The impaulsture


Here is the proof that Paul was not an apostle let alone a saint



Paul lied about Jesus appearing to him on the road to Damascus


The contradiction between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 gives us the undeniable proof that Paul and his accomplices did not get their stories straight hence that Paul lied about Jesus appearing to him on the road to Damascus:


"And the men who journeyed with him (Saul / Paul) stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no man"
Acts 9:7

"And those who were with me saw indeed the light and were afraid, but they heard not the voice of Him that spoke to me"
Acts 22:9



Common but wrong explanation about Acts 22:9

A number of allegedly learned Christians pretend Acts 22:9 is to be read: "they did not understand the voice" but:

        ► this doesn't make any sense since one can both hear or understand someone and one can hear a voice but one cannot understand a voice.

        ► more over, the Greek word used in the original text is "ἤκουσαν" (ēkousan) which is used in 19 Bible verses but is only translated by "to understand" in less than a third of the English translations of Acts 22:9 and in no other Bible verse.

        ► actually, among the 61 English Bible translations of Acts 22:9 available on BibleGateway.com, 44 do translate ἤκουσαν (ēkousan) by "to hear", only 13 translations read "didn't understand the voice" or a similar phrase, although it doesn't make any sense, and 4 translations do translate ἤκουσαν (ēkousan) by "to understand" but manage the fact that it makes no sense by omitting the word φωνὴν (phōnēn = voice) which is very dishonest.

There is hence no doubt that the proper translation of Acts 22:9 is indeed that Saul / Paul's companions didn't hear Jesus' voice in contradiction with Acts 9:7, which proves that Paul and his accomplices didn't get their stories straight hence lied about Jesus appearing to Paul – and making him an apostle.



Additional clues that Paul lied about Jesus appearing to him


        ► any person who saw Divine Light during a near death experience, as I did, can witness that Divine Light doesn't hurt the eyes hence couldn't have blinded Paul

        ► as a matter of act, Paul's companions did see the light of the apparition (Acts 22:9) but they were not blinded by the alleged apparition and it makes no sense that only Paul was blinded unless Jesus wanted it this way but...

        ► Jesus never hurt anyone, quite the opposite, actually, and there is no reason why he would have blinded Paul – even to heal him three days later. Paul only used this lie to make it seem like he went through his own crucifixion so people would consider him as a saint.

        ► Paul, hardly knows Jesus' teachings since, of the twelve apostles, he only met Peter and James during a two week stay in Jerusalem and that's it. This is the very reason why Paul's teachings are so different from the four Gospels. Paul does, however, know the Old Testament to which he often refers. Paul thus probably found inspiration to his lie in Exodus 3:6 which tells us Moses hid his face when God appeared to him as a burning bush. Now, Moses didn't hid his face because he was blinded but because he was afraid to look at God, big difference!

Christians must therefore face the ugly truth proven by the undeniable evidence from the very Bible: Paul lied; Jesus never appeared to him and never chose him as an apostle.



Paul also lied about visiting the Third Heaven


Paul didn't just lie about Jesus appearing to him on the road to Damascus, he also lied, talking about him in the third person (!) and pretending he "was caught up to the third heaven" (2 Corinthians 12:2). The problem is there is no such thing as a third heaven; it is a Jewish concept that no one ever witnessed about, neither Jesus, nor any Bible character nor anyone who had a near death experience and visited Heaven. Paul is the only one who allegedly was taken to third heaven... and yet, he never gave any explanation about what this third heaven would be. Not a word! He even pretended he "heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell" (2 Corinthians 12:5) which sounds very suspicious to me for two reasons:

        ► First of all, Jesus requested me to witness. Why would he reveal anything to me then forbid me to repeat it? And how condescending would it be to claim to know things that, how Paul basically puts it, "you bunch of spiritual morons are not allowed to know"? Is this the stand of an man who repeatedly claimed to be humble? If a humble person were revealed things other people are not supposed to know, they would purely and simply keep their mouth shut, they wouldn't refer to those things which allegedly "no one is permitted to tell" with the excuse that they "must go on boasting" (2 Corinthians 12:1). Duh!

        ► Second of all, in the same verse, Paul claimed the things he heard but which "no one is permitted to tell" are "inexpressible". If something is inexpressible, it is, by the very definition of th word, impossible to say anything about it, there is hence not need to forbid to tell it! Merging with God as I did during my near death experience is indeed inexpressible and nothing I will ever say about it will ever pay justice to what I experienced but Jesus still requested to witness to it as best as I can! Paul is not just misusing the vocabulary here; he has no idea what he's talking about. If he did, he would either testify to the best of his possibilities or he wouldn't mention his experience. Plain and simple.

