Wow! Happy Pentecostal Sunday! I had a pretty hectic week everybody! I was trying to do all the research on patterns with ‘name power’ and I found out that I couldn’t complete it.
If God wills it, we can go further into the patterns of this ‘name game’ in future articles, but for starters, let’s begin with this jesuswordsonly article on the significance of Paul’s name :
*************************************************************************************
Jesus’ Negative Prophesy About Paul in Matthew 5:17-19
Scholars going all the way back to Augustine in 390 AD say Paul was playing on the meaning of his name as "least" when he tells the Corinthians:
For I am the least [Greek elichistos, adj.] of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. (1 Cor. 15:9)
Paul was playing on Paul's Latin name "Paulus" meaning "least," as Augustine pointed out in 390 AD. (See below.) Paul did so again in Ephesians 3:8 (Biblehub.com) when Paul said “I am the very least (Greek elichistotero) of all saints....”)(See Bible Hub’s Greek tab.)
How is Paul playing on the meaning of his name Paulos as rendered in Greek? First, Paulos in Greek “is of Latin origin” from the Latin name of Paulus. See Strong’s 3972.
Then Paulus in Latin is a contracted form of the word "pauxillulus." (Matthew Martini, Lexicon philologicum (J.L. de Lorme, 1701) Vol. 2 at 194 ("Paulus, ex hoc... pauxillullus.")
Why is this true?
In Latin, long words were frequently cut down by omitting the middle syllables, and keeping just the first and last syllables. So pauxillulus becomes pau...lus or paulus for short. (John William Donaldson, Varrionianus: A Critical and Historical Introduction to the Ethnography etc. (1852) at page 435.)
This is like we say "can't" for "cannot." It is just simpler, and every English speaker knows what you mean.
How do we know the meaning of "paulus" as least?
The base meaning is from "paucus" (small, little). Then a diminutive meaning -- a lesser meaning -- is created by the suffix in bold in "pauxillum." As a dimunitive meaning, it now means "very few." Then next, the double dimunitive of "paucus" is "pauxillulus" - meaning a "very small quantity" (Félix Gaffiot’s Dictionnaire Illustré Latin-Français (Hachette 1934) at 1128.) Yet, with a word already meaning very small - "pauxillulus," a double dimunitive suffix now changes "very little" into a superlative diminutive meaning. It is thus more accurately translated by Holyoke as "least," or the "least that can be." (Thomas Holyhoke, A Large Dictionary in 3 Parts (1677) at 943.) As we shall see, Augustine confirms that is the correct meaning in his 390AD commentary on 1 Cor. 15:9.
Hence, the word "pauxillulus" in Latin means "least," and its contracted form is "paulus." It’s transliteration into Greek is Paulos which is how Paul is referred to in the NT.
Several mainstream Church commentators admit this, as explained below.
However, these scholars' admissions will lead to the unraveling of Paul under a prophecy of our Lord. For Jesus refers to those in the kingdom will use the name of "least" -- the singular feminine elichiston of the same root adjective in Greek as in 1 Cor. 15:9 (elichistos, masculine) - to identify one who teaches relaxation of obedience to the Law of Moses. Jesus contrasts this “least” person against the “great” who are in heaven whom Jesus says are those who “do” and “teach“ the Law’s commands.
This is in Matthew 5:19. This passage reads in the Young's Literal Translation:
'Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands -- the least -- and may teach men so, least [Greek, elichiston, feminine of adjective] he shall be called in the reign of the heavens, but whoever may do and may teach them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens. (Matt. 5:19, YLT.)
Then verse 20 indicates this least person who deprecates the Law, is, like the Pharisees, not “entering” the kingdom due to a shallow righteousness. Jesus taught in Matthew 23:23 that the Pharisees taught a shallow version of the Law...tithing, but “ignored the weightier principles of the Law on judgement” (right-and-wrong), “mercy” (see Exodus 20:6-7 on mercy’s conditions), and “pistis”—Greek for “faithfulness” (NIV) = “obedience” or “Faith“ (KJV).
The "commands" in verse 19 in context meant God's Law and the Prophets. Please remember in Acts 15 that the 12 apostles (with James overseeing) decided as to Gentiles that there were much fewer commands applicable in the Law to "sojourners in your gates" than to “sons of Israel,” starting with four laws. It did not include circumcision -- a command only applicable to "sons of Israel" in Lev 12:1-3. See link.
We will next review in detail the prophecy from Jesus about Paul in Matthew 5:17-19.
Paul's Name is Paulus
Luke tells us Saul was "also known as Paul." (Acts 13:9.) Luke never explains the origin of this name. Nowhere is it explained in the New Testament.
Whence came that name? And what does it mean?
Paulos in Greek in the NT is a word solely of Latin origin. It transliterated Paulus, an adjective in Latin meaning "least," as shown above. Why would Saul Paul have one name that is Latin?
Because Saul Paul as a Roman citizen from birth, as a citizen of Tarsus, had to have a Roman name. Saul is a Hebrew name. It turns out that Paulus is a Latin name rendered as Paulos in Greek.
Why did Paul have a Latin name? Luke tells us Saul of Tarsus was a Roman citizen by birth. Acts 22:28. This is verifiable because 100 years earlier, Roman politician Anthony had conferred Roman citizenship upon all the inhabitants of Tarsus, and this was later attested to by Emperor Caesar Augustus. (See Barnes Commentary notes at this link.)
However, to receive Roman citizenship, a Jew had to give the child a second name in Latin, typically belonging to the benefactor bestowing citizenship:
"When a foreigner received the right of citizenship, he took a new name, which was arranged on much the same principles as have been explained in the cases of freedmen. His original name was retained as a sort of cognomen, and before it were written the praenomen that suited his fancy and the nomen of the person, always a Roman citizen, to whom he owed his citizenship. " Harold W. Johnston, The Private Life of the Romans (Revised by Mary Johnston) (Scott, Foresman and Company: 1932) ch. 2.
So besides a Jewish name like Saul, his father had to give his son a Roman name. This is evidently why Paul has a Latin name Paulus. He would be known as "Paulus Saul." In the Greek NT, Paulus was transliterated as "Paulos."
Thus, because Paulus is a shortened form of the name Pauxillulus, what again does it mean in Latin?
Paulus/Pauxillulus Means 'Least"
Paulus is a contraction of Pauxillulus.
Pauxillulus in Latin means "least."
In the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, in order to explain why Paul calls himself the "least" (in Greek, elichiston, adj.) of the apostles in 1 Cor. 15:9, the commentators point out the meaning of Paul's true Latin name:
"The name, "Paulus," in Latin, means "least." (See also Biblos quote of Jamieson).
Likewise, we read in Farrar, The Life and Work of St. Paul (E.P. Dutton, 1880) at 200 or (1903) at 200 the meaning of Paul's name, and how Augustine ca. 390 AD explained Paul used it in 1 Cor. 15:9:
"Paulus, a contraction of Pauxillus [sic: Pauxillulus], means 'least.'" (citing a reference in Augustine's Sermons clxix; See version in French here.)
[My note: It appears he means Sermon 169:5. Cf Works of St. Augustine: A Translation for 21st Century (1992) at 225. See Sermon 169 in Latin.]
What Latin word did Augustine have in mind that means least? It turns out that the uncontracted form of Paul's name is Pauxillulus. Obviously, this is what Augustine was saying was Paul's true full name.
Paulus as Pauxillulus: Is It Prophetic Knowledge of Jesus? or Hate By Matthew?
Before we explain how Latin-speaker Augustine would have deduced Pauxillulus was Paul's full name from 1 Cor. 15:9, let me point out that we shall see later that Paul aficionados attribute anti-Paul references in the NT to hatred by the apostles for Paul or to false inserts by judaizers (with no proof), rather than believe it is a true prophecy of Jesus.
