• 1 Corinthians 15.3-5 : For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures ; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures : And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.

This is the topic I highlighted in the introduction to this teaching. As simple as it may seem, the reality is that it mainly helps to understand its seriousness. Here, no one can deny the error. Some try to justify it, others to minimize it, but it remains no less obvious. As I said, all translations highlight this number 12, and the original text makes clear mention of it.

Not only did Jesus not appear first to Peter (Cephas), since the Gospel of John lists at least three first appearances to the disciples, but there were only 11 of them left anyway, not 12, since Judas had hanged himself and he had not yet been replaced. And even then, at the time of Jesus' first appearance to his disciples, there were only 10 of them, Thomas being absent.

So maybe it was indeed the Holy Spirit who spoke to Paul and Paul misheard... But in this case, the fact remains that this cannot be what the Holy Spirit said and this calls into question the integrity of the entire letter. Whether one is one of those who justifies, one of those who minimizes, or one of those who simply admit that this mention of the twelve disciples is an error, it is not possible to deny the evidence other than by making oneself a liar. As for the consequences to be given to this kind of evidence, they are up to each individual, but the advantage is that everyone can easily realize that this statement is false.

When it came to choosing the first points I would address, it became clear that one of them would have to deal with the most obviously questionable point in Paul's writings. A point that no amount of justification can make acceptable.

How indeed can we explain that Paul can himself and repeatedly affirm that he is transmitting to us not God's directives, but his own opinion?

Twice in his first epistle to the Corinthians we find a statement along these lines. First he will proclaim "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7.12), then he will support his position by specifying "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be" (1 Corinthians 7.25-26).

We are indeed faced with a problem that many have noted but that almost everyone is content to immediately forget, so unstoppable and disturbing is the logic that follows from it. In these two passages, Paul clearly tells us that he is stating dogmas that are not from God but from himself. Therefore, what he affirms may perfectly well be true (this is not the case here, as we will see later), but its place is no longer in the Word of God. Because the method of selecting a text is to know if it is inspired by God and not to know if it is true. Many writings are true without having their place in the Word of God.

Now if God has just told Paul to affirm that what he has just inspired in him was not from Him, then God would be a liar, this cannot be, it is not God who wanted this declaration to be made, and consequently, this text cannot be inspired by Him.

Let us also note that Paul ends his statements in verses 25 and 26, where he specified that he had received no direction from God, by stating that this was his opinion, specifying that he also thought he had the Spirit of God. His exact words, to clearly define his thought, are : "But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 7.40). If we pay attention to the end of this verse, his clarification of "I also believe that I have the Spirit of God" is particularly disturbing. We are in the presence of a response that he formulates in writing to believers in the church of Corinth, and the form that this response takes is contained in a disturbing series of statements. He begins by saying that God has not given him any direction on this subject, not being able to give God's opinion, he decides to give his own instead, and ends by saying that he too has the Spirit of God. This assumes, since God has not given him any direction, that his own opinions have divine value. A strange position when one takes into account a passage from Isaiah that, as a proclaimed Pharisee (Acts 23.6 : I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee), he must have known. This passage being simply that of Isaiah 55.8 : For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. It is difficult to imagine, with such a declaration from the Lord, that Paul could conceive that his thoughts are precisely equivalent to those of God.

It is also interesting to note that there is no way to accept these claims. If, like me, you understand that this cannot be from God, then the problem does not arise for you. On the other hand, it is difficult to understand how it would be possible to reconcile the fact of believing that the epistles attributed to Paul are from God and the fact that their author openly affirms that this is not the case. By affirming the divine origin of these texts, they must conform to what they say and consequently, they disobey these same texts which openly say that they are not from God. The paradox is complete.

In any case, Paul therefore repeatedly asserts that he is not speaking on behalf of God, and supports this assertion by specifying that he is speaking from his own heart. According to Paul's own admissions, the place of this text is therefore not in the Word of God. We can only agree with him on this point,

NOTE: Some believers interpret Paul's statements as a sign of humility. In reality, it is a sign of pride. Humility would have been to simply say that God has not given him any direction on this matter. By adding his own opinion in place of God's, which is the opinion the Corinthians expected, he positions himself as equal to God. No sane person today would accept a pastor, if asked what God says on a given subject, responding, " No idea what God says on this subject, but I say you must do this ." The questioner's thinking would simply be, " No thanks ," and he would be absolutely right.

+ 2 Corinthians 8.10 : And herein I give my advice,

• Romans 2.16 : In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Gospel means good news. It is one of the many words that have been added to prevent us from understanding the depth of Jesus' message. So when Mark tells us: ... Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God (Mark 1.14), he is really telling us that Jesus was preaching the good news of the kingom of God. Of course, believers will argue that they know the difference, yet we are talking about "the" gospels, in the plural, when there is only one, which is declined 4 times, but that does not make it several gospels. This seems trivial, but it highlights the fact that we do not fully understand the meaning of this term. Some even speak of the good news of the gospel, attesting in doing so to the confusion that adding words to designate things that were perfectly clear before is never a good idea.

Here are the passages of the new covenant, which cite the term gospel, and whose meaning of "good news" is always used to designate God, directly or indirectly:

good news / gospel:

1️⃣ of the kingdom (Matthew 4.23 ; 9.35 ; 24.14) (Luke 4.43 ; 8.1) (Acts 8.12)

2️⃣ of God (Mark 1.14) (1 Peter 4.17)

3️⃣ of Jesus Christ (Mark 1.1) (Acts 5.42 ; 8.12 ; 8.35 ; 11.20)

4️⃣ of the word (Acts 8.4 ; 15.35)

5️⃣ of the grace of God (Acts 20.24)

In cases where none of these clarifications are made, then the texts simply speak of the good news, without ever appropriating it. Even when Jesus speaks of it, he does not speak of his good news, but only of the good news, or even that of the kingdom or even of God.

Paul adds a twist to this notion of the gospel. He is, once again, the only one to do so. While all writers speak of something they are merely the bearers of, we find several strange references that mark the transition from the gospel of God to the gospel of Paul:

6️⃣ of Paul (Romans 2.16 ; 16.25) (2 Corinthians 4.3) (1 Thessalonians 1.5) (2 Thessalonians 2.14) (2 Timothy 2.8).

➡️ Romans 2.16 : In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

➡️ Romans 16.25 : Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

➡️ 2 Corinthians 4.3 : But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost ;

➡️ 1 Thessalonians 1.5 : For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

➡️ 2 Thessalonians 2.14 : Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

➡️​ 2 Timothy 2.8 : Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel,

Paul appropriates something that even Jesus did not. I remind you, and I will end on this: throughout the Word, the good news is that of the kingdom, of God, of Jesus Christ, of the word and of the grace of God. The only one who considers it his own is Paul, whose monumental problem of pride, which he himself confesses, is well known and which I will discuss again.

Due to a lack of attention, we anticipate understanding a text and manage to make ourselves believe that certain things are true when they have no way of being so. In fact, while we read, we analyze in advance the ultimate goal of the text before us and we reduce our attention because we are certain we know what the author meant. We then enter a kind of mode that we could call "blind trust" and we read something completely wrong with a smile and the certainty that nothing is wrong.

More concretely, Paul, wanting to clarify the function of tongues and prophecy to the church of Corinth, will affirm that "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe" (1 Corinthians 14.22).

For the sake of clarity, I will simply note the various points that Paul raises for us, namely :

• tongues are a sign for unbelievers.

• prophecy is a sign for believers.

Up to this point, things seem simple. It's then that he gives an example to better explain himself, and it's precisely at this point that our attention tends to wane. The logic being that, having understood what he has just said, we generally see no reason to dwell on an example, preferring to reserve the study of examples for more difficult subjects to understand. However, in this case, there is something important to note in what follows.

Paul then goes on to justify what he has just said by specifying that "If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad ? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all : And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth" (1 Corinthians 14.23-25).

Let us do as before and note the points that Paul's example highlights. That is:

• tongues are not a sign for unbelievers.

• prophecy is a sign for unbelievers.

No in-depth study is required to realize that, in an effort to demonstrate the accuracy of his words, Paul gives us an example that is the exact opposite of what he had just told us. What are we to understand : that prophecy is a sign for everyone? That tongues are occasionally a sign for unbelievers?

Of course, it can happen to anyone on earth to make a mistake. We can even talk here about a slight clumsiness, or even a slip of the tongue, but only in the context of a non-inspired word, because if this word is inspired, then there is no longer any question of evaluating the seriousness of an error. Any error would become tragic since it would say that God, having inspired an inaccurate thing, is not perfect.

We are therefore indeed in the presence of a magnificent nonsense which cannot in any case come from God but has man as its origin.

Yet another blatant example of the many lies contained in the epistles attributed to Paul.

• 2 Corinthians 3.7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away ;

In this verse, he clearly says that the children of Israel, therefore the Hebrews, could not fix their gaze on the face of Moses by explaining to us the reason for this impossibility, which happens to be, according to him, the glory of his face. However, it turns out that they could, it was Moses who hid his face. Strangely, Paul is aware: 2 Corinthians 3.13 : And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished. So why say that they could not ? He knows, but says the opposite.

The biblical reality is as follow :

• Exodus 34.29-35 : And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him. 30 And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him. 31 And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them. 32 And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that the LORD had spoken with him in mount Sinai. 33 And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face. 34 But when Moses went in before the LORD to speak with him, he took the vail off, until he came out. And he came out, and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded. 35 And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.

This passage clearly shows us that the people could gaze upon Moses' radiant face. They all looked at him, and only then did he cover his face. And after that first time, when he came down from the mountain, the people continued to see his face. What verses 34 and 35 describe is that Moses would come out of the tent with his face shining, the children of Israel would look at the face, and only then would Moses cover it until he returned to the presence of God in the tent. This means that the brightness of his face was proof that he had been in the presence of God, but the people were not allowed to see it fade.

This is a far cry from Paul's assertion that the children of Israel could not see Moses' face because of the glory on it.

A word from Paul always goes unnoticed because we rarely have an overview of the Word of God. The word fool is a very strong word. It is completely distorted these days, which is why we do not flinch more than that when reading it. Yet in this case it has a certain importance. Paul uses it to describe brothers who are at the very least lost with regard to the understanding of the resurrection. "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up ? and with what body do they come ? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die" (1 Corinthians 15.35-36).

Why is this word so important, you may ask, simply because of Jesus' statement in the Gospel according to Matthew: "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matthew 5.22).

Jesus will use this term, but never to describe a brother, always to designate someone who had rejected God. It is even a valuable aid in understanding the parable of the 10 virgins, 'foolish' being another translation of the same word that Jesus uses in the Matthew passage and which is translated as 'fool'. But as for Paul, the question arises : Of and to whom is he speaking ? Unbelievers, who by their condition cannot understand the resurrection anyway ? Or simply the Corinthians to whom he is writing ? Especially since it is wise to ask a question when one does not know the answer, and the people they are talking about have done nothing wrong, they have not made statements requiring reprobation, they have simply asked questions revealing their incomprehension.

Writing to the church at Corinth, he is speaking to the brethren of that church, which poses a huge problem regarding the vocabulary he uses.

Once again, it is clear that the four versions of the Gospel of Jesus were written after the epistles attributed to Paul. Paul could therefore not have known them when he wrote these supposed letters. However, it is the Holy Spirit who is supposed to have inspired these words, which nevertheless condemn him... It is difficult to admit that the Holy Spirit could have inspired such a thing.

• 2 Corinthians 5.14 : For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead.

Very poetic, but completely false, Jesus bore the penalty for our sins so that we would not have to do it, he died so that we would not have to receive the penalty for our sins. Isaiah will present it to us in the following terms : But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed (Isaiah 53.5). Paul confirms this later, in 2 Corinthians 5.19 : To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. So once again, he preaches hot and cold. This proves that he knows it, so why this statement in 2 Corinthians 5.14 ?

We did not die because Jesus died, on the contrary. The penalty that should have been our death was removed, and we passed from the death of the soul, which was already a fact, to the life of the Spirit because Jesus first died. So it is not because Jesus died that we are also dead, we already were, but by his sacrifice we have been given the possibility of coming back to life. This is why Jesus warns us that : For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will (John 5.21), and he goes on to specify that : Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life (John 5.24). His statement in verse 24 is clear. Whoever accepts Jesus escapes the punishment that the cross represents.

• 2 Corinthians 6.16 : What agreement hath the temple of God with idols ?

It should be known that sometimes there are no idols, sometimes there are, as his first letter to these same Corinthians attests.

• 1 Corinthians 8.4 : ... we know that an idol is nothing in the world ... .

The reality being obviously that there are some, and it is not necessary to look for examples in the world, it is enough to open the Word of God, which is the only one to be tested, and to look at what it tells us. Now we find in the book of the prophet Ezekiel a direction that the Lord gives to his people in the quite clear terms of: Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations ! (Ezekiel 14.6). Apparently Paul did not know that there were idols in the world, yet in the book of Ezekiel alone, it is mentioned about forty times.

However, the question arises. We understand that Paul was not aware of the existence of idols, it can happen, but how is it that the spirit who inspired this text from 1 Corinthians did not know it either?

• 2 Corinthians 10.10-11 : For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible. Let such an one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present.

In other words, he has just said: it's not even true; we are not far from: it's the one who says it who is! We are in the presence of a schoolyard argument. A child has just said that another is mean and the one who is pointed at defends himself by responding that the first has neither the right to say that, nor even the right to think it.

Especially since Paul's epistles, as I am showing, emphasize hot and cold. On the few points covered, he has already shown us that he was capable of saying one thing and its opposite, whether on the face of Moses, on his marvelous explanation of the sign represented by prophecy and tongues, on the variable geometry existence of idols and even on the value of Jesus' sacrifice. In the following, I will show dozens more times where his remarks are of this type. Also, if one day you say A and the next day you say B, it is not surprising if this creates problems and in the one raised in this passage, we would rather tend, if we take into account the manifest lack of seriousness of the epistles attributed to Paul, to believe his detractors.

Not to mention that we move from criticisms made against him personally, to which he responds in the plural. Why include himself in a plural? Either he speaks of himself in the plural, or he tries to include himself in a group to try to attach legitimacy to other people, who, however, are not targeted by the criticisms he speaks of.

How to shoot yourself in the foot, or score an own goal.

In an attempt to establish his righteousness, and the divine alignment between his words and God's thoughts, he goes so far as to state that anyone who says anything different from what he says must be considered anathema. I will return to the meaning of anathema just after quoting the relevant passage from the Epistle to the Galatians:

• Galatians 1.8-9 : But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

As for the meaning of the term "accursed", we read it without paying too much attention, thinking that it must not be something very positive. We find its meaning in the old covenant in a very telling verse in the book of Deuteronomy. If we do not necessarily make the connection, it is once again a question of translation. The most widespread version does not use the word "accursed", many do not make the connection. Thus, in the Segond version, we read : You shall not bring an abominable thing into your house, so that you do not become, like it, devoted to destruction; you shall have it as an abomination, for it is devoted to destruction (Deuteronomy 7.26). The majority of Bibles, however, translate 'anathema/accursed' instead of 'devoted to destruction', because it has the same meaning.

Paul therefore means that any person (including spiritual beings) must be rejected from the assembly of the brothers, to say the least, if they were to announce something different from him. So if what the apostles say is different from what he says, then they must be anathema/devoted to destruction. If we refer to the simple example of animals sacrificed to idols, we come to a strange conclusion which tells us that either Paul, or the apostles and the Holy Spirit must be anathema. And what can we conclude from his assertion that it is better not to have a wife because they distance us from God, from the same God who tells us that it is not good for man to be alone ? Paul's logic is that God must also be devoted to destruction since he announces things contrary to what Paul announces.

And what about the fact that Paul constantly preaches a gospel different from his own, the huge number of his own contradictions making him constantly preach against himself.

Justifying his claims is not difficult, it is impossible.

Understanding what he says is not difficult, what is difficult is justifying everything that is so blatantly false.

• Galatians 2.11-12 : But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Well done, Paul presents himself as the epitome of the type of human being no one wants in their congregation. If what he says is true, and he has righted Peter's wrong, then why go around drooling and writing it to everyone?

Since God doesn't remember our faults, Paul is here to remind him of them? The paparazzi of the Church of Acts.

