Paul The Apostate

I had made the statement in one of the Nazirene forums that Paul was a spiritual fraud. I was asked to clarify this, and wrote the following in clarification:

When I said that Paul as an Apostle, was fictitious, it was because the scriptures are not historical -- they are portrayals of the body, mind and spirit. The events reported are allegorical, and they did not historically happen. What was being presented in the Book of Acts was the evolution of Conscious. Quoting from Inconsistencies Intentionally Written Into The Scriptures http://KeyOfKnowledge.org#Inconsistencies 

In order to force the reader to stop, and contemplate the inner spiritual message, a conflicting account is purposely entered into the scriptures: Acts 9:7 reads: “And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man”. Yet, in Acts 22:9 the narrative reads: “And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me”. It means absolutely nothing for the modern reader to believe that Saul was converted on the road to Damascus -- there is no spiritual edification or uplifting when we relate this knowledge to an historical event at the beginning of our Common Era. But what is conveyed spiritually is of great value to the disciple in search of the Light -- and must bring about a change of mind in his quest to open the door to the Kingdom. Thus the disciple begins to see his own transformation from the death of Stephen as spirit became clothed with flesh, to Saul -- from a Jew to Paul (the name means "little one" -- from Paul the little one, whose blindness was healed by Ananias -- the gift from God.

The transformation of Consciousness is presented in the meaning of the names. And when you realize that the Gospels teach that all of mankind are born blind (see Soul-Evolution - Reincarnation And Soul-Development http://OriginalGospel.Ebionite.com#SoulEvolution ), then what you are being presented with in the meaning of the names, is the evolution of Consciousness. But because of the misinterpretation of the Book of Acts, a number of Gentiles wrote and taught under the name of Paul, and they claimed to be apostles. Quoting from http://ebionite.com/Paul.htm 

Few modern Christians are even aware of the historical dispute between Peter and Paul -- or why the original Ebionite Nazirenes opposed Paul -- or the fact that they are not following the religion of Jesus, but more so the tenets of Simon Magus and the religion of Mithraism. Under the heading of Simon Magus in the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica it states pertaining to the writings attributed to Clement, the disciple of Peter, in the Homilies: “…the common source of these documents may be as early as the 1st century, and must have consisted in a polemic against Paul, emanating from the Jewish side of Christianity. Paul being thus identified with Simon, it was argued that Simon's visit to Rome had no other basis than Paul's presence there, and, further, that the tradition of Peter's residence in Rome rests on the assumed necessity of his resisting the arch-enemy of Judaism there as elsewhere”. 

The whole foundation of salvation by faith without any requirement of actions -- and salvation can be acquired regardless of how one lives their lives -- has totally destroyed the very Gospel foundation. And I can't even say that Christianity is Mithraism under a different name, because the Initiates of Mithraism were known as Christians before the name was applied to the people of TheWay. Quoting from CHRISTIANITY EXISTED PRIOR TO THE BIRTH OF JESUS ( http://nazirene.org/unfaithful2.htm )

Today we call ourselves by the Greek word Christian -- but have we ever questioned where the term originated? And what does it mean? The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge confirms that the name "originated outside of Christian and Jewish circles". The Mercer Dictionary of the Bible states that: "By the late first and early second centuries the name ‘Christian,’ which early believers avoided using of themselves, was beginning to be accepted". 

If modern believers were truly sincere in their desire for a more intimate relationship with the Lord, they would immediately want to know and question why "early believers avoided" using the name Christian? When it is realized that even the very name Christian was in use prior to the time of Jesus, we truly begin to grasp the Pagan connection. The name Christian was a term employed to describe one who was an initiate, and understood the inner meaning of the Greek and Roman mystery religions. Thus, the early followers of Jesus refused to be called Christian, and call Jesus the Christ, because the word was used in reference to enlightened Pagans and their gods. 

Prior to being corrupted, the Epistles associated with Paul were preaching Mithraism and the seeking of becoming the Anointing (Christ). One of the first corruptions of these Epistles was when they added the name Jesus in conjunction with the word Christ. In reality, the whole of Christiandom is Mithraism that is being supported with a spiritually castrated set of Gospels.