/islam/ - 8kun Masjid

>>33797

THE ‘ETERNALS’

Before fully fleshing out my theory, I must first offer a bit of precursory information re: Islamic ontology with regard to Al-Masīḥ ad-Dajjāl, i.e., the Anti-Christ, specifically what Islamic scripture and it’s mystical tradition of consimilar elucidate.

To start with, unlike in Christian eschatology, Islamic Sacred Scripture is replete with references to the fact that the Anti-Christ is one of “the eternals.” -Enoch, Elijah, Jesus, Al-Khidr, -these are also considered “eternals” in the Islamic tradition.

“Eternals,” meaning those men whose souls loom so large that they live, in one form or another, for the entirety of human existence.

Enoch, Elijah, and Jesus live in heaven, according to the main body of Islamic scholarship, having yet to experience earthly death, whereas Al-Khidr, or, “The Green One” in English, -who is identified in the Qu’ran as a mystical teacher of Moses,

-and so Al-Khidr lives on, not in heaven like the other eternals, but instead he wanders the earth to this day.

Many Islamic saints, such as Ibrahim ibn Adham, Imam Nawawi, and the Andalusian mystic, Muhyideen Ibn ‘Arabi (among many others) claim to have met and conversed with him. According to one hadith reported by Imam Ahmad, the Holy Apostle Muhammad (ﷺ) is reported to have said that Al-Khidr and Elijah meet once a year in Jerusalem, and another report from Imam Al-Bayhaqi contends that Al-Khidr was present at the funeral of the Apostle Muhammad (ﷺ), and was recognized by the Apostle’s nephew, Ali ibn Abu Talib (رضي الله عنه).

(It should also be noted that, according to several reports, the Prophet Muhammad [ﷺ] was himself offered the chance -by God- to become one of the eternals, but instead chose earthly death so as to complete the communion with his Lord).

So, now we have established that, according to the Islamic normative tradition, there are these eternals, -men of immense spiritual power who exist both in heaven and on earth (the earth-dwellers typically living in semi-occultation), and they do not die, or, at the very least, have preternaturally long lives.

>>33798

ISLAM’S MYSTICAL HERMENEUTICS VIS-À-VIS THE ANTI-CHRIST:

As with most things in the world, be it in literature, spirituality, or reality itself, for every yin there is a yang.

Just as there is sunshine, there is rain; just as there is joy, there is sadness; where there is good, there is also evil; and where there is immense, Godly spiritual power, so there is immense, Satanic spiritual power.

Thus we arrive at the Islamic conception of the Anti-Christ:

Like Jesus, Elijah, Enoch, and Al-Khidr, he is one of the eternals.

According to Islam, Ad-Dajjāl is not a Messianic pretender that appears merely in the end times as if from nowhere (as taught by Christians) but rather, according to us he has always been present as a sort of perverse inversion of what Christ and Khidr and the other eternals represent…

In no Islamic text is this more salient than in what’s known as “Al-Hadith Al-Jassasaah,”

-an authentic, if singular report narrated by the hadith master Imam Muslim, and also found in other hadith works, such as At-Tirmidhi and the like.

>>33800

As to the location of this mysterious island, and whether it is a place in this temporal world as we know it, or whether it is located within some transposed reality that Tameem and his men were given access to by the Lord of the Worlds so as to serve as a teaching tool to later generations, -God knows and we don’t know. It’s largely irrelevant anyways.

The main point here is not the location of the island or whether or not the Anti-Christ is on the actual earth or is instead hidden via some form of occultation; rather the crux of the message is that the Anti-Christ has a manifest reality that is always present in this world.

Like his spiritual opposites, -be they Prophets such as Elijah, Enoch, or Jesus, -or be they Saints of profound spiritual immensity such as Al-Khidr, -and so, like them, the Anti-Christ is a powerful soul, albeit a dark soul; and he represents a deviant mimicry of the true eternals.

Every power they have, he also has, but whereas the Godly eternals derive their power from Al-Haqq (the Divine Truth), the Anti-Christ derives his from Satan. To further clarify: If Jesus, Enoch, Al-Khidr, and the like, are “eternals” by the spiritual power of God, then Ad-Dajjāl is also an eternal, but by the spiritual power of Satan.

If the Prophets and Saints perform miracles by the power of God, then Ad-Dajjāl does so as well, but by the power of Iblees (The Devil). If the Prophets and Saints have signs that adumbrate their arrival owing to God’s Mercy and His intent to aid in the guidance of mankind, then Ad-Dajjāl likewise has signs that foreshadow his arrival, although his signs serve to deceive rather than to guide.

If the Prophets and Saints do good to please God and guide mankind aright, then Ad-Dajjāl likewise will do good, except he does so to mislead humanity.

Most importantly (and most relevantly to this essay):

If the Prophets and Saints can manifest their pneumatic power upon their disciples, purifying their souls, whereby remaining spiritually connected to them, enabling and commissioning them in the ability to perform miracles, obtain gnosis, and gain insights, then, so too does Ad-Dajjāl have this same spiritual power,

-save that his spiritual power is aided by demons and his own Satanic soul, unlike the spiritual power of the Saints and Prophets, which is aided by angelic and Godly emanations.

To put it succinctly:

For as long as men have been on this earth,

Ad-Dajjāl has been spiritually connected to some from among them (or, us).

He has his disciples onto which he projects his spiritual energy, revealing to them his own corrupt insights, allowing some to perform miracles or prophesy about the future, and inspiring them with his own brand of heretical gnosis.

Eventually, the souls of such individuals may become subsumed by his reality, such that they are “spiritually colonized” by the Anti-Christ… i.e., their souls are literally transmuted by his.

In other instances, it is as if two souls dwell in one body;

sometimes the man’s soul is dominant,

and an instant later, the Dajjālic force takes over…

A TRANSMUTATION DURING THE LIFE OF MOSES: AS-SAMĪRI:

If the above narrative vis-à-vis Saf Ibn Sayyad seems anomalous or strange to some readers, then a careful reading of the Qu’ran will prove that Saf was hardly the first Dajjālic transmutation. We see also in the story of the Israelites’ worship of the golden calf that the Qu’ran includes details that are omitted from the Biblical account:

Chief among these is that the entire ordeal (meaning, the worship of an idol) was instigated, not by Moses’ brother Aaron (as it states in the Bible),

but rather, by a mysterious individual identified only as

“As-Samīri.”

According to the Islamic version of the story, it was during Moses’ 40-day interlocution with God on Mount Sinai that Samīri had a mystical vision in which he witnessed the Angel Gabriel riding what is known in the Islamic exegetical tradition as al faras al-ḥayāt, or “the steed of life,”

-a beast that was invisible to everyone except for Moses, a Prophet,

and yet for some reason Samīri was likewise able to witness it.

This selfsame horse was leaving in its wake a trail of glistering hoof prints embossed within the powdery dust upon which it trod (again, something which no one else -save for Moses and Samīri- could see).

Samīri thus took a handful of this dust, and from said dust -along with the jewelry of the Israelites- crafted the golden calf, and subsequently deceived those present into worshiping it as a deity.

He was able to accomplish his aim in this regard by supernatural means, as the dust whereupon the angelic horse had cantered somehow obtained life-giving powers; a fact which Samīri -and Samīri alone- was able to intuit.

Thus the Qu’ranic claim that the golden calf actually made a sound as though it were a living creature [per Q. 20:88], and some commentators have gone so far as to claim that it eventually metamorphosed from a golden statue into a real cow .

-These so-called miraculous wonders convinced the Israelites that the golden calf was, in fact, the God of Moses, and, against the protests of Aaron, they began to worship it as such.

Upon Moses’ return, he immediately flies into a rage (naturally), and, after being directed toward the truly guilty party, he begins interrogating Samīri, asking him what prompted him to do what he did, to which Samīri replies rather callously:

(“وَكَذَٰلِكَ سَوَّلَتْ لِي نَفْسِي“)

“My inner self was lured (to do so).” (Q. 20:96).

The question any careful-thinking Muslim would do well to ask themselves is, how is it that Samīri was able to witness the realities of the unseen realm (i.e., the Angel Gabriel and al faras al-ḥayāt, -“the steed of life”),

-and was further able to intuit how to use this information in order to perform what in effect constitutes a miracle? No other Israelite, -excepting Moses, of course- was granted such power.

Surely the phenomenon of the “living” calf statue was not, and unequivocally could not be a Godly marvel,

-as the intent was to deceive rather than guide.

Thus, after a careful noetic study of the narrative as a whole, we arrive at the only possible answer, namely that, like Saf Ibn Sayyad who was to come after him, Samīri represents a partial transmutation of the Dajjāl.

He was given spiritual gnosis -but it was a gnosis of a dark and perverted nature, the aim of which was to lead human beings astray.

This becomes more evident when examining the reason he puts forth to Moses for his actions:

“My inner self was lured,”

he says. -This terse and somewhat oblique excuse seemingly indicates that he did what he did, at least to some degree, against his own will… e.g., as if spiritually colonized.

CONCLUSIONS from Pt1 of 3:

From these two narratives:

That of As-Samīri and Saf ibn Sayyad, we might well deduce that, perhaps,

every Prophet (or nearly every Prophet) was either accompanied by, or, in the case of Jesus, immediately preceded by, a transmutation of the Anti-Christ… [25:31]

If we take Samīri and Ibn Sayyad as prototypes or, perhaps more correctly, archetypes, a few congruent themes emerge:

1) The transmuted individuals are not outwardly enemies of their respective Prophets, but rather appear to be among their followers [recall that the aim of Ad-Dajjāl is to lead astray moreso than oppose].

2) They perform miracles, -but these miracles misguide rather than guide [or at least, that is their aim].

3) The transmuted individual may or may not be fully “colonized,” -and thus, if only “partially colonized,”

they may, at times, seem to be acting of their own accord,

-peradventure they could even conceivably appear to be what we might call “righteous,”

while at other times they are acting intently upon their desire to beguile the immediate followers / disciples of the Prophet of their age -whoever that Prophet happens to be.