Oddly, this behavior does not seem to echo what he will say later in the same letter :

• Galatians 6.1 : Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

If he had wanted to be in agreement with himself, he should have said rather: " Brothers, if a man is caught in a fault, resist him to his face and go and tell everyone in your letters, but as you are spiritual, do it with a spirit of gentleness . "

The book of Proverbs gives us clear indications of what Paul is doing:

• Proverbs 16.28 : A froward man soweth strife: and a whisperer separateth chief friends.
• Proverbs 17.9 : He that covereth a transgression seeketh love; but he that repeateth a matter separateth very friends.
• Proverbs 26.20 : Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth.

But perhaps he also considers that Solomon should be anathema ...

That being said, God is not supposed to remember our faults, yet the Holy Spirit remembered Peter's supposed fault and inspired Paul to spread it to the Galatians ...

• Galatians 2.15 : We are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles .

Superb mentality, it looks like nationalist propaganda. It should be noted that he opposes 'Jews by nature' to 'sinners of the gentiles', which tends to establish castes where we are all supposed to be equal before God. In addition, since the law has not brought anything to perfection*, Jews by nature are just as much sinners as gentils. If the goal had been to establish a geographical difference, a simple: 'and not Greek' would have sufficed, but he prefers to oppose Jewishness on one side to "sinners of the gentils". It should be noted that Paul is Roman when it suits him, and Jewish at other times.

This opposition is all the more strange since he tells us that: all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3.23), which, for once, is in accordance with the first epistle of John : If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1.8).

(* Hebrews 7.18-19 : For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God).

The aberration of the notion of original sin has its origin in a particular verse from the epistles attributed to Paul. In the Epistle to the Romans it is said : Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned ... (Romans 5.12). Men have used this statement to define that sin passes through the man and not through the woman. Which, as I said, is a pure aberration. The funny thing about this story is that Paul himself puts forward an argument that seriously undermines him. In the First Epistle to Timothy, he says : And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression (1 Timothy 2.14-15).

In Romans he tells us it is the man, in 1 Timothy he tells us it is the woman...

So ultimately, is it through the man or the woman?

The verse I used in the previous video contains a second error. The verse read : And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety (1 Timothy 2.14-15).

This time, the problem stems from Adam's presumed innocence. This verse doesn't speak to us of primacy in sin, but of the woman's guilt. Yet, in the book of Genesis, when the Lord God speaks to Adam, he is indeed speaking to him about being seduced by the woman. For your information, or reminder, "to seduce" means "to attract to oneself." So this is what the Lord God is speaking to Adam about:

• Genesis 3.17 : And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life :

Adam had the instruction of the Lord God not to eat from this tree, and Eve convinced him to do so. She did not deceive him by presenting him with fruit whose origin he did not know. The Lord God's reproach concerns the fact of having : hearkened unto the voice of  his wife . Furthermore, if he had ignored the origin of the fruit while eating it, he would not have been guilty of anything. What this establishes is that Adam was indeed seduced, not by the serpent, but by the woman.

Obviously, there is a third problem with this verse, which concerns salvation. I will discuss this in a future video.

The concept of salvation is fundamental in the Word of God. It was made possible through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who, having been freed from all sin, agreed to bear our sins on the cross in order to pay the price, thus giving us access to the Heavenly Father from whom we had been separated because of those same sins.

The sacrifice in question is perfect, which actually means that it is complete, that it encompasses all the faults we have committed, and that none of our "dark areas" have been forgotten. If the sacrifice in question had not been perfect, then all the Biblical promises would be in vain, we would no longer have hope, there would be no point in following the path shown to us by the Word since we would not have been reconciled with the Heavenly Father.

To achieve this sacrifice, Jesus was obedient in all things and suffered everything. It was then that he declared " it is finished " (John 19.30). The accomplishment is precisely the fact that he reached the end of his suffering on the cross and that he did not give up, showing us the "royal" way, it is the fact that he omitted nothing, that he brought his ministry for man to perfection.

This is only a brief summary of what salvation is and one could easily go on for many more pages, however that is not exactly the point and so I will just make a few clarifications as needed.

a.1) PAUL, salvation by water baptism .

It is now appropriate to see what Paul tells us about the notion of Salvation, because several points are quite disturbing. For example, this statement: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3.5), but baptism has no saving virtue as proven by the declaration of Jesus Christ in the Gospel according to Luke where, addressing the condemned man who has just recognized his lordship, he affirms "Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise" (Luke 23.43). The condemned man did not have time to be baptized, but salvation is granted to him. Proof is given, by Jesus himself, that water baptism does not save, it is Jesus who does. If this seems obvious to us, then we must also admit that Paul brings an argument which is contrary to what Jesus shows us.

The argument that Paul is talking about Spirit baptism here is fallacious, and even amusing. Because those who put it forward implicitly admit that it would not be possible for Paul to be talking about water because it would be in disagreement with the Word of God. Yet, Paul is indeed talking about water baptism. The word he uses here is the word 'loutron' which is only used twice by Paul. The other time being in Ephesians 5:26 : That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. This word is never used to speak of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, all the translations I have checked have understood this correctly since they speak of the relationship to water.

➡️​ Ostervald : by the bath of regeneration, and the renewal of the Holy Spirit (+ versions Grande Bible de Tours + Lausanne + Glaire et Vigouroux + Fillion + Auguste Crampon + Pirot-Clamer + Amiot & Tamisier)

➡️​ De Sacy : by the water of rebirth, and by the renewal of the Holy Spirit.

➡️​ Oltramare : by an ablution of new birth and renewal brought about by the Holy Spirit (+ Perret-Gentil and Rilliet version).

➡️​ Darby : by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit (+ Vulgate + King James version)

Paul puts forward the sequence of water baptism + baptism of the Holy Spirit as a means of salvation, which is therefore an error, water baptism does not save.

The third error in a verse of which I have already shown the first two.

Another point, oh so shocking, poses a distinction in the conditions of salvation concerning man and woman. Jesus Christ does not make a distinction of sex with regard to salvation, one can even say that the message of the Word is quite simple, in fact if it becomes too complicated, one can wonder if it is from God. Among the perfect simplicity of God's message, is the fact that the basics do not suffer from exception. To summarize again, the sacrifice of Jesus gives us access to the Father in order to be able to regulate our lives, and it is therefore by accepting Jesus that we can go to the Father. But Paul does not seem satisfied with this and adds a rather strange rule since it places a distinction between man and woman.

For men, there is no special case, the rule I gave you remains the correct one, but it is not the same for women. Indeed, he states that "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety" (1 Timothy 2.14-15). A strange statement that pronounces a condemnation on any woman who does not have children, thereby establishing a classification of the possibilities of Salvation where God puts everyone on an equal footing. Although there are ways to partially justify this passage, based on the Garden of Eden, there is no way to do so concerning the difference in treatment between men and women.

It is up to you to decide whether you think the woman will be saved 'in childbearing' or by making peace with God through Jesus Christ.

Paul's error does not stop there, since he also claims that salvation is obtained by works, while the Word of God presents it to us as a grace. If works provide salvation, then it becomes a question of merit, which is in contrast to the substitutionary sacrifice where no difference is made between men so that they will all be on an equal footing before God when they have to be judged, not according to works, but according to faith. It also seems obvious that one can prevent men from doing an action, but not from believing, which shows that it would be unfair to judge them on actions.

In any case, let us look at Paul's statement found in the Epistle to the Romans: "(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves : Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another ;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel" (Romans 2.13-16).

Paul tells us nothing more and nothing less than that salvation can be found without Jesus Christ. Indeed, he states, as I have just transcribed in verse 13 , "the doers of the law shall be justified". He does not mention here any obligation to believe but implies that blind obedience is sufficient for salvation. Some would then assert that the rest of Paul's writings clarify the passage cited by explaining the importance of believing in Jesus Christ, however we find in verses 14 and 15 , a complement that sweeps away this argument. There is an example where "gentils" can, because they "do by nature the things contained in the law", that is to say by not having accepted Jesus Christ since he calls them "gentils" and without having knowledge of his commandments, obtain salvation by the simple fact that they conform their lives to precepts which are by the purest chance in agreement with the thought of Christ. Now, this same Christ declared, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14.6), directly invalidating Paul's assertions by placing himself as an essential intermediary (or step).

Of course, one could also say that in other places Paul shows clear-sightedness and conforms perfectly to the message of the Word of God, he tells us that "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight" (Romans 3.20) or a little further on that "the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets ; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe" (Romans 3.21-22), even if in the present verse he opposes the law and grace, posing the second as the end of the first, which is also an error. He will also take up this idea of ​​the end of the law (of Moses) pronounced by the arrival of grace (by Jesus Christ) a little further on in the same epistle by saying that "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" (Romans 10.4) which would tend to make us believe that faith sweeps away the law while Jesus said "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matthew 5.17). Jesus came to abolish sin by fulfilling the law, in other words, he came to put an end to sin (abolish) by bringing the law to perfection (fulfill).

• Romans 2:13-16 : (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves : Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another ;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

I know that it is often more comfortable to skip over certain passages. As soon as they say something that seems abnormal compared to what we know to be God's truth, we prefer not to stop to reread it, telling ourselves that we must have read it wrong and that we will be more careful next time. But then, when we see the demand from believers to find reading methods promising to make us read the Word of God in 2 years, the famous next time is so far away that we will only remember this abnormality after having reread the passage. And most, if not almost all believers, will repeat the same thing to themselves as the previous time. When we add to this the fact that a very significant portion of those who populate the assemblies will never read the Word of God in its entirety in their lives or will read it once for the challenge, we quickly come to the evidence that the crossed abnormality, for example in this passage, will never be the center of discussions around the table on Sunday lunchtime.

Yet it is worth the detour.

Paul begins by telling the church in Rome that simply listening to the law without putting it into practice is a bad thing. In itself, this is true. However, what follows is a catastrophe. In essence, he adds that observing the law by pure chance allows one to be righteous before God. This is a negation of salvation through Jesus Christ. What saves is Jesus, and no one else. It is not the random putting into practice of any law, even if it is supposedly the law of God. Especially since the law of God is his Word, which tells us that there is salvation only in Jesus, while Paul affirms that the pagans (since that is indeed the term he uses) will be justified, therefore made righteous by God since no man can justify himself before God. His statement is so at odds with absolutely everything the Word of God says on the subject of salvation that Paul feels compelled, in order to attest to what is clearly heresy, to assert that it will be proven at the Last Judgment. This is the second problem with this passage.

Proverbs 30.5 tells us that : Every word of God is pure , meaning that, coming from the Holy Spirit, it is certain and is written in His written Word as a sure basis that can no longer contradict the rest of what the Holy Spirit has brought, whatever the time. Paul should therefore know that the Word of God must attest to what he has just said, but knowing that this is not the case, he claims that it will later be seen that he was right, not the Word of God. Yet, John was passing on to us the following Word of Jesus:

• John 3.18 : He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John therefore tells us that we will either not be judged, or we already are, depending on whether we belong to Jesus or reject him. Paul presents us with a salvation for the Gentiles that will be proven at the end of time. Paul's passage and John's are in direct opposition; they cannot both be true.

Going a little further, what this also indicates is that the person who wrote the epistle attributed to Paul to the Romans, considers that the Word of God is not tested, otherwise he would not speak of a proof that would only be given at the end, therefore outside the Word, and, above all, too late. It is therefore the admission of a non-biblical notion, otherwise he would establish it on the immutable truth of the Word and not on a revelation that will arrive later and therefore which would be amply subsequent to the passage I spoke about in the second video of this channel : I have foretold you all things (Mark 13.23).

His concept of salvation seems shaky once we pay attention to the few points I just raised in the previous videos. However, he does not stop there, quite the contrary. He also affirms to his friend Timothy, in one of the two letters addressed to him found in the Bible, that unbelievers are also saved, and this time, he takes no detours, affirming that he places his trust in the "Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe" (1 Timothy 4.10). One of the excuses given for this passage is that Paul is making a point of the fact that Jesus came to save all the lost and not just some who would meet this or that criterion. But this argument does not hold for a simple reason.

Either this passage mentions the universal possibility of salvation and therefore there should be no mention of "specially of those that believe" which then becomes completely irrelevant, even becoming in this case an untruth.

Either it is mentioned that Jesus saves believers and unbelievers which destroys the rest of the Word and destroys the importance of faith.

To conclude on this subject of salvation, there is another passage that is even more troubling. I said that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was complete and that it was precisely this perfection that made it so special, opening the passage to the Heavenly Father. But it is clear that Paul does not share this opinion, telling us the following: "whereof I Paul am made a minister ; Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church" (Colossians 1.24), he poses himself as a complement to the imperfection of the salvation that Christ brought through his sufferings.

He seems to forget, as I shared a few lines earlier, that everything has been accomplished.

To conclude this point, we must admit that it is possible to bring together enough passages from the various epistles attributed to Paul to give a teaching consistent with the Word of God on Salvation, but this in no way represents a justification for the aberrations that I have just brought to your attention. The problem with these epistles is not what is good in them, but all the things that should not be there. Indeed, if these epistles are inspired by God, they cannot contain such untruths.

In the first passage, Paul states that the advantage of the Jews is great:

• Romans 3.1-2 : What advantage then hath the Jew ? or what profit is there of circumcision ? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Yet he just said the following in the previous chapter:

• Romans 2.10-11 : But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile : For there is no respect of persons with God.

We must therefore conclude that God makes no distinction between men, but the Jews have a great advantage. A complete contradiction. It should also be noted that the passage in Romans 2.10-11 tells us that glory, honor, and peace are first for the Jew, then for the Greek, and the explanation is that God makes no distinction! Only if it is first for one and then for the other, then it is factually a difference.

• Romans 2.26 : Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision ?

Of course, Paul implies that the answer to this question is that the uncircumcised will be considered circumcised. Whether he likes it or not, the real answer is no. If the uncircumcised keeps the ordinances of the law, he must be circumcised; otherwise, he is not keeping them. This seems purely logical. The law tells him to be circumcised, so if he is not circumcised, he is not keeping the law.

He goes on to explain that true circumcision is that of the heart, and this is absolutely true, but his explanation is not only flawed, it is completely false.

Obviously, it is well seen to praise Abraham. Acknowledging a man's greatness often serves to rob him of some of it. On the other hand, exaggerating his traits is problematic. We can understand that Paul wants to get a message across, but how can we accept the idea that a lie could be useful for this? Let us not forget what is always the main point I am developing, even when I do not repeat it: If the epistles attributed to Paul are from God, then the Holy Spirit is their author. Let us therefore look precisely at what some consider to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. These are Paul's words concerning Abraham:

• Romans 4.19-22 : And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb : He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God ; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

And now let's look at what exactly the book of Genesis tells us:

• Genesis 17.17-18 : Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old ? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear ? And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee !

No one can deny the difference. Paul says : he considered not his own body now dead, while Abraham's thought in response to God is : Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old ? This shows that he very precisely considered that his body was too worn out. The level of his disbelief will be such that he will go so far as to laugh at what God has just announced to him (he laughed) and will propose an alternative : O that Ishmael might live before thee.

The difference between reality and Paul's speech is such that he gives the impression of speaking about someone else. And we are led to believe that the Holy Spirit, who is God and who, in doing so, does not change, would have forgotten how the events in question happened and would have inspired a Hollywood version of them in Paul.

The world we live in is devoid of hope, with tragic consequences for many people. Fortunately, Paul gives us the method to find hope. It consists of much suffering, which produces perseverance. Once we suffer well and persevere in our suffering, then we obtain victory. Finally, when we finally have this victory, we receive hope. He tells us this in the following passage:

• Romans 5.3-4 : And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also : knowing that tribulation worketh patience ; And patience, experience; and experience, hope.

In other words, according to Paul, you will have no hope until you have victory. So you will have trials and no hope, you will have to suffer and persevere, but without hope, and this in order to obtain the victory of the hopeless. Finally, as a reward for your victory, you will receive hope, which is no longer of any use because you have already won. On the contrary, it is the hope of victory that will motivate you to persevere, and victory will be the realization of your hopes.

It should also be noted that affliction does not produce perseverance. Otherwise, in the trial, no one would abandon the faith. On the contrary, perseverance is tested by afflictions. It is because you persevere that you have afflictions. You persevere DESPITE the afflictions. From the moment you give your life to Jesus, you enter into perseverance; it is instantaneous. Afflictions come to try to make you stop being what you already are: persevering.

