<Section #4> Clay Douglas states: “Paul crafted Christianity as we know it today. In reality, we learn little about Immanuel’s actual life on earth, his experiences and his teachings from the Scriptures. Astonishingly, Jesus did not really create the basis for Christianity. As a matter of fact, Immanuel/Jesus warned his followers NOT to organize a formal church network from His teachings; but - rather - encouraged them to pray in .small informal groups. Most of the New Testament doesn’t even concern the historical Jesus, while the main influence AND focus is the Apostle Paul. It was Paul of Tarsus who renamed Immanuel ‘Jesus Christ’ (although Immanuel had consistently cautioned all of His followers not to be fooled by those who would falsify His name and call Him ‘Jesus the MESSIAH’ - that He was not the ‘Messiah’ come to save anyone!”
In reply to section <#4>: So few words, yet so many lies! I’m beginning to wonder whether someone swapped Clay Douglas’ Bible with a copy of the Talmud, and he hasn’t yet noticed it! Where else could Douglas get these statements from, and why doesn’t he make citations? Likely because he CAN’T make citations, and is inventing his own philosophy! And under the slightest scrutiny it shall disintegrate, just like fragile Clay (pun intended). Where did Christ “warn his followers NOT to organize a formal church network”? Not that I’m advocating one, but I only want to know where the warning is, along with His encouragement only “to pray in small informal groups.” The schematic for Christian community proposed by Paul is nothing like what the catholic “church” became. Paul proposed no formal mega-church with popes, bishops, nuns, and the like. This was the work of later oppressors. The catholic “church” as we know it didn’t begin to take shape until the 6th century A.D., and can’t be blamed on Paul! Paul only proposed that each individual community govern itself, with the elders appointing an overseer (supervisor or “bishop”) who would answer to them and manage the day to day affairs of widows, ministers (be they teachers or doing other services) and the like. Evidently Douglas hasn’t read Paul very closely, as these things are evident throughout his epistles. Neither does Douglas know history! For even Eusebius in his church history complained of how certain 4th century bishops of Rome were attempting to usurp authority over the other bishops, of churches Paul helped found, and they resisted any such thing! Only an ignoramus would blame Paul for the overbearing church organizations of the later centuries.
Douglas complains that from the scripture “we learn little about Immanuel’s actual life on earth.” Was this Paul’s fault? What does Douglas want? “Jesus: the miniseries”? “Jesus goes to high school”? “The Jesus diet”? That’s in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14! Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote exactly what they thought necessary for us to have. Certain first and second century jews had a complaint similar to Douglas’, and began to manufacture fairy tales to substitute for what they thought was lacking! Some of these are found in The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden. Should Paul answer to Douglas for not founding a first century version of People Magazine? More is known about the life of Christ than about most men of the first century, yet I believe that whatever Douglas had, he would not be satisfied with – for he hasn’t even read what he does have! This is readily evident!
Douglas also complained that “we learn little about ... his teachings from the Scriptures” and then goes on to say that Christ did not accept that He was “Jesus the Messiah”, and that “He was not the ‘Messiah’ come to save anyone!” Incredible! Here it is, and it can’t be any plainer. Clayton Douglas is no better than a jew by his own admission: for he denies not only Paul but the entire New Testament, and has adopted fully the position of the jews!!!
First there is Daniel 9 and the vision of the 70 weeks. If we understand the chronology of Ezra and Nehemiah, 483 years may be counted from the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and we would arrive at 28 A.D., the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar and the beginning of Christ’s ministry: the coming of “Messiah the Prince” of Daniel 9:25, who was Yahshua Christ, who was “cut off” 3 ½ years later at Passover, in the middle of the 70th week (483=69x7, a day being a year in prophecy). So Douglas denies Daniel.
Then there is John. At John 1:41 the apostle puts these words down, as having come from the mouth of Andrew: “We have found the Messiah”, and says: “which is, being interpreted, the Christ.” At John 4:25-26 the apostle records the following exchange between a woman of Samaria and Yahshua Christ: “The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Yahshua saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.” And so, Douglas denies John!
Then there is Matthew 1:21: “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Yahshua (which means ‘Yahweh, Savior’): for he shall save his people from their sins.” While Douglas professes Matt. 1:23 out of one side of his mouth, he denies Matthew 1:21 out of the other side of his mouth! Now either Douglas is a purposeful deceiver, or a blithering idiot: take your pick! Unless, of course, you would choose to believe that Paul wrote Daniel, John and Matthew too.