It is my contention, which I will set about proving more intently in the 2nd part of this entry, that Paul of Tarsus was one such transmutation.

Just as Moses was plagued by As-Samīri who led his followers astray, and just as our Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) & his followers were annoyed by Saf ibn Sayyad (who was much less successful in his attempts to mislead than either Samīri or Paul, it should be noted),

so too were the followers of Jesus hoodwinked by their “spiritually colonized’ agent of the Anti-Christ…

The only real difference(s) from Samiri and Saf on the one end, and Paul of Tarsus on the other, is that Paul of Tarsus was much more successful than any of his archetypical predecessors (again, as we shall see, insha’Allah -God willing), and also:

his appearance was slightly after the Prophet of his age (meaning, Jesus), rather than during his lifetime.

>>33807

A PROBLEM WITH SOURCES AND CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION(S):

One quandary I’ve run up against in my investigation which also must be addressed before moving forward is the fact that, despite the appearance of a plethora of biographical information re:

Paul of Tarsus, especially in the Christian New Testament, nevertheless what historians veritably know about the actual man as he was,

(i.e., not as he was ‘remembered’ or embellished in later Christian accounts, but what is known with certainty about Paul as historical figure)

is significantly diminished by the fact that most of the materials we have are either pseudographic (as is the case with 7, or, more likely, 8 of the 14 epistles attributed to him in the New Testament),

or are fundamentally worthless accounts that cannot be relied upon to produce for us anything even remotely resembling an accurate history

(here I’m referring to the book of Acts, also known as “The Acts of the Apostles,”),

-or, as it relates to those few texts that can be verified as having come from him (roughly 6-7 of the Pauline epitles that aren’t pseudographical) have nevertheless been, in some instances, not written by his own hand but rather, dictated to a scribe (as is the case with all but two of the “verified” 7 Pauline epistles, Galatians and 1 Corinthians and, perhaps, the last few sentences of the epistle to Philemon -more on that later) and further edited, redacted, etc. after the fact (as discrepancies among the most ancient copies of these epistles attest).

In short, even among the “verifiable” epistles there is ample room for questioning and considerable uncertainty.

It is owing to the above mentioned data that the average lay Christian will no doubt find his or herself appalled at the notion (or even the insinuation) that anyone could dare put forward so daring a claim as this:

that their long-suffering martyr, Paul of Tarsus, who preached such love, mercy and compassion, and who went to such indefatigable lengths after a “holy vision” to propagate his “gospel,” could ever be evil (much less an actual agent of the anti-Christ!),

-for, in their eyes, -that is, lay-Christian’s eyes that have been affected by hearts so credulously attached to their own indoctrination, and the inculcation within them with regard to a belief that the New Testament is naught but historical truth from beginning to end is so great,

-such that they have long gazed upon their scriptures, these Christian eyes,

-eyes that have been trained since childhood to see a (non-existent) harmony of doctrine starting from the gospel of Matthew that continues all the way unto the Book of Revelation (or the ‘Apocalypse’ of St. John as it is sometimes called) -and, indeed, from Genesis to Revelation / The ‘Apocalypse,’ in fact,

-and so it is owing to this that any Christian reading thus far is no doubt convinced that I am an insane conspiracy theorist, an absurd controversialist, et. al.

Hence, my first order of business is to unveil the truth of the matter, this verity being chiefly that:

despite what they were taught by well-meaning Sunday school teachers, pastors, priests, and the like, nevertheless there is extreme disunity in the New Testament, just as there was (as we shall see) disunity among the earliest Christians, even the disciples themselves, -and that this discord and disconnection is

1) chiefly the fault of Paul, and

2) has been cleverly hidden from the average Christian worshiper.

So it is in a spirit of nothing but love for my fellow human beings that I’ve come to see researching and writing this as my duty, after much investigation

(and, being objective insomuch as I was able):

-To uncover this deception and expose it for what it is, that the light of truth may shine forth and ultimately bring peace to many misguided hearts and minds.

-To aid my Christian brethren in this attainment of that serenity that always comes with a truth realized; This is my intention; nothing more/

ON PAUL’S OWN WRITINGS, PSEUDOGRAPHICAL OR NOT?

Now of course, after reading the above, one may well be flummoxed and confused. ‘If the sources are so unreliable,‘ one may ask, ‘how is it you were able to decipher anything about the man?‘ -And it’s a reasonable question. Given what I’ve written thus far, it may be assumed, wrongly, that we can’t know anything about the real Paul of Tarsus, and hence it becomes easy for many of my coreligionists (=Muslims) to simply dismiss anything regarding him in much the same way as they flippantly disregard the Bible as a whole. ‘It’s just a collection of stories, that is, 2nd or 3rd hand accounts, and rumors,‘ they say, much like the Atheists and Agnostics of our day. It would be a mistake to take this attitude regarding Paul, however.

The fact is, 7 of the purported 14 Pauline epistles (-14, that is, if we include the Epistle to the Hebrews among those attributed to Paul, as most Christians allege) are reasonably authenticated, which is to say, there are 7 letters authored by Paul that virtually all historians agree on as being actually penned (or, dictated, at least) by the man himself. They are as follows:

1) Romans

2) 1 Corinthians

3) 2 Corinthians

4) Galatians

5) Philippians

6) 1st Thessalonians

7) Philemon

Of these 7, I personally omit Philemon, agreeing with the Tübingen School of thought in this regard, as well as Dr. Richard Carrier, all of whom cast aspersion on Philemon and doubt its being actually written / dictated by Paul, for a number of reasons.

Even if I did agree with the majority consensus, however, it wouldn’t add much to this essay, as the Epistle to Philemon is only 1 page long, and is largely unrelated to Paul’s peculiar theology. As such, we are left with 6 letters, some of which are quite lengthy,

-and they give us immense insight into Paul’s life and teachings.

With the above under consideration, we see that the remaining 7 (or 8, if we count Philemon) epistles are quite obviously forgeries.

Devout Christians deny this of course, but devout Christians are rarely able to read Koine Greek (for example), nor do they have access to the ancient Biblical manuscripts, and what’s more, they tend to be rather unaware of the historical realities of both Jesus’s (عليه السلام) and Paul’s time,

-all of which the most eminent historians have used to decipher which Pauline epistles are pseudographical, and which ones are reasonably authentic.

To this end, consider: The telltale signs of a forged epistle are as follows:

1) They are written in a style (in the original Greek) that is completely different than the 6 (or 7) known and attested Pauline letters; also:

2) they are dated to a time too late to have been written by Paul (i.e., there isn’t even an iota of evidence that they existed in written form before a certain moment in history, and that moment or date would’ve been long after Paul’s execution):

3) they include references to historical events that Paul himself couldn’t have known about, as the events in question occurred after his time, and

4) they sometimes include theological points of view at odds with the established Pauline letters. In many cases, the pseudo-Pauline epistles are guilty of all 4 of these offenses simultaneously .

THE PROBLEM WITH THE ‘ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,’ AND MY METHODOLOGY FOR UNCOVERING THE ‘HISTORICAL’ PAUL:

From this basic point of having established which Pauline letters are usable and which ones can be discarded, we must now deal with another issue that most Christians are unaware of:

Here I’m referring to the Book of Acts.

With the aforementioned “credulous eyes” of Christian believers, they read the lengthy treatise of purported history known in Christendom as ‘The Acts of the Apostles,’ or, ‘the Book of Acts’ (or, just ‘Acts’ for short), and then, following the Biblical chronology, move on to the Pauline epistles (both the actual ones and the forgeries) and assume that everything is coherent.

To them, Acts is history, the natural conclusion to the 4 gospels, and a worthy precursor to the letters of the various apostles that come next (in terms of Biblical ordering).

The simple fact is, however, that the Book of Acts is basically useless as a historical document.

The author is unknown (it is anonymous in the original manuscripts, i.e., neither named nor signed), but, whoever the author was, he clearly belonged to the Pauline strain of Christian thought (as opposed to the Jewish strain that existed simultaneously: more on that later).

-Somewhere around Acts chapter 10 the original disciples more or less disappear from the narrative entirely, and everything thereafter focuses on Paul.

It was written sometime in the early 2nd century, well after Paul’s death, and includes details that contradict what Paul himself dictated / wrote in the 6 verified epistles.

Regarding this phenomenon, Dr. Bart D. Ehrman writes:

>“There are places where the book of Acts reports on the same events of Paul’s life that Paul himself refers to in his own letters, and we can compare what Acts says about Paul with what Paul says about himself.

>What is striking is that in almost every instance where this kind of comparison is possible, disparities -sometimes very large disparities- appear between the two accounts…

>(Acts) would’ve been written at least a generation after Paul himself, no doubt by someone in one of Paul’s own communities who would have heard stories about the apostle as they had been in circulation in the decades after his death.

>But as we all know, stories get changed in the retelling, and thirty years (OR MORE) is a long time.

>Most scholars contend that Paul is a better source for knowing about Paul than (the author of Acts) is, -that where there are discrepancies, it is Paul who is to be trusted.”

Also, too, there is the fact that Acts isn’t even consistent with itself.

Ehrman continues:

>“There are three passages in the book of Acts that describe Paul’s conversion to Christ…

>but what was this vision, and what happened when Paul experienced it? It depends on which account you read, the one in Acts 9, 22, or 26.

>…if (the author of Acts) was willing to modify his story depending on the context within which he told it, why shouldn’t we assume that he modified all of his stories whenever he saw fit?”

Hence, Ehrman reasonably concludes:

>“If we want to know about the historical Paul, we will treat Acts for what it is, and not pretend that it records events that you would have been able to capture on your camcorder if you had been there.”