As usual, he contradicts himself several times:

• Romans 15.4 : For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
• 1 Corinthians 13.13 : And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Paul is a specialist in phrases that must be taken in isolation. Because much of what he says doesn't even stand up to comparison with his own statements.

• Romans 7.7-8 : What shall we say then ? is the law sin ? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

What he's saying here is that if the law hadn't told him something was wrong, he wouldn't have figured it out on his own. Using his example, he says he had behaviors and the law came and told him they were lusts and shouldn't be done. From then on, he realized he had lusts. I understand the principle, it's wrong, but I understand it. From then on, he began to lust wildly. His conclusion being that without the law, there is no more sin.

Which is in total opposition to what he said in Romans 2.13-16 , where he affirmed that those who do not have the law are justified if they apply it without knowing it (see ( 017 ) 🔷 PAUL, salvation by deeds.

The terms of his statement are interesting. He begins by asking a mind-boggling question: Is the law sin ? He asks it as if it could have occurred to anyone but himself. Of course, he answers his own question in the negative, allowing us to avoid believing that it could be the case. And I hope you'll note the sarcasm in my remark. What's striking, however, is how thoughtful his speech is. He asks a question no one asks in order to answer it himself, positing a fictional wisdom that will win the reader's approval. And he follows this with the famous "but." As I have explained elsewhere, "yes, but" means "no; and "no, but" means "yes." If you ask someone if they agree with you and they answer " yes, but ...", it means that they partially agree, so they don't agree on everything. The opposite is also true; if they answer " no, but ...", it means that overall they don't agree, except for part of what you said. We therefore start from an impression of truth initiated by the question/answer that introduced the paragraph in order to influence us on the rest, which is itself an aberration.

Here Paul says that the law is not a sin, BUT... So it is a little bit.

Paraphrasing it only very slightly, we would have the following statement: the law is not a sin, but it is still his fault if I sin, because without the law it would not be a sin . This is all the more amusing because when the Lord gave the law to Moses, it was because the people, without the law, were doing anything. It is a pity that Paul was not born earlier, he could have explained to God that he was going to push the people to sin by giving them the law.

We also note that once again Paul contradicts himself since, explaining a principle of the law to his friend Timothy, to which I will return in another video, he affirmed : But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully ; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers (1 Timothy 1.8-9). Therefore : without the law sin was dead , but the law is made specifically for the sinner because he is already a sinner.

Furthermore, this therefore means that Jesus just had to abolish the law rather than fulfill it, and sin would be, as Paul claims, dead.

• Romans 10.4 : For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Christ is not the end of the law, but its fulfillment. This is not just a figure of speech. It is fundamental to understanding what he came to do in the flesh. This is why he synthesizes the commandments by saying that we must love God and our neighbor. He does not annul them, he brings them to perfection. He expresses the spirit of the law beyond the law, and brings out its real meaning. This is the fulfillment of the law, bringing it to the paroxysm of its meaning.

He who looks at the Word of God in a carnal way understands it in a carnal way and rejects the law because he does not perceive its fulfillment.

It is in the Epistle to the Romans that the following statement is made : Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men (Romans 12.17). Obviously, not returning evil seems like a good principle, but we must seek what is right in the sight of God, not in the sight of men. Since preaching is foolishness and a scandal, it becomes difficult to reconcile Paul's two statements. Moreover, once again, he knows this perfectly well, since he states it in the Epistle to the Corinthians.

• 1 Corinthians 1:23 : But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness,

To seek the good of men is not to please them, but to tell them the truth.

• Romans 13:1-7 : Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God : the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power ? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same : 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also : for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

If we present this passage to believers who don't read the Bible much without warning them that it is supposed to be part of God's Word, we risk getting mixed reactions. For the ruler is the minister of God to thee for good, it sounds like government propaganda. Examples of unjust judgments are legion, but according to Paul, they are servants of God. Since no distinction is made, the Stalinist trials are logically included. We could limit this understanding to church leaders, but since there is no specific mention of this point, we cannot affirm this.

Furthermore, Paul makes it clear that there is no power but of God, as a result of which he enjoins us to submit to it. For your information, the Antichrist and the Beast will be authorities of this world, should we also submit as this text says? This will make you smile, and perhaps some will say that Paul is not talking about that, but the reality is that they cannot prove it for the simple reason that once again, Paul globalizes everything. His words are clear, according to him all authority comes from God and we must submit to it. John, in the book of Revelation, transmits to us the following:

• Revelation 13.7 : And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

In addition to this obvious error of Paul, he also speaks of these magistrates who have authority, being in place to exercise vengeance, but the book of Deuteronomy* tells us that vengeance belongs to God. And Paul cannot even claim that he was not aware of this since he himself reminds us of it in his letter to the Romans : Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord (Romans 12.19).

(* Deuteronomy 32.35 : To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste).

In many cases, there seems to be a gap (if not an abyss) between what Paul means and what he says. This is a recurring problem that causes those who believe that the epistles attributed to Paul are from God to look for a way to make his words acceptable, but when taken as they are, they are rarely so.

Finally, a particularly striking example of Paul's error in telling us to submit to the authorities is found in the Gospel according to John, where we are told the following : And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me ? knowest thou not that I have power (exousia) to crucify thee, and have power (exousia) to release thee ? 11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power (exousia) at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin (John 19.9-11). When we know that the word "exousia" actually means "authority", this means that Jesus recognizes Pilate's authority, he confirms that he holds it because it is God's will, yet Jesus refused to answer him. So according to Paul's statements found in the verse of the epistle to the Romans chapter 13 verse 2 : Whosoever therefore resisteth the power (exousia), resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation, Jesus resisted the ordinance established by God.

Everyone will choose their side, but Paul, who openly showed his opposition to the apostles, here pronounces a condemnation on Jesus.

Concerning the salary of the ministry, the epistles attributed to Paul contain a terrible contradiction, which admits of no interpretation for anyone who is content to be objective.

Paul cites a truth with which the Word agrees, namely that the servant of God must live by his service. It is indeed for God to provide for the needs of his servants, and not for the servants to provide for their own needs. This is why the servant who does not receive his wages returns to the fields (Luke 10.7), Paul agreeing with this since he will confirm it to Timothy (1 Timothy 5.18). Now, if he returns to the fields, it is precisely because as a servant of God, he was no longer there.

Every worker deserves his wages, so does he who works for God.

It is also in this sense that Jesus tells us that we cannot serve God and Mammon (Mammon being the god of money, he represents the world) (Matthew 6.4) otherwise we will leave one to attach ourselves to the other.

Writing to the church at Corinth, Paul would summarize his position by saying, "Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar ? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void » ( 1 Corinthians 9.13-15 ) .

A serious problem arises. Paul is very clear that "they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple" and "they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar ? ", just as he is clear that "Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel" Given the evidence of his understanding of God's will regarding the servant's financial resources, one might wonder why he continues his discourse by stating: "But I have used none of these things".

Suddenly it is no longer a duty but a right, it is no longer an order, but a "suggestion", a simple possibility that he chooses to brush aside with a wave of the hand.

In summary, although aware of having received from God the order to live by his preaching, he clearly announces that he will not submit to this obligation, ignoring the warnings of the prophet Samuel : And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD ? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams (1 Samuel 15.22).

Even more serious, he continues his momentum by clearly announcing that he would rather die than allow this source of glory to be taken away from him. His disobedience then becomes a glory in his own eyes. Let us not forget that Paul declared "so that no one may boast in the presence of God" (1 Corinthians 1.29).

Furthermore, if we refer to 1 Corinthians 9.12, we read the statement that "If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather ? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ". The reason for his disobedience may seem very "Christian," but the fact remains that Paul is telling us that he considers God's command to be inferior to his way of seeing things. God says, " I command you to do this," and Paul says, "I know, but the brothers won't understand, so I won't do it ." By thinking and acting this way, he places himself above God, considering his wisdom superior.

Now, and this is the strange point of the contradiction which I am discussing at this moment, it is appropriate to see in the other epistles of Paul what he "perceived" of the consequences of his ministry.

Paul actually received nothing from two churches, that of Thessalonica ("for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you": 1 Thessalonians 2.9) and that of Corinth for a time ("because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely" : 2 Corinthians 11.7), he nevertheless specifies on many occasions that he received gifts from many other churches ("I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service" : 2 Corinthians 11.8 ; The last two verses bearing the particularity that he affirms to the Corinthians that he preached the gospel to them free of charge but that in fact of free of charge, it is mainly other churches that paid. Therefore the free of charge of which he speaks is a lie).

Then we also read "when we departed, they laded us with such things as were necessary" (Acts 28.10) ; "But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God. But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus" (Philippians 4.18-19). Therefore, claiming that Paul received nothing for his service is completely wrong, the problem is that he is the one who claims it.

In light of these clarifications, one might wonder how Paul can assert with such force something that is not actually true in his life.

To summarize this point, we have Paul who claims to have been commanded to live by his preaching and who simultaneously claims to prefer to die than to obey, and who nevertheless, whatever his claims, receives a salary for his ministry, but not from everyone, and considers it a glory to accept nothing.

Paul is constantly contradicting himself on this point, but not on what he teaches in the literal sense of the word. He is even very clear about God's will ("Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things" : Galatians 6.6), but only occasionally does he submit to his own teaching and uses himself as an example even though he is clearly in conflict with God on this point.

His pride made him look upon himself as a superior example to what God could possibly have to say, and he does not even have the excuse of saying that he did not know God's will since he expresses it very clearly.

• Romans 13.10 : Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

We can hurt those we love, precisely because we love them. It is often those we love who have the easiest time making us suffer. Moreover, Paul claims that what does not harm our neighbor is the fulfillment of the law, a risky assertion. Living as a hermit does not harm my neighbor, I do not see it as fulfilling the law. Solomon in all his wisdom, which I remind you comes from God, told us:

• Proverbs 3.12 : For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth ; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
• Revelation 3.19 : As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten : be zealous therefore, and repent.

Out of love, we can voluntarily make someone suffer, hoping that it will produce a positive change, but we have no way of being certain that this will be the case. On the other hand, we can be certain that we have made them suffer. For Paul, this is not the case, he who delivers people to Satan for the destruction of their bodies, and this, because he loves them.

Paul had several major issues that clearly established his conflict with the apostles. One of these issues concerned food sacrificed to idols. Clearly, he was unable to understand that the Lord had never said that the prohibition he had imposed concerned an issue of impurity. It was simply a prohibition. But Paul dug his heels in, and he returned to the subject again and again, as if it had become obsessive for him to emphasize a point where he was very clearly wrong.

In his insistence, he will not cease to highlight follies, and the following is one of the most glaring. Speaking of what he considers, in total opposition to what God has said, and to what all the apostles have transmitted, that all meats are good and that none is forbidden, he will generalize his statement in the following terms:

• Romans 14.14 : I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself : but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

So, according to him, Jesus convinced him that nothing is impure in itself. As I said, by making this statement, he goes outside the scope of the discussion concerning food. His statement therefore establishes that a statue of Buddha in the middle of an assembly is not impure, it is just a pretty decoration, as is a statue of Astarte. One simply does not have to believe that it is impure and it is no longer so. Jesus would therefore have made a fabulous revelation to him which is contrary to the rest of the Word of God, which strangely, happens to be Jesus. So according to Paul, Jesus would have denied himself. Because if nothing is impure in itself, then no purification is ever necessary and never has been, one just has to not consider oneself impure, which all pagans consider since the notion of impurity does not come from the world. So pagans do not have to go through water baptism, since it consists of a purification from the defilements of the world. Yet, strangely, it is the Holy Spirit who convicts them of their filth and the need for purification.

But according to Paul, there is nothing unclean of itself, unless we decide that it is. So why would we decide that? And how can we do it since everyone can decide for themselves what is clean and what is not?

Is the same true for pornography?

• Romans 14.18 : For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.

Jesus clearly showed us that having the approval of both men and God was not possible. If they hated him, they will hate us; if they persecuted him, they will persecute us; if they rejected him, they will reject us. Moreover, Paul also tells us that the preaching of the gospel is foolishness to the lost (1 Corinthians 1.18 : For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness), so how could it be that our lives, which are supposed to be in accordance with this preaching, which turns out to be foolishness to the lost, are approved by these same men who are incapable of understanding it. And this incapacity in question is attested by this same Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians (But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost : 2 Corinthians 4.3).

Which forces us to ask a very specific question. What manner of serving Christ is he speaking of that would be acceptable to men? Let's not forget that when he speaks of men in this context, he is speaking of pagans. Now, he made this statement after launching one of his constant diatribes to try to convince people that it is permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols. And I remind you once again that he knew that all the apostles professed the opposite.

• Romans 14.21 : It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

It should be noted that Paul once again returns to the charge on the purity of food, and once again he takes the opportunity to add a notion that is not in accordance with the Word of God. When Jesus preached about the bread of life, many of his disciples left, they fell away, because Jesus' words were scandalous to them. Is Paul implying that Jesus should have abstained?

In this verse, Paul, if it is indeed him who is writing, begins by talking about meats, then he talks about alcohol, and more specifically wine. He goes on to say : nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth ... And for what compelling reason? It could cause our brother to stumble!!! So we should abstain from what is good in the eyes of God, because a brother does not understand it? Which implies that we should level the church on the weakest of its members instead of pulling everyone up.

As for Paul's statement that it would be good not to eat meat, let's compare this statement with a statement from God (Elohim) : Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things (Genesis 9.3). So God gives us animals for food, but Paul considers it good not to eat meat. So Paul says to God: thank you, but we'll do without ! After all, he also considers it better for man to be alone when God clearly states the opposite (Genesis 2.18 : It is not good that the man should be alone).

• Romans 14.23 : for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

So if we receive a directive from God, as long as we are not 100% sure that we have understood correctly, we must do nothing. The problem in this verse is the same as in many verses of Paul. He constantly wants to generalize what he says, instead of specifying his subjects. Yet he sometimes spends long moments repeating himself to prove obvious things, and then he generalizes and misses the point because by doing so, any counterexample destroys everything he says.

Conviction is certainty, not possibility, nor probability, however great. It is a complete absence of doubt. According to Paul, if you don't have a firm conviction about a subject, what you think is a sin. It goes even further; what he's telling us in this passage is that it's not the truth that matters, but only your perception of things. If you have a firm conviction but you were wrong, that's okay; you had a conviction. Conversely, if you weren't 100% certain, but you took a risk that ultimately paid off because it was the right thing to do, then you have sinned because you acted without conviction. And what if you have a conviction that something is wrong, does your conviction make it a good thing?

If you don't have a belief it's a sin, and if you do it doesn't mean it's a good thing, it just means you believe it.

Yet, while he is pointing the finger at the weak in his conviction here, in the first verse of this same chapter he says something that openly opposes this statement. Indeed, in the first verse he says : Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations (Romans 14.1). The words "faith" and "conviction" are the same in Greek, yet lack of faith is not a sin, it is a fact. God gives faith to do the things he asks us to do. As far as I know, no one has ever cast a mountain into the sea by their faith (Matthew 21.21 : Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done). So according to Paul, whatever we do is sin.

On the other hand, it is convenient, because if one does not have the conviction that the epistles attributed to Paul are from God, this means that one has the duty to reject them.

This type of behavior is found repeatedly in his epistles, since we often find passages where he gives himself as an example to follow when he should have placed Jesus as the ultimate example. He will advise both the Philippians (Philippians 3.17) and the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11.1) and the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 3.7) to be his imitators. This advice to the Corinthians attracts particular attention because of the words that follow it. Paul will tell them "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ" (1 Corinthians 11.1). We see therefore that Paul considers himself to be a perfect copy of Christ since the reason given for the need to imitate him is that he himself does so with Jesus. Why didn't he simply recall the imperative of being in the image of Jesus rather than proceeding in this way, by placing himself as a perfect reflection when he himself affirms that "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3.23).

Paul places himself as a referent when he is only an intermediary. If it were a matter of imitating imitators who themselves imitate other imitators, the end result would very likely have little to do with the original.

Let's also note that idolatry is the worship of the image of God, a copy of who he is. Also, being advised to be like someone who claims to be the perfect image of Christ can be confusing. The book of Revelation speaks quite clearly about image worship. This is a point I invite you to reflect on for yourself.

