Douglas - Section 50, 51, 52

<Section #50> Clay Douglas states: “We Christians claim that ‘God’ is a loving God. Why, then, would a loving God allow His own son to be killed, as a ‘ransom,’ for a bunch of very evil people? This is all part of the myth. The perpetuation of ‘The Myth’ continues to make us blind. Why is it so difficult to ‘tell it like it is’. Very evil blood-thirsty Edomites pushed to have Esu Immanual [sic] tortured and slaughtered. Esu did not want to die. It was not meant for him to die. The Romans, at the prodding of the Jewish Pharisees, murdered Jesus Christ. He is dead to us, all the while we try to keep his true teachings alive. Why are we being misled by the deception that He died ‘for our sins’. The reality is Jesus Christ was murdered Period. The interjection of the hoax myth that ‘He died for our sins’ allows us for [sic, maybe ‘to’] conveniently ‘forget’ the circumstances behind his horrible torture and eventual death by hanging, so that we can then ‘celebrate’ the murder, all the while we sin and repent, and sin and repent, (falsely) thinking we’ve still got a free ride into the Kingdom. What a trick they’ve turned! Do you really want to end up short on Judgement Day? Isn’t that the important question? ... Is this a gamble you are willing to take? ... How can we forgive ourselves? How could God forgive us?”

In reply to section <#50>: All of these last appeals of Douglas’ have been addressed throughout this response. Yahshua died not on behalf of evil people, nor for the benefit of devils, the Edomite jews, but rather only for the children of Israel and the White Adamic race. The prophet Daniel dated the coming of Christ precisely, and foretold that He would be “cut off” (Daniel 9:24-27). In Isaiah, Psalms and elsewhere all of His sufferings were foretold. These things were matters examined as soon as the crucifixion and resurrection occurred, for which see Luke 24:13-35. These are the things which Paul taught from scripture everywhere he went, for which see Acts 17:11! Douglas, rejecting these things and others, has fully adopted the positions of the jews regarding Paul, Yahshua Christ, and the Old Testament prophets, and has done so repeatedly. Clayton Douglas is a jew, if not by race, surely by his corrupt views of the Bible, and of the history of our race! If he is not a jew himself, then he is either an idiot or a very foolish man, making himself a proselyte of the jews and sexual deviants and all sorts of miscreants, and spreading their teachings to his Christian–patriot readers.

This ends my response to Clayton Douglas’ first of two Paul-bashing articles. Since beginning this defense of Paul with Clifton’s publication of my letter in response to H. Graber, at least one of Clifton’s readers wrote to him and accused me of being arrogant and haughty. While I do know that at times I can sound that way, I really try to make an effort to be humble. But I must say that I shall not offer pusillanimity in the face of lies and blasphemies. To me, my race is worth defending, so I must confront the universalists who claim to be Israel Identity. My faith and its truths are worth defending, so I must confront the Paul-bashers and those led astray with anti-Christ doctrines who are within Israel Identity.

Unlike many of the so-called theologians and academics of today, I sincerely believe that our faith represents empirical truths which are fully evident in a proper study of Scripture, history, archaeology and language, and that once learned, these truths are well worth standing up for and defending. Such is one who builds his house on a rock, and not on a foundation of shifting sand.

A couple of Clifton’s other readers whined that they were tired of the “he said” / “we said” disputing, which is found in expositions such as this defense of Paul and in some of the pamphlets which Clifton has published. To this I must say: How can one judge the merits of such important arguments, lest one have the opportunity to see both sides of these issues being addressed? Presenting both sides of these issues which are raised is a much fairer way to assess the validity of each perspective, rather than simply writing a one-sided diatribe. And contrary to some who have accused me, neither I nor Clifton (and I think that I can speak for Clifton in this one matter) make any boasts concerning ourselves or our expertise. For my part, I have no expertise to boast of in the first place! I have simply seen a need, and have been given an opportunity, to do my best to answer each of H. Graber’s or Clayton Douglas’ accusations against the apostle Paul, all from the Scriptures and the lexicons and the history books, while giving all of the appropriate references. It is the reader’s obligation to check my sources and to weigh the evidence, and then to determine the facts of the matter for one’s own self. I invite, even adjure, anyone reading my writings to do this!

Here we shall move on to address Clayton Douglas’ second Paul-bashing article, SAUL OF TARSUS AND HIS DOCTRINE OF LAWLESSNESS, which he published in the January, 2004 edition of his Free American Newsmagazine. Douglas opens his article with a bad translation of 2 Corinthians 12:16, and then some statements which are grossly misrepresentative of Paul’s ministry:

<Section #51> Clay Douglas states: “‘But granting that myself did not burden you I was crafty, you say, and got the better of you by deceit. (Saul of Tarsus 2 Corinthians 12:16 )’

“Tornado: tor-na’ do. no. an intensely destructive advancing whirlwind formed from strongly turning currents ... Paul/Saul of Tarsus WAS a Tornado ... Mayhem. Disorder. Destruction. Since Paul’s announcement he’d been visited by Jesus Christ (Immanuel Esu), nothing would ever be the same again. Let’s revisit PAULINE CHRISTIANITY, shall we?”

