Douglas - Section 19, 20, 21, 22

<Section #19> Clay Douglas states: “... Paul tells much about his persecutions and trials during these missionary years. He claimed he was beaten, arrested, and placed in prison many times. Finally, in Rome, Paul was arrested and put into prison. He died in Rome nearly blind and while under house arrest. While reading these tales of Paul’s travels the reader is enticed to feel sorry for Paul and angry at his persecutors. This is all part of the Lie.”

In reply to section <#19>: Paul and Barnabas were persecuted by jews at Pisidian Antioch in Anatolia (Acts 13:50), at Iconium (Acts 14:2), and at Lystra (Acts 14:19). Paul was likewise pursued in Thessalonica (Acts 17:4-9) and at Berea (17:13-14). Paul was also persecuted by jews in Corinth (Acts 18:17) and by silversmiths at Ephesus who appear to be pagan Greeks, but not necessarily (Acts 18:24-41). Throughout these accounts the jews always enlisted the common people to their cause by some device, just as Douglas does in his article! The jews (Judaeans in Jerusalem who rejected Christ, which all Edomites did though many of these may yet have been blind Israelites) seized Paul in Jerusalem and beat him, and plotted and attempted to kill him (Acts 21-23), and jews testified against him before the Roman authorities (Acts 24-25). We have an unbroken tradition, from Acts 6 down through all the early church writers such as Tertullian (Apology 21.18, 21.25), that the jews were behind the persecutions of all Christians, and of course that of Christ Himself! When Clayton Douglas talks about Paul’s persecutions, and scoffs at them saying “this is all part of the Lie”, who is Clayton Douglas defending? The jews! Clayton Douglas, follower of the jews, defender of the jews, champion of the jews! No wonder he attempts to let Judas the traitor off as some poor unsuspecting patsy (see his comments at section <#13>)! I’m beginning to wonder whether there’s a yarmulke under his motorcycle helmet! (Douglas dons such a helmet in a photo of himself on page 5 of his December, 2003 Free American Newsmagazine).

As we continue to address Clayton Douglas’ article The Seduction: Judeo-Christianity Or Pauline Christianity? Saul of Tarsus: Paul. A different view, I do hope that up to this point where Douglas’ article has been addressed, his deceit has already been exposed, and his lies and his fraud are fully exhibited. Yet all of Douglas’ articles about Paul must be addressed, as all of H. Graber’s article was addressed, for an exhibition to Paul-bashers everywhere, that their assertions are vain, and based upon nothing but lies and misunderstandings, and that Paul of Tarsus was a true and noble man, an Israelite fulfilling the tasks which were given him to do. While I have not mentioned it until now, the irony of Douglas’ title to his first Paul-bashing article, published in the December 2003 issue of his Free American Newsmagazine, has certainly not escaped me. Douglas would on one hand criticize the jews, and on the other use jewish sources to bash Paul. Then Douglas would offer “Judeo-Christianity” as an alternative in place of Paul, as if somehow judaism and Christianity could ever be compatible with one another in the first place! And he does this even though he himself admitted “the fact that Judeo-Christianity is almost an oxymoron”, which I’ve already discussed here on p. 33, in the introduction to these Douglas articles. This is only further confirmation that Clayton Douglas is not a clear thinker, since his statements are full of conflicting thoughts, and his ideas consistently clash with one another. For my part, I will esteem the teachings of Paul, and reject not only “Judeo-Christianity”, but all the attacks by the jews against Truth.

 <Section #20> Clay Douglas states: “THE LIES. In Paul’s letters (and teachings), he passionately reminds people over and over again that he is NOT a liar and that he does not lie. The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed forever, knows that I do not lie. (Il Corinthians. 11:31-33). In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie! (Galatians 1:15-20) For this I was appointed, a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, l am not lying), a teacher of the gentiles in faith and truth (1 Timothy 2:7). I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience bears witness in the Holy Spirit that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race (Romans 9:1-3).”

“So, is Paul lying...or not? If it is a lie, and you accuse me of lying, I will be forced to respond with a denial because a lie cannot and will not speak for itself. The things that motivated me to lie will motivate me to deny my lie. Then, feeling the weakness of my position, I look for something more! What more can I do? I must call forth a witness, so that you have not only my testimony, but also that of another. The scripture plainly states that everything is established at the mouth of two or three witnesses. You may have me pegged for a liar, but perhaps you will believe someone else. But on whom can I call on such short notice? To be effective, I must have a witness now! Not only so, but my witness must be a person of undisputed veracity, for it will not do to call on a reputed liar. Whose testimony would you accept immediately without question? Who? Who? Who? Ah! There is only one person right for my task ... God in heaven!