However, as we will now prove, only Jesus, not Matthew would have known the subtle means that Augustine used to detect that Paul's true full name in Latin was Pauxillulus. Apostle Matthew could not have plausibly known the sophisticated means that one could identify the name of Paul in Latin by its Greek synonym -- elichistos. Only Jesus plausibly could know Paul's true name and its meaning in Latin.
First, Augustine would have been aware that Paulus when expanded, could start as Pauxillulus. And it means "least."
Thomas Holyoke explains in A Large Dictionary in Three Parts (Sawbridge 1677) at "Pau ... Pec" that there are two words at issue that Paulus can form from: "Pauxillus...very little, exceeding few. Pauxillulus...the least that can be, extraordinarily few."
This means Augustine recognized Paul was implying that his name Paulus was a contraction from Pauxillulus, rather than from pauxillus.
Who but Jesus or a very proficient Latin speaker would know Pauxillulus is the same as Paul, and means least, and thus would know why Paul used a Greek adjective meaning least in 1 Cor. 15:9 to wittily allude to his name? Matthew certainly is a Jew from Galilee -- a backwater of Israel with little familiarity with Latin or Latin speakers, and could not possibly have known such subtle detection steps that a native speaker like Augustine used to figure it out.
Augustine's Explanation Was Limited to 1 Corinthians 15:9
Thus, "Paulus" meant "least" in Latin which was first revealed when intimated by Augustine in about 390 AD as the explanation of 1 Cor. 15:9.
Why didn't Augustine also see the link betwen 1 Cor. 15:9 and Matthew 5:19? After all, Paul is alluding to the meaning of his name in Latin as "least" using the Greek word "elichistos" -- which Jesus uses identically in Matthew 5:19 to mean "least"?
(Jesus via Matthew used the same root word with a feminine singular ending -- "elichiston." This does not change the meaning of a Greek adjective, as adjectives can vary the ending but not change their meaning.)
Thus, even though Jesus in Matthew 5:19 used "elichiston" in the feminine form to criticize the one who will negate the Law, and Paul -- the one who negates the Law numerous times -- alluded to his Latin name as meaning "elichistos" in 1 Cor. 15:9, Augustine simply missed the obvious connection. This shows Augustine made this admission unwittingly, unaware how it would prove Jesus was giving us a warning prophecy about Paul in Matthew 5:19.
Hence, Augustine made this connection without any intent to expose the prophecy we will be able to see ourselves in Matthew 5:19. This means Augustine, someone who relied upon and cited Paul often, had no intention of undermining Paul by drawing the connection between the Greek for least and the meaning of Paul's name in Latin as least. It was a completely unbiased objective observation.
.
Jesus Says the Kingdom Occupants Will Call By Name “Least” The One Who Teaches Against Keeping The Law
Who will the occupants of the kingdom of heaven call "least," according to our Lord Jesus? After mentioning the Law given Moses and the Prophets, Jesus says:
'Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands -- the least -- and may teach men so, least he shall be called in the reign of the heavens, but whoever may do and may teach them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens. (Matt. 5:19, YLT.)
The pastor of the Bethel Church of God explains correctly, as I detail below on the Greek grammar, "This text does not infer that those who break the commandments and teach men so will be in the kingdom of heaven, but they will be called the least by those who are there." ("Understanding Paul," Bethel Church of God, Eugene, Oregon (Nov. 17, 2012).)
Incidentally, the Greek for "loose" is "luo" and means "relax" or "loosen."
This verse thus literally says "the least (elichistos) he shall be called [by those] in the kingdom of heaven" who looses/relaxes any of the commands in the Law given Moses.
Scholarly Agreement 5:19 Is Anti-Paul Statement
Because the “least” is the one who loosens the Law in Matthew 5:19, Johannes Weiss (1863-1914), Professor of Theology at Heidelberg (see photo below), in Das Urchristentum (1917) said “least” in Matt 5:19 is a prophecy about Paul. In 1951, scholar S.G.F. Brandon agreed with Weiss, “that the least in the kingdom of heaven is a reference to Paul, the least of the apostles (cf 1 Cor 15:9).” (See D.C. Sim, “Matthew’s anti-Paulinism: A neglected feature of Matthean studies,” HTS 58(2) 2002 at 767 et seq. [link], citing S.G.F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church (2nd edition. London: SPCK, 1957) at 232-34.)
weiss_author_of_dasurchristentum00weisuoft_0006
Even the famous and highly influential pro-Paul Christian theologian Rudolf Bultmann acknowledged the plausibility of Weiss' contention, saying that Matthew 5:19 is a reference "perhaps to Paul himself." (Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (Trans. Kendrick Grobel)(N.Y.: Charles Scribner's & Sons, 1972) at 349 / Id., (1951) at 54.) See also, F.F. Powell, Robbing Peter to Pay Paul (2010) at 64, quoting Bultmann.)
In accord, David Hill in The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981) notes: "Many have found in this verse an attack on the work and teaching of Paul" (Id., at 119), and "it is claimed the term 'least' is a reference to Paul." See also "Matt. 5:19," Wikipedia.
Bromily in the International Bible Standard Encyclopedia (Eerdman's 1995) mentions some make the "argument that the warning in Mt. 5:19 about the man who 'relaxes one of these least commandments and teaches men so' is a covert attack by stricter Jewish Christians on Paul." Id., at 823.
This comment reflects a common tactic to deflect anti-Paul remarks by Jesus by attributing them to hatred of Paul by the apostles. See link to our review of Gray’s book on Anti-Paul remarks throughout history.
William David Davies & Dale C. Allison try to cast the issue less than certain (what in history is 100% certain?) by speculating others were equally anti-Law, and not just Paul, and perhaps Matthew did not know Paul's name meant "least." But otherwise, they admit too much. As followers of the Messiah-Yashua, we believe Jesus is speaking. The fact Matthew could not reasonably have known Paul's name meant 'least' in Latin bolsters this is a prophecy of our Lord rather than raises a question mark about whether Matthew understands what he is saying could apply to Paul. Indeed, the fact Matthew would lack the necessary knowledge of Latin to forge a prophecy like this into the text proves it is a true prophecy from our Lord Jesus about Paul. For Jesus certainly foresaw prophetically the Paul of several years in the future who would have a name meaning "least" in Latin. The fact Matthew would have no clue about a Latin meaning to "Paul" proves this is a genuine original prophecy of our Lord Jesus recorded by Apostle Matthew. Here is their nervous admissions:
It has, from time to time, been urged that Matt 5:19 adverts to Paul, who in one place called himself the 'least' of the apostles. (1 Cor. 5:19, the Latin Paulus = small). Now there is no doubt the polemical tone of 5:19: the verse was obviously formulated with laxness toward the Law in view. And we cannot exclude the possibility that Paul was originally the intended target. But this possibility remains far outside the bounds of certainty. There were many besides Paul who, at least in the eyes of others, set loose to the Law....And in any case one cannot be certain that Paul was known as the 'least. (A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew (1988) at 497.)
But the skepticism of these scholars that Matthew could not likely know Paul's name meant 'least' to discount this applies to Paul is proof itself this is a prophecy of Jesus. For only Jesus, and not the writer Matthew, would know for certain the true meaning in Latin of the name of the law-loosener to come -- Paul.
For an elaborate scholarly demonstration of several anti-Pauline passages in Matthew (from Jesus) including 5:19, see D.C. Sim, "Matthew’s anti-Paulinism: A neglected feature of Matthean studies," HTS 58(2) 2002 at 767 et seq., which we have excerpted here at this link. See also Sim, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism (1998) at 200 et seq.
So Who Is Called "Least" and Taught The Relaxation Of The Law?
Paul taught “the Law was our custodian until Christ came” (Gal.3:24) but since then, Jesus was “abolishing in his flesh the Law of commandments and ordinances” (Ephesians 2:15).
And Paul's name means "least" in Latin!
What prescience and subtlety had our Lord.