‘SUDDEN CONVERSION’ THEMES IN SACRED TEXTS:

Now I know it is common in hagiographical literature for authors (whether biographers or autobiographers) to consistently adopt the leitmotif of the “sudden conversion” from sin to righteousness, and neither the author of the book of Acts,

-whoever he is-

nor Paul himself strays too far from this general theme when relating the conversion story of Saul, soon to be known by the cognomen “Paul”

(-and, why he changed his name isn’t clear, contrary to Church legend. Christians believe that this occurred owing to his conversion, but their scriptures attest no such thing;

it is simply unverifiable ecclesiastic folklore.

Though I may intimate a theory:

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Saul, from the Hebrew She’aul (שאל), was related to the Old Testament term sheol, meaning, “place of dissipation / death.”

Hardly a fitting name for an apostle of Christ, I suppose, -but this is all tangential).

And so. There is one key difference between the sudden conversion of “Paul” and the other purported saints both before and after him:

Most other hagiographies depict a (future) saint lost in desires and debauchery more so than tyranny, murder, or oppression.

The reason for this is owing to certain archetypes present in Abrahamic Sacred Literature, and the types of “disbelief” that the antagonists (or unaffiliated) represent.

So, for example, there is the “sudden conversion” of 4 of Jesus’ disciples according to all 4 Gospel accounts (in one of the rare instances where they agree),

here referring to Simon, Andrew, James, and John.

The general gist of the stories here being that, despite Jesus’ seemingly perfunctory request that they leave their fishing nets and join him, they all do so immediately.

The tax collector (either Levi, or Matthew, depending on which account we go by) was likewise immediately called, and immediately accepted that call.

The “sin” (if we may call it that) of unaffiliation, or what a Muslim might call “ghaflah”

-heedlessness as to spiritual matters, was immediately destroyed within the first 4 disciples upon witnessing the countenance of Christ,

whereas the sin of greed was the one eradicated in the case of Levi / Matthew.

The point here is that these sins are sins of “desire,” -what we would call shahwa in Arabic.

Similarly, (to cite later examples) the famous French saint, Peter Abelard was converted from his Christian hypocrisy to “true faith” after it was discovered that he had impregnated Héloïse d’Argenteuil and was subsequently castrated by local townsfolk as a punishment (the idea being that his hypocrisy was a sin borne of lust, i.e., shahwa, rather than of tyranny, hatred, and stubborn obstinacy to the truth).

Likewise, the hagiographers delight in telling later generations about St. Francis of Assissi’s luxurious lifestyle, wealthy friends, and flamboyant clothes before he received the vision that precipitated his conversion to Christian asceticism (an account remarkably similar to some of the reports about the ‘pious king,’

‘Umar ibn Abdel Aziz in Islamic literature, and also has parallels in the account of Ibrahim ibn Adham’s “sudden” sainthood).

Muslim examples follow suit in this regard… Muhyideen Ibnul-‘Arabi refers to his “sinful youth”

-a time when he disdained lengthy prayers and enjoyed dancing parties.

That is, of course, until his miraculous visions which would eventually exalt him to the station of the “Seal of the Saints.”

Similarly, Abu Hamid Al-Ghazaaali mentions in Al-Munqidh that it was his love of praise and position

(which ultimately rendered him unable to speak, perhaps due to psychological turmoil / guilt) that precipitated his eschewing worldly comforts and embarking upon a life of spiritual and material poverty

-all of which became necessary components in his metamorphosis from famous (if worldly) sectarian apologist to the saintly Hujjatil Islam (Proof of Islam).

In these stories,

and virtually all of the others like them that we could cite,

we find men lost in the world, the dunya as it’s called in Arabic, -the fleeting, ephemeral pleasures of life, the distractions of the mundane, and the lusts of the flesh,

-such was their state before a sudden experience that leads to true conversion.

It’s a common theme, and while such stories are often (but not always) exaggerated by the hagiographers, there probably rings some element of truth to all of them.

THE ‘PHARAOHNIC ARCHETYPE’ / MUHSTAHZI’IN:

Paul’s theophanic vision however, is not one that pulls him from the chains of distraction, lust, or heedlessness, as with the other saints and apostles both before and after him. Which is to say that shahwa is not his “spiritual disease,” but rather it’s something that tends to have a different end result in Sacred Literature (but, somehow, not in the case of Paul). By this I mean that Paul’s “spiritual archetype” before the leitmotif of his “unexpected transformation” is not that of heedlessness, or lust, or distraction, but rather, of murderous obstinacy. He was what we might term or refer to as a “Pharaohnic archetype.”

The Qu’ran describes Pharaoh, the great antagonist of Moses, in the following words:

>“Truly, Pharaoh ELATED HIMSELF in the land and broke up ITS PEOPLE INTO SECTIONS,

>depressing a small group among them:

>THEIR SONS HE SLEW, but he kept alive their females: for HE WAS INDEED A CREATOR OF FITNAH (i.e., hardship, strife, oppression, etc.).”

(Surah al-Qasas: 3-6).

Without getting into too much detail, suffice it to say that there were also similar ‘Pharaohnic archetypes’ during the life of the last and final Prophet (here referring with all due reverence to the Holy Apostle Muhammad -ﷺ-).

In the early biographies and hadith compilations (as well as in some of the earlier chapters of the Qu’ran), they were referred to as the “muhstazi’in,” (المستهزئين) -the “mockers.”

They included the likes of ‘Utbah ibn Rabi’ah,

Ummayyah bin Khalaf, ‘Amr ibn Hisham (i.e., Abu Jahl),

Abu Lahab, ‘Uqbah ibn Abi Mu’ayt,

Al-Walid ibn Mughirah, and Nadr ibn Harith.

The fact that they are referred to in Islamic literature as “mockers” is not to suggest that lampooning the Prophets and their disciples was the highest crime of these individuals;

it is simply a designation or label isolating them from other types of disbelievers, non-Muslims, folk of other dispensations / faith traditions, et. al.,

so that they may be adequately addressed as a unique (and more egregious) class.

THE ‘PHARAOHNIC ARCHETYPE’ / MUHSTAHZI’IN: pt 2

In the case of the muhstazi’in,

they not only mocked, slandered, and vilified the Holy Apostle Muhammad (ﷺ),

but, when they saw his followers begin to increase in number, they took to active persecution.

In some cases, they tortured and / or murdered any within their own tribes that became Muslim, in other cases they imprisoned Muslims or put sanctions on them, and, in some instances, they would “warn” any newcomers or travelers that happened to enter the city of Makkah, using calumny and slander as their modus operandi in this regard, and that so as to dissuade individuals from the outlier tribes from even listening the the Apostle (ﷺ) or his followers.

To put it another way: they used everything at their disposal, be it violence, imprisonment, torture, threats, or libel to persecute the early Muslims and stamp out the Prophetic message.

So whether we want to call them mockers, scoffers, Pharaohnic archetypes, or mustahzi’in,

-whatever designation we apply, even so, they all have pretty much one thing in common:

They persecute the believers.

These men, be they the mustahzi’in at the time of the Holy Apostle Muhammad (ﷺ), or Pharaoh before him,

-they aren’t simply astray, or heedless, or weak men that have succumbed to their desires and are thus in need of spiritual realignment, or what have you,

-rather, they are rotten to their very core, and full of hatred for truth and goodness.

In short, they are willing to oppress for the sake of evil and falsehood.

The thing about Pharaohnic archetypes though, is that these individuals are very rarely, if ever, able to be guided.

Their hearts are made of complete stone, metaphorically speaking, and these selfsame hearts are full to the brim of vice, anger, and loathing; there is simply no room for guidance, a result of this being that there is nothing for them in this life or the next except to serve as signs of God’s immense power, transcendence, and might.

-In a word; the “Pharaohnic archetypes” always meet their doom.

In the case of Pharaoh himself, the ultima thule in this regard, we need not revisit his story, as the tale of his terrible, watery grave is well known.

In the case of those prenominate muhstahzi’in from the time of the Holy Apostle (ﷺ), however, suffice it to say that all of the aforementioned “mockers” were destroyed.

All but two of the men I’ve named above were killed during the famous battle of Badr by some Muslim that they likely held in contempt and deemed lowly.

Of the two remaining (and unfortunate) miscreants: the first, Walid ibn Mugheerah, died even before that eponymous battle when a wound opened on his foot (for no earthly reason, as the gash in question was several years old at the time and had already healed), causing him to die of an infectious and involuntary blood letting.

The second, Abu Lahab, died shortly after the battle of Badr, when a woman from another tribe, referred to in Islamic sources as Lubaba, struck the old wretch in the head with a tent pole. The wound turned septic, his body broke out in boils, and he died in agony a week later.

These same sources relate that his corpse became rancid almost immediately, and was so putrid that he couldn’t even be buried; rather a few slaves were hired to push the rancid carcass toward a pit on the outskirts of Mecca; thereafter they pelted the body with stones until it was completely covered .

PAUL OF TARSUS: A ‘PHARAOHNIC ARCHETYPE’ PAR FORCE:

The point in mentioning all of this is to highlight the most significant point re: Paul of Tarsus and his purported ‘hagiography’ as depicted (in very contradictory accounts, as we’ve seen) in the Book of Acts and alluded to in his letters, namely that it doesn’t fit the pattern.

Paul was no St. Francis of Assisi or Muhyideen Ibnul-‘Arabi before his self-avowed “vision” of Christ.

He himself admits what he was, after all:

>“For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it.”

(Galatians 1:13)

And:

>“For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.”

(1 Corinthians 15:9)

And:

>“Though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If any other man thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law: a Pharisee, as to zeal: a persecutor of the church…”

(Philippians 3:4-6)

A picture which is loosely filled in by Acts

(and in this case, since the reports are in accord with what Paul himself has written in his verified epistles, we may accept them as relatively historical accounts),

-and so Acts describes Paul’s persecution in a number of places, the most striking narrative being when he apparently cheered on (if not actively participated in) the murder of a Christian identified in the text by the name of Stephen:

>“Then they cast him (Stephen) out of the city and stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul… And Saul was consenting to his death.”

(Acts 7:58-8:1).