While we shall continue to address Clayton R. Douglas’ article “The Seduction: Judeo-Christian OR Pauline Christianity?” from the December 2003 issue of his Free American Newsmagazine. I hope to have already pointed out that, while rejecting Paul, in reality Douglas has also rejected much of the rest of the Bible, although he pretends to acknowledge those parts of it which evidently suit his own distorted views. While pretending to be a Christian, most of Douglas’ claims concerning the Bible may get a warm reception from readers of The Trumpet or The Jerusalem Post. Yet because much of Douglas’ audience is Christian, and many of them Israel Identity, his oblique misinterpretations must be addressed.
<Section #5> Clay Douglas states: “Did you know that Paul/Saul of Tarsus wrote almost two-thirds of the New Testament? I’ll bet you didn’t. ”
In reply to section <#5>: Well, Clayton, you are right, I didn’t know that! Having read the Bible for so many years, I never even imagined it! So we’d better see just how accurate this statement is. The NA27 contains only Greek text, and the Greek footnotes which display textual variations among mss., without wasting any space explaining anything. Its methods are well defined and the scholar’s task is to use them properly, so its text is pretty much evenly distributed across 680 pages. Of the 680 pages of Greek text, 87 of them are the gospel of Matthew, or 12.79%. 62 are Mark’s, or 9.11%. Works attributed to John, his gospel, epistles, and the Revelation, consume 136 pages, or 20%. Already that adds up to 41.90%, so already Douglas’ statement is in error. No wonder I didn’t know that! The epistles of James, Peter and Jude together occupy 30 pages, or 4.41%. The parts written by Luke, both his gospel and Acts, occupy 186 pages, or 27.35%. Paul’s epistles, and there is no doubt in my mind that Hebrews was written by Paul, occupy 179 pages, or 26.32% of the NA27 version of the New Testament. A far cry from “two-thirds”! Even lumping Paul and Luke together, as H. Graber would, we aren’t anywhere near “two-thirds”! How many other times would Douglas state a blatant lie, and looking at you in the eye say “Did you know that ...? I’ll bet you didn’t!”
<Section #6> Clay Douglas states: “Paul/Saul never met Jesus in the flesh; he only claimed some strange vision and proceeded to then pagenize [sic] the teachings of Jesus, until he created Pauline Christianity. Because there are no known writings from Jesus, the actual Apostles, or anyone that actually knew Him in the flesh (other then [sic] perhaps James), most of what He taught is lost forever. Why? More on this topic later.”
In reply to section <#6>: While it is no new revelation that “Paul ... never met Jesus in the flesh”, Paul certainly did not “pagenize [sic] the teachings of” Yahshua Christ! A detailed examination of Paul’s writing would reveal that none of it would be found contrary to either the Old Testament or the recorded words of Yahshua Christ. Yet since Douglas makes only blanket allegations, and offers no specific examples with which to support his blasphemy, I can only respond with general statements. Why doesn’t Douglas offer specifics? Probably because he hasn’t researched anything for himself, but like the hare-brained remark that “Paul ... wrote almost two-thirds of the New Testament”, he is only parroting some dissembler, or more likely, some jew.
Of course, we do not have any writing from Yahshua. Even in the Old Testament, Moses wrote the laws, and prophets wrote down the designs of our Father and Creator. So also in the New Testament era did He select men to record what He wanted us to know. Yet that “there are no known writings from ... the actual Apostles” is another odd statement from someone who would claim to be a Christian! What of not only James, but of Simon Peter? What of Jude, “the servant of Yahshua Christ, and brother of James”? What of Matthew, and especially John? Which, Mr. Clayton R. Douglas, of these ten gospels and epistles were NOT written by the original Apostles? Douglas condemns not only Paul, but the entire New Testament, just like the pagans and the jews! The mark of a prophet, or anyone who claims to be writing in the name of Yahweh (and so Yahshua Christ), is spelled out in Isaiah chapter 41, vv. 21-29. All of the New Testament writers have in some way met this criteria: and especially Paul, yet no jew could possibly understand that! If the prophecy stands the test of time and is revealed (i.e. Romans 16:20, or Luke 21:20-24), then its writer is true, and if the writer is true, woe to the man who would not heed that writer! Remember what happened to those in the days of Hezekiah, who respected not the words of Jeremiah. Now it can be demonstrated that a great deal of the Revelation of Yahshua Christ, which John recorded, has already happened: 2000 years of history written in advance. If Douglas had studied the writings of John in unison with history, he may have arrived at a similar conclusion. Rather, Douglas studies the writings of jews, magicians and charlatans, and so is only able to make idiotic hare-brained remarks! Will all of the scoffers of today go unpunished?