And thus all Paulinists who proudly proclaim Paul as their own wear the brand of our savior on their doctrine as one condemned. They are all followers of the "Least."
Called By Those in the Kingdom Does Not Place The Least One In The Kingdom
Some try saying 5:19 is about "the least in the kingdom of heaven," and thus the least is at least saved. Implicitly, this response seeks to weaken our concern if we follow the 'least' man, as Jesus describes this law-loosening teacher.
However, please scrupulously note it does not say in 5:19 the "least in the kingdom of heaven," but instead says "the least [he is] called in the kingdom of heaven," as the YLT correctly translated this verse. The Greek words in Matt 5:19 are "elechistos kiethestai en te basileia ton ouranon." Literally "least shall [he] be called in the kingdom of heaven." It NEVER SAYS the "least in the kingdom; rather "least shall [he] be called in the kingdom of heaven." The presence of the verb "call" between "least" and "in the kingdom" makes clear Jesus is not saying this "least" man is in heaven. Rather, those "in the kingdom" shall call this law-loosener "the Least."
The YLT brings out this important grammatical difference, which I will quote again so one can see the true grammatical construct of the sentence:
19`Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands -- the least -- and may teach men so, least he shall be called in the reign of the heavens, but whoever may do and may teach [them], he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens. (Matt. 5:19.)
It is verse 20 that proves the "least" one is lost (absent repentance) because Jesus then requires an obedience from us greater than the Pharisees. Jesus elsewhere explained why: the Pharisees had a shallow view of the Law which Jesus identified in Matt. 23:23 (regard for the lesser command of tithing but the Pharisees leave the rest undone, including the judgments of right and wrong, of mercy, and obedience — pistis.)
As a result, every scholar found who addresses this issue concurs that 5:19 means the “least” one remains outside the kingdom and is lost (absent repentance). For example, Adam Clarke, the famous Methodist commentator, explained in 1825 that “least” in 5:19 is understood as excluded from heaven, proven by 5:20:
“He who, by his mode of acting, speaking, or explaining the words of God, sets the holy precept aside, or explains away its force and meaning, shall be called least -- shall have no place in the kingdom of Christ here, nor in the kingdom of glory above. That this is the meaning of these words is evident enough from the following verse [i.e., 5:20].” (Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible (1825) Vol. V at 56.)
Likewise, Alexander B. Bruce, DD, Professor of Apologetics and New Testament Exegesis in the Free Church College in his The Kingdom of God (1897) at 66 says the "least" of 5:19 means to apply to a Pharisee identified next in 5:20 who “cares more for the little than the great commandments [Matt.23:23], [which] has no moral worth and is not in the kingdom at all."
In accord in reading 5:19-20 this way is the Protestant classic text, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ed.G.W. Bromiley) (1985) at 574. This says of 5:19 that Jesus means “those who erode the Law while supposedly protecting it will not even enter the kingdom (5:20).”
Similarly, James Blair, a famous theologian, in 1722 gave an insightful discourse which recognized this aspect to 5:19. He said: “The expression of least ... [must] signify to be totally excluded from [the kingdom of heaven].” See James Blair, Our Savior’s Divine Sermon on the Mount (5 vols.)(London: 1722) quoted in Edward L. Bond, Spreading the Gospel in Colonial Virginia: Sermons and Devotional Writings (Lexington: 2004) at 193).
Matthew Henry, the famous commentator, had the same opinion:
He that does so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven, in the kingdom of glory; he shall never come thither, but be eternally excluded; or, rather, in the kingdom of the gospel-church. He is so far from deserving the dignity of a teacher in it, that he shall not so much as be accounted a member of it. (Henry on 5:19, Bible Study Tools.)
Gill in his famous treatise suggests initially two possibilities on what "least" means, but then in light of 5:20, he ends up pointing toward exclusion from heaven as what 'least' signifies. He writes:
the least in the kingdom of heaven; meaning either the church of God, where he shall have neither a name, nor place; he shall not be in the least esteemed, but shall be cast out as a worthless man; or the ultimate state of happiness and glory, in the other world, where he shall not enter, as is said in the next verse; (Gill on 5:19, Bible Study Tools.)
Cf. Augustine Sermon on the Mount ch. VIII from Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene ("'the least one in the kingdom of heaven'...perhaps he will not be in the kingdom of heaven at all.")
This vast consensus underscores Jesus was speaking of shallow Law-principles of the Pharisees, which includes Paul, and Jesus identified that henceforth those who would be teachers that the Law is annulled / loosened and not to be obeyed would be called "Paul" / "Paulinists." The "Least One / Ones."
Parallels Jesus' Fault With Pharisees On Law, And Their Consequent Damned Status At The Time
What confirms the lost status of the least one who loosens the law (absent repentance) is Jesus identically criticized the Pharisees as loosening the Law except tithing and then Jesus says they and their children are not entering the kingdom as a result:
23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have OMITTED (KJV) LEFT UNDONE (ASV/Wycliff) neglected (NIV/YLT) the more important matters of the Law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.****
33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34'****
13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. [14] [b]
15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are. (Matt. 23 NIV.)
So here we see Jesus threatens hell (if no repentance) upon the Pharisees and those following their teachings which minimize the Law to tithing, omitting, neglecting or leaving undone the weightier matters of the Law. It is the same point Jesus made in Matt. 5:19-20.
This does not mean all who accept Paul in canon are not going to enter heaven; rather, it means all those who disregard the Law in reliance upon the Pharisee Paul, and do not do better in relation to the Law, will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Obedience to God's Law is crucial.
(FYI: The Law applicable to Gentiles is expressly far more narrow in the Law itself. It predominantly includes several chapters in Leviticus which largely repeat the 10 commandments apply to Gentiles. For discussion, see http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/JWO/law-applicable-today.html.)
Matthew 5:19 Is Hence Another Amazing Prophecy of Jesus
Jesus therefore prophesied -- for those who have ears to hear -- of Paulus -- the one who would come teaching men to no longer follow the Law. It was supposedly done away with, nailed to a tree, and made "dead to us." (Romans 7:1-6.) Indeed the one so teaching has that very name -- the "Least" -- Paul -- and will forever be called by that name by those entering the kingdom of heaven!
What an amazing prophecy of our Lord! It ranks up there right next to His prophecy that the Temple would one day be torn down. And His prophecy of the ravening wolves.
Unfortunately, this means that unless Paul and every Paulinist repented / repents before death of such doctrine and turns in obedience, it appears their doctrine is a damning one.
Confirmation from Book of Revelation That Jesus Warns of Paul
Corroboration that Jesus intended in Matthew 5:19 to prophesy about Paul (as a test) comes from examining how SUBTLY Revelation chapter two does likewise. It is an entire chapter of our Lord’s words. This prophecy about Paul is admitted by Renan, a defender of Paul, but he claims Rev. 2:2 were words put in Jesus' mouth by the early church leaders who hated Paul.
Renan in his famous defense of Paul in 1875 discounted Revelation chapter two as inauthentic because it was supposedly fabricated by Apostle John and the other apostles out of jealousy against Paul. However, if we conclude Jesus really spoke it (as I contend), then the same subtle message against Paul is in Revelation chapter two just as we find in Matthew 5:19.
Renan argued:
“The second and third chapters of the Apocalypse are a cry of hatred against Paul and his friends. This church of Ephesus, which owes so much to Paul, is praised for ‘not being able to bear with them which are evil; for having tried them, which say they are apostles and are not for having found them liars; for hating the deeds of the Nicolaitanes,... because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols....” (Ernest Renan, Saint Paul (G.W. Carleton, 1875) at 220.)
Why is Revelation chapter two supposedly a hateful diatribe? Because Renan is aware that Paul teaches repeatedly that there is nothing wrong in itself eating meat sacrificed to idols. (1 Cor. 8:4-13, and 1 Cor. 10:19-29.) And the words in Jesus' mouth in Revelation chapter two condemn this figure as a false prophet and apostle exposed at Ephesus.
