ATTENTION CHRISTIANS!!! APOSTLE PAUL IS/WAS THE ANTICHRIST!!!

You are a great source of information, because you have asked the question and searched out the answer. Thank you! It takes a long time to search out the bible. I have 6 years under my belt, and I am still in the Old testament! lol

I've said these things before. I thought it was well established by now.

Paul said he preached only Christ crucified.

That just about sums up Paul.

Jesus called himself the resurrection, not the crucifixion.

Concentrate on that.

ATTENTION CHRISTIANS!!! APOSTLE PAUL IS/WAS THE ANTICHRIST!!!

The thread title shows you why private judgment of Holy Scripture is heresy.

You accuse Paul?!

If you read Paul's writings to the Romans, (the book of Romans), Paul clearly tells the Roman people that they ARE Israelites. He specifically tells the Romans in this book that they are from the seed of Abraham.

Why do you think Jesus ignored the Canaanite woman when she needed help, but when a Roman soldier was hurt Jesus snapped to healing him without even being asked?

Romans come from the Trojans who like most Greeks were part of the northern 10 tribes of Israel. We even have a letter from a Spartan king to the priests of Judea saying that they (the Spartans) like the Judeans are both from the seed of Abraham, and what's ours is yours and what's yours is ours basically.

you would probably have to post exactly where in Romans it says "He specifically tells the Romans in this book that they are from the seed of Abraham."

I agree with you, but there are millions of Feminazis, assorted progressives, homos and others who don't.

He was AN antichrist, no doubt.

For those of you who DOUBT that Paul was a false apostle,
please pray for wisdom and read the following text. If you
can explain away all of these facts, you are either blind, or
completely given over to your own delusion and deception.

Who are you going to believe....Paul.....or.....Christ?

This is something that was shown to me by the Spirit of God over 20 years ago, and those who are willing to be intellectually and biblically honest will at least prayerfully study this subject and let the Scriptures explain the Scriptures through the Spirit of God. I know others will have the knee-jerk reaction and will post on the subject in the same fashion.

Paul is a FALSE APOSTLE. His writings, along with the 325 Council of Nicea have led most "christians" into the abyss through division, half-truths, bad doctrine, false teachings, and the flat out heresy of teaching the doctrine of Balaam. Don't believe it?

Brethren, as Isaiah once said, "Come, let us reason together"......

REVELATION 2
1: Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
2: I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

Keep in mind, the preceding words were spoken BY CHRIST HIMSELF. In addressing each of the seven churches in Revelation, Christ either CONDEMNS the church for what they are doing WRONG, (and warns them to repent), COMMENDS the church for what they are doing RIGHT (and encourages them to hold on), or, a little of both.

In REV 2:1-2, Christ is COMMENDING the EPHESIANS (the church at Ephesus) for realizing that they were being led astray by "false apostles". And who were the "apostles" to the Ephesians? Paul and Barnabas !!!

Is Christ somehow confused? Doesn't Christ KNOW that PAUL is the "apostle" to the Ephesians?

Is it possible that someone else claimed to be the apostle to the Ephesians, and that someone other than PAUL was teaching heresy and lies to the Ephesians? NO. It is not possible. In fact, Paul plainly states in his own writings, that he does not preach Christ where any other man has preached Christ before.

ROMANS 15
20: Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation

So according to Paul's own words, he is the FIRST man to preach (the previously "unnamed" Christ) to the Ephesians.

And of course, who wrote "Ephesians"? Paul did. But can Paul be proven a liar? Was Paul teaching the doctrine of Balaam?

The following doctrine comes from Pauline Christianity....

ROM 14:14
I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Now in attempting to protect a false apostle, one might claim that Paul did not write the book of Romans. The problem with this false claim, is that every doctrine espoused by Paul is consistently taught through every book that he wrote. Consistent through Paul's writings, for one instance, is the eating of unclean meats.

