<Section #84> Clayton Douglas states: “‘Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven: Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of LAWLESSNESS (anomian).’ Matthew 7:21-23”
In reply to section <#84>: We have seen over and over again in this response that Paul certainly did not promote lawlessness. Neither did Paul promote universalism. Neither did Paul support the high priests of his time, who he knew to be the enemy posing as servants of Yahweh, just as the jews do today. In his second epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul talks about the jews at Jerusalem in this manner: “You should not be deceived by anyone, in any way, because if apostasy had not come first, and the man of lawlessness been revealed: the son of destruction, he who is opposing and exalting himself above everything said to be a god or an object of worship, and so he is seated in the temple of Yahweh, representing himself that he is a god.” (2 Thes. 2:3-4, my own translation). Thereby Paul tells us that the actual man of lawlessness, the Edomite Canaanite jew, was revealed by Christ, evident throughout the gospels, and especially in John chapter 8. Later on, in chapter 3 verse 2, Paul prays that he and his companions are spared from these jews: “and that we should be protected from those disgusting and wicked men, since the faith is not for all.” (2 Thes. 3:2, my own translation), since those jews had attempted time and again to kill him. Clayton Douglas, attacking Paul, has followed the jews in so many ways, as we have seen over and over relentlessly throughout this response, and so also makes himself an aid and an abettor in all of the crimes of the jews by obscuring the true history of early Christianity and giving the jews a smokescreen of lies to hide behind! We saw in section <#13> of this response, at the end of Douglas’ remarks there, that he even attempts to absolve Judas Iscariot, the real traitor and betrayer of Yahshua Christ! Could this be, that Douglas is a follower of ‘bishop’ John Spong, and Spong once wrote an article entitled “Judas Iscariot - A Creation of Prejudice?” for The Human Quest May-June, 1994? Is Douglas merely following Spong, the lover of jews, in this? Is Douglas, following the Humanist of the Year for 1999 – John Spong, purposely attempting to undermine Israel Identity Christianity – the only true Christianity – by leading it off into Paul-bashing?
Notice here that Douglas quotes Matthew 7:21-23 as the words of Yahshua Christ, which they indeed are. But earlier Douglas quoted and criticized parts of that same chapter, Matthew 7:1-6, and claimed that those words of Yahshua were a “Paulinism”! (See sections <#77A> and <77C> of this response on pp. 135 and 136.) Douglas’ hypocrisy is quite incredible, and glaringly evident!
<Section #85> Clayton Douglas states: “A road that requires nothing of you but to ‘have faith’ is the broadest road imaginable. But, isn’t that the broad road that today’s Judeo-Christians feel they deserve?”
In reply to section <#85>: In sections <#37B> and <#44> of this response, on pp. 91 and 102, we have seen that Paul’s idea of faith encompassed both good works and obedience to Yahweh. Paul certainly cannot be blamed for the state of “Judeo-Christians” today, as Paul well knew that there should be nothing “Judeo-” in Christianity! And why does Douglas use a term which he considers “almost an oxymoron” (see page 33)? In the title to his first article, Douglas offered “Judeo-Christianity” as the alternative for “Pauline Christianity.” For my part, I’d take Paul over the jews any day! All these little quirks and more, while they are relatively minor, do manifest the inconsistencies in Douglas’ thinking. And there are others which I’ve let pass by here. For instance, above in section <#81A> Douglas calls Luke “Paul’s devotee”, an apparent criticism considering what Douglas thinks of Paul. Yet early in his articles Douglas quotes from Luke’s gospel (section <#8>, p. 44, for example), and has often referred to or cited events recorded by Luke in Acts, without any prior criticism of Luke. Clayton Douglas truly is The Comedian, and surely no scholar.
<Section #86> Clayton Douglas states: “In conclusion, Saul/ Paul of Tarsus taught deviation. Today, he’d be called an ‘Agent Provocateur’. Paul may have even been the individual that the Damascus Document identifies as ‘the Liar’ and ‘the Apostate.’ And as to why he went to the effort to found a new religion, many suggest that it was a brilliantly conceived means to defuse the political significance of Jesus and his Davidic bloodline. As an agent of the pro-Roman Sadducee establishment, Paul the Pharisee found a perfect way to deflect anti-Roman agitation into yet another Roman mystery cult. He apparently succeeded very well. The Romans may have had more reasons to throw ‘Christians’ to the lions than merely worrying that the moralistic folk might cancel their orgies and parties, especially if early Christianity were a successful anti-Roman political movement.
“If early Christianity was really a revolutionary political movement fully within the sphere of Jesus’ teachings at the time ... whence the Christianity of today? END”
In reply to section <#86>: Here, finally, we reach the conclusion of Douglas’ two Paul-bashing articles, and most of the lies and misconceptions here have been addressed throughout this lengthy response, so I will not repeat them again. I must state briefly though, that I do not find any references to “the Liar” or “the Apostate” in the edition of the Damascus Document which I have, although appellations similar to “the Liar” appear in other Dead Sea Scrolls, specifically some of the Peshers to the prophets discussed at length in section <#43> beginning on p. 98. Yet we have seen throughout his articles that Douglas gets very few of his facts straight. He has instead produced little but a heap of deceptive, ignorant, confused trash.
Yet I must wonder, if Douglas is so concerned about Christianity, true, intolerant, non-politically correct Christianity, as he puts it (see section <#77B> on p. 135), why does he attack Paul of Tarsus based on the remarks and opinions of jews such as Sol Stein and Sigmund Freud, atheists such as Friedriche Nietzsche, and liberal theologians such as John Spong, himself an overt embracer of homosexuals, jews, and negroes as we have seen from Spong’s own websites? How is this collection of miscreants and sexual deviants any alternative to Paul of Tarsus, and how could they possibly deal with the just and moral Paul in an objective manner? And we’ve already seen the Paul-bashing H. Graber was also a follower of jews and socialists, just like John Spong shows himself to be. How do such perverts and miscreants become valid discerners of Paul, of Yahshua Christ, or of anything Christian or Biblical or just or good? All Paul-bashers everywhere must take note: by unjustly attacking Paul of Tarsus, you are all mere followers and flunkies of the jews and miscreants. And all attacks on Paul shall be manifested to be unjust when measured against the gospels and the prophets! In your ignorance, you are only scattering rather than gathering the people of Yahweh. All Paul-bashers everywhere had better repent, and reconsider their anti-Christ positions!