Paulinists Know Paul Is Targeted by Matthew 5:19 and 23:23
For reasons similar to Renan's argument, the NT scholar E.P. Sanders in Jesus and Judaism (Foretress Press: 1985) at 277 defends Paul by saying Matt. 5:19 which contradicts Paul cannot thus be “an authentic saying of Jesus.” Sanders likewise says the related verse of Matt. 23:23 which portrays Jesus as believing the Pharisees are “not righteous enough” and that Jesus “favors a higher righteousness according to the law” which is at total odds with Paul proves Matt. 23:23 also does not reflect “the historical Jesus.” (As discussed above, Matt. 23:23, 31 confirms Jesus teaches the Pharisees had an anti-Torah position, except tithing, that Jesus said was damning.)
Desperation To Destroy Three Passages From Jesus
So the Paulinist is forced to deflect Jesus criticizes Paul -- subtly obviously -- by insisting Matthew 5:19 and 23:23 as well as all of chapter two of Revelation were fabrications. This is what Renan and Sanders collectively say is necessary to conclude so as to prevent our recognition that Jesus condemns Paul!
But for the one following Jesus Christ--our one and only teacher--the solution is not to dump Jesus' words in favor of Paul's. Rather, we discard Paul's contrary teachings. We need to hold onto those of our Lord Messiah.
Conclusion
Why then did Paul end up in Scripture?
It is a test from God. In Deut. 13:1-5, God says He permits false prophets with signs and wonders, and prophecies that "come to pass" to potentially seduce us from the Law to see whether we Love the Lord our God with our whole heart, mind and soul. We have to look at fruit as well as consistency with Torah/the Law and the Messiah's Words. Paul fails in every respect.
Have you passed the test from God on how to weigh Paul?
The End
Study Notes: Dead Sea Scrolls and Josephus Say Pharisees Are Loose About The Law
E.P. Sanders in the quote above dismisses the authenticity of Matthew 23:23 because he 'knows' the Pharisees were legalists, not anti-legalists. However, only Paul in the NT says the Pharisees were the "strictest" sect and that Paul was fully "righteous" when he complied with Pharisee training.
However, history has now caught up with Paul, and confirmed Jesus had the correct historical truth about the Pharisees. They were loose, not strict, about the Law. Here is the evidence:
The Dead Sea Scrolls (250-50 B.C.) speak comparably to what Jesus said about the flaws in the Pharisees' doctrine on the Law which meant they were heading to damnation. The DSS say the Pharisees were "smooth interpreters" of the Law. Horsley says this means the Pharisees' rulings "were lax and liberal" on how to interpret the Law. He says this is ironic, because the DSS give "quite a different picture from the Christian traditional stereotype of [the Pharisees] as strict legalists." (Richard A. Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark's Gospel (Westminster John Knox Press, 2001) at 153.)
Jesus's view of the Pharisees as anti-legalists is also confirmed by Josephus -- a Jewish scholar -- in his work Antiquities of the Jews (78 A.D.) For Josephus in 78 A.D. will explain there were two primary parties in Judaism in Jesus' day. They were the Sadducees and Pharisees. He will explain the Sadducees taught strict obedience to the Law. The Sadducees rejected the Pharisees precisely for their opposite approach on the Law of Moses. They believed the Pharisees supplanted the Law of Moses with mere traditions of the Pharisees. The Pharisees were negating the Law of Moses by their traditions.
Here is Josephus, the First Century Jewish historian, identifying what divided these two parties:
What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the Law of Moses; and it is for this reason that the Sadducees reject them, and say we are to esteem those observances that are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers. (Josephus Flavius, Antiquities of the Jews 13.10.6 (13.297)(Whiston translation (1841) at 360.)
Chaplain and Bishop Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667) said this variance in doctrine between the two sects is why Jesus in Matthew 5:20 says our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees rather than that of the Sadducees. In this verse, "Christ does not name the Sadducees, but the Scribes and the Pharisees." Jeremy traces this back to the shallow doctrine of the Pharisees, for they (not the Sadducees) would "add words of their own" to the Law, but the Sadducees "would admit of no suppletory traditions." (Jeremy Taylor, "Sermon 1: Righteousness Evangelical," Discourses on Various Subjects (Boston: 1816) at III:10.)
This is why Jesus exhorted us to exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees: it was shallow. The Sadducees alone were on the right track in terms of the Law. Hence, E.P. Sanders was wrong to rely upon Paul's views of the Pharisees to reject as inauthentic Matthew 23:23. Rather, Paul turns out to have described to a crowd / Gentiles incorrectly what it meant to be a Pharisee. I don't suppose Paul was lying, but instead, he suffered from a belief that the self-righteousness of Pharisees (as Jesus depicted them) was indeed appropriate righteousness when the 'Law' was in effect.
"Least in the Kingdom" Reference to John the Baptist
Some argue that it is not so bad to be called "least in the kingdom of heaven" as Jesus inaccurately is translated sometimes to say about the law-loosener in Matt 5:17-19. This is because in Matt 11:11 Jesus supposedly makes the same reference to John the Baptist.
However, Jesus does not do so. It is an English mistranslation in the King James and other English versions. And the expression is not "least in the kingdom" in Matt 5:17-19, but rather are "called least by those in the kingdom of heaven," implying the exclusion of the "least" man in Matt 5:17-19. However, in Matthew 11:11, it is clear that the one involved is actually IN the Kingdom of Heaven.
So let's read Matt 11:11 in the NIV form:
I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
The word rendered "least" in 11:11 does not mean that at all. It is a comparison term -- mikroteros, and means less. The word rendered "least" in Matt 5:19 is the superlative form, and its root form is elaxistos. There is thus a world of difference between less and least, but in English the same word was used in both cases where only in Matt 5:19 is it appropriate. (See this link at 11.) So Matthew 11:11 should be rendered:
I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is less in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Thayer explains mikroteros — a comparative not superlative form of the word micros meaning small — means inferior in rank or influence.
Hence, there is no parallelism in the original Greek between less in rank or influence — mikroteros — and least — elichthos in Matt 5:17-19. See Greek Comparative versus Suprlative Adjectives. Any perceived parallel is solely born of English mistranstranslation in Matt 11:11, whether unintentional or not does not matter.
PowerPoint Short-Presentation Available Online
**** NEW - This is presented in a 7 1/2 minute You Tube Video narrated Power Point presentation.****
Email Reactions to This Article
I would like to thank you for showing me something extremely important, that those who break the commandments of God, and teach others to do so, will be called least by those in the kingdom of heaven, and will not, in fact BE in the kingdom! I can't believe that I never read that verse correctly despite having read it a thousand times. It goes to show the importance of fellowship and discussion. (Sandy 9/4/2015)
I am particularly amazed by the second video on Paul's name meaning 'Least." I did not notice this question of the word least and the name Paul. (Ruy,author of Faithful to Jesus: Christianity and the Truth About The Apostle Paul (2012) -- available through his website at this link.(July 31, 2011)
Excellent article--very convincing. Thank you Doug! (Mike B, Esq., Jan. 19, 2011)
Yes, I had known for a long time that Paul's name meant the least, but never made the connection to Matthew 5:19. Thanks for this insight! Keep 'em coming! Shalom Ed. (Jan. 15, 2011.)
J. Jan. 10, 2011's Lengthy Letter:
Wow, this is impressive! I knew that “Paul” meant “small” but somehow the connection between “small” and “least” just never registered until I saw the word jump out at me in your message below. It’s like it’s one of those things that is hidden in plain view. Amazing.