Furthermore, Paul's opinion of himself does not stop there. Not only does he pose as a subject of imitation in place of Christ, and in this case, one could suppose that this relates more to general behavior, therefore to what one could consider the "spiritual" level, but he considers himself perfect in all respects.

Indeed, he will express his desire that all men be like him (1 Corinthians 7.7), but even more incredibly, he will simultaneously respond to a king and a governor who are holding him imprisoned: "I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds" (Acts 26.29). The addition of "except these bonds" clearly shows that he includes human domains in his statement. Now, in this respect, King Agrippa and Governor Festus were much better off than he was, whether financially, or in the extent of their earthly authority or more generally of their possessions. In his eyes, however, his condition is by far the best in all areas. It is true that he considered himself "touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless" (Philippians 3.6) while affirming, as I said before, that "all have sinned", which is at least strange concerning someone who is "blameless".

The claims of his pride problem are numerous and dealing with them one after the other would be tedious, so I will deal with one in particular here.

In a strange passage, Paul claims to the Gentiles that he glorifies his ministry (Romans 11.13 : For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office) (If the word is intended for Gentiles, what is it doing in a book intended for believers ?), to the Philippians he will claim to be able to "rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain" (Philippians 2.16). Recalling his own statement that I have already quoted where he clearly states that no one should boast before God (1 Corinthians 1.29), we can say that he deviates from the right path.

In the first epistle to the Corinthians he will claim to be "the least of the apostles," going on to say that he is "not meet to be called an apostle" (1 Corinthians 15.9). Many use this passage to establish Paul's supposed humility, forgetting that he goes on to specify that he "laboured more abundantly than they all" in the following verse and that he considers himself "I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles" (2 Corinthians 11.5), concluding everything by affirming that "when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ" (Ephesians 3.4).

He who shouts it from the rooftops is not humble.

I don't remember any passages where Elijah congratulates himself on having worked harder than Samuel, or where Moses claims not to be inferior to Abraham. Simply because these people were humble, they didn't judge themselves in comparison with men. One of the rare times a character from the old covenant speaks of himself is to express his impurity (Isaiah 6.5 : Then I said, "Woe is me ! For i am undone, for I am a man of unclean lips ...").

• 1 Corinthians 7.39-40 : The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

Basically, what he says is wrong since there is the case of adultery which frees the innocent part of the couple even though the guilty part is still alive. But even aside from this imprecision, once again, Paul is giving his opinion, so basically, it is of no interest. As for the greater happiness of widows, he will be able to talk about it when he will also be "a widow".

• 1 Corinthians 8.8 : But meat commendeth us not to God : for neither, if we eat, are we the better ; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

Of course, I won't dwell on the Lord's Supper, as bread is indeed a food. This verse is part of Paul's war against Peter and the revelation of the tablecloth. A revelation that Paul refused to understand because his Pharisaic roots were too strong. He considered eating meat sacrificed to idols a dietary prohibition, when it is simply a prohibition. It is not the food that is bad; the prohibition is on another level. It is the same problem in the following verse:

• 1 Corinthians 10.25-26 : Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake : For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.

But whether he agrees or not is of little importance. He was present when the apostles delivered this directive from God and he opposes it so often that it can only be seen as a deliberate attempt to lose believers. In the book of Revelation, Jesus makes it clear that the purpose of the woman Jezebel is to seduce God's servants specifically to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.

(* Revelation 2.20 : Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols).

No one can deny that Paul spends his time trying to convince people that all meats are acceptable and that he conveys a vision of the union between a man and a woman that is completely contrary to everything the rest of the Word teaches us. Let each one draw his own conclusion.

• 1 Corinthians 9.18 : What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

For Paul, to 'make the gospel of Christ without charge' is his reward, but according to Jesus, it is a commandment (Matthew 10.8 : Freely ye have received, freely give). Furthermore, he believes that he had a right as a preacher of the gospel to have a salary for his service, but service must be free according to God, and the tithe is a divine provision that is not attached to the act of serving but to the fact of being a servant. That the average believer who finds himself in assemblies where the teaching is not correctly transmitted is not able to make the distinction is understandable, even if it should not happen. But here we are talking about what the Holy Spirit is supposed to have inspired to Paul, and which once again is contrary to what Jesus said.

• 1 Corinthians 9.24 : Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize ? So run, that ye may obtain.

There are two ways to understand this short verse. Either we are racing against pagans to win the prize, which would imply that pagans can win it, and would represent heresy regarding salvation. Or we are racing among believers, and therefore, according to him, only one will win the prize. In either case, his assertion is particularly flawed.

• 1 Corinthians 10.32-33 : Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God : Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

It's a children's island, you have to please everyone. Anyone who has sincerely read the Word of God knows that these two verses are contrary to everything God tells us. You can't please the world and God at the same time; you have to make a choice. Furthermore, Paul clearly manages to be in the good books of the Greeks, the Jews, and the Church of God; however, he is adamant that it is impossible to get along with a woman.

He clarifies his position, in the same sense, in his second letter to the Corinthians:

• 2 Corinthians 6.3-4 : Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed : But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,

Since preaching the Word of God is foolishness, he will have to explain to us how he does it so as not to cause scandal to anyone, knowing also that Jesus was a scandal to the Jews.

Yet, he will position himself differently in other places, always the hot and cold of Paul:

• Galatians 1.10 : For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

I recall Paul's statement : Even as I please all men in all things.

• Galatians 5.11 : And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. 
• 1 Thessalonians 2.4 : But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak ; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts.

One day we should understand that hot and cold make lukewarm, and that God will vomit the lukewarm from his mouth.

• 1 Corinthians 14:32-35 : And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

And what about female prophets? After all, the law Paul is referring to is what we call the Pentateuch. And in these five books, there is at least Mary, sister of Moses and Aaron, who was a prophetess and who speaks in the assembly of the people.

According to Paul, a wife is not even allowed to speak to her husband; she must wait until she returns home to do so. It would be good to remind almost every congregation in the world of this verse to find out their opinion on Paul's place in God's Word.

• 1 Corinthians 14.37 : If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

A well-known technique mastered by anyone trying to control others. If you disagree with him, you must accept that you are neither a prophet nor inspired. It is nothing more than an attempt to put pressure on those who might think differently.

It is not possible to hide behind the idea that he did not do it on purpose; it is supposed to be an inspired Word. Let us not forget that the subject which is the object of this distressing affirmation is that of the obligatory silence of women outside their homes. For information, I recall that there were 9 prophetesses, and that Deborah officiated under a tree, not in her home.

We will now dissect a passage where Paul admits to having a problem with pride, because he was perfectly aware of it. He will say, "And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee : for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me" (2 Corinthians 12.7-9).

Here we have one of the modern church's finest excuses for tolerating sin. In the passage in question, Paul claims that God placed an angel of Satan in his flesh so that he would not sin. This is one of Paul's biggest aberrations. He claims that God bound him to Satan to prevent him from sinning. This is like throwing someone into the mud to prevent them from getting dirty. That God's power is made perfect in our weaknesses is perfectly in accordance with the Word, but there is a fundamental difference between a weakness and a demonic bond, and here we are in the presence of a demonic bond that Paul admits to having and that he claims to accept in the name of the Lord who died precisely to free us.

Jesus, who came to set the captives free (Isaiah 61.1 : ... proclaim liberty to the captives ...), would have decided to bind them to Satan to prevent them from sinning. In other words, God would violently strike us on the fingers to make us forget a pain in our foot instead of simply taking it away. In this passage, Paul preaches a God who, instead of freeing his faithful, would add even more chains to them, a God in total opposition to the rest of the Word of God.

Why is he making such a statement?

Because he wants to justify his condition as a sinner and his inability to escape the problem of pride that he admits he has. He writes that this famous demonic "thorn" was given to him so that he would not be "exalted above measure" and to prevent him from getting puffed up.

In this passage Paul not only acknowledges being proud, but he admits that he has not ceased to be so, and unfortunately this has guided a good part of his writings, such as those I cited first in the contradictions concerning the fact of claiming to speak with wisdom without direction from God (1 Corinthians 7.25-26).

• 1 Timothy 2.1-2 : I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men ; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

Paul calls to pray first (first of all) for the lost, one can see it as a holy occupation, but with God one of the most important things is the motives. The 'why' you do things. This is why John the Baptist inveighed against the Pharisees by asking them : who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come ? (Matthew 3.7b), their intentions were bad, yet they came to be baptized, which seems to be a good thing. In the same way, here we have Paul who invites to pray for pagans, but the reason he invokes is disturbing. The goal is not the salvation of the lost, but to be able to lead : a quiet and peaceable life. A "quiet and peaceable" life when Jesus announces to us that we will be hated and persecuted.

• 1 Timothy 4.1-5 : Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron ; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving : For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

In complete contrast to the tablecloth, but it is also necessary to emphasize his speech on false teachers by saying that they prescribe not to marry. I have emphasized on many occasions the times when Paul teaches to remain celibate, even when one is already celibate, to act as if one were not.

As usual, the double-talk of the epistles attributed to Paul is blatant in the next two verses. Let us recall when he advised Timothy to drink wine (1 Timothy 5.23), while advising the Romans not to do so (Romans 14.21). The principle here is somewhat the same, a statement that he directly contradicts and, in this case, he finds a way to do so, just a few verses apart.

He begins by stating some rules concerning bishops:

• 1 Timothy 3.6 : Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

And continues with this statement:

• 1 Timothy 4.12 : Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

The contradiction is obvious.

• 1 Timothy 5.14 : I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully ;

So women are of such little importance that simply mourning their husbands is not permitted. They are obliged, because Paul wants it, to remarry, to have children, etc. Yet, he also teaches that it is better not to marry, even going so far as to say that it distances one from God since these widows from then on, according to Paul's own words, would worry about pleasing their husbands and not God.

So this is an order that may become difficult to follow if believers do what Paul constantly advises, that is, to remain celibate.

• 1 Timothy 5.21 : I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

He pleads with us before the chosen angels? According to him, we are called to judge angels, and yet he makes supplications before "chosen" angels. Only if they are "chosen," as he claims, are they saved, and their judgment is already behind them. This also means that if some are "chosen," others are not. Those who are not "chosen" are not saved, and therefore already have their judgment. How then can we judge angels if they are already judged? And as I said in another point, the only other place where it is mentioned to judge angels is none other than the Apocrypha, but if we refer to the Word of God, this notion is not only nonexistent, but also opposed to judgment by the Word of God itself.

His misunderstanding of biblical reality is never addressed because the bulk of the church makes the same mistake he did. Three passages speak of judgment and angels simultaneously:

• Isaiah 24.21-22 : And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. 22 And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.
• 2 Peter 2.4 : For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.
• Jude 1.5-6 : I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

The passage from Isaiah does not tell us that they will be judged at the end, but that they will have been judged long before. It is their punishment that will take place at the end, not their judgment. Therefore, the application of the sentence.

The passage in the second epistle of Peter does not speak of the judgment of angels to come, but of their already being so. The fact that they are reserved for judgment does not speak of being judged, but designates a special day, the day of judgment, which is not the day on which men and angels will be judged, but the day on which their sentence will take effect.

Finally, the passage in Jude is even clearer, telling us that they are already eternally bound by darkness. So, once again, the term "judgment" is used in reference to a specific day.

Finally, I recall the Gospel according to John, which everyone should have already heard or read:

• John 3.18 : He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

So in one case we are not judged, and in the other we already are. Whether it is for the angels or us, it is the same. Obviously, the person or people who wrote the epistles attributed to Paul were not aware of these details that destroy their claims.

• 2 Timothy 1.10 : But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

Death has not been destroyed, but defeated, it is under the dominion of Jesus Christ and will not be thrown into the fire until the end of time, a place where it will still not be destroyed, but will live its condemnation eternally.

• 1 Thessalonians 2.14-15 : ... even as they have of the Jews : 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men,

So it is said. Jesus did not sacrifice himself of his own free will, he was murdered.

We will also note the clarification of : and have persecuted us, coming from the one who pursued the believers to stone them. The executioner pretends to be a victim.

There is one point that has been the source of much controversy and, unfortunately, of many massacres in human history. This point in the Word of God might have gone almost unnoticed if it had not been so dramatically distorted.

Knowing who killed Jesus is a problem that historians can ask themselves, however, that believers argue about it is at least strange, especially since the Word of God does not make it a mystery. It is likely that the Roman Catholics of the 11th and 12th centuries chose to punish the Jews out of a desire to exonerate themselves from any possible guilt (*), after all, no disciple remained at Jesus' side in this ordeal, a feeling of guilt is therefore understandable, even if it is not justified. As in many cases, the best way to protect oneself from any responsibility in an event is to accuse someone else. If in addition one can divert a religious text to give oneself a justification, then so much the better, one will really succeed in giving oneself a good conscience. In reality, one succeeds above all in disconnecting oneself from one's conscience, but the result is the same, one stops accusing oneself.

((*) Since the aim is not to discuss the Crusades, I will not dwell on the other reasons for them. However, let us note that in many religious movements, the Jews remain "those who killed Christ". )

In any case, where could this idea come from that would place the Jews as guilty of this act?

In fact, only one passage shows us such a thing, and it is Paul who gives it to us in his epistle to the Thessalonians when he tells us that "Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets" (1 Thessalonians 2.15). Then, based on such an affirmation, it is no longer difficult to divert other passages to arrive at such a belief. Thus, a passage like "And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed" (Luke 23.23), seems to become clear and confirm this tragic affirmation of guilt.

If I say that this is simply a distortion of reality, it is, as with all the points raised in this book, based on other texts of the Word. I said that the responsibility for Jesus' death is not a mystery in the Word of God. Let us see what it is.

The first announcement of this event is in the book of Numbers. The people of Israel have just sinned and Moses seeks God's will concerning salvation for them. God then tells him, "And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live" (Numbers 21.8).

This is a very interesting passage because at that time, salvation was achieved solely through animal sacrifices that served to atone for sins, yet God exceptionally changes his method by requesting that this pole with a serpent be erected. This was only an announcement of what it would cost to cleanse humanity of its sins a few millennia later. This sacrifice was already foreseen by God who knows all things.

The serpent represents sin, and if in the old covenant it was Moses who put it on the pole so that whoever looks at it could turn away from their sins and be saved, in the new covenant it is Jesus who will do it, so whoever looks to Jesus will be washed from their sins and "shall live".

Now, from Jesus' time on earth, we find this statement which clearly shows that Jesus was aware of the task that lay ahead for him: "For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end" (Luke 22.37). Knowing that crucifixion was then the Roman method for executing poor condemned prisoners, this adds to the weight of the announcement made in the book of Numbers.

a) The Jews wanted to but could not.

If we want to look at the crucifixion humanely, then we must take into account not only that the Jews wanted to put him to death ("And they cried out again, Crucify him" : Mark 15.13) + (Luke 23.21), ("We have a law, and by our law he ought to die" : John 19.7). But also that they could not ("The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death" : John 18.31), because Roman law forbade the Jews from making this kind of decision, only the Romans had the right of life and death.

b) The Romans could, but did not want to .

On the Roman side, things are reversed, they did not want to kill Jesus ("I (Pilate) find no fault in this man " : Luke 23.4). "Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them" : Luke 23.20), but they made the decision to do so ("And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required" : Luke 23.24). Moreover, it is also Pilate who will make the inscription that will appear on the cross, the Jews not being allowed to interfere in this ("And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross" : John 19.19).

c) No one forces Jesus .

Also, everyone has their reasons for accusing others and shifting blame, but there is one way of looking at things that I have not yet developed, and that is Jesus' way of looking at things. We know that he was aware of what was going to happen to him; it was even the reason for his coming in fleshly form. Knowing this, he will say to his disciples, "I am the good shepherd : the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep" (John 10.11). This notion of "gift" will be repeated in verses 15 and 17 of the same chapter and completed in verse 18 when he will affirm, "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father" (John 10.18). His life belonged to him and no one could take it from him, he had to agree to give it for the sacrifice to have any value, otherwise he would not have offered himself as a sacrifice but would have been murdered since Pilate himself acknowledged having found "no fault at all" (John 18.38). To support this "will" that Jesus had to fulfill the Word of God and therefore his sacrifice, we must also consider his statement to the servant who wanted to fight to protect him, "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels ? 54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be ?" (Matthew 26.53-54).