1 TIMOTHY 4
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Paul is clearly lying here, as proven by Ezekiel who states that you cannot make the unclean thing to be a clean thing....but more of that in a moment. Are there other passages that point to Paul stating that you can eat not only UNCLEAN MEATS, but MEATS sacrificed unto IDOLS?

1 COR 8:8-10
But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

So according to Paul, if you pray over your unclean meat, it suddenly becomes clean.

According to Paul, only the "weak" fail to understand the his doctrine, which is exactly OPPOSITE
of the doctrine as taught by the prophets, not to mention the MESSIAH HIMSELF.

Paul goes as far as to say that we should not let people judge us as to eating these unclean meats in COL 2:16. And it should be noted (above 1 COR 8:10), the idea of it being a STUMBLING BLOCK to the "weak". Paul says throughout this chapter that you shouldn't eat these unclean meats in front of "weak" believers because it could be a "stumblingblock"....

Okay, so we know what Paul's doctrine is on unclean and meats sacrificed unto idols.

But what does CHRIST say is the stumblingblock?

REV 2:14
But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

How can anyone defend Paul's teaching of this false doctrine and STUMBLINGBLOCK?....which is
the very doctrine that CHRIST CONDEMNS as a stumbling block and the doctrine of Balaam?

Let's see what Ezekiel says:

Ezekiel 22:26
Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between
the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean

You cannot make unclean meats, or meats sacrificed to idols CLEAN by praying over them.

This is CHRIST'S doctrine, taught by the prophets, but NOT PAUL.

The UNCHANGING God of the Old Testament told His prophets that you cannot make the profane into something HOLY, and Christ, "the same yesterday, and to today, and FOREVER", still CONDEMNS the practice of eating the unclean and profane (REV 2:14, above)....Did God and Christ change their mind on "the unclean/profane/meat sacrificed to idols", and ONLY PAUL is privy to this
"new" information?

Paul was CLEARLY teaching the doctrine of Balaam, and if you can't see it, it is because you are spiritually BLIND to the subject.

Again, I am not saying that everything that Paul wrote is a lie, but nonetheless, he IS the LIAR and FALSE APOSTLE to the Ephesians, as stated BY CHRIST HIMSELF in Revelation 2. Now, can Paul be documented as a liar elsewhere in Scripture?

Before moving forward, let's look at what happened in Jerusalem, when Paul met with the TRUE PILLARS of New Jerusalem, the apostles chosen by Christ. Paul is telling Peter, James and John that "the whole of the law" cannot be dumped on the gentiles, as all of Israel failed the Law and God's Covenant. So, the apostles, along with Paul, agree to FOUR CRITERIA of the Law that MUST BE maintained, even by the gentiles.

1) NO MEATS/OFFERINGS sacrificed to IDOLS
2) NO drinking of blood
3) NO eating meats strangled to death (imagine the adrenaline pumped into the flesh by the animal being strangled)
4) NO fornication

These FOUR REQUIREMENTS are listed three times in ACTS, to which Paul, the false apostle, agrees upon teaching.
(read ACTS 15:20, ACTS 15:29, ACTS 21:25)

Although Paul lied in agreement with the REAL APOSTLES in Jerusalem, Paul DID NOT TEACH what they AGREED UPON at ALL.

He taught the EXACT opposite, as documented above in 1 TIM 4:4-5, 1 COR 8: 8-10, COL 2:16, etc. And if you want to catch Paul DIRECTLY LYING, read his account of when he met up with the REAL APOSTLES in Jerusalem:

GALATIANS 2
9: And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave
to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10: Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

In this passage, Paul is referencing his meeting in Jerusalem, meeting the REAL APOSTLES,and WHAT THEY DISCUSSED with him.

Paul nakedly states that the only thing they agreed upon in Jerusalem, was to give ALMS TO THE POOR. Which, profoundly, was NEVER MENTIONED in the book of ACTS. Paul does not tell the Galatians: 1) NO meats sacrificed to IDOLS; 2) NO drinking blood;
3) NO strangled meats; 4) NO fornication. Nope. Paul doesn't even mention it.

