Bi-Polar Psycho or Pharisee Agent? Or Both?
Paul's Bi-Polar Camps of Die-Hard Defenders:
Catholics/Christians Messianic "Jews"
Believe the Law is "a curse" and "nailed to the cross" Believe Paul kept and preached the Law
AGAINST the Law
2 COR 3:7
2 COR 11-12
2 COR 13
2 COR 14
FOR the Law
2 COR 6:14
How can this be?
1. Paul was a bipolar schizophrenic who gave 2 very contradictory teachings / writings.
2. Paul was a typical hypocrite Pharisee that the Messiah warned of so repeatedly because they said and practiced one
thing and then said and did something completely contradictory the next moment. You simply have to read Acts to see how he
swung from one thing to another within the same writing.
3. Paul was telling converts one thing and then said something entirely different to the true Apostles to win their
favor.You needn't go any further then to see how "James" the half-brother of the Messiah makes an example of Paul because
of the confusing and contradictory teachings he was giving to converts. Thousands of Judeans wanted to kill Paul for
preaching a Torah-less (God-less) gospel and he was rejected from the churches of Asia for the same reason.
4. Paul was an agent provocateur - in other words, he infiltrated the sect of the Way to destroy their message from the inside.
This is something Jesuits and Zionists practice with proven results who may have taken this strategy from Paul. Remember he
persecuted and killed the true Saints of Elohim - he may have found it more effective to join them and given his ability to
speak and persuade began to lead new converts astray with an an entirely different "gospel" that contradicted that of the
Messiah and Talmidim.
5. "Paul" was two different individuals or two different writers - this is highly palpable - for the simple reason that it is
impossible to reconcile such opposing viewpoints.
Pick your poison.
No matter how you slice or dice it, it's impossible to reconcile such contradictory writings and by extension, teachings. It cannot be argued that he so blatantly contradicts himself because he changed his way of thinking AFTER his "alleged conversion" which by the way, does not add up either - he gave 3 different versions but more on this later - rather, ALL his bipolar teachings/writings took place AFTERWARDS.
So either he was a delusional schizophrenic OR a Machiavellian character of the worst kind OR perhaps more disturbing still, he was both. Why might Paul be a bipolar schizophrenic? As the above clearly shows, there are numerous scriptures where he clearly preaches FOR the Law and just as many scriptures where he is clearly preaching AGAINST the Law of God. Why then might Paul be an agent provocateur? Because it would be far more effective to infiltrate and destroy from within the Nazarene movement of the Saints he persecuted and put to death by pretending to be one of them, gaining their trust by claiming to preach the Law, and ultimately positioning himself as the sects "ringleader" (Acts 24:5) which he would exploit to preach a Lawless "gospel" contrary to what the Nazarenes were commanded by the Messiah and the true 12 Apostles to keep (BOTH the Law and Testimony of the Messiah). Was Paul's agenda effective? Spectacularly so - The original Nazarene movement was almost entirely wiped off the face of the earth - but miraculously survived - today a remnant few still keep BOTH the Law and Testimony staying true to the Word of the Father and Son of God who stated, "upon this rock I will build My church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."
(Matthew 16:18) after Peter correctly declares the Messiah is the Son of the living God (the Word - Torah - made flesh). The Messiah's church therefore is made up of Saints who keep His Torah and give Testimony He is God with us.
It cannot be ruled out that Paul was both a bipolar schizophrenic and agent provocateur. You will find he is often defending and opposing the Law within the same breadth of scriptures. Either way, it should be obvious that it is both complete foolishness and eternal suicide to rely on this individual for sound doctrine - particularly when he is preaching a Lawless doctrine when we are REPEATEDLY told by the Father and Messiah from Genesis to Revelation to keep Their Law or be denied at Judgment. Regardless of the side you take, it is a useless exercise to defend Paul who is like a serpent chasing its own tail.
While it would be very easy to add the 24 "For the Law" scriptures Paul is claimed to have voiced to add to The Heaven Religion's list of over 100 scriptures to keep the Law as one of the two criteria to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, paradoxically his 26 "Against the Law" scriptures would have to be given just as much credit. Since his For and Against scriptures of the Law completely contradict and cancel each other out, they were best left out. More importantly, his "Against the Law" scriptures fly completely against the Word of Elohim the Father and Messiah, which is why it was best to completely ignore his bipolar scriptures altogether.
Finally, you need not look any further then to see that Catholicism/Christianity is based on Paul's Lawless heretical teachings - it was he and not Peter that arrived to Rome. It is actually Paul and not Peter who is Catholicism's first "Pope"- AntiChrist. If Paul was truly telling converts to keep the Law (Torah), then all Christians would be keeping the Law - but this is not the case - in fact, quite the opposite is true - they reject it completely just as Paul taught.