The Christian Chrysalis: On New Testament Pauline Propaganda, etc., by Dr. Omar Zaid

One is hard pressed to find any trace of a genesis or continuum of Apostolic Doctrine for the Trinitarian view in either the Hebrew Torah or its attendant Prophetic literature.  All OT references to God are absolutely Unitarian and readily describe our Creator as uniquely single without peer or equal.  Only in the Talmud or Kabala do we find suggestions to the contrary, and these references are strictly non-prophetic interpolations or interpretations, written by the Hebrew Priesthood after the Babylonian Captivity of 6^th century BC.  The very first Hebrew to ascribe an equal to God is Paul, who clearly does so without any discernable precedent in Holy Writ.

He, or whoever wrote letters ascribed to him, alleges that this is a mystery, withheld from the greatest Patriarchs of antiquity ― who were apparently less worthy than he ― and then he lays claim to a divine office of Apostle to the gentiles; specifically for its long awaited revelation.  But nowhere in scripture can we find any prophetic references indicating that believers should wait and watch for Paul’s definitive explanation of the Divine Plan for man’s redemption!  These facts do not seem to disturb many doctors of divinity who admittedly accept both Paul and his dogma on faith in this man alone; although numerous rational recantations are recorded in the bloody wake of Pauline factionalists.  It seems even to have been a mystery to Jesus (Isa) himself, who gives ample testimony to the contrary in the recorded gospels, and specifically in Rev 22:8, where he makes it clear he is but a man and fellow servant of St. John from the tribe of Judah![1]  So … where did the writer of the Pauline epistles get his ideas?  ― From God or the ascended Jesus, who said he would not return until the end ― or from an inflated image of a self-generated mission?  That Paul was a zealot is known and that he was a ‘Pharisee of Pharisees’ he says himself.

The Pharisees had two sets of books like all good tax evaders: one for public examination and the other for private reckoning.  It is the private ledger one needs to audit in order to find precedents for Paul’s assertion.  This book is the infamous Kabala.  For those readers not familiar with it, I will but briefly mention that it is the chief document for the present global dissemination of occult sciences within the domains of all syncretic esoteric knowledge of magic! It is esoteric Judaism and is pre-eminently fundamental to Free-masonry, Theosophy, Anthroposophy, Satanism, and practically every New-Age Ideology; including various forms of witchcraft, sorcery, Wicca and Astrology.  Therefore, if Paul was indeed a Pharisee of Pharisees, he was also an occult master; something Christians are slow to realize or comprehend!  This is not without precedent in the history of Prophecy, for Moses himself was an adept from the Egyptian Temple of On, forty years prior to the onset of his Prophetic ministry.  This Moses took four decades to prepare for his ministry while the pagan Initiation was washed out of him, Paul took three years.  Why the rush?

That Paul had difficulty with the doctrines of Apostles who actually knew Jesus is manifest in the Book of Acts, so much so, that Barnabas left his company.  Abraham’s Covenant of Circumcision,[2] as expressed by the example of Jesus himself, became a major bone of contention and actually split the embryonic Church under Paul’s tutelage!  Paul became a ‘law unto himself’, ostensibly by the divine leave of an unseen witness he claims was the Risen “Christos”!  Not one of his peers gave any confirmation that this spirit guide was in fact the prophet Isa (Jesus), though they readily admitted Paul was full of “the word” and blessed with “power”; working manifest signs and wonders.  Now, when we consider that Jesus Christ was the ‘common name’ for many a heathen messiah, is it not reasonable to consider the possibility that some ‘spirit’ bearing that name did indeed guide Paul to his drastically opposing views of the gospel of Isa, especially since Paul never knew the Prophet; considering also that Isa plainly stated he would not return until after many false messiahs and teachers would precede his second advent with signs and wonders?[3]  For rational people of faith I would expect that this is a reasonable question.