He deductively lies by omission, and then says that "helping the poor" was the only thing they agreed upon in Jerusalem. In fact, Paul pridefully boasts that the REAL APOSTLES "added nothing to him" (GALATIANS 2:6).

Moving forward.....

Does Paul meet the criteria set by the REAL APOSTLES?

After the death of Judas, Peter realizes from the Psalms that "one should take his place"; and the real apostles again set
FOUR CRITERIA for choosing the replacement apostle (ACTS 1:20-26). These are the four criteria:

1) The new apostle had to have been with them (the apostles, Christ, and the crowd which followed) from the beginning
2) The new apostle had to have seen the miracles performed by Christ
3) The new apostle had to have seen Christ crucified
4) The new apostle had to have seen Christ resurrected

Brethren, which of these FOUR CRITERIA does Paul meet? Only the fourth, and that is if we choose to believe Paul the liar, in his ever-changing story about his "conversion" on the road to Damascus. Oh, I have no doubt Paul may have seen a bright light on the road to Damascus, but the serpent/nachash is by definition a "shining one"....The first time Paul tells this story, he said he saw a bright light that told him to seek out Ananias, and that Ananias would give him further instruction. The second time Paul tells this story, he says that he saw CHRIST, and that CHRIST told him he was the new apostle to the gentiles. But let us take into consideration the first claim, that he was told to seek out Ananais. This person is directly related to Caiaphas, the high priest who sought to have the Messiah killed. Why would Christ send Paul, a persecutor of his followers, to receive instruction from the high priest which sought to have Him (Messiah) killed in the first place? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

With the Paul issue set aside for a moment, let's look at a great possibility as to WHY the real apostles voted for Matthias.

Ever hear of the Q-Source, sometimes called the Q-Document? Personally, I read of this document decades ago, and the commentary regarding this document strained my understanding. Let me explain. This document is contemporary to the times of the apostles, and many theologians have theorized that all four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written FROM this one source.

Granted, many people use the Q-Source as a way of discounting the four gospels,
as they were, "copied" from this one text. As believers, we need to understand this document....and here is my hypothesis: I believe that the four gospels were not "copied", per se, but that this document was "referenced" by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, years later, after they realized they should commit their experiences with Christ to paper/papyrus.

Indeed, if you have studied the gospels as I have, the reader will notice that there are times when the commentary goes from a first person narrative, to a second person narrative; hinting that the four gospels did in fact come from referencing one source, the Q document.

So who wrote the Q document? As the apostles were going to vote on who should replace Judas, is it possible that Matthias was chosen NOT ONLY because he met the FOUR CRITERIA as decided by the apostles, but because he (Matthias), while not being directly involved or distracted, WROTE DOWN WHAT WAS HAPPENING all through Christ's ministry?

This would not only explain WHY the apostles chose Matthias, but it would bring an
end to the "controversy" over the four gospels using the Q-Source as a reference.

That is food for thought....but as far as Saul of Tarsus goes....He was a pharisee, and was directly involved with the murders of countless Christians. Paul stood by, holding the coats of those who stoned Stephen. Paul was on his way to Damascus for yet more killing, as authorized by the high priest Caiaphas. Again I would ask:

Why would Christ appear to this murderer, and tell Paul to seek the advice of Caiaphas' relative, Ananais? It just makes no sense at all....Unless Caiaphas had ulterior motives, like destroying Christianity from within, by installing a false apostle that would lead millions astray through false teachings like the acceptance of the doctrine of Balaam.

All divisions in Christianity come from PAUL and his writings.

1) Works vs. faith - a Pauline doctrine
2) John's Baptism vs. Paul's "baptism of spirit"
3) Confusion on "speaking in tongues"
4) Confusion on "the rapture"
5) Ridiculous doctrine of the "uncircumcision"

Paul's hypocrisy is astounding once you open your eyes to it. He says that to get circumcised makes void the Cross of Christ, yet he kowtows and has Timothy circumcised.