When I consider 1 Cor. 15:9 after reading your comments, it really shows just how extremely clever and crafty he was (trying to diffuse the meaning of his name ahead of time). I also found your comments on the word itself (“least”) very interesting, because while I have considered that those who do not keep Torah are lost, the “least” statement puzzled me as to why it seemed to soften the blow. It makes perfect sense that it would be those IN the Kingdom who would be calling those lawbreakers “least.” This is another one of those things hidden in plain sight. Wow. You really nailed it.
You also answered my question about his name in your final paragraph (thank you!) as to whether or not the name “Paul” was really eligible to be considered as descriptive of him since we also know his name was Sha’ul. I did not know that Paul was anything more than just a nickname. That is pretty much the last nail in the coffin on this topic for me.
Good job, and thank you SO much for keeping me on your mailing list. I can almost see your excitement in sending this out after burning midnight oil! Shalom.
This is a Brilliant article that the Holy Spirit has revealed to you in these last days...Thanks for keeping an open ear and heart to the Holy Spirit for Him to speak these truths to you and then share them with the world. I pray that you will continue to receive more revelation as you Meditate on God's Word.Your work is so Good and has greatly Blessed my life...Thank you for taking the time to continue this Great work of freeing the Church from all the Lies and deceptions she has believed all these years. I am sharing everything I learn from you with others...(Gary Jan. 10, 2011.)
Pleasure to hear from you. This is stunning news. What have I been telling you? It's VERY serious. He's the Spouter of Lying!... You know his antinomianism. Jesus has at least FIVE references to him in the negative: "ravening wolf", "least in the kingdom", "some there [including false apostle to Ephesus] who hold the teaching of Balaam" (Rev. 2:2 and 14), etc. (Robert W. Jan. 10, 2011).
Comment at YouTube January 2012
sheepfollowingyashua 4 months ago
Wow!!! Thank you for the WEALTH of excellent articles on your website. You have put in so much time and effort to make these available for everyone to read. There's SO much clarification in them and it's very helpful as I'm trying to clear my thinking of all the Pauline cobwebs. And many there are.. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! May God richly bless you for sharing all that you have learned. I too desire to be a faithful servant.
As always, I find Doug's research and article thought provoking. I would like to point out too that even the name /character "Saul" is associated with "least." Check out 1 Samuel 9:21 and 1 Samuel 15:17. And interestingly enough King Saul losses his "Kingdom" because he didn't follow God's word. Perhaps another parallel? On a final note however, I can't say that I am convinced that all Paul believing/following Christians are lost. But thanks for the work Doug!!! (George Jan. 16, 2011)
My Reply. I do not believe "all Paul believing / following Christians are lost." I went back and revised the article to make that clear. I only believe what Jesus says. That those following the Pharisees loosened-law principles will not enter the kingdom if they do not do better than those law-looseners. (Matt. 5:20.) It is very much up to whether they "do the will of God" or not. That goes for all of us, as much as for them. But because of Paul as their teacher, they have little chance to do so until they overcome the obstacle Paul represents to hearing and obeying the Law. Remember as to Gentiles, the scope of the Law is limited to commands that sojourners/foreigners followed, principally the Ten Commandments and most of Leviticus 17-22. Only Israelites had to be circumcised under the Law; Gentiles were exempt unless they wish to celebrate passover or enter the Temple at Jerusalem. See my discussion at this link. (Jan. 17, 2011.)
You Tube Comment by Joe John
Joe John
Fantastic video. I also believe that Yehushua warned of Paul's doctrine.
Mat 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Which is the antitheses of the doctrine that Paul taught.
Rom 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Keep up the good work! Check out my video when you get a chance.
Study Aids
Precept Austin - details all commentary links to 5:19-20
Weiss mentions regarding Matthew 5:17-19: "the remark about him being least in the kingdom of God is explained as being a Jewish-Christian polemic against the Apostle Paul." (Bernhard Weiss, The Life of Christ (Edinburgh, 1888) Vol. II at 147.
**** NEW - This is now presented in a You Tube Video narrated Power Point presentation.****
Notes on Grammar.
How do such differing dimunitives get contracted to the same contracted name of Paulus? It is simple. As mentioned before, Latin writers frequently abbreviated such a long word by simply removing all the middle letters, and keeping just the beginning and ending. As explained in Donaldson's Varrionianus: "But the hasty pronunciation of the Romans, so far as it was exhibited in the written forms of the language, appears chiefly in the omission of syllables in the middle of words...." (John William Donaldson, Varrionianus: A Critical and Historical Introduction to the Ethnography etc. (1852) at page 435.)
In this way, Paulus is an abbreviation that expands into either Pauxillus or Pauxillulus. Augustine says Paul gave us a reference point in 1 Cor. 15:9 that we know it was the latter - Pauxillulus by Paul playing on the meaning of his Latin name.
So what is the background on the meaning of Pauxillulus?
Thus "extreme dimunitive" or superlative minimization of the word 'small' or 'little" in Latin is Pauxillulus, which predictably then means "least."
The fact paulus is a contracted form of both pauxillus and pauxillulus appears to be stated in Heinrich Keil in Grammatici latini ex recensione (ed. Heinrich Keil & Herman Hagan) (1855) at page 109 where he says in Latin: "facit igitur 'paulus,' 'paululus,' ex hoc 'pauxillus,' 'pauxillulus'...." This translates roughly as "'paulus, paululus' derives from 'pauxillus, pauxillulus...." This makes sense because if you contract pauxillulus to its simplest contraction it would be paulus. This is confirmed by Augustine's spoken use of Latin allowing him to recognize Paulus meant 'least' in Latin -- pauxillulus.
In Karl Gottlob Zumpt, A Grammar of the Latin Language (Longman Brown and Green, 1845) at 219, he similarly explains pauxillulus is a "Double diminutive[] ... formed from paucus...."
*************************************************************************************
Friends, you may try to imitate Paul as he commands, and Paul may be an imitator of Jesus (“Imitate me, as I also imitate Christ.” Pharisee Paul, 1 Corinthians 11 1), but as a matter of fact, using Paul’s name in your prayers will not help you anywhere near the amount that using Jesus’ name in prayers can help.
Consider the power behind Jesus’ name:
((((((((((( “Lord,” said Philip, “show us the Father, and that’s enough for us.”
Jesus said to him, “Have I been among you all this time and you do not know me, Philip? The one who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who lives in me does his works.
Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. Otherwise, believe because of the works themselves.
Truly I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do. And he will do even greater works than these, because I am going to the Father.
Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.”
John 14 8-14 ))))))))))
The name of Jesus is so important, that the pharisees, when they were constructing their own interpretation of the Bible, wrote in their oral traditions, the Talmud, a godless prayer as an anacronym for Jesus’ Hebrew name. Jesus was named after Yeshua (also called Yahoshua), meaning the one who saves, in Hebrew. The Pharisees, in their backwards like religion, instead of preaching that Christ’s name works miracles, preached that Jesus was a magician and that using his holy name was magic. To cement this brainwashing into their flock of lost sheep, the name ‘Yesu’ was used for Jesus, a Hebrew anacronym for “may his name be blotted out forever.’
Yet, what if a ‘jew,’ fleeing from this false religion of the pharisees and willing to live in the way of Truth and Life, starts reading a Hebrew bible (printed by well-meaning Christian evangelists for the purpose of converting Israeli jews) that has the word Yesu in it instead of Jesus, would that person not have prayers answered because of asking ‘Yesu’ instead of the proper name of Yeshua? I am sure that their prayers will be answered as long as that person has their mind focused on asking Jesus of Nazareth (the Jesus of Christ made of flesh and blood) and not the angel of light false Christ whom Paul preached of.
How many different languages are there that have a different spelling or pronunciation of Jesus’ name? Why would it make any difference what language a person speaks when it comes to calling out for help from Christ? If a person only knows him by the name of ‘Yesu’ because what the elders of their community taught for generations, Jesus will not be insulted from someone calling him ‘Yesu,’ even if that anacronym has been drilled into that person’s head so deep that they can’t help but think it every time the name ‘Yesu’ is mentioned. Think of how much humiliation and suffering Christ went through to save the world. The Messiah will not have his feelings hurt by someone calling his name Yesu, Jesus, Issa, or any other language. Jesus’ name is important, it is powerful, and it is holy, but using it is not a ‘secret password’ that only a select few have access to.
