Douglas - Section 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33

<Section #28> Clay Douglas states: “Another good example of the TaImudic flavoring Paul added to the New Testament, remains the Communion. Paul’s ritual, which is the ‘drinking of the blood and the eating of the body of Jesus Christ’ is nothing more than Satanic cult worship. This is vampirism and cannibalism at best! Shall we dare to be open and honest about it? Or, is it easier to remain deaf, blind and dumb?”

In reply to section <#28>: As demonstrated throughout this response to Douglas’ Paul-bashing articles, Douglas while rejecting Paul also rejects much of the rest of the New Testament, along with much of the Old Testament, and thereby has been shown to have adopted all the positions of the jews themselves. See for instance section <#4> of this response, beginning on page 35, where it is fully manifest that Douglas is little but a jew, at least from a religious perspective.

Paul discusses the bread, the “body of Christ”, and the wine, or the cup of the new testament in the blood of Christ, in 1 Corinthians chapters 10 and 11, but nowhere does Paul instruct or insinuate that “communion” was to become the pagan religious ritual that the Romish church made of it. Yet Douglas implies that it was Paul who prescribed this ritual! In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul only describes the actions of Yahshua Christ at the “last supper”, and His instructions to the eleven (not counting Judas the jew), for them to partake of bread and wine in His memory. The actual body and blood of Christ, while a mystery to the Romish church, are the Israelite brethren sitting around the table as Paul explains at 1 Cor. 10:14-22, and also at 11:26-34, although Paul’s explanation is purposefully enigmatic and some words are poorly translated in the A.V. So therefore, Douglas’ “Talmudic” charge is plainly ridiculous.

It is nevertheless quite clear that at 1 Cor. 11:23-25 Paul is only repeating “that which also I delivered unto you”; i.e. what he received, he taught the Corinthians, and that is found at Matt. 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25 and Luke 22:17-20. While the true meaning of “communion” needs to be treated at length, this is not the forum in which to do that. Yet it is obvious that Paul is only following Yahshua Christ as His words were recorded by all four gospel writers. Yet while John did not record Yahshua’s words concerning the bread and wine at the “last supper”, he left us with a much fuller account where Yahshua discussed this same thing at length, at John 6:31-65. Again Clayton Douglas has fully adopted the position of the murmuring jews who could not understand how Yahshua Christ could call Himself the “bread of life” and advise His disciples to “drink His blood” (John 6:53). It’s not Paul’s fault that Douglas understands not these things, and lacks discretion of whom he follows, or from whence his sources originate!

<Section #29> Clay Douglas states: “And, let us be - again - honest with ourselves regarding the Pagen [sic] Holiday of EASTER. Let us try to practice common sense. Why have we all been ‘taught’ to give sacrifices of Pig and Eggs (fertility) in celebration of the terrible, tortured death of Esu Immanuel (Jesus Christ)? I know. I know. We purportedly celebrate His having risen. We offer up canned ham and chocolate bunnies because Christ rose from the dead. Never mind that this innocent man, whose only crime was to preach Yahweh’s Laws to those who had ‘strayed’ was brutally murdered at the hands of the Jewish Pharisees who had prodded the Romans to ‘carry out their hideous desires’.”

In reply to section <#29>: I can only wonder how anyone may possibly imagine that Paul had anything to do with Easter! And Douglas’ own ignorance is readily manifest here. How can one do so much writing on a topic, with so little studying? Sure, the word “Easter” does appear once in the Bible, at Acts 12:4, but only in its English translation. The Greek word there is πάσχα (Strong’s #3957), which is the Greek form of the Hebrew pecach (Strong’s Hebrew #6453), “Passover” everywhere else in the Bible in Greek or English. It’s not Paul’s fault that the “lost” tribes of Israel adopted the pagan Easter festival, and the Old Testament explains that they adopted such pagan ways again and again. Neither is it Paul’s fault, that centuries after his death the Romish church adopted the pagan festival rather than correcting our ancestors. Another thing which Paul cannot be blamed for is the Romish church’s acceptance of swine eaters, and the common consumption of pork among Christians today. Paul never advocated eating swine, because once his words are examined in their historical context it becomes evident that the Greeks also considered swine to be unclean! (i.e. Strabo 12.8.9). This I hope to address at length later on, where Douglas again raises the topic.

<Section #30> Clay Douglas states: “Never mind that Esu was lost to us forever. We are taught to celebrate His murder at Easter time each year. What kind of diabolical mind could come up with this horrible ritual. Why do we do it? Have we all lost our minds?”

In reply to section <#30>: Here we have it again, and I must reiterate that Paul cannot be blamed for Easter, nor for the way in which the Romish church has chosen to commemorate the death and resurrection of Yahshua Christ. Paul advised Christians to keep the feast of the Passover (1 Cor. 5:7-8), and Douglas makes himself a fool for not reading as much before condemning the apostle! Yet Douglas here again betrays himself as a follower of the jews, and no Christian, by stating that Yahshua Christ “was lost to us forever”. The implications of this statement in regard to Douglas’ corrupt view of Christianity should be readily apparent! Again, Clayton Douglas is a jew, religiously if not otherwise!

<Section #31> Clay Douglas states: “In Matthew 7:15-20 Jesus warned about the danger of false prophets that lead many astray. They are dangerous because if you believe their lies, they will change you internally. They can affect who you really are and your eternal destiny. They come and deceive by presenting falsehood as the truth. Jesus gave warning of them because they do not appear as the wolves they really are, but as friends of the flock. They come wearing sheep’s clothing, the garments of the shepherd. They appear as those who come to feed & lead the flock, but instead, they feed off the flock and exploit it for their own gain (2 Pet. 2:1).”