By no longer simply considering the vision of the Romans and the Jews, but also looking at that of the main person concerned, we see a third way, which is not carnal but spiritual. It does not consist of accusing others or flagellating oneself, but of understanding that the death of Jesus was an eminently necessary condition for his resurrection. Also, knowing this, we can therefore look at the verses I quoted at the beginning of this explanation with new clarity.

Because in truth, it was not the will of the Romans that was done, nor that of the Jews, but that of God. As for guilt, it must no longer be sought among those who asked for his death with their lips, but among those who made him indispensable by their behavior and the tragedy is not that he was crucified, but that he had to be.

To return to what concerns this work, I must note that Paul's statement goes directly against what I have just shown since he states bluntly "the Jews : 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets" (1 Thessalonians 2.14-15) when reality shows that it was our sins that did it. That an average believer makes the confusion is understandable, but when we are talking about a text that some consider "inspired", things become much more dubious.

For Paul, the Jews are at fault, but Jesus claims that no one took it from him and that he gave it himself.

Choose your side.

Due to a lack of attention, we anticipate understanding a text and manage to make ourselves believe that certain things are true when they have no way of being so. In fact, while we read, we analyze in advance the ultimate goal of the text before us and we reduce our attention because we are certain we know what the author meant. We then enter a kind of mode that we could call "blind trust" and we read something completely wrong with a smile and the certainty that nothing is wrong.

Several nonsense can be found, more or less easily. The real difficulty lies mainly in the lengthy verifications that this can entail. Now, it goes without saying that we cannot necessarily devote a lot of time to this kind of verification since they require time that we do not all have.

So I'll cite one in particular and go into a bit more detail. You'll quickly understand why I told you that we often skip checking what we read, because it can take time.

Paul, wanting to find the right formula to express the greatness of his attachment to his own, will confide this to us: "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh : 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises ; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen" (Romans 9.3-5).

Here is once again a passage which contains several problems and which we never notice because we do not really pay attention to what we read.

Paul here makes a distinction between "adoption, glory, covenants, law, worship, promises, and patriarchs" on one hand, and "Christ" on the other . The distinction is expressed in the differentiation belong to / come from.

"to whom pertaineth" means that the thing cited is the sole property of the Israelites. This may seem unclear, but two facts are worth emphasizing. First, Paul makes it clear that he is speaking of his parents according to the flesh and therefore indeed of Jews by birth and not of believers, then he is clarified by "and of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all".

The distinction is therefore between "adoption, glory, covenants, law, worship, promises, and patriarchs" which belong to the Israelites by birth and "Christ" who belongs to all.

This distinction may at first seem correct, but if we read the rest of the text more carefully, and especially the other books attributed to Paul, we find contradictory statements that remove all possible logic from what he has just said. Let us examine them methodically.

▶️ adoption,

"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Galatians 4.4-5).

He cannot be speaking as an Israelite since in the passage that is the subject of this point, Paul says that adoption already belonged to them. If he says that through Jesus we have received adoption, he can only be speaking of new believers. This shows that in his statement in Romans 9.3 he was mistaken about adoption. One mistake should be enough to show that the passage does not belong in the Word, but let us continue with the other statements.

▶️ glory ,

Several statements show us Paul's error. On the one hand, he clearly announces to us "But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile" (Romans 2.10). Although he names the Jew "first", "the Gentile" is not excluded, whereas in the passage in Romans 9, he clearly tells us that this belongs only to the Jew. Here, he announces to us that it belongs to both.

Further on he will continue by speaking to the saints of Colosse (the Christians of the church of Colosse) and to define them, will say of them that "To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Colossians 1.27).

Here he is addressing non-Jews, speaking to them of the hope of glory, but if this glory belonged only to the Jews according to the flesh, it could in no way represent a hope for them.

▶️ ​the alliances ,

It is to the believers in Ephesus that Paul will give a contrary indication concerning the covenants. " Therefore, " he will say to them, "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands ; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world : 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ (Ephesians 2.11-13).

Here he is addressing non-Jews since he calls them "Gentiles in the flesh" and specifies that they were called uncircumcised by the circumcised. Paul announces to them that they were "strangers from the covenants" but that they have accessed them in Jesus Christ. If they have accessed them, then the covenants do not belong only to Jews according to the flesh.

▶️ the law,

"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law" (Romans 13.8-10).

If Paul says that the law is summed up in the words "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself", he is in fact quoting Jesus and therefore saying that those who are in Jesus have fulfilled the law.

We could therefore quite logically add to this passage Jesus' statement concerning the fulfillment of the law and not its abolition (Matthew 5.17), a statement which clearly shows that we are heirs of the law.

However, Paul is addressing the church at Rome, not his fellow human beings. Now if they can fulfill the law by loving one another, this proves that they are heirs of it; otherwise, they would accomplish nothing.

▶️​ the cult,

"For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh" (Philippians 3.3).

The unmistakable statement, "which worship God in the spirit", shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christians have also been given this special domain.

▶️ the promises,

"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 1.1).

To fully understand this passage, we must know that Paul is writing to his friend Timothy, who, not being Jewish, would have little interest in this announcement if it were not for his own benefit. Moreover, Paul, a fervent believer in Jesus Christ, tells us here that the role entrusted to him is to announce this promise. Since this role was entrusted to him by Jesus for the Gentiles, it seems that the latter are its heirs.

It is to the church of Ephesus that Paul will summarize this principle, thereby supporting his self-contradiction. "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel" (Ephesians 3.6). What can be said, except for this repetitive evidence that in his affirmation of Romans 9.3 Paul was mistaken on numerous occasions.

▶️ the patriarchs.

"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3.29).

Bingo, we all have them. In this passage, he completes his self-contradiction by asserting that, having become heirs of the promises through Christ, we are by consequence heirs of the patriarchs.

Therefore, we see that what Paul himself announces in Romans 9.3-5 as belonging to the Israelites according to the flesh, in fact also belongs to Christians, and the strangest thing is that in all cases it is this same Paul who tells us this. The craziest thing is that he does not contradict himself just on one of the subjects, but on the entirety.  

• 2 Timothy 4.1 : I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom,

I will pass over the lack of meaning contained in the fact of conjuring someone in the name of the appearance of Jesus and in the name of his kingdom. The high-sounding side of this sentence is only equaled by its doctrinal error. According to Paul, Jesus must judge, which means not only that it has not yet been done, which is wrong, but also that it is not the Word of God that judges us, but Jesus, whereas according to Jesus, it just so happens that it is his Word that is our judge as we are told in John 12.48 : He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. Jesus, for his part, did not come to judge, but to save, which this time is told to us by Jesus in John 3.17 : For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Finally, in the verse from John directly following the one I just highlighted, we are also told that judgment is not ahead but behind : John 3.18 : He that believeth on him is not condemned : but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

The problem for believers in understanding this is that the term "judgment" refers to two things. It can refer to condemnation, or to the carrying out of the sentence. Thus, condemnation is expressed in John 3.18, while the carrying out of the sentence is expressed in John 12.48.

That believers might not understand the difference is understandable, provided they have heard it. On the other hand, that such a mistake is supposedly made by the Holy Spirit who would have inspired Paul with a doctrine contrary to that of Jesus is impossible, which makes it impossible for this statement to be from the Spirit of God.

• 1 Corinthians 6.12 : All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient : all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

I have already spoken of the thorn in Paul's flesh, but a brief review of the concept is interesting in the context of this verse.

• 2 Corinthians 12.7 : And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Paul therefore tells us that he does not allow himself to be enslaved by anything and that he is bound to Satan, and this by God. This same God of whom Paul claims the following:

• 2 Thessalonians 3.4 : And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward.

Obviously, he's talking nonsense. So he has no prohibitions, there are simply certain things that are not useful, but not forbidden for all that. He claims that he can do what he wants but that he just has to be careful not to let himself be enslaved, and therefore become dependent (and this, while admitting to being linked to Satan but pretending that it is not his fault, it is God's).

We must therefore conclude that the Holy Spirit and all the apostles must have retracted, because they clearly declared the following:

• Acts 15:28-29 : For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things ; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication : from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

They were telling us that it was necessary to abstain from these four things. Paul therefore opposes this statement, claiming that in reality it is enough simply not to become dependent and that if we respect this point, then we can give ourselves to our heart's content, and this for the four things put forward by the Holy Spirit and the college of apostles. And then it is God's fault if he has a "thorn" in the flesh.

• 1 Corinthians 7:1-4 : Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me : It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence : and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband : and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

This simple passage could have justified a whole point. I will, however, only recall Genesis 2.24 : Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Furthermore, Paul, although affirming that each gender should not touch the other, also affirms in 1 Corinthians 11.11 : Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. They are therefore united in the Lord, but above all they must not touch each other!!!

• 1 Corinthians 7.18-19 : Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Let's summarize his point : If you found God while already circumcised, you can remain circumcised.

Seriously, so don't get stitched up!!!

I know that, formulated in this way, it may sound strange, yet that is indeed what he just said. The only other way to understand this verse is to say that the term "circumcised" is used to signify Jewishness, but in this case we would move beyond the blunder of inattention to enter into real doctrinal gravity. This would mean in this case that the one who was called while being Jewish (by religion) should remain Jewish (by religion). Now Judaism, not recognizing Jesus as the Son of God, is an antichrist religion. It therefore cannot speak spiritually. And if it speaks carnally, then indeed, it advises not to have one's body sewn up.

• 1 Corinthians 7.20-24 : Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. 21 Art thou called being a servant ? care not for it : but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman : likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. 23 Ye are bought with a price ; be not ye the servants of men. 24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.

Looking at this passage more closely, we can understand what he is talking about, but once again, Paul expresses himself so poorly that everything is confusing. What he is clumsily trying to say here is that we should not seek human gratifications because in the eyes of God we are all the same, whether we are free or slaves in the eyes of men. In principle, I agree with him; he is basically telling us what Jesus was saying when he warned us to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and that all these things will be added to us. However, in form, Paul is misleading. Verses 20 and 24 do not say the same thing that allows us to deduce what they are supposed to say. It would have been enough to say that we should not seek to elevate ourselves humanly, but as usual, Paul brings confusion.

We will note all the same the opposition with what John says in his third epistle:

• 3 John 1.2 : Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.

The prosperity John speaks of is indeed a material prosperity, since he wishes it to be equivalent to the progression of the soul of his interlocutor. John is not saying that we must seek this elevation, but wishes it for Gaius.

The verse where Paul shoots himself in the foot.

• 1 Corinthians 7.25 : Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

So Paul announces that he's going to make a statement about virgins. We're obviously all ears, and here comes a first clarification.

I have no command of the Lord. So he warns us that he is going to make a statement, but that it does not come from God. Indeed, this is an important clarification, and it is entirely commendable that he makes it. However, it raises a serious question concerning his inspiration by the Holy Spirit. But let us return to the text. So he tells us that he is going to make a statement that does not come from God and adds a new clarification. So he tells us that he is only giving an opinion on virgins.

The convenient thing about this verse is that it is not from God, according to Paul himself, and what's more, it is just an opinion. The reality is that even for someone who thinks that the writings attributed to Paul have a place in God's Word, this verse is useless. It is just an opinion coming from a man claiming that God has not spoken to him on this subject.

One wonders why it is in the Word of God.

• 1 Corinthians 7.28-29 : But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. 29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short : it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none,

These two verses are nothing less than an abomination. Almost every part is a grave doctrinal error, an open opposition to the will of God. God has, of his own will, caused man and woman to become one flesh. Paul teaches here that they should not unite, that if they did, they would suffer, and that they should act as if they had not united before God.

The number of points that are contrary to God's will is mind-boggling. It couldn't even be a rough draft of a teaching, and they want us to believe that it's an inspired word from God. if thou marry, thou hast not sinned, a superb statement of "evidence." I could recall dozens of verses that speak of God's will for man and woman, and primarily the fact that they are created to be one. Who can be reassured by this kind of statement ? Especially since, as I often say, Paul generalizes and takes advantage of it to say anything. Because there are many cases where getting married is a sin. Jesus tells us in Matthew 19.9 : And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. So Paul's statement is false in its generalization. He continues: if the virgin married, she hath not sinned, and the case is obviously the same as before, she can perfectly well have sinned in doing so. And why does he reduce the man to his masculine condition, without speaking of virginity, but on the other hand he reduces the woman not to her femininity, but to her virginity. I remind you that the widow can also marry, but she is no longer a virgin. The same is true of the woman who has suffered adultery at the hands of her husband. She is freed from her oath and can remarry. The question is therefore legitimate. Why does Paul reduce the woman to her virginity but consider the man outside of this notion when he speaks for one and for the other of exactly the same thing?

And after making this strange distinction, he goes on to say that it is better not to marry and that if you had committed this folly, you should act as if you had not done it. Yet, is it not this same Paul who affirms in the first letter to Timothy the following words:

• 1 Timothy 4.1-3 : Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils ; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron ; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

He's talking about false teachers, who are characterized by the fact that they prescribe not to marry. He calls this 'doctrines of devils,' and that's exactly what he just did. So in Paul's own words, his statements in 1 Corinthians 7.28-29 come from seducing spirits, are doctrines of devils, and make him a hypocritical false teacher who has his conscience seared with a hot iron. The words are harsh, but they're not mine, they're his.

We will note, to finish on this point, that he takes advantage for the umpteenth time to return to the subject of the consumption of meat. Keeping in mind the passage from the book of Acts that I quoted in another video* He therefore considers that all the apostles as well as the Holy Spirit are:

false teachers

seductive spirits

that they have abandoned the faith

that they profess doctrines of devils

that they have the mark of blemish on their conscience

(* Acts 15.28-29 : For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things ; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication : from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well).

• 1 Corinthians 7.32-34 : But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord : 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

We can easily add this point to the previous one. Paul's vision of marriage is a disaster!!! So according to Paul, the one who is married worries about the world and the one who is not worried about God.

Let us recall that Isaiah had a wife, herself a prophetess. The couple was not interested in God according to Paul. This is, de facto, also the case of Joseph and Mary, who were so disinterested in God that they raised his Son. Finally, let us recall Paul's words that he will say two chapters later : Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas ? (1 Corinthians 9.5). This implies that he would affirm that none of the apostles were concerned about the Lord but rather that they were all concerned about the things of the world.

Fortunately, Paul is there to correct God's mistakes. When we think that God created woman to be a help to man when in reality he was only creating a distraction that would distance him from God! Thank you Paul for the correction!!! Believing in this kind of statement shows the little attention that believers pay to what they read.

It would be good if Paul would look at things a little spiritually instead of looking at them carnally.

Paul is known for his misogyny; a remark about it usually provokes a smile, a shifty glance, and, quickly, a change of subject. It is indeed customary to skirt around this strange point in his writings, so obvious is it to everyone that there is a problem there. To better understand things, it is appropriate to begin with what seems to be the basis of the "Paulian" error. Let us therefore return to the beginning of all things concerning us.

God created, in order, nature, animals, and then man. He then took the latter and placed him in a garden so that everything would be in harmony.

As for the detail of the third, he first made the man, then the woman. Far from any misplaced humor about the reasons for the order followed by God in the creation of human beings, it must nevertheless be noted that a reason is invoked. It is not the result of chance, an oversight, or the delirium of a creative mind in perpetual motion. No, it is something much simpler.

To go into a little more detail, we are told that "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air ; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them : and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him" (Genesis 2.19-20). Faced with this obvious incompatibility, God will put the man to sleep, take a rib from him and form a being who this time will not be made in the likeness of God, but of man. "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof ; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man" (Genesis 2.21-23).

What emerges from the story of creation is that woman was created to be a helper for man. This means not only that she is not made to be independent, but also that man needs help to accomplish the task God has entrusted to him. Man is made to serve God, woman to serve man. These are the primary functions of these two genders.

This is one of the easiest biblical truths to misuse, and also one of the ones that "believers" are most eager to ignore because it often prevents them from fulfilling their own ambitions.

In any case, in this process of creation, God places evidence that goes directly against Paul's thinking, and it is this difference that will manage many of the doctrinal errors that he will make. "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him" (Genesis 2.18). This is indeed where things get complicated. God's remark is not very difficult to understand, yet we find an equally simple statement of its opposite in the first epistle to the Corinthians. Paul tells us without a moment's doubt, "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn" ( 1 Corinthians 7.7-9 ).

