After studying the issue of Paul for sometime, this is what I came up with.
What did Paul really believe?
I would suggest to you that there is some mystery left in that question. Despite all the writings he bestowed upon the ages there were certain of his
quotes like, "To the Jews I became like a Jew" and "To those under the law I became like one under the law," (I Corinthians 9:19-23) and so it
could be left to be concluded by a reasonable person that he was not completely forthcoming with that information that would affect his method of
attempting to please all men at all times ( I Corinthians 10:33). Surely trying to make everyone happy would lead to compromise. He very nearly claims
he understood all mysteries (I Corinthians 13:2) which leads logical readers to ask did he explain all of them or did he leave some of them out.
Elsewhere he completely lies (Romans 3:7 where he nearly admits it, elsewhere such as before Festus, he clearly fabricates), he takes an apparition's
words to him as making him an apostle where the apparition never makes such a claim (did the ghost have such power?) and yet no one, Peter, Christ, or
Luke ever identify him as being an apostle.
Here, I offer to you a presentation, an organic argument that should help to dissect what Paul kept to himself, those mysteries that he set himself as
being the only one to receive the answers on.
And on that note, I make no pretense that I'm here to keep from offending anyone like the fraudulent Paul did. You can be offended as much as you
like but I'm not going to alter a word of mine unless it is shown to be false, and that you will not accomplish either.
Paul's Jesus, YHWH's Yahshua
When was the name of "Jesus" adopted? Greco-Roman hegemony assured this name was used over Yahshua. This treatise will offer an explanation
coinciding with historical events, a unifying theory, starting with Saul's conversion.
(Saul struck with blinding light) at Acts 9...
"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.
from Acts 9,26
"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick gainst the pricks."
Now this is an expression that some may have trouble understanding. It was something I needed explained and I'm sure it would be a help to offer that
here. This statement is a reference to goading an animal, pricking them, with a spur such as that on a boot, telling them to go on.
The king of Thebes was against the revelries and orgies held in honor of Dinonysus, "divine son of Zeus," god of wine and grapes. That is, the king
was actively trying to stop these processions from taking place. Dionysus, enraged, comes to earth in human form, appears to the king while concealing
his identity saying that the king should not fight against Dionysus, "a mere mortal against a god". "For it is hard for thee to kick against the
pricks," comparing the king to an animal fighting against the pricks. Now, Paul is an educated Roman citizen. When the spirit identifies itself as
"Jesus", that is "Hail Zeus" and borrows a quip from Dionysus, he very literally takes this as saying that the Christ is in fact Dionysus, god of
He may be encountered with a series of progressive thoughts recalling...
Yeshua came first changing water to wine at Cana (John 4), He came "eating and drinking" (Matthew 11), He asked us to drink wine (For this is my
blood). When Paul starts addressing these similarities as an educated Roman, he could likely come to the conclusion that the Messiah was Dionysus.
Dionysus comes from on high, emptying himself of god-ness and taking on the form of a man (in the Bacchae). Philippians 2:6,7 "Who being in very
nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in
human likeness". Paul's Iesous is not the Yahsua revealed to us.
(continued at the link)