I do not wish to belabour the reader with the morass of theological imputations that are mere speculative apologies for Paul’s rather singular Christological perspective. Instead, I offer a few assessments from leading theologians regarding Paul’s doctrine:

1)  “Paul emphatically asserts that ‘the gospel which was ‘preached by me’ is independent of any human source or agency, having come directly to him ‘through a revelation of Jesus Christ.’  His message was so thoroughly his own in fact, that he refers to it as simply ‘my gospel’”

R. Longeneker, Zondervan Biblical Encyclopaedia, 1976

2)  “… His view of the world is influenced by Hellenistic (Greek) cosmology, and his Christological expressions reflect the imagery of the descent and ascent of heavenly redeemers.  Paul’s belief that baptism accomplishes unity with Christ and that improper participation in communion causes sickness and death is reminiscent of ideas prevalent in the Hellenistic Cults … fundamental is his acceptance of Jesus as Christ and Lord.”

Harper’s Biblical Dictionary

3)  “The most disruptive influence faced by Paul came from other (Christian) missionaries visiting his congregation and persuading his converts to observe the Jewish Law (Torah).  The issue here, as later, was circumcision the principle on which the new community was based is that faith in Christ implies freedom from the ordinances of Moses.”

Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1997

Paul is portrayed as a divisive and confrontational man who single-handedly marshalled the first sectarian separation from those Apostles and Disciples who actually knew Isa and continued the traditions of Moses, as did Isa himself.  Pauline doctrine also led to the greatest slaughter in early Christian history: when from the 4^th and through the 8^th centuries, Romanized Trinitarians essentially killed anyone who disagreed with them, after excommunication or censorship failed to stifle the voice of reason.  These prototypical Catholics murdered more Christians than all previous Roman persecutions by Pagan Emperors.[4]  An interesting fact is that ‘outside’ agitators’ and Nazi Brown-Shirts ― i.e. illiterate monks in hair-shirts [5] ― often committed the atrocities against dissenting Christians when otherwise not hacking peaceful pagans to death in order to appropriate real estate and funding for wine soaked monasteries and sacred sisters of the cloth!

Apparently the holy marauders roamed through the countryside with the tacit approval of Emperor and Bishop, and quite by chance silenced the most erudite Trinitarian opponents and cultured pagans in random acts of pious zeal!  Were the victims disciples of Paul?  No, they were predominantly Judaizing Hebrew disciples of Isa’s Mosaic renewal, or previously-pagan Unitarian-gentile-disciples of Isa who were non-believers in his divinity.  The tonsured murderers were essentially a Pauline body of god-man worshippers who had had enough of talk with authentic monotheist nonconformists; so much so, that after Alaric’s barbarian hordes sacked the Roman Capital (410 AD) and loosed the last restraints of Rome’s famous Law & Order on the Trinitarian ascendancy, they simply eliminated the opposition with the professional expertise of any civilized mob of thugs!  They were, in essence, what the British call ‘yobs’. [6]

Why would Isa wait until after his Ascension (earthly departure) to reveal this extremely complex Mystery of God only to Paul, rather than teach it plainly while he ministered to the Twelve?  Or why did Isa not tell the Twelve that immediately after his departure, he would send from among their contemporaries, a greater apostle to explain everything he himself had left untaught?  Why did Isa specifically say he did not come to do away with the Mosaic Covenant (Law),[7] and why does Paul alone, go to such extraordinary measures to apologize for his contradiction of Isa’s very plain declaration?  Was Paul with them on Pentecost when they each received a portion of prophetic inspiration as witnessed by all of Jerusalem?  He was not! Yet he declares his portion, received privately, was greater!  If Christians were to truly reflect upon these extremely rational queries, they would all become Muslims as were Adam, Isa, and Abraham!