So we are faced with two diametrically opposed assertions. On the one hand, we have God who affirms that man cannot function alone, that he needs help, and that woman was created for this precise purpose, and on the other, we have Paul who affirms that it is better for man to be alone.

One of the two is wrong.

Let's bet it's not God.

In any case, the milestones are laid, and the origin of Paul's doctrinal errors concerning women is highlighted. Not having even understood the importance of the link which unites the two genders of the human race, he could only with great difficulty grasp what concerned them.

Several points are therefore to be noted, among these, there is a contradiction with the Mosaic law that, as a Pharisee, Paul knew by heart. Addressing his friend Timothy, he will advise to refuse "But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry ; 12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith" (1 Timothy 5.11-12). Now in the law of Moses, it is said that the commitment of a woman is broken at the death of her husband, hence a perfect contradiction which turns out to be on several levels. First of all, the disagreement with the old covenant since they do not violate their first commitment in any way, but above that, the one with himself since he will also declare his will in the following verse that "younger women (widows) marry, bear children, guide the house" (1 Timothy 5.14). Strange self-contradiction. All the more strange since in the Epistle to the Romans he clearly shows us his knowledge of this same Mosaic law, of which he summarizes the case of a widow wanting to remarry in the following terms: "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth ; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress : but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law ; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man" (Romans 7.2-3).

It is difficult to sort through his thoughts, as confusion seems to reign there. Especially if we add another of his statements concerning the inscription on the roll (list of widows whom the assembly will take care of). He tells us in fact "Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man" (1 Timothy 5.9). Now, why would a widow who had been a widow twice, and one can easily imagine the sadness of having lost two husbands, be excluded from the roll when it is clear from the Mosaic law and from certain statements of Paul himself, that she did nothing wrong by remarrying, would she have done something wrong by becoming a widow? If her second marriage is in order with God, there is no justification for her to be suddenly excluded from the roll because she would be 55 years old during her second widowhood.

One might try to assume that Paul considers that her family should take care of her, but he doesn't mention it, so there is nothing to justify such a distinction.

Well before the tragedy of a possible widowhood, there is marriage. Here too, some things are troubling. If it emerges from the creation story that man and woman are complementary and therefore made to unite, Paul adds some "evidence" that are only inescapable in his thinking. Thus, he explains "his" basis for marriage in the following terms: "But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord : 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction" ( 1 Corinthians 7.32-35).

What emerges from the quoted passage is very interesting, not only because we see that Paul considers marital union as an inevitable factor of estrangement from God, but also because he clearly tells us that it is in celibacy that one can find him (God, not Paul). A statement that is certainly a delight for the Roman Catholic Church, but which is in total disagreement with the Word of God.

Paul will later explain to Timothy that someone who wants to serve God must have proven his righteousness in his relationship with his partner and in the education he has given to his children (1 Timothy 3 as well as the epistle to Titus), which seems strangely to disqualify him from this so-called closeness to God which would only be found in celibacy. The conclusion of this passage gives us the reason for his speech on the subject and teaches us that his directives are only there to "and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction" (1 Corinthians 7.35). However, in the preceding explanation he shows us bluntly that the "distraction" he is referring to is marriage. In other words, he writes this to advise his readers against getting married which will de facto prevent them from being servants.

Despite the number of aberrations already highlighted regarding marriage, here is one more. Not only does he advise against marriage, but he extends his discourse to our children by stating that "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not : let them marry. 37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. 38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well ; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better" (1 Corinthians 7.36-38). Not only does he target his directive only at girls, not explaining how boys will find a wife if everyone bows to his will, but we can say that he condemns the girl since he himself will affirm one of the craziest things in his writings by declaring that "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing" (1 Timothy 2.15). Having a child while remaining a virgin is not common, this limits the candidates.

We should also note verse 38 of the passage quoted where he places a distinction between the virgin and the unmarried girl, telling us that he who has "giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better" (1 Corinthians 7.38). The two choices offered do not seem very different, so placing one above the other is strange. Let us, however, try to understand his statement:

"Virgin is good, single is better" (I'm paraphrasing).

Schematized like this, do you better understand what he just said? He says that single and virgin is better than simply being a virgin. This implies that it would be better than being a virgin and not single, therefore married. However, if the woman is married, the father no longer has anything to say; the husband is the head of the household. His remarks are generally particularly confusing; here, it is at a remarkable level.

The last point I will make regarding marriage concerns a reason for marriage that Paul considers "good." After explaining in several ways that it is far better not to marry, even going so far as to say that it distances one from God, he nevertheless puts forward a reason that would justify it.

You might think he's going to present us with some noble sentiment, some possible way to transcend existence, or something like that, but unfortunately, that's not the case. The only reason he gives us to do it is to avoid burning. It's a way to avoid the sin of the flesh, even though everything points to the opposite. "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me : It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband" (1 Corinthians 7.1-2). A strange way of looking at things, where the only way to avoid being enslaved by sexual urges is to get married, in other words, to take a wife to satisfy one's physical needs. It may sound crude, but that's what he's talking about. He will drive the point home a few verses later by specifying, "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn" (1 Corinthians 7.8-9).

He places marriage just above hell, which says a lot about how he feels about it.

To summarize this point, we can say that Paul's answer to the lust of the flesh is marriage. Now, the Word shows us that it is not by obtaining what we have coveted that our lust will cease. The example of Amnon and Tamar is rather telling on this subject ( 2 Samuel 13 ). Lust in itself being a sin, it is not by taking a few detours that we will erase it, on the contrary, it will remain present, and the one who has coveted a woman will not stop coveting others once he has obtained the one he wanted. If what is evil comes from the heart, then lust comes from the heart and marriage does not purify the man's heart in any way. In this case, he was impure in celibacy, and he will be equally impure in marriage.

He drives the point home by stating that "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord : yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. 26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. 27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife ? seek not a wife. 28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned ; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh : but I spare you" ( 1 Corinthians 7:25-28 ).

It is indeed disturbing to read "But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned ; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned". Fortunately, I refer you to what I said earlier about the creation of the world and more specifically about man and woman, about the fact that one does not exist without the other. God said "It is not good that the man should be alone" (Genesis 2.18). One might wonder how Paul honors marriage in the four verses cited. On the contrary, he paints a negative portrait of it.

Then, the coordinating conjunction "but" has a special meaning. For example, if you say "yes, but," it actually means "no."

Let's look at this in more detail:

If I tell you something and then end by asking you whether you agree, a "yes" or a "no" is not confusing. On the other hand, a "no, but" will mean that on the whole you do not agree, but that nevertheless there are certain obvious points with which you agree (or at least with which you have no objections). Similarly, a "yes, but" will mean that you agree up to a certain point but that you do not agree with some of what I have said. Therefore, to the question "do you agree," a "yes, but" will really mean "no." You could agree 90%; yet you do not agree with the thing said.

In this case, we are faced with the same type of example. Paul says, "But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned ; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned". Indeed, we can only agree. However, he follows his statement (which he claims is not from God) with this famous coordinating conjunction. In other words, he says, "You have not sinned by marrying, but you would do better not to do so". The exact text says, "Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh : but I spare you".

Paul therefore believes that although God stated in Genesis that it was not good for man to be alone and although he created woman for the purpose of being a helper for man, it is good to teach to remain alone.

Paul warns us about what will happen in the last days. Let him conclude this point about marriage himself, since in this case his own words spoken by me would be taken very badly.

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils ; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron ; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth" ( 1 Timothy 4:1-3 ).

Because one passage in the Epistle to the Corinthians deserves special attention, I have decided to deal with it in one go rather than mistakenly making it one point. I will deal with it in three separate points.

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband : 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord : If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband : else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband ? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife ?" (1 Corinthians 7.10-16).

📌 First point : "UNTO THE MARRIED" followed by "TO THE REST".

Here we are faced with what can only be described as a "blunder." It is, moreover, rather interesting and proves to what extent we tend to read the Word without really paying attention, more out of automatism than out of a desire to discover its depth.

Paul begins by addressing "unto the married", giving them commands "from God." Once this part is finished, he continues his idea by addressing "to the rest". Now, who could these famous "to the rest" be to whom he is addressing himself, if not those who are not married? And what does he say to them?

"If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him".

Although Paul uses the term "wife", a closer look at the text suggests he is actually talking about people in a relationship (not necessarily sexual, but at least emotional) that likely ends in marriage. When he says "she be pleased to dwell with him", he is also saying that this is not yet the case.

So here is the "blunder" I was talking about. Paul is speaking to single people ("to the rest") who are engaged (or not) to pagans, and he advises us to continue the relationship until we live together and get married when God tells us that darkness has no part with light. The biblical examples of separation between believers and unbelievers are rather clear. Let us not forget that in the old covenant (which I remind you has not been abolished), it was forbidden to unite with non-Jews. In the new covenant, the church, becoming heir to the promises, also becomes heir to the warnings and commandments.

It is therefore forbidden to unite with the darkness, that is to say with pagans, which is clearly in opposition to what Paul tells us. Yet he himself was of a different opinion in the Epistle to the Corinthians:

2 Corinthians 6.14-15 : Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers : for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness ? and what communion hath light with darkness ? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel ?

As usual, Paul preaches hot and cold.

📌 Second point : SANCTIFICATION THROUGH MARRIAGE .

There is something disturbing. Paul tells us that the one of the two members of a couple who does not belong to God is holy by virtue of being united to a child of God, and all this so that their children may be holy.

"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband : else were your children unclean; but now are they holy".

This is to forget two fundamental things: first, Jesus tells us that darkness has nothing in common with light, which is contradictory to Paul's thinking, and second, the Word tells us that children will not be judged for the crimes of their parents and vice versa. This means that a child is not holy because his parents are, nor is he impure because his parents are.

Furthermore, if the pagan is sanctified, he is saved, which poses the possibility of salvation outside of Jesus Christ.

what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband ? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife ?

📌 Third point : " WHAT KNOWEST THOU, O WIFE,  WHETHER THOU SHALT SAVE THY HUSBAND".

The last thing, still on this same passage of 1 Corinthians 7.10-16, concerns the last verse. Paul tells us that we do not know if we will not save our pagan spouses by staying with them. But it would seem that what saves is to do the will of God, consequently, living with darkness being contrary to the will of God, I do not see how Paul can say that our disobedience can bring the pagans to repentance, it cannot bring blessing. It is the same with the example of sinners who must be sent away from the assemblies. If we follow Paul's logic, we should not send them away but keep them in the hope that our behavior will lead them to change their position towards God. Sending them away physically is precisely a way of making them realize their spiritual distance, their difference from the true children of light that we are supposed to be.

In any case, it is always possible that some translation errors have crept into the epistles attributed to Paul, but the profusion of discrepancies and contradictions on the relationship between the two genders of the human race shows, in contradiction to himself and to the rest of the Word (sometimes to both), that his writings cannot be inspired by God.

Circumcision is a sign of the covenant between man and God. It dates back to Abraham, who received the rule from God himself. As in many areas, the new covenant is the transposition into the spiritual world of rules that already existed in the carnal world (in the physical world).

If in its broad outlines the law of Moses limited obedience to conformity in actions, its fulfillment in the new covenant extends obedience to the level of thoughts. A simple example of this can be found in the example of adultery. If we look at the commandment of the old covenant "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Exodus 20.14), we see that it is, as the verb "to commit" indicates, a question of not doing, therefore of not acting out, whereas if we look at the fulfillment of this commandment in the new covenant, Jesus tells us that "That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matthew 5.28). The law has passed from physical to spiritual. Some will then say that the carnal law is still valid because the act is still reprehensible. In fact, things are no longer viewed from this angle. In the old covenant, the act was the boundary of sin, whereas now it is the thought. Acceptance of adultery precedes adultery and already constitutes sin. Also, the act is no longer in judgment because judgment is rendered as soon as the thought has accepted adultery.

Why this digression on the subject of adultery when I intended to talk about circumcision? Quite simply because it is the same with circumcision, which is no longer a carnal commandment and therefore symbolized by a bruising of the flesh, but by a spiritual act that becomes a bruising of the soul. Circumcision becomes spiritual because the covenant has become so. A carnal covenant could only have as an image a carnal act, so the fulfillment of the carnal law into spiritual law could only have as a sign a fulfillment of this sign from one state to another.

The first circumcision, that of the body, was limited because the covenant that resulted from it was also limited. Having passed under the law of the spirit (also called "grace"), the boundaries of this symbolism were also pushed back to encompass more things. A greater responsibility but also a greater reward.

Paul seems to agree with this, stating that "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision" (Galatians 5.6). He is talking about circumcision of the flesh, and he is saying that it is of no use to God. I won't discuss the possible health benefits. Following this statement, Paul takes issue with some who "As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ" (Galatians 6.12). This may seem like a good point, and in fact, it most likely is, but there is a difference between what he says and what he does.

In the book of the Acts of the Apostles we find mention of an event that is all the more peculiar because it is exactly Paul's application of what he himself condemns. Paul, having met a brother who was well-regarded by everyone, decides to take him with him, but before doing so, he "took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek" (Acts 16.3). Also, if we can only agree with what Paul says about circumcision, and on this subject we find a very clear verse in the Epistle to the Colossians , a verse in which he tells us "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ" (Colossians 2.11), we can however find it more difficult to understand this duality between speech and action which pushes him on the one hand to say things and on the other to do the opposite.

In this case, we find in the verse that reveals this contradiction a very interesting element about why he did this. We are told "for they knew all that his father was a Greek" (Acts 16.3). His problem is therefore very clearly that he is trying to avoid persecution by compromising his beliefs.

But this view is not unique to this verse, since Paul's position on the importance of pleasing people is repeatedly noted. Thus, he tells us, "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God : 33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved" (1 Corinthians 10.32-33). Now, what does "Give none offence" actually mean when he states that "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness" (1 Corinthians 1.18). How, when we say that preaching the gospel is foolishness to the lost, can we also claim that we should not give offence since the simple act of preaching creates scandals ? This would tend to say that we should avoid preaching.

When Jesus said, "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh" (Matthew 18.7), he was actually telling us not to do everything to avoid scandals arising, but to avoid saying things with the aim of creating scandals, which is not at all the same thing. For example, something said can very well cause a scandal without the person who said it being the one through whom the scandal comes. More concretely, a teaching on homosexuality will create scandals, but should we avoid preaching on this subject when the Word of God raises it? The reality is that we should not preach on a subject with the aim of creating a scandal. This same book that you are reading right now can create scandals, but that is not its purpose. Paul's position would be to not publish it and not preach on it only to avoid the possible birth of a scandal. Paul will qualify this in these terms: "Even as I please all men in all things" (1 Corinthians 10.33), but "to please men" is opposed to "to please God" since the flesh is opposed to the spirit and the will of God is more often to put man in front of his responsibilities than to launch him in a race of who will please the other the most.

Furthermore, continuing the verse from the Epistle to the Romans, we find something special, Paul told us "Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification.
3 For even Christ pleased not himself ; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me" (Romans 15.2-3), which means very simply, and the justification is amusing, that we must please men because Jesus pleased God. Now if Jesus was an example, which no disciple of Jesus can deny, it is this example that we must follow, and if we must become like Jesus, this means among other things that we too must do everything to please God the Father and not strive to please men. It is therefore perfectly strange to see Paul explain that we must please men because Jesus pleased the Father.

Finally, I would like to remind you of two things:

First, during Jesus' earthly ministry, his brothers did not believe in him and openly mocked him. He was a scandal among them because, being the eldest, he left home instead of following in the footsteps of Joseph, their father.

Second, let us recall John 6 where Jesus explains that he is the bread of life, his speech will be so shocking that most of his disciples will go far from him. By explaining that his blood was a drink, he scandalized all his listeners, so of course, it was an image, and he could therefore quite logically have looked for another one to explain what he was talking about at that moment. But his choice was made and he used this image rather than another.

In both of these cases, and there are many others, pleasing God was the only important thing and each time it was necessary to displease man. It is therefore all the more astonishing that Paul constantly seeks to please men when his only goal should be to please God. "If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you" said Jesus in John 15.20, I therefore logically conclude that pleasing God causes the displeasure of men and that this desire not to attract the reprobation of men led Paul into disobedience concerning the circumcision of Timothy.