Paul says the Law is a BURDEN. (ACTS 15:10 and throughout Paul's writings)
Paul says the Law is a CURSE (GALATIANS 3:10)
Christ said his yoke was light. (MATTHEW 11:30)

Paul says that the Messiah is the end of the law (ROMANS 3:28; 10:4)
Christ said he came NOT to change the Law, a "jot or tittle". (MAT 5:18; LUKE 16:17)

Paul says he is convinced there is "no unclean thing" (ROMANS 14:14)
Christ HATES the doctrine of Balaam, which teaches acceptance of the unclean. (REV 2:2)

Paul says, "be ye followers of me" (1 COR 4:16)
Christ says we are to follow HIM (LUKE 9:59).

Paul testified of himself and a "special revelation" (GALATIANS 1:12)
Christ testified NOT of HIMSELF (JOHN 5:30-31)

Paul said those who are justified by the law, are fallen from grace (GALATIANS 5:4)
Paul said that the Law was "the death of him" (ROMANS 7:9-10)
Christ said "to enter into life, keep the commandments" (MATTHEW 19:17)
Christ said "if you love me, keep my commandments" (JOHN 14:15)

Paul, collectively, speaks of himself -- "I, PAUL," -- and uses the personal pronoun "I" more than the name of Jesus. Interestingly, the Greek word for "I" is EGO. Christ said:
He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. (JOHN 7:18)

Christ came in His Father's name, and as seen throughout Paul's writings, Paul clearly came in his own name. "if another come in his own name, he you will receive" (JOHN 5:43).

Paul admits to being a pharisee (ACTS 26:5, PHILLIPIANS 3:5)
Christ says beware of the leaven of the pharisees (MATTHEW 16:6)

Paul says he is CONVINCED that unclean meats are okay, and that
circumcision is not necessary. (COL 2:16; ROMANS CHAPTER 2-4)
Christ said whoever teaches against the law is the least in heaven. (MATTHEW 5:19)

Paul says "Christ is the end of the Law" (ROMANS 10:4)
Christ said he came NOT TO DESTROY the LAW. (MATTHEW 5:17)

Paul says he is a "father" of Christ's churches. (1 COR 4:15; PHILEMON 1:10)
Christ said CALL NO MAN FATHER, but He who is in heaven. (MATTHEW 23:9)

Paul says there is a structure to Christ's church, containing apostles, prophets,
evangelists, pastors/shepherds, and teachers. (EPHESIANS 4:11)
Christ said there is ONE FLOCK, and ONE SHEPHERD (JOHN 10:16)

Paul says there are many leaders of Christ's church (1COR 4:15)
Christ said the Messiah is (MATTHEW 23:5)

And this is just a spattering of the evidence the Spirit of God has witnessed to me against Paul, the false apostle and liar, as recognized by the Ephesians, an action COMMENDED by Christ Himself, in REVELATION 2:2.

Some people try to defend Paul by quoting what other (real) apostles said about him. But keep in mind this, the apostles were just men, prone to deception like all men. And don't overlook how many of the real apostles spoke of the false apostles and teachers already in their midst. Lastly, the Spirit told the apostles NOT to go into Asia (ACTS 16:6),...but after being found as a false apostle, where did Paul go? Into ASIA (ACTS 20:16, 2 COR 1:8).

Lastly, one must realize that not only do the divisions in Christ's church come from Paul's writings, but that these writings were CHOSEN BY MEN to be included in the Bible.

What better way was there, to unite the SUN CULT'S pagan rituals with Christianity, other than Paul's deceitful writings? Remember that the church at Ephesus was previously the temple of Diana (ACTS 19:28), and what better way to try and "convert" the Ephesians to Paul's pagan, lawless version of Christ's message, than to say it is OKAY to still eat the meats sacrificed to DIANA?