To say that Paul set himself, or was set by an interpolator above the Twelve, as well as all prior prophets, is not an understatement, and is likely due to natural zeal and an extremely hardy spirit.  It is widely recognized in all Christian circles that few people understand his theological perspective and yet most congregations accept, on blind faith, the cannon of ‘his’ peculiar gospel.  Only the well-read layperson or theologian will understand what is stated in item #3 above, which is specifically why I am writing this monograph.  Paul later went on to describe Isa as the Cosmic Christos,[8] a concept directly correlated with the Hindu World-Soul or Brahma, which is the theological anchor of Christology for several current Occult Doctrines such as Rudolph Steiner’s Anthroposophical movement, or Madame Blavatsky’s Theosophy and various other fellowships of Luciferian sympathy, such as the ashrams of Maitreyan Yogis and our Freemasonic overlords.  I will press on to share comments on the Trinitarian Doctrine as generated by Paul’s mysterious frame of reference, ‘from the horse’s mouth’ as brother Deedat (pbuh) liked to say:

4)   “Trinity: a term denoting the specific Christian doctrine that God is a unity of three persons.  The word itself does not occur in the Bible.  It is generally acknowledged that the Church Father, Tertulian (AD 145-220), either coined the term or was the first to use it with reference to God.  The explicit doctrine was thus formulated in the post-Biblical period … Attempts to trace the origins earlier than the New Testament, in Old Testament literature, cannot be supported by historical-critical scholarship, and these attempts must be understood as retrospective interpretations … in light of later theological developments.  The formal doctrine as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT.”                     (Harper’s Bible Dictionary)

This authoritative excerpt dates from the 19^th century, updated in 1985, and exhibits the Trinitarian imaginative scale by clearly stating there is no OT Biblical precedent and that the formal doctrine is also not found in the NT.  The traces of its supposed NT references are extrapolations taken mainly from Paul’s letters.  One famous extra-Pauline passage is from the gospel of John 1: 1, and refers to the term logos, which is a Platonic term used in the Greek Mystery Religions. However, this is now known to be directly plagiarized from the Hebrew scholar, Philo, who wrote in the first century BC.  Even the translation of the plagiarized text is spuriously accomplished to favour the Trinitarian view, as there are two Greek words used: one for ‘God the Creator’ (which is Hotheos), and the other ‘a god’ (which is Tontheos) referring to Christ.[9]  Translators have conveniently expressed both words as God the Creator (Hotheos). Hence they achieved the required precedent of equating Christ with God the Father.  Even so, the lesser term ‘a god’ is definitively equivalent to all ancient pagan conceptions for the several Redemptors who were said to be sired by respective paternal divinities.  But even this is not the true import of this use of ‘little god’, as I shall explain later.

We must return to Philo Judaeus (20 BC – 54 AD), for a brief moment.  He was an Alexandrian Hebrew of ancient priestly stock, who made it his life’s work to reconcile the Hebrew Theology with Greek Mythology and Plato’s philosophy.  It was he, Philo, who coined the phrase: “the first-begotten of God’ in direct reference to the ‘logos’ being God’s ‘offspring by the virgin Wisdom’.  This is taken from his book: DE CONFUSIONE LINGUARUM page 28, re-copied during the time of Isa, and which original predated the copied gospels by at least 200 years!  This contemporary temporal relationship and word-for-word inclusion in the NT Canon cannot be ignored or apologized away! It is exceeding evidence of blasphemy rather than divine revelation!   This singular fact also unveils the mythical Christian Trinity’s ‘smoking-gun’, unless you wish to include Philo in the cadre of canonized Apostles!?

This irrefutable evidence presents us with collusion between the pious latter Church Fathers and their zealous scribes, who either believed the myth or were consciously working for Zeus, another pantheonic Christos!  Philo had simply used the typical Semitic allegorical poetry, so common in his time, to illustrate his concept of Allah’s revelatory process.  He did this in order to explain Hebrew theology to Greek intellectuals.  And feasibly, that is what John also attempted; but the later Church fathers utilized this metaphor to make Isa an incarnate god acceptable to non-intellectual pagan myth lovers, as a conversion tool for power politics!  Instead of plainly teaching that the gift of wisdom was ultimately manifest as being bestowed by God upon the final Hebrew Prophet, they taught that Isa was God’s wisdom Incarnate, and thus co-equal with God as His Only Begotten[10] Son, the first and sole incarnate son divinely patented with infinite wisdom because he was God!  May Allah have mercy, for I believe many did not know what they were doing.