Sadly, Paul's lies do not end here. He lies again twice, pretending: "Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know – God knows" (2 Corinthians 12:2) and "whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows" (2 Corinthians 12:3). The problem is anyone who ever had a near death experience or an out of body experience will tell you there is no mistaking being in the body or out of the body. This confirms Paul has no idea what he's talking about and he is lying... again!



It shouldn't come as a surprise that Paul lied


However painful it might be for you to learn that Paul lied about so serious an event as Jesus appearing to him and making him an apostle or about visiting the third heaven, it shouldn't come as a surprise because even 2000 years ago, Paul was already called a liar:

"But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, 'If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?' Why not say – as some slanderously claim that we say – 'Let us do evil that good may result'?
(Romans 3:5-8).

I am hence not saying anything new in debunking Paul's lies 😏



🤓 Paul never really converted to Christianity 😱


Jesus told me Paul never made a choice between Christianity and his former religion – which wasn't, as often believed, Judaism. Truth is, by his own admittance, Paul never really converted to Christianity. That's right! As told in the book of Acts, even years after Jesus allegedly made him an apostle, Paul still says he IS a Pharisee, using the present time rather than saying he used to be a Pharisee: "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees" (Acts 23:6). This statement is very different from Peter denying Jesus three times in one night because Paul does not stand on trial for being a Christian, which could explain how, being afraid of being whipped, he would say he still is a Pharisee. Paul really stands on trial "because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead" (Acts 23:6) and if you read Acts 23:7-10, you will see that whether or not Paul was still a Pharisee wouldn't have changed the situation.

If Paul had been a real Christian and he really renounced his Pharisee's beliefs, he could simply have argued that the Pharisees, just like him, believed in resurrection and angels. It was hence not necessary for Paul to say he was still a Pharisee. The only reason he did is because he still considered himself a Pharisee, thus revealing he never converted to Christianity. Paul did like Christianity but he never really converted to Jesus' teachings because one could not be both a Christian and a Pharisee since Pharisees were satanists, as proven by Jesus and John the Baptist calling them "snakes" and "brood of vipers" (Matthew 3:7; Matthew 12:34; Matthew 23:33), thus refering to the serpent, an allegory of Lucifer, pushing Eve and Adam to sin in Genesis 3:1-6.

Still not convinced Paul never ceased to be a Pharisee? Well, he also says it in Philippians 3:5, and not while standing on a trial this time, writing he is "in regard to the law, a Pharisee". That's right! When writing to the Philippians, Paul doesn't refer to himself as a former Pharisee but as a current Pharisee! We hence have to face the ugly truth: in addition to never being chosen as an apostle by Jesus, Paul was not even a true Christian for one certainly cannot be both a Christian and a satanist and however clumsy and stupid Paul's writings sometimes were (see below), he was not dumb enough as to claim being a satanist if he really had converted to Christianity, the word conversion implying one has fully renounced their former religion plus Jesus being clear that "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon."(Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13, mammon being one of Lucifer's name).



Paul sometimes gave his own personal teachings

1 Timothy 2 gives us the proof of how arrogant Paul could be, to the extent of giving his own teachings although they didn't match Jesus' teachings. See for yourself: “Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing” (1 Timothy 2:8).

Neither Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke nor John would ever start a teaching by “I want”. They would only relay Jesus' teachings and wishes. Saying “I want” is the proof that Paul is giving his own teachings, not Jesus', which he does again in the following verses:

I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” (1 Timothy 2:9-12).

A true disciple of Christ would never say “I want” or "I do not permit". He would only relay Jesus' commands or, possibly, explain he feels a certain way without making it his own command. The fact that Paul took the liberty of giving his own teachings is actually the very reason why his epistles have been called Paulism whereas there is no such thing as Matthewism, Markism, Lukism, Johnism or Peterism. It is obvious that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Peter were true to Jesus when Paul wasn't.



Paul's spiritual understanding was very shallow and limited
Of course, since Jesus never opened Paul's mind so he could understand the scriptures
as he did to the disciples after his resurrection (Luke 24:45)!


Let's see how stupid Paul's teachings can sometimes be! Here are the two reasons Paul gives as to why he demands women to remain silent in public:

        ► “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13). Come on! How deeply spiritual is this verse?

        ► “And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner” (1 Timothy 2:14) which is in total contradiction with Paul's two other letters (Romans 5:12 and Romans 5:19) according to which Adam only sinned: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man" (Romans 5:12); "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners" (Romans 5:19). Paul is thus so inconsistent that he both claims Adam is not responsible for the original sin and he is the only one responsible for it!