However significant Jesus’ name is, using it alone is not enough guarantee that your prayers will be answered. As we have seen in the above excerpt from the Gospel of John, it is necessary to believe, to have faith, in Jesus in order for your prayers to be answered, but there is another requirement needed for one to have their prayers answered. If we read further on in the Gospel of John, we can see what this requirement entails:
““I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. Every branch in me that does not produce fruit he removes, and he prunes every branch that produces fruit so that it will produce more fruit. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in me, and I in you. Just as a branch is unable to produce fruit by itself unless it remains on the vine, neither can you unless you remain in me.
I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in me and I in him produces much fruit, because you can do nothing without me. If anyone does not remain in me, he is thrown aside like a branch and he withers. They gather them, throw them into the fire, and they are burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you want and it will be done for you. My Father is glorified by this: that you produce much fruit and prove to be my disciples.
As the Father has loved me, I have also loved you. Remain in my love. If you keep my commands you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. I have told you these things so that my joy may be in you and your joy may be complete. This is my command: Love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you.
I do not call you slaves anymore, because a slave doesn’t know what his master is doing. I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything I have heard from my Father. You did not choose me, but I chose you. I appointed you to go and produce fruit and that your fruit should remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, He will give you. This is what I command you: Love one another.” Jesus Christ, John 15 1-17
We see from that excerpt that one to has to remain in Jesus for prayers to work, and that to remain in Jesus’ love means to keep Jesus’ commandments, especially the commandment to love one another. Basically, Jesus’ name has great power, and it even has the power to cast out demons, but one cannot use it like Aladdin’s lamp unless one a friend of Christ. Believe and obey Jesus, and he will do anything you ask. Since believing and obeying Jesus involves thinking, acting and living in agape love, there is no way possible that a friend of Christ will ask for anything bad. A perfect safeguard for this ‘magic’ (it’s really miraculous if you give it a try) cheat code in this great lifelong game of spiritual warfare.
“The specific type of love that is described as God in the Bible is altruism, not romantic or sexual love. Its name in Greek is ‘agape’ and it means selflessness, sacrifice, and unconditional care for others. Selflessness, another word for the abandonment of ego, and another similarity to the attainment of nirvana.
We can affirm that doing good is the purpose of life.
“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his one and only Son into the world so that we might live through him. Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No person has ever seen God, but if we love one another, God abides in us, and his love is fulfilled in us. By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. And we have seen and we testify that the Father has sent his Son as the world’s Savior. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God—God remains in him and he in God. And we have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.”
1 John 4 7-16 “
Of course, many believers can be presented with a problem in their lives when their prayers are not answered. What is a Christian to do? First of all, it is most important to keep faith in Jesus if this happens to you. God works in mysterious ways, and just because you have not been able to see the answer to your prayers does not mean that they did not work:
“Thomas (called “Twin”), one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples were telling him, “We’ve seen the Lord! ”
But he said to them, “If I don’t see the mark of the nails in his hands, put my finger into the mark of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will never believe.” A week later his disciples were indoors again, and Thomas was with them.
Even though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and look at my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Don’t be faithless, but believe.”
Thomas responded to him, “My Lord and my God! ”
Jesus said, “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” “ Christ Jesus, The Gospel of John 20 24-29
If you have not seen the answer to your prayers yet but still have faith in Christ Jesus, you are blessed. Do not give up hope, have faith. Ask God for a sign if you need help retaining your hope in Him, and say thank you when you receive it. I would like to shout out another thank you to Jesus and the anonymous hacker (or hackers?) that made a cyberattack on the Ascension network because the cyberattack also occurred on the same day that I asked for a sign from God to help me with my faith:
“A cyberattack is disrupting clinical operations at St. Louis-based Ascension.
On May 8, Ascension detected unusual activity on its network and said in a news release that it believes this is due to a cybersecurity incident.
"At this time we continue to investigate the situation. We responded immediately, initiated our investigation and activated our remediation efforts," the release reads. "Access to some systems have been interrupted as this process continues."
Ascension said the incident has affected clinical operations and that it is recommending its business partners "temporarily suspend" their connection to the health system environment.
Cybersecurity firm Mandiant is aiding Ascension's investigation. Ascension said if sensitive information was compromised, it will immediately notify affected individuals.
News outlets are reporting that the incident is affecting Ascension facilities in Florida, Wisconsin, Texas, Oklahoma, Indiana and Michigan.
Ascension includes 140 hospitals and 40 older adult living facilities in 19 states.”
This cyberattack happened at a very significant moment, specifically one day after I had posted up the unfair persecution of Scott Schara who was served an unconstitutional ‘gag order’ on his freedom of speech for the purpose of letting doctors and nurses that work for St. Elizabeth’s hospital in Appleton, Wisconsin get away with murdering his daughter, Grace.
“We all may end up being murdered by doctors and nurses like Grace Schara was in the St. Elizabeth Hospital in Appleton, Wisconsin.
“her death at St. Elizabeth Hospital in Appleton, WI was the direct result of medical staff administering a lethal combination of drugs well-documented to hasten severe hypoxia and result in death……. the hospital’s staff refused to perform lifesaving measures such as CPR, and that one of the victim’s physicians had fraudulently designated her as a “Do Not Resuscitate” (DNR) patient.
Scott Schara, after being removed from the hospital by an armed guard, was then forced to watch his daughter die over FaceTime as Ascension’s medical staff abjectly refused his and his family’s repeated requests to save her life “
It’s a shame that those murderers want to play lowball and put a gag order on her father, Scott, to forbid him to speak to the public about how those doctors and nurses murdered his daughter. They should just admit that they killed people on purpose for that cool 50 grand that was paid out to every hospital for every single ‘covid’ death whether they died of ‘covid’ or not. I wonder if the names of those doctors and nurses are available. The public should be made aware because those serial killers are still at large, and someone should send that hospital a notice of liability for the bioweapon injection. “
Thank God for the timing of those anonymous hackers, because I’ve been going through some pretty sad times in my own life knowing that my other half was imprisoned in a place worse than jail. A place where they violated the Temple of God (her body) with intravenous injections of mind-altering psychotropic drugs every time another inmate got mad at her and started fighting (and vice versa considering the side effects of those mind-altering psychotropic drugs which should be prohibited.) She wasn’t arrested for anything, she didn’t sign anything, but that’s where ‘society’ had put her. Locked down in a place where she had no escape but to sign under duress whatever papers they shoved in front of her face, a place where there was no sun, and a place where she was also vulnerable to crazy men, because her jailers (hospital staff) did not do well in keeping separate the men inmates from the women. Yes, the right not to be forced to take drugs of any kind includes psychiatric drugs just as much as vaxxxxines, and those psychiatrists drug pushers are actually the psychotic ones, like Dr. Mengele.
The cycle of forced drugging, the withdrawal effects of trying to quit those psychotic ‘medications,’ forced hospitalization, and back to forced drugging is incredibly hard to break, especially considering that the drug pushing ‘doctors’ offer next to no help in quitting those psychotic drugs safely. Combine this with the fact that ‘mental illness’ is FAKE, PHONY, and a FRAUD:
“There is no such thing as mental illness, declared Szasz, since it fails the standard scientific test for disease, as established by the German physician, Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902), the originator of cell theory: a disease is a bodily lesion, objectively identifiable by anatomical, physiological, or other physicochemical observation or measurement. In other words, for an illness or disease to be present, it must be observable at an anatomical level, such as under a microscope.
Cancer, pneumonia and tuberculosis all meet this test. Schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and Attention Deficit Disorders do not. These are simply forms of “misbehaviour” that psychiatrists have labelled and medicalised.