So, here we have Paul enjoying (if not partaking in) a murder, yet Acts continues, telling us that he also imprisoned Christians, male and female alike:

>“But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house; he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.”

(Acts 8:3).

He also engaged in intense threats:

>“And Saul, yet breathing out threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest…”

(Acts 9:1)

-So, basically, it’s little wonder that he gained such an awful reputation among Christians, as Ananias (a Christian) is later quoted as saying,

>“Lord, I have heard from many about this man (Paul), how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem…” (Acts 9:13).

I remind the reader of the Qu’ranic description of Pharaoh:

>“Truly, Pharaoh ELATED HIMSELF in the land and broke up ITS PEOPLE INTO SECTIONS,

>depressing a small group among them:

>THEIR SONS HE SLEW, but he kept alive their females: for HE WAS INDEED A CREATOR OF FITNAH (i.e., hardship, strife, oppression, etc.).”

(Surah al-Qasas: 3-6).

Hopefully the point here is clear.

We’re not dealing with someone who was merely “astray” and in need of some epiphanic vision to realign his perception, etc.

Paul was not, pre-conversion, someone who, per any known hagiography that has a basis in any real history,

-and so he was not someone who was a ripe candidate for guidance.

For all intents and purposes, he was beyond guidance. He had become one of the muhstahzi’in, -one of the mockers; a Pharaohnic archetype.

And the sunnah, i.e., the tradition or ‘way’ of God in dealing with Pharaohnic archetypes is not to guide them, but rather, to increase them in misguidance (which is in effect to say nothing more than ‘God gives people what they truly desire,’

-so, if they desire evil, God increases them in said evil, likewise if they desire good),

-and once they are at full capacity, i.e., at the height of their misguidance and evil, then He destroys them, utterly humiliates the muhstahzi’in in such a way so as to serve as a lesson for later folk (this being a phenomenon that we see not just in religious literature, but in the modern world, before our very eyes.

For apposite examples, let us consider:

what was the end of Hitler?

Mussolini?

How many Caesars were stabbed to death in their lust for power?

I think there is a very clear pattern to anyone objective and who has eyes with which to see; it is found both in Sacred History and modern history:

The ‘Pharaohnic archetype’ is almost always led further and further into the pit of iniquity, until, ultimately, he is destroyed).

CONCLUSION: A QUESTION:

In closing out this particular entry, we may well ask our Christian brethren:

What is more likely to you?

That Paul, at the height of his murderous hatred and persecution of the righteous Christian Church was,

inexplicably (and, contrary to the concurrent themes prevalent in the books of religious and secular history alike) led rapturously toward the light, in contravention of everything we’ve seen from God either before or since;

-or rather, is it instead more likely that he was led even further toward the darkness, such that the demonic force of the Dajjāl, the Anti-Christ, was able to penetrate him, and use him far more effectively toward his (=the Dajjāl’s) desired aim; namely:

the destruction of the true teachings of his arch-enemy, Jesus, the Christ (عليه السلام)?

I shall leave you with that thought to ponder until our next entry (wherein we will explore this question with even more precision, taking a deep-dive, as it were, into history in general, and into Paul’s epistles specifically, showing the heights of his deception, trickery, and exposing the sophistry that he commonly engaged in so as to deceive and oppose Christianity, using every means at his disposal and every stratagem available to him.

I will further demonstrate how, throughout his letters, we see him manifest every single sign of an individual who has been spiritually colonized by the Dajjāl, insha’Allah -God willing!-).

So. Until then, I leave any and all readers with my heartfelt appreciation for your interest in my research and meandering thoughts.

As always, if there is any good in this work, then it is from God. Only the mistakes are mine.

I think it might be pertinent here to mention or give a run-down, as it were, of the general Christian view of Paul’s story (which we could also call the NT -or, New Testament- Paul), particularly as it relates to his relationship with Jesus, first of all, and his relationship with the disciples of Jesus coming in at a VERY close 2nd (since both are of primary importance in order to understand the man, really), and to explain with even more detail than I’ve provided in the previous entry as to why this “NT Paul” is simply a fictitious character.

And so let us start with Jesus…

>>33819

JESUS – THE DISCIPLES – PAUL OF TARSUS: THEIR STORY (ACCORDING TO CHRISTIANS):

As Christians understand from their 4 Gospels, (the first 3 of which are known as the “synoptic gospels,” –synoptic meaning “summary,”

-and so these 3, -Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are grouped together under this designation because, with the exception of the story of Christ’s crucifixion [regarding which all 4 gospels disagree on just about every point], they have some degree of coherence…

John’s Gospel being a more radical departure, and thus not part of the 3 “synoptics.”)

-and so, as Christians understand from their 4 Gospels (i.e., synoptic, or otherwise), Jesus was, according to them,

at once a miracle worker,

a Prophet,

the Divine Son of God,

as well as God Incarnate,

and he preached as much,

albeit mostly with the use of ambiguous statements, metaphor, and parable,

-still, according to them, this was his message, and insomuch as he was in the capacity of God-in-the-flesh and / or the Divine “Son,”

his purpose was to die “for the sins of men,”

-a sin being, the breaking of Jewish Law (and later, the sins committed against “Christian Law” as well)

-which, according to Saul / Paul and those that have followed his version of Christianity for 2,000 years, was an intolerable burden (=meaning, the Jewish Law),

impossible to keep perfectly, etc. and so God, in an act of mercy, sent Jesus qua God, and as God’s Son, to be the “ultimate sacrifice”

-thus ending the ritual animal sacrifice required in the aforementioned Jewish Law, and in effect, making Halakha, i.e. Jewish Law, immediately null, void, and obsolete.

Furthermore, by this atoning act (i.e., Jesus’ “ultimate sacrifice”), he likewise opened up the “true faith” to more people (since it is a known fact that Jews both before and after Jesus have always discouraged conversion), meaning, the God of Israel could now be worshiped by non-Jews as well, although now it’s in a different (and to Christians, “true”) form, e.g., the Triune form of Father, Son (=Jesus), and Holy Ghost.

Also, in order to set this “Divine plan” in motion, Jesus openly preached about it,

-which was blasphemy to the Jews of his day-

and so the Jews plotted and essentially succeeded in their aim of getting him ensnared with and finally executed by their Roman overlords (Romans being those that occupied Judea at the time), -and so it was that, in the most cosmic twist of irony imaginable, the Jews, through their “success” in executing this “blasphemer” from Nazareth, unwittingly made it so that God’s purpose from the outset was ultimately fulfilled anyways, i.e., the “blasphemy” as they supposedly saw it,

-that of the abolishing of their Law and of Jesus claiming to be God, and God / Jesus then dying to abolish said Law, ultimately came to fruition.

Such is the “story” of Jesus according to Pauline Christianity, and the Christians of his persuasion (now in the overwhelming majority throughout the world) for two centuries.

JESUS – THE DISCIPLES – PAUL OF TARSUS: THEIR STORY (ACCORDING TO CHRISTIANS): pt2

What is perhaps more significant (according to Pauline Christians) is that after this crucifixion / atonement event,

Jesus purportedly appeared to multitudes, though what he said to them is often omitted from the story except in later documents / gospels / epistles,

-we are only told in the earliest accounts (i.e., those of Paul and the earliest recensions of the first gospel, Mark) that he appeared.

In later accounts (the later 3 gospels and forged epistles, etc.), Jesus is made to affirm his crucifixion and resurrection during these appearances, and gives his disciples the “great commission,”

-which, again, doesn’t exist in the earliest manuscripts of the earliest gospel (Mark), but nevertheless, is likely to be found in all 4 gospels of whatever current English New Testament the average Christian is reading,

-and so this is where Jesus tells his disciples to “preach to all the nations” or “all people,”

-with all his other directives, statements, and claims during these visions / appearances varying widely among the 4 Gospel accounts

(because, as a careful reading of the manuscripts will attest, everything in the 4 Gospels, from the crucifixion part of the story onward, is where any sense of cohesion is lost, even among the 3 synoptics).

The disciples, according to the Book of Acts / Pauline Christians, then set about doing just that, and commenced preaching to Jews initially,

-that is, until one of Jesus’ earliest disciples, Peter, had a dream-vision of “unclean animals” being referred to as “clean” by God,

-and which (modern) Pauline Christians give a double interpretation:

On the one hand, this vision meant that, now that Christ has atoned for their sins and abolished Jewish Law, Christians can forego Jewish dietary prohibitions (though this isn’t what the actual author of the story meant by this narrative, as seen by the words he puts into Peter’s mouth in Acts 10:28, -but I digress),

-and on the other hand, it means that the up-until-now very Jewish disciples will have to accept Gentile, that is, non-Jewish converts to Christianity.

This “vision” of Peter’s is confirmed when Saul of Tarsus, former persecutor of Christians (as we saw toward the end of our last entry) converts to Christianity after his own vision (Acts gives contradictory accounts of this reverie, it should be noted, and Paul doesn’t elaborate very much on what this vision actually entailed in his verified letters),

and (still just giving the “Christian” or “New Testament” side of the story here):

-and so then, after a very brief interregnum of initial (and understandable) wariness on behalf of the disciples of Jesus, Paul eventually wins them over after a few weeks or months, and becomes best friends with them all, especially Peter, Jesus’ first disciple, who serves as a reliable middleman between Paul with his Gentile congregations, and James & the Jewish Church at Jerusalem.

They all (=meaning, the disciples, including Paul) suffer lovingly together for the rest of their lives (a few minor hiccups notwithstanding),

and remain in communication until each one of them,

one by one,

in harmonious service of the Lord Jesus who died with the sole intent and purpose of remitting the sins of man and abolishing the burden of Halakha,

-so, until each of them, one by one, meet martyr’s deaths themselves, up to and including Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, who most ardently fulfilled Christ’s “Great Commission” by sacrificing his own life, ultimately being beheaded by pagan Romans simply for preaching the Gospel of Christ.

Such is the Christian / New Testament understanding of the early Church, starting with Jesus, and ending with the martyrdom of the disciples.