In reply to section <#51>: I will address the poor translation of 2 Corinthians 12:16 later on where Douglas discusses it at length. Reading the accounts in Acts, whenever mayhem and disorder encompass Paul of Tarsus it is caused by the unbelieving jews, not by other Christians opposed to Paul, but by the apostate Edomite jews who were the enemies of Yahshua Christ Himself and persecutors of Christians everywhere. Clayton Douglas is their (the jews) defender, taking the blame for such violence from the jews and assigning it to Paul, just as Douglas ridiculously blames Paul for the crucifixion of Yahshua Christ, for which see section <#13> of this response on p. 53. Only a jew could contrive such a nefarious plot: to blame the followers of Christ for his death, diverting the blame from themselves! Thankfully we have many other witnesses who tell us differently. The only deceit in Douglas’ articles is his own.

The Edomite jew propensity for rioting is evident in the pages of Josephus’ Wars, and early bishops such as Tertullian tell us that jews were behind the persecution of early Christians (Apology 21.25), and so in early Christian writings we see the same pattern of behavior attributed to the jews that we see in the Acts, where Paul was their victim, and not an instigator. In this day and age the jews have consistently incited others to riot for them, just as they incited the pagan Greeks in Acts and even many true Judahites in first century Jerusalem. Even a casual investigation reveals that jewish activists are behind all of the social and minority unrest in America these past hundred or so years. A recent newscast, the last week of January, 2006, showed rioting by jewish settlers being forced to leave the West Bank by their own government. Just as jews incited riots against Paul of Tarsus and first century Christians, jews have incited riots continually in all Christian nations. Clayton Douglas’ corrupted portrayal of history serves as a smoke-screen for the jews to hide behind.

Douglas then introduces his second article with a discussion of the first, where he evidently opened a dialogue concerning Paul on a radio program and on his website:

<Section #52> Clay Douglas states: “SAUL OF TARSUS AND HIS DOCTRINE OF LAWLESSNESS. Since putting out our first investigative piece entitled ‘The Seduction: Pauline Christianity’, we thought we’d heard it all. We were caught flat-footed, though, by the venomously intense feelings of some who were made furious because we simply questioned Paul’s story ... and Paul’s motives.

“Clay Douglas’ ‘Free American’ radio show (8am CST, M-F - for more information, access Clay’s website www.freeamerican.com) also dared to start a dialogue regarding Pauline Judeo-Christianity. We carefully listened to the callers who responded in support of Paul/Saul.

“Their main argument was that - no matter what - Paul was ‘annointed [sic]’. No matter that Paul/Saul tortured and murdered hundreds - if not thousands - of innocent people. Annointed [sic]. No matter that Paul/Saul was a liar ... Annointed [sic]. No matter that Paul/Saul effectively ‘shut down’ Gods Laws in the Old Testament ... Annointed [sic] ... No matter that Paul/Saul rendered of no effect Jesus Immanuel’s Teachings. Annointed [sic]. Ha! ... Annointed [sic] is one of those words that bug me. You know, ‘words’ or ‘phrases’ that can effectively shut down a fruitful conversation ... just like that dreadful term ‘Anti-Semite.’

“We also noticed that people who had been asked to ‘let us reason together’ have no interest in reason whatsoever. Their voices would get shrill, brittle and – well, just plain mean and nasty ... The emails we received pursuant to our publishing of ‘The Seduction’ held the same shrill tone. Doggone it, we think we’ve struck a nerve!

“And, since the behaviorial [sic] trait of resistance runs strong in our bloodline, we will continue. May we encourage anyone who has a valid argument in this matter - rather than foul protests that have no point at all - to send them along. Let’s try to get to the meat of the matter. And, stay tuned to Clay Douglas’ ‘Free American’ radio program for more dialogue on this important topic and others.”

In reply to section <#52>: So we see that Clayton Douglas encourages “dialogue on this important topic”, but evidently hasn’t had any replies as of yet which he feels are worthy. At the end of his first article Douglas did print one short response, from a teenager, which we did not reproduce here. Douglas’ attacks on Paul in his first article were quite broad, and simply cannot be answered properly in a limited talk-radio call-in format, or on an Internet message board. Neither can Douglas’ sweeping accusations be answered by a neophyte, or by anyone who is only a casual reader of Scripture. Here we have spent nearly 54,000 words already (to the end of this lesson), reproducing Douglas’ arguments and answering them, and not a little research has gone into those answers! We may be two years late here, but once this response to Douglas’ Paul-bashing articles is fully prepared we shall certainly make it available on the Internet, and Clayton Douglas will be sent a copy of it in its entirety. We can only wonder: will he dare share it with his own subscribers, before whom he has so unjustly defamed not only Paul of Tarsus but Christianity and even Yahshua Christ Himself? We adjure him to do so!

It has already been made manifest throughout this response that all of Douglas’ accusations against Paul are without merit. Rather than address Douglas’ slander again here, we shall move on to his article and his more specific comments.