Here is even worse: an twice heretic verse! I do not question Paul's intent here, I do not mean he purposedfully denied God but his understanding is so shallow that he did manage to write a verse which does de facto deny God twice. See for yourself: "But now that you know God – or rather are known by God – how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?" (Galatians 4:9). Writing Now that you [...] are known by God" implies that God didn't know the Galatians before they knew God, which in turn:

        ► denies God created mankind.

        ► denies God is omniscient – and I will clarify that God doesn't have a bit of information plus another bit plus another bit, etc., amounting to knowing everything; God IS infinite Knowingness which means They know, feel, hear, see, smell and taste everything simultaneously, making it impossible for Them not to have known the Galatians before they turned to Them.

I would understand if someone worded a sentence in a clumsy way while improvising an address but it is not acceptable from someone who claims to be an apostle to write so outrageous a sentence. Paul's shallowness and clumsiness are actually signs that, contrary to what Jesus did for the disciples (Luke 24:45), he didn't open Paul's mind so he could understand the Scriptures.

This should be obvious even to a seven year old: in writing – which is way worse than saying something one doesn't really mean in the heat of an argument – "One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: 'Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.' This saying is true." (Titus 1:12-13), Paul showed his true nature, that of a stupid bigot, and anyone reading the Bible with a little care should know better from calling this joke of an apostle a saint.



Conclusion: understanding why Paul lied

Most Christians have a very hard time acknowledging Paul lied and was nothing near a saint because they don't understand his agenda. You have to remember that, by his own admittance, Paul was a Pharisee and he always remained a Pharisee, never really converting to Christianity. Now, as I explained earlier, Pharisees were satanists. What happened is that they schemed to have Jesus crucified, hoping this would put an end to Christianity but, just as he announced, Jesus resurrected and he proved it by appearing to the disciples. Killing Jesus hence only made Christianity more popular. When they realized their plan failed, the Pharisees sent Paul to corrupt Jesus' teachings, changing the path of Love taught by Jesus – and summed up in Matthew 22:34-40 – to the cold path of morality known as Paulism... and the obvious reason it is called Paulism is because it is not Christianity!

Now, if the path of Love and the path of morality are similar to some extent, for example because whether out of Love or for the sake of morality, we should refrain from killing or hitting on a married person, Paul insisted having premarital sex or being gay is wrong although Jesus never said anything like this and, on the contrary, on the path of Love taught by Jesus, there is nothing wrong with having premarital sex, being gay or being transgender. Jesus only frowned on debauchery which isn't defined in the Bible but is defined by 21st century dictionnaries by "excessive indulgence in sex, alcohol, drugs or gambling". Debauchery is therefore not limited to sex, which Paul was obsessed with, and, on the other hand, a married couple could also indulge in having too much sex which would also be frowned upon by Jesus, not for moral reasons but because it would be incompatible with a serious spiritual practice, hence opposing Jesus' firt commandment to love God above anything else. (One could argue than refraining from having sex would be even better but it would oppose the 'law of Love' to ourselves; we need balance and Paul's campaigning for sexual repression is extremist and is responsible for so much suffering!)

I therefore urge all true lovers of Christ to face the ugly truth, however painful it might be: Paul isn't an apostle; Paul is nothing near a saint; Paul is a fraud.

Paul actually probably is the first of the false prophets Jesus warned us about: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves" (Matthew 7:15). Again, I understand how painful it can be for you to realize you've been tricked – I confess I was mad at Paul when I first saw through is lies – but if Jesus went throuh the trouble of warning us about false prophets, it's because he knew how difficult it would be to unmask those wolves in sheep's clothing and he gave us the clue to doing so: "By their fruit you will recognize them". The only fruit Paul bore is bigotry and guilt with sexuality! You know how many Christians are unnecessarily tormented with the natural sex drive God placed in us! The fruit of Jesus' teachings is on the contrary peace, a peace all putting Jesus' real teachings into practice feel on a regular basis, a peace which grows despite life's natural hardship, as Jesus describes in Matthew 7:24-26 and Luke 47:49.

So let's face it, the only reason why priests, pastors and all Christian preachers are calling Paul a saint is because they are lying, just like their ancestors were lying: "Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering [the kingdom of God]." (Luke 11:52). This key to knowledge is the proper interpretation of Jesus' teachings, which, when understood in all their depth, are close to Vedic teachings, hence the motto of my website, "A both Vedic and Christic approach to spirituality", plus the techniques for spiritual growth Jesus used to teach 2000 years ago.


Please do not copy any part of this website except for private use.
Thank you.



Home page:
shaktilence.com


My story                Paul is a fraud                Get in touch