In reply to section <#31>: It is simply incredible that Douglas could make a citation from 2 Pet. 2:1 here, in yet another nefarious but lame attempt to portray Paul of Tarsus as something other than truthful, yet overlook what Peter specifically said about Paul at 2 Pet. 3:15-16, just a little further on in the same short epistle: “And account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of the things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” As I have asserted before, Clayton Douglas is either deceived, a deceiver, or simply an idiot, take your pick! And where Yahshua Christ, Peter and Paul all warned us about false prophets, false teachers, and wolves in sheep’s clothing, maybe Douglas and all the Paul-bashers should go back and examine the works of Friedrich Nietzsche, George Bernard Shaw, Joachim Prince, Taylor Caldwell, Michael Grant, John Spong and the rest of the liberals, jews, and perverted sexual deviants that they follow! Amazingly, the Paul-bashing H. Graber claimed to glean his spiritual sustenance, as he put it, from Peter: yet he also overlooked 2 Pet. 3:15-16!

<Section #32> Clay Douglas states: “Esu Immanual [sic] never knew Saul/Paul. Esu’s and Saul’s paths never crossed. But, Jesus/ Esu did know of Paul and Paul’s efforts to capture and to kill Him. Let us also remember that Jesus, despite this, never stopped attacking the Jewish hierarchy. Also, Esu hadn’t chosen which of his disciples was ‘the worthiest’; he used to keep a team of twelve disciples, for practical reasons: twelve is small enough to establish a dialogue among that group, and big enough to include various tendencies among the population of the time: [sic .] As he vaguely pointed at Peter as his successor, but gave extraordinary powers and mission to all his apostles, Jesus never chose nor approved of genocidal Paul to be his spokesman. To accept otherwise is a mockery of God.”\

In reply to section <#32>: Here Douglas continues the novel he began writing earlier in his article, for which see section <#13> beginning on p. 52. Apparently Douglas attempts here to clarify some of the ambiguities in the plot to his novel, but that still doesn’t make it real. Paul of Tarsus was described by Luke as a νεανίας (neanias, 3494) which Liddell & Scott define primarily as “a young man, youth”, which he must have been since he was still quite robust when he was sent off to Rome nearly 30 years later (Acts 27:1; the Roman procurator Festus who sent Paul to Rome held that office in Judaea from 59 to 62 A.D.). In a society such as Judaea, which was governed by elders who were always given deference, Paul could not have had the position or authority which Douglas claims for him.

Contrary to Douglas, Peter was never pointed to as a successor to Yahshua Christ. Dead men and dead gods need successors, yet Yahshua our God is a living God! Many fools, mimicking the Romish church, point to Matthew 16:18 and claim that the “church” was built upon Peter, yet this verse has long been misunderstood. And why would the Romish church want to correct a misconception if it can be used for an advantage? Liddell & Scott say at πέτρος (petros): “...a stone, distinguished from πέτρα”, and at πέτρα (petra): “a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock ... πέτρα is a fixed rock, πέτρος a stone”. Yahshua said to Peter in part: “... You are a stone (πέτρος, “Peter”), and upon this bedrock (πέτρα) I shall build My assembly ...”, if translated in a manner which actually preserves the distinction between the meanings of the words. The authority given to Peter (Matt. 16:19) was given to all of the disciples (Matt. 18:18). Upon closer examination, Peter was instead the most stubborn of the disciples (Matt. 16:21-28; 26:33-34 and 69-75; John 21:21-22) who often had to be told things three times before they sunk in (John 21:15-19; Acts 10:9-16). To James as much deference was given as to Peter (Acts 15), if perhaps not more.

Douglas is suddenly concerned here with making a “mockery of God”, which absolutely bewilders me! For throughout his article, Douglas has quoted Friedrich “God is dead” Nietzsche, John Spong the embracer of aliens and sexual deviants, and a host of other foul characters, and has adopted their perverted teachings as his own. How could anyone make more mockery of Yahweh than Douglas?

<Section #33> Clay Douglas states: “After having more or less left Peter in charge of his disciples, Jesus disappeared, his message being rather confusedly understood by the humans of his time (after all, His writings had simply disappeared). Peter had the official responsibility of taking over, in so far as there was a take-over, as Jesus never tried to set up any hierarchy or sect around himself, a fact to be remembered (Jesus warned us about ‘churches’), but another disciple was soon to emerge and transform the influence of Jesus’ life on the world. Dark blue velvet curtains open. Spotlights come on. Enter Saul.”

In reply to section <#33>: Douglas states that Christ’s message was “rather confusedly understood by the humans of his time” as if that were a statement of fact! Rather, Douglas himself is confused, and so that is the way he sees the rest of the world! If only Douglas had ever read some history books, instead of trying to rewrite history on his own confused terms. I would challenge Douglas to show where Yahshua “warned us about ‘churches’”, but he would never be able to do so. Even in Revelation, in the messages to the seven ‘churches’ in Rev. chapters 2 and 3, something good was said by Yahshua to each of the ‘churches’, yet most of them were also criticized. But the ‘church’ at Philadelphia was not criticized at all, and neither was the ‘church’ at Smyrna criticized directly. Of course, none of these should be confused with the later Romish catholic beast-church. Nowhere, however, were we “warned about ‘churches’” in general. Notice that Douglas, after developing the plot for his novel, creates a theatrical scene depicting the entrance of Saul of Tarsus, which must have been drawn out of one of the magician books with which he is so intrigued.