught

  

“Knowing that a MAN IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and NOT BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” (Galatians 2:16)

“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith WITHOUT the deeds of the LAW.” (Romans 3:28)

It is quite clear from these passages from the Bible that Paul taught a brand of Christianity that propagated desertion or abandonment of the law. This is different from the teachings of Jesus when he stated that he had not come to destroy the law, but fulfill it. Also, Paul promotes a brand of Christianity that is based on faith alone, without works (“Man is not justifies by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 2:16) and “A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Romans 3:28)

This faith based Christianity Paul tries to promote contradicts the Christianity James taught. In the Bible James says:

“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD?” (James 2:20)

“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and NOT BY FAITH ONLY.” (James 2:24)

“For as the body without the spirit is dead, so FAITH WITHOUT WORS IS DEAD also.” (James 2:26)

James tells time and time again that faith and works together is the right path to salvation. Who are we to believe here? Do we believe James, who was one of the original 12 disciples of Jesus, a man who was called the brother of Jesus since they both had the same father, or do we believe Paul who never personally new Jesus at all? Like with Peter, we see a difference between what Paul teaches and what the original 12 disciples of Jesus taught.

Pauline Christianity is the underlying reason why see the staunch corruption within the church today. Faith based Christianity has given authority to those who call themselves Christians to participate in acts that are an abomination to the original teachings of the prophets, including Jesus Christ. A good example of this regards the consumption of Pork. The Old Testament prohibits people from eating this dirty animal in the following verse:

“Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.” (Leviticus 11:4)

A pig falls into this category because it is an animal that eats its own cud (stool or feces). Since Jesus said he had not come to destroy the law (Old Testament) but fulfill it (Matthew 5:17-19 quoted earlier) he would have followed this law and enforced it. Jesus new of the unclean nature of the pig and the prohibition in the Old Testament, which is why cast demon spirits into the bodies of pigs. In the Bible we read of this account:

“The demons begged Jesus, "If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs." He said to them, "Go!" So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water.” (Matthew 8:31:32)

How ironic is it that of all the animals around the demons chose to be cast into the very animal the people were not allowed to eat! And how ironic is it that Jesus cast them into the bodies of pigs!

Other offences done by modern day Christians, with the understanding of Pauline’s faith based teachings include pre-marital sexual relations (read about God’s wrath against the people of Sodom and Gomorrah for their sexual transgressions), a crime that is punishable by stoning in the Old Testament and the choice by some Christians to not have their male babies circumcised (a commandment given to Abraham by God). If Jesus himself said he had not come to destroy these laws, why is it that so many so called Christians break these laws? Why do they believe the words of Paul over the teachings of Jesus?

I would like to close this article with a quotation from the Bible. We read:

“And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples (disciples of Jesus): but THEY WERE ALL AFRAID OF HIM, and believed NOT that he was a disciple.” (Acts 9:26)

Why were the disciples of Jesus afraid of Paul and why did they all believe he was not a disciple? Think about it!

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/saul-paul.htm