There is, of course, one small problem:

Virtually everything I’ve just narrated -about upward of 90% of the above “account according to christians,” or more- is not only historically false, but absurdly so, and can be proven such were one but to amalgamate just a bit of historical knowledge with a reasonable admixture of logic / reason.

EVIDENCE 1: PAUL LIED ABOUT JESUS -(AND WE KNOW IT):

And this goes to the heart of my theory that Paul was spiritually colonized by the Anti-Christ.

The simple fact is, the “Jesus” that Paul of Tarsus has created in his (verified) epistles (and which has been summarized above) is a complete fabrication.

One needn’t do too much work to prove this theory;

-all that is required is to simply peruse the 7 epistles (that is, Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians, and possibly Philemon) for yourself, and see how many times Paul actually quotes the words of Jesus to support his theory or his theology in any of these documents.

-But to save you a few hours, the whopping number is:

Once.

Here I’m referring to 1 Cor. 11:23-25, which has some seriously ambiguous wording in and of itself:

“ For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,

that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;

and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said,

‘This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ -In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.’ “

-So, but the thing is, notice how Paul introduces this purported “quote” of Jesus:

(Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου) “For I received of the Lord…” (1 Cor. 11:23).

The word translated from the Koine Greek and rendered as “received,” –παρέλαβον– or, parelabon, means just what it says, namely: “received or taken,”

-that is, Paul is claiming to have “taken” this quote directly from “the Lord,” i.e., either God or Jesus.

-So, Paul isn’t saying that he heard this quote from people who knew Jesus, such as the disciples, nor is he claiming that what he’s about to relay is some well-known quotation that was floating around Judea,

-and of which he is simply now reminding his fellow Christians and / or followers,

-rather this quote is, he claims, a personal revelation from Jesus to him.

Recall that Paul wasn’t a Christian while Jesus was actually on earth;

he converted much later, after the fact. He spent no time with the living Jesus and, as we shall see later, very little time with the actual disciples.

Paul could in no wise claim to have ever heard Jesus say any such thing while the latter was alive, and certainly not a statement made in so intimate a setting as the purported “last supper”

-which is what he is referencing here in 1st Corinthians.

He isn’t quoting the disciples -who were actually there- but rather saying,

“Forget what you’ve heard from the eyewitnesses, because Jesus gave me a personal, secret revelation about what he actually said at this event…”

The question begs to be asked of course, if Jesus had actually said this thing (which so perfectly confirms Paul’s understanding of Jesus’s “true” purpose, i.e., to abolish Jewish Law via the vicarious atonement)

-why did Paul need a special revelation for the world to hear about this statement?

Why not simply defer to the people that were actually there at the event under discussion, such as the 11 remaining disciples (Judas, the 12th, having already committed suicide by this time)?

Why doesn’t the citation begin as we might expect if it was authored by a man who was, according to the Book of Acts (and modern Christians),

-so a man who was supposedly “best buds” with all the disciples;

why doesn’t the citation begin more along the lines of,

“And as the disciples have mentioned: that the Lord Jesus…”

so on and so forth?

Or, “As Peter told me during a few of our plenitude of meetings: that the Lord Jesus…”

Or, “As James said, that the Lord Jesus…” or, “As you’ve all no doubt heard, Jesus once said…”

etc. etc. ad infinitum?

The answer is, of course, obvious:

Jesus never said any such thing.

Paul is giving new information here, for the first time, and doesn’t defer to the actual disciples because he knows if he did, and if the Corinthians actually decided to somehow fact check him (which would be extremely difficult to do in the ancient world, btw, as the journey from Corinth to Jerusalem is over 800 miles by sea, 1,882 miles by land,

-an expensive and arduous journey that a bunch of Greek speaking Romans likely weren’t going to take with the sole aim of trying to verify with Hebrew / Aramaic speaking Jews a single sentence)

-but if they’d decided to actually travel the 1000 some-odd miles to verify this one teeny statement in but one of the (probably total of 4) letters / epistles that Paul had written to the Corinthians (2 of which have been lost to history),

they (=meaning, the actual disciples of Jesus) would naturally point out what a patent and absurd lie this is,

-had the Corinthians had the will or inclination to do such a thing. Paul likely considered it best to not even draw attention to the disciples when offering his followers this “quote,” of Jesus’s, however.

–he says. “For I received from the Lord…“ (not WE)

Interestingly though, even before Paul was writing this Epistle to the Corinthians (in roughly AD 53-57, according to historians), or, at the very least, at around the same time, the Jewish Christians (the arch-enemies of Pauline Christianity, as we’ll see) were themselves reading from a text that, although it would continue to be edited for the next 50 or so years, nevertheless it provides a fairly accurate glimpse into how these arch-rivals to Paul’s “gospel” understood the same event.

As far as the text being referred to, I’m alluding to the Didache, the only Jewish-Christian document that has survived through history(at least, in full).

EVIDENCE 1: PAUL LIED ABOUT JESUS -(AND WE KNOW IT): pt3

So, in other words: while Paul was preaching his “gospel” of Christ’s crucifixion somehow serving to abolish the Halakha, the Jewish Law, to a bunch of Romans who didn’t know any better, Jesus’ Jewish followers were preaching the opposite:

That Jesus himself was a Jew, and never would have advocated such a thing.

Like Paul, they too believed in the last supper, the difference being that, in their texts, there was no reference to Jesus’ blood, flesh, or implied atonement.

They quote no mystery revelations from Jesus, quite simply because they weren’t interested in such a thing (and also because it seems that they believed that Jesus said all he had to say while he was alive).

Their sole purpose and solitary aim was merely to do what Jesus himself did while he was still on earth, no more, no less:

“Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way:

First, concerning the cup:

‘We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy servant; to Thee be the glory for ever!’

And then, concerning the broken bread:

‘We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou madest known to us through Jesus Thy servant;

to Thee be the glory forever.

Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy congregation be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom;

for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever!’”(Didache,Ch9)

There are no grand claims of personal revelations, no artificial quotations desperately aimed at giving their movement validity, etc.

Instead, it’s relatively straightforward:

According to these Jewish Christians, the Eucharist was simply a re-enactment of Jesus’ last supper with his disciples.

They added a prayer that made it very clear that Jesus was indeed the Christ (i.e., the expected Jewish Messiah), and that he was a righteous servant of God (i.e., a Prophet in the truest sense),

-but there is nothing about his sacrificial atonement, no intimations at Divinity, and no elaborate sophistry nor terrific declarations of a revelatory kind.

It’s just a feast-ritual performed by a bunch of Jews who believed that Jesus was their (very human, non-redemptive) Messiah.

Of course, the modern Christian will object, citing the Gospel accounts of the Eucharist in their current Bible, all of which align with Paul’s account of the event in 1st Corinthians,

-but they simply need to be reminded of the fact that these gospels were written by Pauline Christians.

They are not historical documents, but sectarian ones, written after Paul had already disseminated his teachings, and authored by those that had accepted those selfsame teachings.

If Jesus is quoted in the 3 synoptics (and later, in John) as having said something about the bread being his flesh and the wine being the blood of the new covenant, it’s not necessarily because Jesus actually said such a thing, but rather, because Paul claimed that Jesus said it, and his Gentile congregants believed him.

When these same Gentile Christians later wrote the 4 Gospels, little surprise that Paul’s version of history / the Eucharist is the one that made it in

(as opposed to the more “Jewish” version of the Ebionites / Nazarenes, i.e., the authors of the Didache)

-And where did Paul get this information? Not from any historical record, nor from the disciples,

-not even from hearsay, but rather, from 'direct revelation', of course!

Naturally, we can only imagine what the Jewish Christians would say to this.

Or… can we?

>>33825

In fact, in the early Christian church, this entire verse of Genesis 49:27 was read to be a prophecy about Paul.

However, the second part was then spun favorably to Paul.

An early church writer, Hippolytus (200s A.D.), said Paul fulfilled Genesis 49:27 because Paul started as a murderer of Christians, fulfilling the first part of Genesis 49:27.

The second part about `dividing the spoil' was interpreted by Hippolytus to mean Paul made Christian followers predominantly among Gentiles.

However, this was read positively. Hippolytus believed Paul divided the spoil in a manner God intended.

However, dividing the spoil means plundered.

It does not have a positive connotation. This spin by Hippolytus on dividing the spoil as a good deed was wishful thinking.

God instead was sending a prophecy of the evil that would be done by this Benjamite, not the good.

Here is the quote from the early church writer Hippolytus (estimated to be 205 A.D.) wherein he saw God prophesying of Paul in Genesis 49:27:

>`Benjamin is a devouring wolf. In the morning, he will devour the prey, and at night he will apportion the food.'

?This thoroughly fits Paul, who was of the tribe of Benjamin. For when he was young, he was a ravaging wolf. However, when he believed, he `apportioned the food.'

(Hippolytus, W 5.168.)[quoted Catholic Encylopedia.]

Many other sources in the early church also said Paul was the fuflillment of the Benjamite Wolf prophecy.

These writings from the early church demonstrates

one could not avoid seeing in close proximity the prophecy of a Benjamite wolf (Genesis 49:27) whereupon one would realize it is unmistakably talking about Paul.

As Hippolytus says, "this thoroughly fits Paul."

What do modern Pauline Christian commentators do with the Benjamite wolf prophecy?

While some admit Genesis 49:27 is about Paul, and spin the divide the spoils aspect of the prophecy favorably toward Paul as a good deed,

the leading commentators take an entirely different approach.

Gill, for example, adopts the ancient Jewish explanation of this prophecy of the latter days.

Because Benjamin's territory was where the Temple was located, it was said the offering of the morning and evening sacrifice fell to his lot, i.e., territory.

Thus, this verse was supposedly intended to be talking about Benjamin's indirect role in the killing the sacrifice in the morning and evening.

The performance of the sacrifices, of course, are positive God-serving actions if attributable to Benjamin's actions.