Although judgment belongs to God alone, Paul allows himself to deliver people to Satan and encourages others to do the same. He says, on the one hand, "Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme" (1 Timothy 1.20). Yet, in the Gospel according to Matthew, Jesus tells us that "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men" (Matthew 12.31). Therefore, either Hymenaeus and Alexander blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, in which case Paul does not have to pronounce any sentence, since God has already done so, or they did it against Jesus or the Father, in which case Paul does not have to deliver anyone to Satan. A similar statement will be made to the Corinthians who, living a serious immorality, will attract the wrath of Paul. "For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Corinthians 5.3-5). How can we justify a statement where Paul announces that he is delivering a sinner to Satan so that his spirit may be saved?

Paul makes a small mistake regarding judgment. A mistake that could not exist if the passage were inspired. He tells us that "Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing" (2 Timothy 4.8). Paul's mistake stems from the fact that he then only knew the old covenant, which says that "A king that sitteth in the throne of judgment scattereth away all evil with his eyes" (Proverbs 20.8). The consistency ends there, because the total chronology of the transmission of the capacity for judgment is as follows.

First of all, it goes without saying that judgment belonged to God in heaven, but things have changed. The first step is found in the Gospel of John where we are told that "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son" (John 5.22). Justice therefore remained in heaven, with the Father, but judgment was given to the Son who is on earth. Then, this same judgment that the Son received, does not remain in the hands of the Son, he in turn goes on to transmit it, and it is in this same Gospel that we learn it. "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day" (John 12.47-48).

Righteousness and judgment are not the same thing. Righteousness is in heaven and has nothing to do with the distinction between good and evil. Righteousness is God's will. Judgment, on the other hand, is on earth and is the deciding between good and evil. Hence Jesus' statement concerning what the Holy Spirit can reveal to the Gentiles: righteousness, either God the Father, judgment, or Jesus as the Word of God, and finally sin, which is the separation between the two (John 16.8).

Hence Paul's error : he knew the old covenant perfectly well, but had no reference text for the new one. The mistake therefore became almost inevitable without divine inspiration, and that is indeed what happened.

• Ephesians 4.9 : Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

Of course, this is not to dispute that the Lord Jesus descended into the lower regions of the earth, but what we can say is that the fact that he ascended into heaven is in no way proof that he descended underground. Having triumphed over death can be a sign of this since one had to encounter it in order to confront it. But going up to the attic does not in itself mean that one went to the cellar. Even taking this verse outside the spiritual context it is supposed to represent, no one can see any logic in it. Because that is precisely what Paul is trying to put forward. A supposedly implacable logic that, by the fact that Jesus ascended into heaven, would attest that he also went to the kingdom of the dead. But his logic is a total failure.

Paul links two facts, both of which are true: that Jesus ascended into heaven and descended into the realm of the dead in order to defeat death and seize the keys to the realm of the dead, which are now in his possession. Unfortunately, he tries to establish a causal link that cannot exist and, in doing so, takes advantage of the situation to say something false. One is not proof of the other.

Paul, writing to the church of Thessalonica, assured them that he had never "used flattering words" towards them (1 Thessalonians 2.5). This is a laudable fact if it is true, but if it is not, let us say that it is a very flimsy statement. Without looking very far, we find in the same epistle the demonstration of the opposite of his statement :

1 Thessalonians 1.6-10 : And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost : 7 So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia. 8 For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing. 9 For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God ; 10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

This first passage is already riddled with words that we can at least consider particularly gentle, and which do nothing more than brush things in the direction of the hair. He does not stop there, considering that he has not sufficiently complimented those whose approval he seeks. He will therefore continue in the following chapter in these terms :

1 Thessalonians 2.13-14 : For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. 14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus : for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews.

These two passages are nonetheless quite full of words that I would describe as at least "gentle," and they have the particularity of directly surrounding the one in which Paul affirms that he would never do such a thing. He therefore affirms something that his own writings contradict.

The Word of God tells us that "He that covereth a transgression seeketh love; but he that repeateth a matter separateth very friends" (Proverbs 17.9). Why then does Paul, speaking to the Galatians, allow himself to recall a past fault of the apostle Peter: "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). What is the use of this statement by Paul ?

In this case, he is simply speaking ill of a problem that is either resolved or simply does not concern the Galatians. In either case, he gives the Galatians a very negative impression of Peter and directly influences what they will think of him the day they see him, when the problem is probably already resolved. He is therefore directly violating a proverb, the question being whether it was the Holy Spirit who inspired him to recall a supposed fault of a brother and to go so far as to use it as an argument to demonstrate his own righteousness. By behaving in this way, he shows not only his disrespect for Peter, but also for the Word of God, which as a Pharisee (since he likes to point out that he is one) he knows.

If we look at God's Word, then we have to face the facts: he is trying to create division. At least, that's what the book of Proverbs tells us.

• 1 Corinthians 6.3 : Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life ?

Let's keep it simple and short : judgment is not ours. This doctrine of angels judging believers comes from the apocrypha; it is not present in the Word of God. I have already detailed this subject in a previous point.

Every error is a specific fact, but some seem even more incomprehensible than others. The one that is the subject of this point is of this type.

• Romans 1.3-4 : Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh ; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead,

Paul therefore assures us that Jesus was declared the Son of God with power by his resurrection. Yet, the divine sonship of Jesus was clear from the beginning. Not only with the separate announcements made to Joseph and Mary, but even more clearly at two particular moments. The first of the two is more striking because it took place in a public manner. In the Gospel according to Matthew, a Gospel that Paul was not familiar with, it is written, when we are told of Jesus' baptism:

• Matthew 3.16-17 : And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him : 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

The voice of God the Father is heard only three times in the Gospels, and two of these times consist of the affirmation of his paternity and therefore of the divine sonship of Jesus. The second time will be during the Transfiguration.

Yet Paul considers that Jesus' divine sonship was only pronounced/attested from his resurrection. He has evidently forgotten these two particular moments when the voice of God the Father resounded in heaven to establish this truth. However, the question arises: has the Holy Spirit also forgotten? Because he was present, he descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove, yet he seems not to remember this when he inspires Paul to write these two verses in the Epistle to the Romans.

The other solution is that the Holy Spirit, being God, could not have made this omission, yet it is present in the epistle attributed to Paul, which leads to one and only one possible conclusion. The Holy Spirit was not involved in the writing of this text.

• Romans 1.20-22 : For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead ; so that they are without excuse : 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

In broad outline, Paul is saying that the pagans are guilty because nature is proof that God exists, and therefore they know him and did not want him. The reasoning is simply mind-boggling.

It is conceivable that nature is proof of the existence of God for those who already believe in Him. On the other hand, for those who do not know God, it could at most only be proof of the existence of a god, not of the one God who is revealed through His Son Jesus, by the action of the Holy Spirit. To claim that pagans have proof of the existence of God because trees are pretty is not only the zero level of infantilization, but it is also to deny that only the Holy Spirit can reveal Jesus to an unbeliever. Something that the Holy Spirit knows perfectly well, it is therefore impossible that He has revealed something contrary to anyone.

Furthermore, God does not demonstrate himself, he is encountered.

Yet according to Paul, those who do not realize this by relying on what they see are inexcusable... whereas he was not converted like that and should therefore also, according to his own words, be inexcusable.

Here is a contradiction that can be described as "simple," in the sense that it will not really require an explanation, but rather a simple clarification by bringing together two opposing statements of Paul.

Paul gives us some dietary advice, which, while it may be fashionable in some circles at the moment, is nonetheless irrelevant and, above all, because the problem is there, in opposition to a statement he will make to his friend Timothy. We are first told in the Epistle to the Romans that "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak" (Romans 14.21). I will not concern myself with his statement concerning meat, although I could dwell on it, but rather with his statement concerning wine. Indeed, he will later say to Timothy "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities" (1 Timothy 5.23).

Whatever his justification, in the present case of " frequent indispositions ", the fact remains that we see an opposition between a Paul who loudly proclaims that it is good not to drink wine when he speaks to a whole assembly, but who changes his speech as soon as he speaks to a particular person. We could try to justify this by saying that he wanted to avoid excesses in the church of Rome, but then why be so categorical and not simply specify that it is good not to make excesses of wine (or excesses of any kind) which would have been in agreement with his declaration to Timothy. It is clear that he used double language, probably involuntary, it goes without saying, but double language cannot be present if the texts are inspired.

The fact that this might be seen as a clumsiness of language does not alleviate the problem because that would imply that this clumsiness is that of the Holy Spirit.

• Ephesians 2.14-15 : For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us ; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances ; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace,

Once again, the law has not been abolished. This is one of the recurring points in the writings attributed to Paul. He disagrees about the fulfillment of the law and often returns to the subject of its supposed annihilation.

• Ephesians 3.4 : Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ.

Lol, when you have to say it...

If anyone were to make this statement today, everyone would see it as pride, even Paul's defenders. Yet we are led to believe that God, who always values ​​humility, would have inspired Paul to say such things through his Spirit.

• Ephesians 3.5 : Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.

We could spend time demonstrating the many revelations that were made in other generations, but I will only cite two evidences. The first is found in the first epistle of Peter and it tells us that : Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you : 11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. (1 Peter 1.10-11). This means that all the prophets, regardless of their era, had the Holy Spirit in them and had received the revelation of the sufferings of Jesus.

The second piece of evidence consists simply in the text of Isaiah 53, which I will let you read again.

• Ephesians 4.5 : One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

New statement totally false! There is not only one baptism, even Jesus, although baptized with water and the Spirit in the Jordan, announces the day before his crucifixion that he must still be baptized with another baptism. Which, contrary to what is professed by believers, makes 3 baptisms and not 1 as Paul affirms. This third baptism that no one ever speaks of is cited to us in two passages, the first being in the Gospel according to Mark and the second in the Gospel according to Luke :

Mark 10.38-39 : But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask : can ye drink of the cup that I drink of ? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ? 39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of ; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized.

Luke 12.50 : But I have a baptism to be baptized with ; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished.

In these passages, Jesus is clearly speaking of a baptism that is yet to come, and this is one day before his sacrifice. This clearly indicates three baptisms and not just one, as Paul claims.

• Ephesians 6.1-3 : Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 2 Honour thy father and mother ; which is the first commandment with promise ; 3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

This is the same Paul who said a little earlier that we are no longer under the law, and who suddenly justifies himself by it. A sort of self-service of faith. If you don't want the law, refer to this verse : For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Romans 10.4). On the other hand, if you need it, take up the one from Ephesians.

• Philippians 2.20-21 : For I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care for your state. 21 For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's.

As usual, he accuses gratuitously. It seems to me that the accuser of the brothers has a name.

It's surprising to note that calling everyone father is a typical Roman Catholic practice. Between their pope who calls himself the Holy Father, a title he usurps from God, and their priests and others who call themselves father at every turn, this title has almost no meaning anymore. It's also amusing to note that it was these same Roman Catholics who chose the texts of the new covenant. And in the first epistle to the Corinthians, we find this statement:

• 1 Corinthians 4.15-16 : For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers : for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

It is much more problematic than one might imagine.

The concept of a spiritual father is peculiar, but simple to summarize: God is our only Father, and no one else can be called that. This may bore some, but it's easy to understand:

• Matthew 23:9 : And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Yet the two verses of the first epistle to the Corinthians are much more meaningful than that. Paul begins with the statement : For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, which links to Matthew 23.8 : But be not ye called Rabbi : for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren, and he ends his statement by saying : be ye followers of me. Now, this statement links to the rest of the passage in the Gospel according to Matthew which told us : Neither be ye called masters : for one is your Master, even Christ (Matthew 23.10). The "master" is the "kathegetes" in greek and he is the one who gives the direction, therefore the one we imitate.

The significance of these two verses from Paul is particularly troubling. The Gospel of Matthew was written around 80 AD, while the Epistle to the Corinthians dates from 55 AD. This means that Paul, in order, advised blatant disobedience to three clear instructions from Jesus that, although spoken about 25 years earlier, would not be written down until 25 years later. How did he manage to put in a row and in order the three subjects that would be found in a Gospel that was not yet written and that would relate statements that were made when he was not present ? The order followed by Jesus makes sense when we understand that these three verses from the Gospel of Matthew are a prophecy detailing three successive events, the last of which would not occur for several centuries. But without understanding this prophecy, there is no reason to list these three things (master, father, director) in this order.

Obviously, in any case, we must keep in mind that Jesus expressly enjoins us not to call ourselves master, father, and director, and that Paul announces to the Corinthians that they have many masters, that he is their father and their director. Already with this alone, the madness of this passage from the Epistle to the Corinthians is established. But it is impossible to stop there and it is necessary to ask the question : how is this possible ? If it is a revelation of the Spirit, then we can wonder which spirit. It is obvious that the Holy Spirit could not have inspired a passage that is so in opposition to what Jesus says. Let us not forget that the Spirit takes from what is Jesus's to give it to us, and here, what Paul is supposed to have received is against the teaching of Jesus. So it is not the Spirit of God who inspired these two verses, and therefore the letter as a whole. But then, knowing that such a coincidence is not possible, being wrong three times in a row, in order, on three subjects that otherwise have no reason to be placed side by side can only mean one thing. The person who actually wrote this epistle knew the Gospel according to Matthew and wanted to create confusion. And here, we can only point the finger at the very people who put these epistles in the biblical canon and who, moreover, are the same people who had already put the apocrypha in the Jewish canon. The Roman Catholic "holy church."

This shows us even more how wary we should be of the epistles that have been attributed to Paul.

• 2 Corinthians 1.15 to 2.1 : he justifies himself when he should just ask for forgiveness.

In this passage, Paul spends verse after verse explaining why he couldn't come, even though it's pointless; it was enough to say that he thought he would come but was prevented and to ask forgiveness for saying he would do something he couldn't keep. Apparently, he has a problem with asking for it. Especially since he spends almost 20 verses justifying himself before ending up saying : Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth (2 Corinthians 1.23). We must therefore understand that he said he would come, that he didn't, but that it was their fault. Which he confirms by emphasizing that it was really against his own will, that he did violence to himself by not coming. His words speak better than I could : But I determined this with myself, that I would not come again to you in heaviness (2 Corinthians 2.1).

All this without mentioning the fact that he will expose throughout the passage the reasons which are not those for which he did not come.

• 2 Corinthians 2.8-9 : Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him. 9 For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things.

James gave us a pretty clear instruction : Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God : for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man : 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed ( James 1:13-14 ). So we should be wary: God doesn't tempt, but Paul does!

This also establishes that the trials Paul voluntarily initiated were not from God.

As for the fact that these trials, which do not come from God since God tempts no one, are supposed to demonstrate obedience, how could they demonstrate obedience to the God who does not validate them? We can therefore legitimately ask ourselves to whom the obedience he speaks of is directed.

• Galatians 3.28 : There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female : for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Wonderful lesson in unity.

However, we must not forget that this marvelous unity which makes each one equal to the other, which erases differences under the single banner of Christ, does not authorize women to speak in assemblies according to the same supposed writer of these epistles.

So all the same, but not so much.

We will quickly see two examples where Paul points out a fault in others, when his own statements only point to himself. While he was like what he describes and benefited from God's grace, he is content with heavily denigrating those he was, and to incite to vindictiveness, instead of simply calling them to conversion. If you had been part of some group that was an enemy of God and you ended up converting, wouldn't you wish that your former friends would do the same? Not Paul. He first states to the believers in the church of Galatia:

• Galatians 6.12-13 : As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. 13 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.
  

But he does not stop there in the condemnation, since his condemnation is not limited to being that of various behaviors, but also directly includes the people who practice them, forgetting that he was one of them. Let us remember that he said : Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men, (1 Thessalonians 2.15), forgetting that he was part of these Jews in question and that he was one of the last people that Stephen saw before being stoned while he was content to give his approval to his murder (Acts 8.1 : And Saul was consenting unto his death).

Here he does it again by pointing the finger at those who force believers to be circumcised to avoid persecution, when that is exactly what he did to Timothy : Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed ; but his father was a Greek : 2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek (Acts 16.1-3).

So it is clear from Paul's behavior that he condemns himself in the passages of Galatians 6.12-13 and 1 Thessalonians 2.15, since by accusing others he makes a point of his own behavior.