“So, who is Paul’s witness? (It is) understand that Paul’s denials do not constitute proof that he was lying. Many have denied in an ‘off the cuff’ manner when accused of lying, even though they were truthful. Children react this way when they accuse one another, and they frequently call on some higher authority to witness for them: ‘If you don’t believe me, ask my dad.’ They, being children, don’t think of the implications of denial, although they would understand them if they paused to reflect before responding. They may even establish a habit of denial that persists into adulthood and there continue to deny through force of habit. Perhaps we have all done it. But we are not dealing here with children or with flippant responses in face-to-face encounters. Paul was writing letters under circumstances that should have provided opportunity for reflection. I visualize him in the home of some disciple, or in prison late at night after all others have retired, sitting before the dim light of a flickering oil lamp and carefully measuring his words.”

In reply to section <#20>: Here Douglas addresses first century literature, which Paul’s letters are, and criticizes it through the distorted lens of twentieth century psychobabble. Because Paul emphatically states that he is telling the truth, or that he is not lying, then Douglas would have one believe that he must be lying. Douglas’ statements here are a classic example of jewish “double think”, and as we shall see a little later on in Douglas’ article, of what he has the audacity here to accuse Paul, he practices himself!

Yahweh Himself is recorded as saying through the psalmist “Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me” (Psa. 89:35-36). So according to Douglas’ twisted logic, Yahweh Himself, by denying that He lied, should be considered a liar! Nay, for Paul proclaims to us, “let Yahweh be true, but every man a liar”! If Clayton Douglas’ assertions are not jewish psychobabble, then he is a mere hypocrite, for holding Paul to a higher standard than Yahweh. Here it is clear that Douglas’ judgment is far from being just.

Douglas also makes much of Paul’s own appeals to Yahweh, accusing Paul of childish tactics, where he attributes to Paul the attitude: “If you don’t believe me, ask my dad.” Unlike the scoffer Douglas, there was a time when men took such public appeals to Yahweh seriously, and there are many men who still do. At one time men understood that blasphemy and impiety, along with other sins, were followed by judgment. The English word crisis is nothing more than a transliteration of the Greek word  κρίσις (2920), which means judgment. There are still some men around who understand this.

We should examine the words of Paul at Galatians 1:15-20 in light of the statements of Yahshua Christ at John 5:19-38, where Yahshua asserts that He is True, and that it is Yahweh the Father who bears witness of Him. Yahshua Christ also uttered assertions that He was telling the truth in His statements, as recorded at Luke 4:25; 9:27; 12:44; 21:3; John 8:31-32, 40, 45-47; 14:6 and 18:37. Was Yahshua Christ lying? Certainly not! And neither was Paul, whom we should measure with the same standard. But since Clayton Douglas does not measure Paul with the same standard, then if he isn’t employing jewish psychobabble, he’s merely a hypocrite! My assertion would be that both elements are true.

Furthermore, Douglas admitted that Paul was “in Rome nearly blind ... while under house arrest” (see section <#19> on p. 64 ), yet here envisions Paul alone, writing by candlelight late at night. Yet how could this be? It is true that Paul was nearly blind, which shall soon be discussed here at length. And so Paul never wrote alone, for someone else always did the actual writing for him. Sufficient evidence of this is found at Romans 16:22; 1 Cor. 16:21; Gal. 6:11; Col. 4:18 and 2 Thess. 3:17. Can Clay Douglas get any of his story straight?

 <Section #21> Clay Douglas states: “The Truth of the matter is that Paul/Saul was a Pharisee, known today as a Khazarian Zionist. From the beginning of time their philosophy and life-style has never changed. They use anyone and everyone for their purposes as set forth in the Protocols of Zion. Paul was no exception. Paul WAS persecuted, but - reportedly - not for the reasons you think. Many sources claim that Paul/Saul was a latent homosexual.”

In reply to section <#21>: With this short paragraph, Douglas once again openly displays his shameful lack of knowledge both of Scripture and of history. This last irrational diatribe to come from the pen of Douglas demonstrates he has not the ability to comprehend what he reads, and the reader should thus take caution when reading anything of Douglas’.