In fact, no mental “illness” satisfies the standard definition of disease. As pointed out by psychiatrist Peter Breggin, author of Toxic Psychiatry, there is no such thing as a chemical imbalance in the brain unless one starts taking anti-depressants or anti-psychotic medication. None of the hundreds of other disorders from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), which is the psychiatrists’ billing bible, meet the standard definition of illness.” https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/06/ciaran-ryan/the-myth-of-mental-illness/
and we see that the entire industry of psychiatry is based on treating problems that they (psycho doctors) themselves caused (with the initiation of psychotropic drugs into innocent victims that believe the doctor’s lies). What those psycho ‘mental health’ doctors perpetuate is a crime against humanity. How many innocent people have been killed by someone that was quitting those drugs cold turkey? How many victims of the psychiatrists are imprisoned for committing crimes that those drugs (the psychotropic drugs that the psycho doctors pushed on them) made them do? How long will the True Israel, the Christians, tolerate these violations of God’s Holy Temple? It’s hard enough trying to get the nanobot c0vid 19 injections destroyed, how much harder can it be to root out these abominations which are so deeply entrenched into American culture? Yet, we know that it can be done if we believe:
“For truly I tell you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will tell this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” Lord Jesus Christ, Matthew 17 20
Yes, God’s Will will be done, but at God’s speed. We must accept that we are only of human understanding and we do not know when God’s patience will be over and the day of the Lord will come:
“Dear friends, don’t overlook this one fact: With the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord does not delay his promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief; on that day the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, the elements will burn and be dissolved, and the earth and the works on it will be disclosed.” The Apostle Peter, 2 Peter 3 8-10
Let us consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as the Apostle Peter told us (2 Peter 3 15), and cultivate patience within ourselves as well. If we are able to work such powerful miracles in Jesus’ name and our prayers are not answered, it behooves us believers to discover the reasons why our prayers have not been answered rather than to get frustrated and give up hope if this happens.
In my personal experiences, starting from the past leading up until now, my prayers first did not get answered because I was praying to the wrong Jesus. Could one be deceived by a fallen angel of light simply because that demonic being called itself Jesus, the same name as the Messiah? Yes, it is possible, especially if one does not test the spirit.
“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming; even now it is already in the world.” The Beloved Apostle John, 1 John 4 1-2
If a person prays to the false Christ of Paul, their prayers are likely not to be answered. One must have Jesus of Nazareth in mind, the Living Christ who walked among us and proved himself to the Apostle Thomas with his flesh and blood, one must have him in mind when calling out his name in prayer if one wants God’s power to move mountains. This counterfeit Jesus is not what was blocking the answer to my prayers this time however.
Let us review the prerequisites which must be met before prayers are answered:
1. We have to believe in Christ
2. We have to pray to the real Christ
3. We have to remain in Christ
Which one do you think I had not fulfilled? After much self-reflection, I have to say it was number 3. Remaining in Christ is something that believers have to constantly upkeep throughout our lives, because after all, aside from Jesus, none of us are perfect, and we all make mistakes. People are uncomfortable talking about their mistakes, and this lack of confession and forgiveness in communication makes it hard for others who learn by example not to repeat the same mistakes. This is why, I am going to say what I did wrong even though it is potentially humiliating for me. It is important for others who may want their prayers answered not to stumble into sin if it can be helped. So, what sin did I fix in order to have my prayers answered? I’m going to do my best to give enough information so that someone can understand but leave out the ‘trigger words’ without being too vague.
When a couple is married, making love can become a habit. If one person in the relationship is separated from the other, being made of the flesh, it can become easier for either person in the relationship to become tempted or think impurely about people outside of the relationship. (((((Funnily enough, I don’t think turtles are susceptible to this kind of weakness considering that a female snapping turtle can hold the sperm of a male snapping turtle for over a year and still fertilize her eggs from that mating ‘ritual’ that happened that previous year. I wonder how I can fit that fun fact into my still unfinished book: Turtle Power Fishing…)))))
Anyway, the point is:
“everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Jesus Christ, Matthew 5 28
It sounds to me that in addition to forbidding physical adultery, Jesus extends this command further spiritually. One should guard against being mesmerized by someone outside the relationship too. I believe this extends to the digital realm as well. The female body can be a powerful hypnotic symbol to a man. The silhouette of a woman has even been hidden in ice cubes to exert subliminal control, similar to symbols of death, such as the skull.
(42 58- 43 26)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/S0uphDy0owzk/
My wife thinks that if I look at pictures or moving pictures on the internet and become ‘hypnotized’ by them, it’s no big deal and every time that happens, I say sorry to her, because I know that Jesus doesn’t want me to do that because that it is adultery against her, and she forgives me. The problem is that recently, not only did she lose her mind (hopefully temporarily) because of all the trauma and forced drugging in her imprisonment at the hospital, I was not able to communicate with her much about anything because that place was more restrictive than jail. So, I could not ask for forgiveness from her and the bad habit I slipped into had made me fall out from Jesus.
After praying that the injections would not harm her and asking Jesus to free her from that prison psycho hospital (yet again), and not having my prayers answered immediately, I did not lose faith in Jesus, but asked for a sign to help me keep my faith. This was answered by the attack on the Ascension medical system. After further introspection, I discovered what the problem was and asked for Jesus’ help to fix it. Even just not looking at the internet is not enough sometimes because it’s kind of hard getting out those kinds of images or sounds that have been ‘burned’ into my own head. I imagine it’s hard for other people to do this as well. I feel kind of silly explaining the ‘how to’ I learned to do this but maybe it can help someone in their own lives out so I’ll say it. I had to take the memory of my wife’s face and imagine it overlaid on those hypnotic images so to speak. Let’s just say, most of those videos I got hypnotized by did not involve situations I wanted to see my wife in, so even though imagining her in such “motion pictures” may have rekindled a flame for her in some way, I don’t really want to think about those things again. My favorite memories are when my wife and I were both young together, and I encourage everyone who possibly can, to couple together and marry ‘young’ so that they can share good memories together such as that (people still call me young, but thinking about all my problems has me feeling like I’m a thousand years old, I’ve got to stop feeling sorry for myself).
I still have to upkeep my thoughts to remain in Christ, but at least my prayers were answered. My wife was released 2 days after the cyberattack sign. She refused all psycho drugs during her imprisonment at that '‘healthcare’ place, but was forcibly injected 5 times anyway.
I had prayed to Jesus that he should protect her from all drugs, and she told me when the six nurses and the doctor held her down and stabbed the needle in her arm, she heard a voice telling her (not a doctor) that she is protected and the drugs will not affect her. That’s the reason why I haven’t gone into madness right now, because I have faith. To unbelievers (like those psycho doctors and nurses that work to take away all hope from those imprisoned at Streamwood Behavioral Healthcare System in Streamwood, Illinois) they think that faith is madness, but to me, faith is what is keeping me from madness and what is sparing their lives, for now. We need to destroy this psychiatric part of the medical industrial complex along with the rest of that system if we want the bodies of future generations, the Holy Temple of God, to be safe from contamination from these iron mixed with clay nanobots which are hidden in almost every drug these pharmakoi people push. Since its inception, psychiatry has also been used as a weapon against political dissidents, so it is imperative that this gets done.
Why do I not go juramentado right now? There are a few reasons. I am patient because I know God wants His people who were ignorant of the evil they unknowingly committed to be made aware of their sins so they can stop sinning and ask for forgiveness, and I know that justice will be done to those unrepentant scoffers that violate God’s Temple in such an abominable way.
Additionally, I got way more than one score to settle. I’m not going to just blow it all away by losing my temper on one of them.
(1 12 48 - 1 15 00)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/aBCeFCY73QeI/
I believe that God helps those who help themselves, that with God’s help my prayers for justice will be answered, and I will be patiently waiting for when the time will be right for me to act.