Thus, rather than a ravening wolf being an evil beast who attacks innocent sheep, modern Christian commentators say Benjamin was being complimented for possessing wolf-like "fortitude, courage, and valour." (Gill.)

Gill ignores many key flaws in this application.

First, the role of Benjamin's tribe in the killing was entirely passive, i.e., its territory was ceded to help locate the temple where sacrifices later took place.

This passive role cannot evince any kind of courage or valour.

It is a poor solution.

More important, Gill ignores the context of the passage itself.

The word prey, raveneth, wolf, spoils, etc., all are forebodings of evil acts, not courageous valor in good deeds.

A ravening wolf is a wolf that is prowling and eating voraciously. Furthermore, the sacrificed animals in the temple are hardly prey.

Also, technically, Benjamin's land-lot was used to kill the sacrifice in both the morning and evening. However, if prey means sacrifice, this prophecy was about killing prey only in the morning.

Thus, it is incongruous to read this prophecy to be about Benjamin's land-lot being used in the evening and morning sacrifice.

Furthermore, Gill also overlooked the motivation behind these Targum explanations.

The other tribes were probably mystified why their father Jacob warned them about Benjamin's tribe in the latter days.

Gill fails to realize the Hebrew scholars who wrote the ancient Targums were engaged in good politics.

The other eleven tribes were reassuring Benjamin that he was trusted.

What else could they say to keep peace?

As a result, we are not beholden to that ancient polite resolution of this latter days prophecy.

We now can see the clear fulfillment of this prophecy in the deeds of Paul.

Ezekiel's Warning About the Ravening Wolves

Jesus said we would know the false prophets who are ravening wolves in sheep's clothing by their "deeds." ( Matt. 7:16.)

How could we know who the wolf is by their deeds? Does this mean their deeds are merely wicked?

Or does it mean their deeds are precisely described elsewhere in Scripture so you could not possibly mistake who are the wolves in sheep's clothing?

In light of Ezekiel's description of the ravening wolves, it is likely the latter.

God made a highly specific description of the deeds of the ravening wolves so we would "know them by their deeds." (Matt. 7:16.)

The picture in Ezekiel chapter 22 of the time of the ravening wolves is startling in its parallel to Paul and Pauline Christianity.

This description tells us what God thinks about the descent of Christianity into church-going that disregards the true Sabbath and the Law, dismisses the teachings of Jesus as belonging to a by-gone dispensation, and instead follows Paul because he claims a vision and boldly claimed to speak in the Lord's name.

Ezekiel described the time of the ravening wolves in an uncanny parallel to Paulinism:

Her priests have done violence to my law, and have profaned my holy things:

they have made no distinction between the holy and the common,

>neither have they caused men to discern between the unclean and the clean,

>and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths,

and I am profaned among them. (Eze 22:26)(ASV)

Her princes in the midst thereof are like wolves ravening the prey, to shed blood, and to destroy souls, that they may get dishonest gain. (Eze 22:27)

And her prophets have daubed for them with untempered mortar,

>seeing false visions, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, when Jehovah hath not spoken.

(Eze 22:28)

>The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery; yea, they have vexed the poor and needy, and have oppressed the sojourner wrongfully.

(Eze 22:29)

Thus, those leading the people are ravening wolves.

They are called the princes (leaders) in the people's eyes.

They are buttressed by those having false visions and claims to have the right to speak in the name of the Lord. Their leaders seduce the people from following the Law.

They teach them they are free to ignore the true Saturday Sabbath.

They say all food is pure, and none unclean.

Their teaching also leads to the vexation of the poor and the foreigner.

There will be a time when no one is left who stands against these principles.

Ezekiel's Warning About the Ravening Wolves pt2

Now look at the parallels between these wolves and Paul.

First, Paul claimed a vision of Jesus. (Acts chapters. 9, 22, 26.)

Based on this vision experience, Paul wanted us to accept that he was speaking directly from the Lord.

(E.g., 1 Cor. 14:37; 1 Tim. 2:11; 1 Cor. 2:13; 1 Thess.4:1-2,8; 1 Thess. 2:13; Eph. 4:17. cf. 1 Cor. 7:25, 40.)

Second, Paul's view that the Law is entirely abrogated is well-established.

(2 Cor. 3:14; Gal. 5:1; Rom. 10:4; 2 Cor. 3:7; Col. 2:14-17; Rom. 3:27; Rom. 4:15; 2 Cor. 3:9; Gal. 2:16; Gal. 3:21; Col. 2:14.)

Third, Paul's view that we are free to ignore the Saturday Sabbath or any Sabbath-principle is undeniable. (Rom. 14:5; Col. 2:14-16.)

(Paul's followers typically behave like Jeroboam who offended God by moving God's set day to a "day he invented in his heart." (1 Kings 12:33 RV.))

[Update: Luther, Calvin and most Protestants believe Paul legitimately abolished Sabbath altogether even though Jesus did not do so, and this justified in 363 AD the Roman Catholic church expressly "transferring" the Sabbath to Sun-Day. See our article "Paul Abolished Sabbath."]

Fourth, Paul's view that we are free to eat any food we like, including eat meat sacrificed to idols, is likewise plain.

(1 Tim. 4:4, `all food is clean'; Romans 4:2.)

Paul taught we only refrain from eating idol meat when others are encouraged to do what they believe is wrong even though we know such food is clean.

( Romans 14:21; 1 Corinthians 8:4-13, and 1 Corinthians 10:19-29.)

Fifth, did Paul give instructions to Christians which vex the poor?

Some believe the following quote vexes the poor with a criteria for assistance never found in the Hebrew Scriptures.

>For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, If any will not work, neither let him eat.

(2Th 3:10) (ASV)

How many people have resisted giving food to a poor person simply because they are unemployed and they do not pass a Pauline-inspired interview about their willingness to work for it?

This work requirement sometimes will stall the urgent help that a poor person has for food.

Nowhere in Hebrew Scripture is there any such barrier to God's command that you are to feed the poor. In fact, Scripture specifically intends for us to generously provide food for the poor to eat even if we have no idea whether they are willing to work.

Thus, Paul's principle that if any will not work, neither let him eat has served as a punitive vexation on poor people by Christians who follow Paul's dictum.

(Many Christians, of course, do not follow Paul's dictum, and follow instead the Bible's rule of open-handed provision of food to the poor.)

appearance of ad-dajjal:

He’s a short man, red complexion, bowlegged, with curly hair, wide forehead, huge; he is blind in the right eye, while his other eye will be flat. It will be neither deep, nor protruding, it looks like a bulging grape, and his left eye would be a web-eye.

appearance of Paul (who was blind and scale fell from his eye):

In the Acts of Paul and Thecla he is represented as "short, bald, bow-legged, with meeting eyebrows, hooked nose, full of grace." John of Antioch preserves a similar tradition, which adds, however, that he was "round-shouldered and had a mixture of pale and red in his complexion and an ample beard." His opponents at Corinth said of him: "His letters are weighty and powerful, but his bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible," II Cor.10:10 ff. He himself refers once and again to his physical weaknesses.

appearance of ibn Sayyad's eye also changed.

>>33795

If Sayyad was as you say he was, then please explain this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saf_ibn_Sayyad#Denial_of_being_the_Dajjal_in_adulthood

>>33837

please check

>>33802

>In a narration in Sahih Muslim, which takes place well after the earthly death of the Holy Apostle Muhammad (ﷺ), we find Saf Ibn Sayyad, now a grown man, conversing with a disciple of the Prophet, Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri (رضي الله عنه).

>It appears, based on the narration, that Ibn Sayyad did indeed embrace Islam eventually, as Abu Sa’id mentions that the two of them had been traveling with a group of Muslims, and were just returning from performing the pilgrimage to Mecca.

>Noticing that Abu Sa’id is reticent and terse with him, Ibn Sayyad elucidates a number of points in order to disprove the (apparently widespread) belief among the disciples that he might be the Anti-Christ, to such an extent that Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri begins to relent, saying, “I was about to accept the excuses put forth by him, but then he (Ibn Sayyad) said,

>>‘I know the place where he will be born, and where he is now.’ ” -Whereupon Abu Sa’id uttered imprecations at him.

>In another narration relating the same incident, after Ibn Sayyad intimates that he knows the birthplace and current whereabouts of the Anti-Christ, Abu Sa’id then asks him,

>“Would you be pleased if (the two of you) were the same person?”

>To Which Ibn Sayyad replied, “If he offers me that, I will not refuse it.”

>>This narration makes it clear beyond all doubt that Ibn Sayyad was in spiritual commune with the Dajjāl’s spiritual energy.

compare this to your link:

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saf_ibn_Sayyad#Denial_of_being_the_Dajjal_in_adulthood

>>He also said: "I know his place of birth his abode where he is just now."

please give a more comprehensive read brother

Still not seeing it.>>33797

>But there’s one little problem with this theory, which is that he appears to have been very sincere.

>Or, we could word it this way:

>The man suffered a lot in order to propagate his false “form” of Christianity;

Yes that's what troubles me too, given the brilliance of his writings. Set aside the Christology for a moment, his writing is as high as any other prophet. His sincerity and determination and authentic belief in what he preached just makes the whole case very puzzling indeed. I'll have to keep researching Paul.

>>33908

Even though I was raised Christian, I only read the Bible after becoming Muslim. When I came to the New Testament it seemed like the Gospel books (Mark, Matthew, John, Luke) had many elements of truth within them, since they are in line with Quranic principles…with the exception of the “son of God” part.

Many of the direct quotations of Jesus in the Bible seem to contradict modern Christian beliefs, like (paraphrasing) when Jesus is called good by someone, and Jesus PBUH responds “I am not good, only God is good.”

When I got to the books written by Paul, they didn’t seem brilliant to me. It seemed like he was taking bits and pieces of the gospels and old testament, mixing them together, and then telling people that they didn’t really have to follow any rules, just believe Jesus is the Lord and that is all you need. I don’t remember the exact verses, but at one point Paul even writes that Jesus was sacrificed to be a “sweet savor” to God. “Sweet savor” is the term used to describe what the burnt offerings made at the Temple in Jerusalem was. That was the most absurd thing I can remember Paul writing.