Was Paul a Khazar? The Khazars were at one time an Adamic people, who dwelt north and east of the Caspian Sea (modern Kazakhstan), far removed from Paul’s world both in time and place. The later Khazar monuments show an admixture with the Hittite, for which see Clifton Emahiser’s Watchman Teaching Letter #56, p. 3, col. A.,  par. 4. They were converted to Judaism beginning in the seventh century A.D., centuries after Paul’s death. By no means may Paul be associated with these people. Was Paul a Zionist? The American Heritage College Dictionary defines zionism: “A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing Anti-Semitism [sic] and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine and that now concerns itself with the survival and development of the state of Israel [sic].” Can Paul be blamed for these policies? Certainly not! Rather, he taught that the Edomite-jews in Judaea were the enemy, and that they were destined to be destroyed (Rom. 9:1-13, 21-23), that the enemy had taken over the temple (2 Thess. 2), and that the Romans were to participate in their destruction (Rom. 16:20), hardly a zionist position! The statements in the New Testament records concerning Paul of Tarsus are consistently opposed to Clayton Douglas’ claims concerning him. One can only wonder whether Douglas ever actually sat and read the book.

Yet most vile are Douglas’ claims concerning Paul’s sexuality: “Many sources claim that Paul/Saul was a latent homosexual.” Note his use of the term “many sources”, as if that alone made his statement authoritative. Note also the use of the term “latent”, of which the basic definition, again from The American Heritage College Dictionary, is: “1. Present or potential but not evident or active.” I must say, all men have such potential! And so in reality the term is meaningless. Yet the dictionary continues: “2. Pathology In a dormant or hidden stage ... 4. Psychology Present in the unconscious mind but not consciously expressed.” In truth “latent homosexual” is a term invented by those same purveyors of psychobabble, who seek to have such behavior to be considered “normal”, and who slander all men with that and other artificial terms such as “homophobic” if one dares to speak out against such deviancy. Was Paul a “latent”, or any other type, of homosexual? Certainly not! Yet this, along with Douglas’ source for such a slanderous remark, will be discussed further below, after we finish hearing from Douglas on the issue. First, Douglas intermixes several other topics with this vile claim, and they also must be addressed.

<Section #22> Clay Douglas states: “‘Nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.’ - Romans 7:18 (Paul of Tarsus). While Paul’s impact on the world is clear, the issue of his sexuality is not. He was responsible for two of the three New Testament texts specifically interpreted in the modern period as condemnation of homosexuality, and for the only reference in the Bible taken to refer explicitly to lesbianism. He was an intense, passionate man filled with tremendous self-loathing. Read some of his words: ‘I pummel my body and subdue it lest after preaching to others. [sic] I myself should be disqualified.’ - I Corinthians 9:27.”

In reply to section <#22>: It is clear from the record: Paul taught that self-control over one’s lusts and emotions was a necessity (i.e. Acts 24:25, where ἐγκρατεία, 1466, which means “self-control”, was translated “temperance” in the A.V. The word also appears at Gal. 5:23, and twice at 2 Pet. 1:6). Anyone who’s ever read Deuteronomy should know that such self-control was necessary to practice in Old Testament times also! And not only sexual self-control, but also self-control over other facets of general behavior, such as alcohol consumption and public conversation. Yet aside from the lures of drugs or alcohol, which most if not all of us have experienced to one extent or another during our lives, there is the lure of covetousness, or lust, not only for money or property but also for the opposite sex, which we are tempted with daily. The desire for security in our finances leads us to excess, reflected by the stock market bubbles of the 1920’s and 1990’s, manifestations of the evils of lust and greed. Our egos cause us to furnish our lives with all sorts of toys and unnecessary items, and the gross consumerism of western society today leads to our downfall (cf. Ezek. 27, Rev. 18). Yet worse than these things is sexual lust, and sexual lust of any sort! We are bombarded with sexual images daily and from many directions. The same hormones which drive us to marry and have children are triggered by our minds when we succumb to these images, and can cause us to lust. Any man who denies such must be a eunuch! All of these invitations to sin which are available today were also available in the first century, although they weren’t as technologically advanced, and these Paul warned about consistently. Where Paul uses himself as an example, at Romans 7:13-25 or at 1 Corinthians 9:19-27, both of which Douglas quotes from here, he is only explaining just how difficult it is even for him to control all of these lusts. We have all, without exception, experienced these lusts! How many of us have gone to the lengths which Paul did, to maintain self-control and suppress them? The issue of Paul’s sexuality should not even be called into question here, and it is slanderous to do so. Paul’s statements here address things which we have all experienced, once we read them in context, and have nothing at all to do with sexual deviancy, “homosexuality”, as the blasphemous Douglas is suggesting, and in the next section of his article continues to suggest, enlisting the help of his icon Bishop Spong!