• Galatians 5.19-21 : Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Basically, although it is not a summary, we can conclude that if we eat too much we are doomed!!!

But we can also ask ourselves if by Jealousy we cannot see Paul's reaction, affirming that he was in no way inferior to the apostles, if by quarrels, disputes and divisions we cannot see his assertions on the supposed fault of Peter that he intends to spread among all, thus seeking to create division according to the book of Proverbs*. Division of which he himself says that it closes the door of heaven. But we can also ask ourselves how he can consider impurity as bad when it was part of the same sentence in which Peter announced the 4 prohibitions and which also contained the meats sacrificed to idols (meats sacrificed to idols, blood, strangled animals and impurity). He therefore decides that one part of the affirmation of the Holy Spirit and the apostles is valid, but not the other, enjoining the eating of all meats.

There is no consistency in these statements. Except for the fact that he condemns himself, having established that he did indeed recall a fault and thus created a division.

(* Proverbs 17.9 : He that covereth a transgression seeketh love ; but he that repeateth a matter separateth very friends).

• 1 Thessalonians 2.18 : Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again; but Satan hindered us.

So Satan decides for Paul, it's not God. He had already admitted to being bound by Satan, he does it again by specifying that it is he who makes the decisions concerning him.

Besides, it is God who decides. Psalm 115 tells us in verse 3 : But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased. We can therefore deduce that in any case, it was not God's will for him to go there, otherwise no one could have prevented it.

No one, except Paul himself, could have prevented him from doing God's will. And that's not to criticize him; it's simply a truth that applies to absolutely all believers. If God wants us to do something, Satan won't decide whether it happens or not. God's will is sovereign. Unfortunately, we often confuse God's will with our own, and then we pretend that Satan is preventing us from doing God's will instead of questioning ourselves.

The problem with this passage is not that Paul is claiming he wanted to go to the Thessalonians; we simply understand that it was his will, not God's, or it would have happened. And again, it's not a problem that it was his will. The problem is that he's blaming Satan for the failure of a decision he made, with which God clearly disagreed.

• 1 Timothy 1.8-9 : But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully ; 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

One could argue with the beginning of his statement, which, as is often the case, is a truism. He says that the law is good if used for good. One could then add that it is bad if used for evil? A perfect example of what 'talking for the sake of talking' means. Especially since, if we think about it further, he is arguing in these words that the value of the law depends on what we do with it, and not on the divine reason for its existence. In other words, by specifying 'Knowing this', he is saying that the law God gave to Moses is only good if we use it correctly. This implies that if we use it badly, then God has given us a bad law. And this is not a way of distorting what is said. He clearly states that the law God gave is only good under certain conditions, the condition being that we use it correctly.

Yet the real problem with this passage comes right after this "impressive" revelation that God's law is only good if used correctly. He adds, as a further sign that he has understood nothing about God's law, that the law is not : made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers. And let us recall that he presents himself as : a Pharisee, son of Pharisees (Acts 23.6), but that he obviously does not understand the basis of the basis concerning the law that God gave to Moses :

The law provides punishments for sin, so it is for the righteous to prevent them from becoming unrighteous. It is the punishments of the law that are for the wicked. Blessings are part of the law.

The whole passage to follow is interesting. He precedes it by considering his possible coming as a grace ("benefit" is "Charis" in greek, and means "grace"), which joins the many points proving his pride (2 Corinthians 1.15 : And in this confidence I was minded to come unto you before, that ye might have a second benefit). Then he presents two possibilities that could explain why he did not come, obviously sweeping them aside. In this case, why talk about it? It is of no interest. A bit as if, while Jesus was going to clean the feet of his disciples, the writers of the different versions of the gospel of Jesus Christ had spent three chapters giving us the list of what Jesus did not clean that day, or the list of all the people who were not present during the meal.

Here Paul lists the reasons that are not the ones that pushed her not to come when he wanted to. Funny. But the most impressive thing is that by trying to justify himself on one of these reasons that apparently do not concern him, he makes a huge doctrinal error. More precisely, on the second.

The first was levity, which he implies is not why he did not do what he wanted to do. The second concerns carnal resolutions which he obviously did not make, once again, according to his words (2 Corinthians 1.17 : ... do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea yea, and nay nay). All that follows will consist of showing us that these are not carnal resolutions.

This is where he will make his mistake. The text tells us this :

• 2 Corinthians 1.18-20 : But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay. 19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea. 20 For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

The beginning of his statement about Jesus is correct when he says that he was not yes and no. Unfortunately, although it is not very complicated, he does not seem to understand what it means. Matthew tells us about this by transcribing Jesus' words in these terms : But let your communication be, Yea, yea ; Nay, nay : for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil (Matthew 5.37). What this means is that both yes and no can be legitimate, but they cannot coexist, otherwise it is an addition that comes from the evil one.

What is not in God is yes and no, but there can be either. Paul adds that in God there is only yes, this is false, there is also no. All the prohibitions prove this.

A tiny bit bigger, and oh so shocking.

Believers have accepted an idea of ​​what happened on the cross that is based solely and exclusively on Paul's statements. When we look at all the other texts, we see that the narrative is not at all the same. Whether in the four versions of the Gospel of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), in the Book of Acts, in all the true epistles inspired by God (Hebrews, James, Peter 1 and 2, John 1 to 3 and Jude), or finally in the Book of Revelation, the cross is almost always absent.

If we obviously exclude the description of the events surrounding the sacrifice of Jesus, the notion of the cross is used only in two cases. The main one is that which consists of having to carry our own (Matthew 10.38 ; 16.24) (Mark 8.34) (Luke 9.23 ; 14.27). And, in a secondary way, the cross is used twice to recall how Jesus was put to death (Acts 2.23) (Hebrews 12.2), without carrying the slightest ounce of spirituality but only to recall the carnal cruelty of the sacrifice. Apart from these passages, no one ever speaks of the cross, it is only the weapon which was used to put Jesus to death, and if it has any importance, it is only because of the fulfillment of the multiple prophecies which pointed to it in their formulations. What is important is not the cross, but Jesus. None of Jesus' disciples who witnessed this final moment of Jesus' earthly life will ever speak of the cross. They were there when he was arrested; many of them witnessed the crucifixion from varying distances; and Jesus visited them after his resurrection. Yet each of them will always focus on Jesus and never speak of the cross.

The deceptions that believers have accepted without question all stem from Paul's idolatry. All the verses in the epistles attributed to Paul that speak of the cross follow, and they carry a meaning that the Word of God never emphasizes:

• 1 Corinthians 1.17-18 : For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
• Galatians 5.11 : And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution ? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
• Galatians 6.12 : As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.
• Galatians 6.14 : But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
• Ephesians 2.16 : And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.
• Philippians 3.18 : For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ.
• Colossians 1.20 : And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
• Colossians 2.14-15 : Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross ; 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

In these passages, people are not enemies of Jesus, but of the cross; believers are not persecuted because they belong to Jesus, they are persecuted because of the cross; it is not Jesus who saves us, but the cross; the scandal comes from the cross; Paul boasts of the cross; it is not the blood of Jesus that has value, but the blood of the cross.

The error in each of these passages could easily be detailed, but I will just cite one obvious fact. The religious people of Jesus' time wanted to put Lazarus to death because his existence was proof of what Jesus was doing. It was therefore not because of the cross because the sacrifice had not yet taken place. Jesus told us that if they persecuted him they will persecute us, that if they hated him, they will hate us (John 15.18-20). What the world does to us it does because of the name of Jesus, not because of the cross (John 15.21 : But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake). The world does not hate the cross, it is the weapon it chose to put Jesus to death, what it hates is Jesus. They hated him before, during and after his death which the cross represents.

We can try to lie to ourselves and pretend that this is just a colorful way of saying the same thing, but the reality is that it has given rise to unprecedented idolatry. The cross is everywhere, in all "churches," around the necks of a significant portion of believers, and even tattooed on the bodies of many. The texts attributed to Paul distort reality to focus on the weapon that was used to put Jesus to death rather than on Jesus himself. If Jesus had been hanged, they would be walking around with a rope around their necks.

The epistles attributed to Paul once again bring a completely different understanding of what God's Word tells us. They are a source of misguidance and idolatry.

There are several passages where Paul reveals his disagreement with Jesus' announced fulfillment of the law. This is yet another one. In the Epistle to the Colossians, he clarifies his point quite clearly.

• Colossians 2.14 : Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross ;

So obviously, he's once again trying to speak figuratively. However, the point is clear. "handwriting of ordinances that was against us" represents the law, because before the widespread revelation of grace, everyone was under the law and the ordinances. So he's claiming that Jesus took the law out of the way by nailing it to the cross. I leave it to everyone to either rack their brains to try to justify this claim, or to side with Jesus, who claims to have fulfilled the law.

The multiplication of cases of this type attests to the fact that Paul truly had a profound misunderstanding of the subject.

After proclaiming himself the father of many, Paul now designates the spiritual mother of believers. This is still quite far from the spirit of the Word of God. His statement is found in the Epistle to the Galatians:

• Galatians 4.26 : But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all ;

The 'revelation' is established. He is indeed speaking of the Jerusalem above, therefore of the heavenly Jerusalem, of which John will give us sufficient details to understand that it is not our mother. The most striking clarification concerning this precise point is this:

• Revelation 21.2 : And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

The description of the gates, the foundations, and the wall confirm that it is indeed the bride, not 'our mother.' Furthermore, the question of who is 'our spiritual mother' does not exist in the Word of God. On the other hand, divine motherhood is once again a preoccupation of a particular religion.

I have already spoken about the beginning of this passage, the first verse being composed of two parts, each of which is already an aberration. These two parts amount to nothing less than the negation of purification, since nothing is impure anymore. The second part of this verse affirms that impurity is a view of the mind and not a reality. What I will highlight this time is an affirmation from verse 15:

• Romans 14.14-15 : I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

What he is saying is that if we eat something and our spiritual brother feels sadness about it, then we are not walking in love. So if what we do saddens a brother, we are condemnable. Because it will cause his downfall. This means that I, who believe in the Word of God and who therefore recognize the affirmation of the Holy Spirit and all the apostles made in the book of Acts, confirmed by the book of Revelation, that it is forbidden to eat meats sacrificed to idols, if I ever saw a brother eating meats sacrificed to idols, it would cause my downfall and his condemnation for having saddened me. This implies that my salvation depends on the action of another, while each person is responsible for himself and not for others.

And what if each one is saddened by the other's food? Do we take advantage of it to fast?

This is the constant level of the epistles attributed to Paul, it is certain that the spirit that inspired them is not from God and is not God, this passage being yet another proof. It must also be taken into account, because I will not make a point again on this same passage, that what is told to us there is that if I do something right before God but someone does not understand that it is right, I must refrain from doing it so as not to sadden the one who does not understand the justice of God.

Funny.

Let's start by quoting the passage, and then look at it more closely:

• 1 Corinthians 10.27-29 : If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go ; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. 28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof : 29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience ?

So he's saying that if unconverted people invite us to eat with them, we should silence our conscience. This is exactly the meaning of verse 27. We should take everything, and if our conscience alerts us, then his advice is not to listen to it, and then he complains about a 'thorn in the flesh.' But what follows is even crazier. So he goes on to say that if anyone ever warns us that a piece of meat has been sacrificed to an idol, then we shouldn't eat it. Funny point, why shouldn't we eat it? He repeats at length that it doesn't matter, that the fact that a piece of meat has been sacrificed to idols doesn't change anything and that it doesn't make it impure. Yet, when unconverted people invite him to eat, if they tell him that the meat is of this type, he does not advise saying that it is not serious because it supposedly has no value, but he advises abstaining from it. The reason? The conscience of the other. Obviously, he cannot be talking about ours, since in verse 27 it is clear that we should not listen to him.

So he advises not to listen to our own conscience, but rather to consider that of others. Of course, he had to explain his statement at the end of verse 29 even more deeply. If one must abstain because of the conscience of another, he claims that this has an amusing reason : why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience ? So once again, he gives an example that turns out to be a counterexample. He is specifically talking about limiting his freedom to eat food sacrificed to idols because of the conscience of another, only to conclude that he does not see why his freedom would be judged by a foreign conscience. In his mind, this means that in order to avoid having his freedom judged, he does not use it. But from the moment he does not use it to avoid external judgment, it turns out that it ceases to be a freedom and becomes a constraint.

The concept of predestination has always been problematic because it effectively opposes free will. What many who raise this issue fail to realize is that Paul is the only one to put it forward in the sense of salvation being predetermined by God. He advocates this principle in four different verses, with a fifth using predestination in a different, more similar sense.

The four problematic verses are :

• Romans 8.29 : For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
• Romans 8.30 : Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
• Ephesians 1.5 : Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
• Ephesians 1.11 : In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will,

The fifth verse poses another problem, so I quote it so that all the verses on predestination are present:

• 1 Corinthians 2.7 : But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory,

Yet the Lord had been clear through the mouth of his prophet Ezekiel :

• Ezekiel 18.20-24 : The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. 23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live ? 24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

Verse 23 clearly tells us that God's will is for the wicked to change their ways and live. This is what God wants. This doesn't happen often. Everyone decides for themselves. The righteous can go away, and the wicked can return, and that is not the result of God's decision, but of man's. When Ananias comes to Paul in the book of Acts and says, "The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth" (Acts 22.14), this does not mean that Paul has no choice, he can refuse. He is only destined to know his will, not to accept it; that is his personal decision.

The same is true for each of us; we can accept and we can reject. God knows everything, because time does not exist for him and he is simultaneously at the beginning and the end of all things. Finally, to conclude, the best argument against predestination is none other than this particularly well-known verse from the Gospel of John:

• John 3.16 : For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Everyone has the opportunity to obtain eternal life; they only need to do God's work, which is to believe in the one he sent. To claim that there is a caste of predestined people because God has so decreed is a denial of God, because it destroys the justice without which the throne of God collapses.

Paul makes a strange statement about judgment, he tells us that : But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man (1 Corinthians 2.15). Yet it is written in the Gospel according to Matthew : Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged : and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again (Matthew 7.1-2). This verse does not say that we should not judge, since on the contrary we must do it according to righteousness and not according to appearances (John 7.24 : Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment), it tells us on the other hand, that we must be careful how we do it, precisely because we will be judged in the same way.

In this verse from the Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul's error is even on two levels. Because if the spiritual man judges everything, then he also judges his brothers and sisters and therefore he is judged by them. One could argue that he is only talking about judging spiritual things based on the previous verse : But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God : for they are foolishness unto him : neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned, yet he goes from judging spiritually the things of the Spirit of God to judging everything and enters into error.

Yet another notion that is universally accepted, yet runs counter to Jesus' message. It is evidently present only in the epistles attributed to Paul, and never elsewhere. It seems so obvious to everyone that no one really thinks about it. Paul highlights it five times.

• Romans 8.15 : For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
• Romans 8.23 : And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
• Romans 9.3-4 : For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh : 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises :
• Galatians 4.5 : To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
• Ephesians 1.5 : Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

According to his claims, we are children of God by adoption. And I won't even go into detail about the fact that Romans 8.23 tells us that we don't yet have this adoption when Romans 8.15 says that we do.

Yet, according to God's Word, we became children of God through the new birth and not through any kind of adoption. The Gospel of John gives us a particularly clear summary of this : But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name : 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1.12-13). Anyone who is adopted is a son, but that does not mean that he is different from what he was before being adopted. That is why God never wanted to adopt us, but to make us his children by birth by making us born again, in the spirit.

• John 3.5-8 : Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit".

Between who we were in the flesh and who we are in the spirit there is no bridge that adoption could bridge. It is not possible to pass from the first to the second without the death of the first.

• 1 John 4.7-8 : Beloved, let us love one another : for love is of God ; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

NOTE : This adoption mentality is typically Roman, a feature often found in Paul's epistles. To help understand :

Emperor Nerva will pass the throne to his adopted son Trajan,

Emperor Trajan will pass the throne to his adopted son Hadrian,

Emperor Hadrian will pass the throne to his adopted son Antoninus,

Emperor Antoninus will divide the reign. 1 Part for his adopted son Lucius Aurelius Verus,

Emperor Antoninus will divide the reign. 1 part for his adopted son Marcus Aurelius.

But before this impressive string of adoptions, Tiberius, Caligula and Nero were also adopted.