If someone else wants to go kamikaze + juramentado = one way ticket to paradise, that is your own decision, and I still admire those that have that kind of courage. I think that sending this letter of notice to the ‘authority’ satisfies the first condition of just war theory:
“This is the template for the warning letter any person willing to give their life up for the anti vaxxxxx movement needs to send to law enforcement in the Spirit of Truth, that zeitgeist for this New Age of Iron Mixed with Clay, to give them notice before more drastic action is taken. It’s only fair to give them warning, to show the Revelation of the Method, in this time of Making Manifest All That is Hidden. “
Since we the people are the governing authority in America, that letter of notice should be enough to absolve any moral and ethical guilt for accidentally hurting innocents when physically participating in this spiritual war, if one gives one’s life up to stop the egregious violations upon God’s Holy Temple.
“Most scholars agree that, to be considered just, a war must meet several jus ad bellum requirements. The four most important conditions are: (1) the war must be declared openly by a proper sovereign authority (e.g., the governing authority of the political community in question); (2) the war must have a just cause (e.g., defense of the common good or a response to grave injustice); (3) the warring state must have just intentions (i.e., it must wage the war for justice rather than for self-interest); and (4) the aim of the war must be the establishment of a just peace. Since the end of World War II it has become customary to add three other conditions: (1) there must be a reasonable chance of success; (2) force must be used as a last resort; and (3) the expected benefits of war must outweigh its anticipated costs.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/just-war
It looks like all the other conditions for a just war (according to the excerpt of this article) are satisfied in this 5th generation war against the nanobot vaxxxxxines, even though, from what I heard, St. Augustine tried to make these conditions impossible to meet so that no one could declare a war. I should read up more on that guy.
To sum it all up, don’t lose faith if your prayers do not get answered. We of the flesh, with only a limited span of life in this world, have only a limited understanding of the patience of the Eternal God. If you believe and remain in Jesus, you know that your prayers will be answered, even if God’s speed is slow like a turtle for some of the things you ask for. Keep in mind that if you ask for many different things, it may get confusing and the answers to your prayers may look paradoxical at first. As the sayings go: God works in mysterious ways and be careful what you wish for.
Have Fun Everyone!
Post Scriptum
This jesuswordsonly guy keeps reiterating this judaizing law of Moses stuff:
“For Jesus refers to those in the kingdom will use the name of "least" -- the singular feminine elichiston of the same root adjective in Greek as in 1 Cor. 15:9 (elichistos, masculine) - to identify one who teaches relaxation of obedience to the Law of Moses. Jesus contrasts this “least” person against the “great” who are in heaven whom Jesus says are those who “do” and “teach“ the Law’s commands”
There may be a few more quotes like this, I just skimmed through the article and missed these parts before I posted up. I feel the need to repeat that I disagree with the author on this Law of Moses part, my argument is that the Law of Moses was not destroyed as this Pharisee Paul claimed, Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses, and in doing so, Jesus’ commands now become the law.
The greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart, mind and soul. The second commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. A lesser commandment may be thought of as “do not look at a woman with lust in your heart because that is the beginning of adultery.” Strangely enough, Paul included the second commandment in his epistles, but he said it in such a way that it hid the greatest commandment from people. Here’s Paul’s poisonous gospel:
“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; you shall not murder; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.” Pharisee Paul, Romans 13 8-10
So, Paul doesn’t preach the little commandments at all and he teaches, to the unknowing, that practicing that the second greatest commandment fulfills the greatest commandment.
I get the feeling, skimming through some of this jesuswordsonly guy’s articles, that he felt one way about circumcision and dietary law when he began his research, and as time went on, he softened his position a bit. Even though he may have changed his stance on a few issues, he didn’t change the articles I was able to copy, so I have to repeat my 2 cents on the subject again:
“‘Jewish’ believers in Christ obviously still wanted to continue the circumcision ritual as sort of an initiation into their society, but the Apostle Peter prevented them from spreading this barbaric custom to the gentiles in Europe:
“some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the mosaic law.”
The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter. After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.” (Acts 15:5-11)
Later on, we see James including the prohibitions from eating blood, eating the meat of strangled animals, eating meat from animals sacrificed to idols, and ‘unlawful marriage’ (in other bibles, fornication) in a message that was to be sent to gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:23-29).
Why would James include these prohibitions if mosaic law had already been fulfilled and we are now living under the WORD of Lord Jesus? Antioch, Syria and Cilicia are all places in Asia. They are all near modern day Palestine, which means they all would have had a heavy saturation of a ‘jewish’ population within their borders. James was basically telling the gentiles in those areas to abstain from doing things which would make them look impure in the eyes of the ‘jews’ because they had been brainwashed by Moses in every town around there for generations:
“Therefore I say, let us not trouble those who are being turned to God from the Gentiles. But let it be sent to them that they separate from the defilement of sacrifices and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For from the first ages there have been preachers for Moses who read him on every Sabbath in every town in the synagogues.” (Acts 15:19-21)
Imagine if an uncircumcised gentile falls in love with a ‘jewish’ woman of that time and in an area near there; a gentile ignorant of the fact that generations of people have been conditioned by the story of Genesis 34, when an uncircumcised ‘prince’ raped Dinah (the sister of the 12 sons of Jacob, one of the ‘jewish’ patriarchs) and 2 of those brothers killed all the males of that kingdom as retribution. Yes, the main point of the story was that Dinah was raped and yes, rape is a mortal sin. However, the underbelly of that story, the insult to injury was that the ‘prince’ was uncircumcised. Yes, the circumcision ritual causes babies unimaginable pain and it can cause massive psychological damage (that is why Peter made the point that both gentile and ‘jew’ are saved through the grace of Lord Jesus instead of the unbearable yoke of mosaic law) but still, if an uncircumcised gentile married a ‘jewish’ woman of that time and place, it is not a stretch to believe that the men of that woman’s family (a family steeped in the brainwashing of mosaic law for generations) would probably feel like killing their brother-in-law, at the very least. How the Apostles may have planned to reverse the centuries of traditional infant circumcision brainwashing within that culture is beyond the scope of this article; it seems that whatever plans they may have had were not according to God’s will.
Also notice that eating swine is not on the list. This omission tips the scales in the favor of the interpretation that James was not trying to command a return to mosaic law, but he was simply trying to make sure these gentiles that likely lived among a majority of ‘jews’ would not have an angry mob of people running after them trying to kill them. If James was trying to command a return to mosaic law, then swine would most certainly be added to this letter. Since the swine is not on the list, we can conclude that James did not foresee these gentiles being able to purchase pork to eat in these ‘jew’ saturated areas. Thus, the reasoning of James to include abstaining from eating blood, eating strangled animals, eating sacrificed animals, and practicing ‘unlawful marriage’ was specifically so that the ‘foreigners’ (gentiles, likely the Greek and Roman conquerors) to Palestine would not piss the local ‘jewish’ people off or gross those locals out so much that they wouldn’t want to talk to them. Which, as fate would have it, is exactly what happened with Paul.
James apparently didn’t think it was necessary to warn uncircumcised gentiles not to go into the temple area. Maybe James thought that was obvious, and maybe the mob of people that were angry at Paul jumped to conclusions when they saw Trophimus in Jerusalem, I don’t know. What we do know is that when concerning the letter to the gentiles referred to by the Apostle James in Acts 15:23-29 and Acts 21:25, it is 100 times more likely that James was trying to prevent a riot rather than promote a return to mosaic law under a covenant which had already been fulfilled.
So that means that we can all enjoy our bacon and our blood pudding guilt free, as long as it is not made with human blood, but that should be obvious. “
Honestly, I am not as well read on Old Testament literature as much as I am on New Testament stuff, so I can’t really debate on the subject as strongly as I’m feeling on it. I’m thinking that the 10 commandments and the words Jesus spoke are what should be obeyed.
What do you think?