>>33910

> “I am not good, only God is good.”

>"I am not good…"

That's a misquote friend.

And Jesus does call himself the good shepherd, the truth, the light, the door to salvation and so forth in the Christian bible. Let's not spread bad arguments here.

>Paul didn't seem brilliant to me

1 Corinthians 13 is really timeless to me.

>>33918

I said I was paraphrasing, because I didn’t want to look it up at the time.

Mark Chapter 10 Verse 18 - "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone.

The whole Quran is timeless. I find it hard seeing any merit in Paul’s writings since all of them are known to be full of falsehoods.

Interesting theory.

>>33998

>>33999

>>33998

>>Jesus was circumcised, Paul rejected circumcision:

This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. (Genesis 17:14)

When his son Isaac was eight days old, Abraham circumcised him, as God commanded him. (Genesis 21:4)

And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. (Exodus 12:48)

On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived. (Luke 2:21)

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. (Acts 15:1)

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:19)

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Matthew 23:23)

>The Jewish Law commands the circumcision on the eighth day.

The reason why Christians are not circumcised is because they follow Paul. They have broken the covenant of Circumcision according to Jesus himself (5:19)

For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. (Galatians 5:6, KJV)

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. (NIV)

The Talmud states the following to those who break the Covenant:

"The one who voids the covenant of Abraham has no portion in the world to come (Avot 3:16).

Christians may not have any “portion in the world to come” because they have totally rejected the Message of Jesus, replacing the Gospel with the Gospel of Paul.

"The Christianity which the nations claim to follow is the religion of Paul, who is admittedly the chief and almost the only theologian that the Church recognizes. Because of his betrayal of the Master's teachings, the vision of true Christianity has been so dimmed that men have been able to defend war and a host of other evils, such as flesh eating and slavery, on the authority of the Bible."

(Christ or Paul? Rev. V.A. Holmes-Gore)

>>34000

"Let the reader contrast the true Christian standard with that of Paul and he will see the terrible betrayal of all that the Master taught….

For the surest way to betray a great Teacher is to misrepresent his message….

That is what Paul and his followers did, and because the Church has followed Paul in his error it has failed lamentably to redeem the world….

The teachings given by the blessed Master Christ, which the disciples John and Peter and James, the brother of the Master, tried in vain to defend and preserve intact were as utterly opposed to the Pauline Gospel as the light is opposed to the darkness."

(ibid, Rev. V.A. Holmes Gore)

"True Christianity, which will last forever, comes from the gospel words of Christ not from the epistles of Paul. The writings of Paul have been a danger and a hidden rock, the causes of the principal defects of Christian theology."

(Ernest Renan, Saint Paul)

"There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the characteristic utterances of Jesus….

There has really never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of Paul's soul upon the soul of Jesus….

It is now easy to understand how the Christianity of Jesus…

was suppressed by the police and the Church, while Paulinism overran the whole western civilized world, which was at that time the Roman Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith.

(Androcles and the Lion, George Bernard Shaw)

>The Christian missionaries today are preaching the Gospel of Paul, and rejecting the Gospel of Jesus. Paul emphasized that salvation is attained through “faith and grace” which is blatantly opposite of what Jesus taught.

"Paul… did not desire to know Christ….

Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded….

What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life – the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus ??….

The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority….

The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it."

(The Quest for the Historical Jesus, Albert Schweitzer)

“We have already noted that every teaching of Jesus was already in the literature of the day…..

Paul, the founder of Christianity, the writer of half the NT, almost never quotes Jesus in his letters and writings."

(Professor Smith in his “The World Religions”, p 330)

>>34001

Saul/Paul had set out initially to subvert Jesus’ teachings.

Later he used his new doctrines to undermine the power of the Jewish church as well as the defied Roman Emperor.

Paul sought to torpedo Judaism in its calcified form, its narrow interpretation of the Judaic law.

Jesus had initiated this process but did not subvert the law.

Paul had no such inhibitions; he rejected wholesale many fundamental laws of God.

In the attempt Paul succeeded in undermining both the Jewish and Nazarene teachings.

He steered Christ’s teachings away from monotheism and from the Jews, (the lost sheep of Israel) and directed these teachings in a corrupted form to Non-Jews…

As Jesus had not succeeded during his mission in converting the majority of his Jewish brothers and sister to his divinely inspired interpretations of Judaism,

Paul ensured that after Jesus had departed, that Jews would not be temped to follow Jesus’ Teachings.

To this end, Paul so adulterated Jesus’ life, purpose, mission and claims to make the new dogma (Paul’s version of Jesus’ teachings) repugnant to the Jews.

(Farouk Hosein, Fundamentalism Revisited, Eniath’s Printing Company Trinidad, p. 49)

The Jewish Christians reacted strongly to Paul, they rejected his pagan ideas of the “divinity of Christ”, and they rejected the concept of the “divine sonship” of Jesus, whom they regarded as a Prophet and Messenger.

The Jewish Christians rejected Paul’s version of ‘Christ’, to them the ‘Christ’ was anointed and fully human.

Many characters in the Bible were called ‘Christ’ (anointed) but they were never divine ‘god-men’.

Paul changed the original meaning of this title to make it conform to the Gentile thinking.

The Romans considered their Emperors to be the ‘sons of God’, or personages of the sun.

Similarly, the Hindus consider their heroes to be the ‘incarnations’ of God.

“A true Jew would have immediately recognized the teaching of Jesus as a reaffirmation of what Moses had taught.

But to many a pagan, it must have seemed new and strange and perhaps a little complicated. Most of the pagans still believed in a multitude of gods who, it was thought, mixed freely with human beings, mated with them, and took part in every sphere of human life.

To the common people of Greece, any description of Jesus must have seemed like a description of one of their gods, and they were probably quite ready to accept Jesus in this capacity. There was always room for one more god. However, the actual teaching of Jesus negated all their gods, since it affirmed the Divine Unity”.

(Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus: Prophet of Islam 1992 edition, p. 62)

Paul’s reasoning had two major consequences.

It not only resulted in further changes being made to what Jesus had taught, but also prepared the way for completely changing people’s ideas of who Jesus was.

He was being transformed from a man to a conception in people’s minds.

Divinity had been attributed to Jesus even when he was on earth by some of those who marveled at his words and miracles, and who, mistakenly, considered him to be more than a prophet. Some of his enemies had also spread the rumor that he was the “son of God”, hoping to rouse the orthodox Jew’s anger against him for associating himself with God.

Thus, even before he disappeared, there had been a tendency to obscure his true nature and ascribe godhood to Jesus.

This imaginary figure of Christ, who apparently had the power to annul what Jesus had previously taught, was clearly no ordinary mortal, and, inevitably, became confused by many with God.

Thus, this imaginary figure became an object of worship, and was associated with God. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, p. 70)

The great scholar Mawdudi alludes to the deification of Jesus by the “Christians”.

The false tendencies, born of centuries of deviations, ignorance and malpractice, now took another form.

Though they accepted their Prophets during their lives and practiced their teachings, after their deaths they introduced their own distorted ideas into their religions.

They adopted novel methods of worshipping God;

some even took to the worship of their Prophets.

They made the Prophets the incarnations of God or the sons of God; some associated their Prophets with God in His Divinity. (Towards Understanding Islam, p. 39)

>Jesus taught Salvation comes through Faith and Works, Paul distorted it:

Jesus taught salvation is attained by keeping the commandments, physical prayer, fasting, and observing the Law of Moses.

Paul neglected these commands and distorted the Path to Salvation preached by Jesus.

Paul said that “salvation comes through faith and grace” which is exactly what the missionaries are saying today.

Let us read the words of Jesus.

Fasting is commanded:

Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. (Matthew 17:21)

And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. (Mark 9:29)

But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing [was] sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom. (Psalms 35:13)

My knees are weak through fasting; and my flesh faileth of fatness. (Psalms 109:24)

Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye [even] to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning: (Joel 2:12)

Christians do not fast, Muslims fast during the holy month of Ramadan, so they must be considered the true followers of Jesus.

The (only) excuse Christians have for not fasting is echoing the teachings of Paul, who discarded these laws altogether!

Physical Prayer is commanded:

The Prophets of God prayed with their forehead touching the ground. Likewise, the Muslims also pray in this manner:

And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, (Genesis 17:3)

And I bowed down my head, and worshipped the LORD, and blessed the LORD God of my master Abraham, which had led me in the right way to take my master's brother's daughter unto his son. (Genesis 24:48)

And he said, Nay; but [as] captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? (Joshua 5:14)

And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes: (Daniel 9:3)

And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying,

"O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt]."

(Matthew 26:39)

Paul rejected these laws; he disobeyed the physical prayer to Yahweh.

He distorted the prayer and directed it towards His Prophet, Jesus!

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; (Philemon 2:10)

This verse is absolutely outrageous and repulsive, totally disgusting!

The Old Testament teaches that Prayer is due to God alone:

I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. (Isaiah 45:23)

It seems that Christians have abandoned this verse, following the teaching of Paul by worshiping Jesus!

According to the Holy Quran, associating partners (in worship) with God is unforgivable:

Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed. (4:48)

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things."

They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.

Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth! (5:17,72,75)

They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him). (9:31)

>Jesus Forbade the Gentiles:

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 10:5-6)

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 15:24)

Paul rejected this command of NOT preaching to the Gentiles, they were restricted. Paul openly preached among the Gentiles, a totally different religion:

For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (Romans 11:13)

>Don’t be like the pagans!

And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. (Matthew 6:7-8)

And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. (Leviticus 20:23)

The Church Father Iranaeus condemned Paul for inventing ‘Christianity’ from pagan beliefs:

Iranaeus believed in One God and supported the doctrine of the manhood of Jesus. He bitterly criticized Paul for being responsible for injecting doctrines of the pagan religions and Platonic philosophy into Christianity.

(Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, 1992 edition, p. 77)

The pagans used to wear tattoos and eat swine, the unclean pig. The “Christians” are imitating them today:

'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD. (Leviticus 19:28)

And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you.

Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they [are] unclean to you. (Leviticus 11:7-8)

Paul corrupted the teachings of Jesus claiming that his supposed “sacrifice on the cross” is the only way to salvation.

We have already seen how this concept is false, according to the Bible itself, and the Gospel of the Nazorenes.

After Jesus’s time, there came to be two sects of Christians:

those who followed St. Paul (who is the real founder of modern Christianity) and

those who followed the Apostles of Jesus.

In course of time, the Pauline sect overshadowed the Apostles’ sect.

So Paul’s own writings, as well as the Gospels written under his influence, came to be accepted by the later Christian Church as Scripture.

The Gospels are Hellenistic religious narratives in the tradition of the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which constituted the “Scriptures” to those Greek-speaking Christians who wrote the four canonical Gospels and who appealed to it, explicitly or implicitly, in nearly every paragraph they wrote. (Randal Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 16)

>The New Testament was written under the influence of Paul, the four Gospel writers were Gentile converts to Pauline Christianity. Hence, there is nothing Jewish about the New Testament, it was solely written for Pauline Christians whose background was pagan.

>The Hebrew Scriptures of the Nazarenes and Ebionites were destroyed by the Pauline Church.

>The original sayings of Jesus were lost forever.

>The New Testament today exists in Greek, and not Hebrew or Aramaic, the spoken tongues of Jesus.

The Gospel of Matthew seems to be the “most Jewish” book in the New Testament,

Luke was a Gentile and not eye-witness

Mark was Barnabas’s nephew and not eye-witness

John was martyred decades before the Gospel (bearing his name) was even written.

>Nevertheless, the four Gospels are NOT mentioned by name before the year 190 CE.

We have scholarly quotations to back this claim.

Unfortunately, the sources we have on Jesus are very scarce and scanty, Ignatius (died 110 CE) records the baptism of Jesus but he fails to record any thing else.

The Apostolic Church Fathers never mention the miracles in the Gospels; they fail to mention the four Gospels by name.

The story of the “resurrection” (as told in the Gospels) was fabricated later because they fail to record it.

The seven epistles of Ignatius fall into the category of silence, they speak nothing about Jesus.

Paul has written his own personal account of the “resurrection” which contradicts the Gospels.

In conclusion, the Gospels are fabricated because Philo Judaeus and many other historians fail to mention their supernatural events.

>>33908

>>>33797

>>But there’s one little problem with this theory, which is that he appears to have been very sincere.

he was either an unwitting ploy of the devil, or a witting infiltrator of Christianity to subjugate and substitute with his own the teachings of "Jesus" so that Christianity would be appalling to the Jews.

>>Or, we could word it this way:

>>The man suffered a lot in order to propagate his false “form” of Christianity;

satan suffers a lot to propagate his belief that he is superior to us. the end goal of that "suffering" (when he lived a much more luxurious lifestyle than Muhammad peace be upon him) was to subjugate Christianity through infiltrating the very elect.

>given the brilliance of his writings.

they were not brilliant. they were contradictory, many attributed to him that were not his, and they contradicted the teachings of Jesus and the Prophets. that is not brilliance.

>His sincerity and determination and authentic belief in what he preached just makes the whole case very puzzling indeed

you only have evidence maybe of sincerity and determination, but definitely not of authentic belief.

as described above, maybe you missed it:

>>33805

>1) The transmuted individuals are not outwardly enemies of their respective Prophets, but rather appear to be among their followers [recall that the aim of Ad-Dajjāl is to lead astray moreso than oppose]. >>33807

>2) They perform miracles, -but these miracles misguide rather than guide [or at least, that is their aim].

>3) The transmuted individual may or may not be fully “colonized,” -and thus, if only “partially colonized,”

they may, at times, seem to be acting of their own accord,

> -peradventure they could even conceivably appear to be what we might call “righteous,”

>while at other times they are acting intently upon their desire to beguile the immediate followers / disciples of the Prophet of their age -whoever that Prophet happens to be.

Going forward, the approach of my thesis is going to take a slight departure from the previous entry insomuch as the latter (meaning, the first entry) was more or less concerned with establishing the base / foundational point that, per Islamic hermeneutics, there is a such thing as

>1) eternal men / beings that live on earth for the entirety of human existence (i.e., from the time of the dawn of man until the Day of Judgement), as well as the fact that

>2) Ad-Dajjāl, the Anti-Christ, is one such being who, unlike what modern Christians have come to believe, is not an entity whose existence will manifest at solely the end of time, but rather, someone (or, something) that has existed since time immemorial, up to and including the present day, -and finally,

>3) that this being, Ad-Dajjāl, has some sort of demonic or satanic spiritual power that seemingly bursts forth from his own dark soul as if pneumatic, prehensile tendrils, and by these vaporous lariats he can “spiritually colonize” -either partially or fully- certain individuals that are open to receive him.

> (We might also add that the Anti-Christ tends to seek out and ultimately find such “spiritual victims” whenever a new Prophet emerges; this is esp. true when we consider the examples already heretofore cited, i.e.,

>that of Samīri at the time of Moses [عليه السلام],

>Saf Bin Sayyad during the life of Muhammad [ﷺ] and, going forward, Paul of Tarsus, who did his malefic work shortly after the life of the Prophet of his age, -namely, Jesus Christ [عليه السلام].

>And so the purpose of Ad-Dajjāl’s method in this regard appears to be an attempt at causing deviations or a departure from the message with which the new Apostle in question has been sent;

>in essence we might say that he is trying to “counterbalance” any new Divine guidance with satanic aberrations).

>>33795

>[25:31] translation:

>Even so have We appointed unto /every prophet/ an opponent from among the guilty; but Allah sufficeth for a Guide and Helper.

I must also add that I interpret from this that there is any any given time a singular opponent from among the guilty.

For Jesus, this was Judas, as he fulfills many of the requirements and, biblically, was accused by Jesus of being a devil if i recall correctly

since many Muslims believe that Judas was substituted for Jesus on the cross,

then for this ayat to be true, with the death of Judas on the cross, another would opponent from among the guilty

(ex. those pressing/persecuting/slaughtering/genociding/torturing the followers of Jesus) would be appointed, that appointed opponent being Paul of Tarsus.

>>33918

>>33918

>1 Corinthians 13 is really timeless to me.

satan was granted the gift of eloquence of speech, and to enter into the blood of the son of adam, which includes the heart. it is no surprised he is intimately acquainted with his enemies

"keep friends close, enemies closer" is the proverb, yes?

this would obviously mean he. satan, has clear understanding (even if it's not a working empathetic understanding) of love.

otherwise he would not be able to deceive husbands and wives and create enmity between them and split them.

he is familiar with the workings of the heart, that is why he is so good at tempting us as well.

not only that, but your chapter delivers many misunderstandings of love, and any truths it conveys are done more properly and without error in the Qur'an.

and as was made clear before, the dajjal may not be in control of themselves at all times, but at other times may speak words of eloquence and peace that ultimately serve to misguide, and speak and act in a way that appear righteous.

the best you can do to excuse paul by saying he had momentary lapses from the control of dajjal, and left some pearls of wisdom and hints to his possession (thanks to the righteous jewish teachings he learned) and role as an emissary of the anti-christ.

paul was also a known plagiariser and could not properly quote the old testament, instead twisting it. a man of God would have the words and teachings of God impressed upon his heart. He wouldn't be so evil by nature, persecuting believers, and he would definitely not speak against the words of God and His Prophets and contradict their teachings and pray to a deity other than Allah. Jesus had ample enough time to teach what Paul claimed to have been taught by him, but in John 17, after conveying true monotheism, and the coming of the Comforter in john 14:16 and John 16, Jesus says he has completed all works Jesus was sent by God to do.

this is completely before the crucifiction occurred, where the Jews use deceit to make the Romans and Judas pour Jesus' soul over to death, Allah used deceit on Judas by making him appear as though he was Jesus – and Allah used deceit on the Jews who deceived the nature of Jesus to condemn him to death via deception, to convince them in rejoicing in the murder of the wicked one, Judas, the son of their wickness and deceit.

as for why Judas was murdered, 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth';

Judas sent Jesus to death innocently, so God enacted His perfect plan and Justice and raised Jesus to Himself alive, and sent Judas to receive the punishment that Judas sent Jesus to receive innocently, and accomplish embarrassing the Jews.

in this, the Jews were humiliated by God, and their deception against and wrongful attempt of martyrdom of a Messenger of God failed. they lost favor with God already and were lost. that is why Jesus was sent to guide them back to the truth and straight way. by increasing in their belligerence against Jesus, it may be that as the righteous Jews did not stand for justice in that case against Jesus, they were all punished by being separated from the true teachings of Jesus. as such, Jews didn't come to accept the proper understanding of the Messiah except through the Qur'an.

(which if Judaism accepted the Messiah in the early days, they may likely have overtaken pauline Christianity. but they denied a mercy and blessing from God and were punished and separated from it until Muhammad peace be upon him could finally convey Jesus' true teachings in a way the Jews could understand and accept.

[this is my take. Allah knows best]

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.

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.)

It was Saul-Josephus who broke every one of these commandents and taught many of his followers to do likewise, be practicers of lawlessness. Certainly then, it is Paul who is being called the least. Least in 5:19, is translated from the greek elachstos, a greek equivalent of the Latin "Paulos" meaning small, least, lightweight:

He was being called 'Paul' – that is, the "least", not in stature, but in the kingdom of God; which is why he inherited this name.

>>34012

>>tertullian, hippolytus quotes

What is this supposed to show? They say Paul persecuted the Christians but then converted and changed. And?

>Paul divided the church and then sucked away the Gentiles for himself.

How do you draw this conclusion? Curious.