Now, I know that this post is going to upset a whole bunch of people who are deceived into following Paul's lawless version of "salvation through grace"...And as John said in his epistle, "it is the Spirit of God that teacheth all deep things"....I pray that everyone who reads this post inquires to the SPIRIT of GOD, and seeks to find the truth of this matter.

trying to follow the logic here:

* Paul is a big fat liar

* the bible is wrong and full of lies

* Christians are bad for doing what the bible says

* Christians should reject the bible and... do what exactly?

To all the brothers and sisters.
Turn to chapter 3 and hear why Paul stated to the Corinthians that he spoke of only Christ crucified TO THEM

1Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3You are still worldly

Blasphemous claim:
"Paul says he is a "father" of Christ's churches. (1 COR 4:15; PHILEMON 1:10)

Let's see if he made this claim:

Apostle Paul
14I am writing this not to shame you but to warn you as my dear children. 15Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel

 It is as none other than Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus— 10that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains

No he did not. Additionally, let's see what the Apostle John wrote:

Apostle John states
I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.

Now, applying your same logic and reasoning, I would expect you to discount John's testimony. Otherwise, your hypocrisy becomes evident and your unfair judging - using it against one Apostle and "overlooking" it for another apostle. Otherwise, you are showing preference.

Claim:
"Paul says "Christ is the end of the Law" (ROMANS 10:4)
Christ said he came NOT TO DESTROY the LAW. (MATTHEW 5:17)"



Paul actually states in Romans 10:4
For Christ is an end of law for righteousness to every one who is believing,

As proof of this truth, please see Jeremiah:
... "In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; And this is His name by which He will be called, 'The LORD our righteousness.' ...

Claim:
"Paul says, "be ye followers of me" (1 COR 4:16)
Christ says we are to follow HIM (LUKE 9:59).


Christ said: "Follow Me"
Greek: akoloutheó: from alpha (as a cop. prefix) and keleuthos (a road, way)

Paul said
Greek: mimétés: mimētḗs (the root of the English term, mimic, "one who imitates, emulates") – properly, the positive imitation that arises by admiring the pattern set by someone worthy of emulation

two completely different things

cool runnin,s
.
.
.
.
.

Claim
"Some people try to defend Paul by quoting what other (real) apostles said about him. But keep in mind this, the apostles were just men, prone to deception like all men"


Well then, according to this reasoning, you'd be a hypocrite if you didn't throw out the entire set of scripture. If, as you say, "the apostles were just men, prone to deception like all men" then why believe any of them? Why believe anything that any of them say? Why use their writings to justify your unbelief and lack of understanding in Apostle Paul's writings if as you say "the apostles were just men, prone to deception like all men"?

But you do not obviously do this, do you?

Paul was a Jew.

Just like Jews took over islam right after Muhammad's death, Jews took over Christianity right after Jesus' death.

Its always been Jews vs gentiles.

This war is still going on until every Jew child would have 8,400 gentile slaves. Thats what their talmud says...

Some good work brother. There are a few missing pieces to the parts of the puzzle you've presented though e.g. with all the talk of Ephesians you left out Paul's statement to Timothy about how all of Asia (.i.e. Ephesians) has turned their back to him. It's the real clincher/kill shot. I'm surprised you left it out.

And you've shown some wrinkles that don't quite fit- the Lord is quoted as speaking to Ananias telling him to go find Paul, not Paul should seek out Ananias. But I won't quibble about these things now.

What's important is that we all understand the bottom line. An Anti-Christ is created whenever we hand over the authority of God* (*for lack of a better word) to other men. This is exactly what most Christians have done with Paul's words for over eighteen centuries now. Ignoring Jesus simple direct teachings and instead modeling themselves after Paul.

This understanding is no way a call for hatred of Paul (love your enemy- sound familiar?) or ripping out chunks of the Bible, it is what it is and we need to learn to deal with it as such. It's a call for realizing the true knowledge of what this 2000 year old book is trying to teach us. Seek not the Christ in the teachings of other men. A hard lesson to be sure but we all need to learn it. We can began by trusting the teachings of the one called Jesus and not trusting the words of Paul as if God* spoke them.