To aid this formula for a unified polity, the NT verses of 1 John 1:5-7, referring to the Trinitarian blueprint, were also spuriously added but exposed by 19^th century German Scholars and consequently, removed from the Revised Standard Edition of the Bible in 1902.  Nevertheless, under immense pressure from American Evangelicals, they were restored in 1952 without explanation!  The Editorial Interpolators of this re-revised version of RSV did admit however, that the King James Version had over 50,000 errors, many of which were serious in nature.  For a broader expose’ of their creative work, I refer you to Mr. Deedat, as well as to the Codex Sinaiticus which unequivocally demonstrates the metamorphic mythical process, and, as Al Qur’an elegantly states  ‘they know it not.”

5)  “Codex Sinaiticus was worked over by correctors long after it was first written, one can actually see this process of alteration for doctrinal reasons at work.” [11]

This ‘oldest’ copy of the complete Bible also lacks any of the now published NT references to Christ’s Resurrection!  It bears absolutely no mention of a ‘Resurrected Body’ of Christ, or of any of the later additions referring to his many apparitions before his ascension.  Even the ascension itself is absent!  But let us return to the horse’s instruction:

6)   “While NT writers say a great deal about God, Jesus, and the Spirit of each, no NT writer expounds on the relationship among the three in the detail that later Christian writers do.  The earliest NT evidence … comes in 2 Cor 13 … it is possible that this formula derives from later liturgical usage and was added to the text as it was copied.  The word ‘holy’ does not appear before ‘spirit’ in the earliest copied manuscripts for this passage.  There are other NT passages where God, Jesus, and the Spirit, are referred to in the same passage, and it is important to avoid reading the Trinity into places where it does not occur … later Trinitarian perspectives diminish the important use of the spirit of human beings e.g. (1 Peter 3-4. 19)”

                    Daniel N. Schowalter, Oxford Companion to the Bible, 1993

 7)   “… The word Trinity, first used in AD 180, is not found in Scripture.  Tertulian taught that the divine Word [12] existed originally in the Father’s mind, and first became a distinct person when the world was created.[13]  The Holy Spirit’s Personality was subsequent to that of the Word, and thus not strictly co-eternal with the Father.  This view and that of Origen, echoed those of contemporary Platonists, who envisaged three eternal divine powers arranged in descending order of dignity.[14]  In the 7^th century, the doctrine of mutual indwelling of the three Persons of the Trinity, implicit in the works of Cappadocian Fathers and of Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite[15] was developed.”

                                      Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1997

The sad truth is that Christian Scholars know these facts but fail to teach them to the average Pastor, especially those among third world nations.  Why? Let us read some thoughts from Church Fathers: the prime formulators of Trinitarian Dogma and Persecution during the 3^rd to 5^th centuries AD:

8) “Investigation of natural phenomena is superfluous and beyond the human mind, and the learning and study of these matters are impious and false.”

Eusebius, c. 340 AD Church Historian

9) “Let us Christians prefer the simplicity of our faith which is stronger, to the demonstrations of human reason.”                                                                     St. Basil

10) “St. Augustine called the sum total of imported paganism among his congregation their ‘mother’, while what he himself taught was their ‘father’.  …  He conceded they must be allowed some latitude in their manner of worship.”

 Ramsey MacMullen

11) ‘Better worship of the Saints in the pagan manner than none at all.’      St. Jerome

12) “The reason the Fathers of the church moved the Jan 6^th celebration of Epiphany (Baptism of Isa) to Dec 25^th  was this: it was the custom of the pagans to celebrate on this same Dec 25^th the birthday of their sun-gods, and they lit lights then to exalt the day, inviting Christians to these rites.  When the Fathers of the Church saw Christians inclined to this custom, their strategy was to set the true Sunrise on this day, and this usage is maintained to the present day, along with the lighting of lights.”                   Dionysius Bar-Salibi, Bishop of Amida, Syria, 12^th Cent.

---