And thanks OP. This subject never gets enough attention as far as I'm concerned.

p.s. don't bother about people getting upset. Most of them are doing this-

Last Edited by Raymantheheretic on 04/25/2014 02:19 PM

Silly the Greeks and Romans used the word end in a way to confuse you.The Hebrew expression was Christ is the end of the law of blood sacrifice and the beginning of the new covenant for Israel.

Again misinterpretation of scripture Paul spoke the hebrew tongue and the meaning was to be like him as an example of following true to Christ.
Failed again! serpent!

Paul was claiming that he was like a father unto the young upcoming believers under his ministry.They all looked up to him for guidance. SERPENT!

Do you know in what language Paul wrote his epistles (i.e. letters)?

Just curious

Odd how there is no book in the Bible titled 'The Gospel According to Paul'

Just so everyone is on the same page; gospel means truth

Apaullo illuminaughty.

So you think that "Matthew" "Mark" "Luke" and "John" were actually contemporaries of Jesus?

All these writings were in the Hebrew but Rome and the Greeks had over 1300 years to sit with these writings and mess around with it.They changed the flavor to bring forward this new Christianity. Hence we have the confusion today which seems like Paul brought a new doctrine, on the contrary his words were manipulated and doctrines were created to sway the masses

Wrong answer. The O.T. was written in Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Koine Greek. You can find the source in the works of Josephus and Plutarch. Plutarch wrote a book Romulus which is very similar to Romans.

I get it:

Anonymous Coward #42687419 is a theologian,
linguist, and historian - with an arsenal of knowledge
at her disposal, but is only capable of posting the
amazing animated "b.s. flag" gif as a rebuttal.

Brilliant.

Meanwhile, Anonymous Coward #57308968 is incapable
of addressing Paul's direct contradiction of Christ's own
teaching in Revelation 2:14, 2:16 regarding condemnation
for the eating of meats sacrificed to idols.

Has anybody reading noticed that Christ condemns Pergamum
and Thyatira for eating meats/food sacrificed to idols, and
blames the followers for believing false apostles and prophets?

Yet the followers of Christ (not Paul and Barnabas), at the
church at Ephesus - previously the very temple of Diana
which stands in partial ruins today - FIGURE OUT that
they have been infiltrated by lying, false prophets, and
are NOT condemned by Christ for eating meat/food
sacrificed to idols.

If you can read the above two paragraphs and
still not have a clue, you are truly blind.

Further, Anonymous Coward #57308968 ignores that Paul
was neither earnest or truthful to Peter, James, and John in
Jerusalem, when he agreed to teach the gentiles:

1) NO eating strangled things.
2) NO drinking blood.
3) NO eating meats sacrificed to idols.
4) NO fornication.

ACTS 15:20, ACTS 15:29, ACTS 21:24-25.

Anonymous Coward #57308968 cannot explain why
Paul AGREED to these teachings in Jerusalem, but when
telling the Galatians of his meeting with the apostles in
Jerusalem, he LIES and says:

"All they asked was that we should continue to remember
the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. (GAL2:10)

Ergo, Anonymous Coward #57308968 is also incapable of
explaining to us how Paul and Barnabas were the apostles
to the church of Ephesus, yet Christ condemned the
apostles of this VERY CHURCH.

Christ said the apostles to the church
at EPHESUS were false and liars.

STOP defending Paul and READ CHRIST'S WORDS:

REV 2:2 "*...I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men,
that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but
are not, and have found them false.

Who if NOT Paul and Barnabas, is Christ speaking of?

Answer that question, Anonymous Coward #57308968.

Because either Christ is confused about
the church at Ephesus and it's infiltration
of LYING, FALSE apostles, or YOU ARE.

I believe Christ.
You believe Paul.

It is really as simple as that.