Paul: A Liar And Charlatan

In the previous chapters, we have outlined the origins of Paul and how he rose to promi­nence as the founder of the religion which is today known as Christianity. Having estab­lished that Paul was never acquaint­ed with the original teachings of Jesus (PBUH), we aim to demon­strate that this liar never was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Let us now take a look at what Paul was reported to have said:

1 Corinthians 7:25 – 28
25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trust­wor­thy.
26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are.
27 Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife.
28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

There are a few important points to be mentioned here:

  • Paul never met Jesus in person while Jesus was on earth. Paul became a “prophet” by claiming that Jesus appeared to him on his way to Damascus.
  • The Jewish Law allows for a man to divorce his wife if she is not pleasing to him.
  • Paul was a Jew, and from his writings he seemed to be very knowl­edge­able about the Jewish Law.
  • Paul, who had never met Jesus, was obviously unaware of the fact that Jesus forbade divorce between the husband and the wife, except in the case of adultery.

Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7:27 exposed him to be a liar, because if the Holy Spirit was truly inspiring him, then he would not have uttered such statement! Paul, the Jew, was talking about divorce in general. Yes, the Jewish Law allows divorce between ordinary couples, but Jesus had forbidden it.

In Christianity, divorce between ordinary couples (when neither one of them committed any major sin against the other) is strictly forbidden, and Paul’s general advice for his followers to not seek a divorce makes it clear that he was ignorant of what Jesus had taught. The Holy Spirit would have inspired Paul to be speak only about those whose spouses had cheated on them to not get divorced from them, which we have no idea how this would have helped his followers. 

Paul in fact was speaking in general terms, which can be sum­marised as:

  • Are you married? Do not seek a divorce.
  • Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife.

Paul was clearly not speaking about adultery here. The two parts of 1 Corinthians 7:27, when put together, are clearly speaking in general terms and to all people in general. What man or woman can live with an adul­ter­ous spouse? And why should they not divorce when Jesus allowed them to do so?

Let us look at what Jesus said:

Matthew 5
31 It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a cer­tifi­cate of divorce.’
32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaith­ful­ness, causes her to become an adul­ter­ess, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

There is no question that Paul was unaware of this law by Jesus, and if he truly was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then the latter would not have deceived him like that.

Paul was a liar and a charlatan who claimed to be a “prophet” sent from God Almighty, that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Clearly, the only spirit that inspired him was none other than the spirit of Satan.

Did Paul Have Homosexual Urges?

In the book of Acts, we are informed that Paul had Timothy cir­cum­cised:

Acts 16:3
1 And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra: and behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewess that believed; but his father was a Greek.
2 The same was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and he took and cir­cum­cised him because of the Jews that were in those parts: for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Paul cir­cum­cised Timothy because he was facing stiff oppo­si­tion from the Jews. Thus, in order to avoid getting into more trouble Paul had Timothy cir­cum­cised, even though Timothy’s father happened to be a Greek Gentile. But why was the cir­cum­ci­sion debate important for the Jews whom Paul wanted to pacify?

To some Gentile readers, this cir­cum­ci­sion debate might seem periph­er­al. Some men are cir­cum­cised, others not — so what? In order to see the rev­o­lu­tion that Paul was effecting within Jewish circles (or satel­lites) we turn to the old rabbinic texts. The rabbis con­sid­ered cir­cum­ci­sion so important that they declared 6 that were it not for the blood of the covenant — that is to say, the blood which flowed from Abraham’s penis when, at God’s insis­tence, he cir­cum­cised himself — heaven and earth would not exist. The teaching of Judaism was that a child must still shed the blood of a covenant — even if he is born without a foreskin, and even if for some medical or other reason he is cir­cum­cised before the mystical eighth day. Even the angels are cir­cum­cised.

Converts to Judaism in the Roman period had to undergo cir­cum­ci­sion. Strangely enough, in Palestine rules were more liberal than in the Diaspora, and there were Proselytes of the Gate, as they were known, who were allowed to ‘become Jews’ without cir­cum­ci­sion. But such was not the general rule. It was widely believed that the admission of uncir­cum­cised men into Jewish religious worship ‘impeded the arrival of the Messiah’. While ‘semi-converts’ were allowed, those who observed the Sabbath and the dietary laws, they were to be regarded as heathens if after a twelve-month period they had not undergone cir­cum­ci­sion. These stringent rules did not deter converts.1

So now we need to ask, how was cir­cum­ci­sion practised then? What was the method used in those days to cir­cum­cise someone? A. N. Wilson further explains that:

By Roman times, cir­cum­ci­sion was done with a metal knife, and, if we believe that Paul did insist on Timothy under­go­ing cir­cum­ci­sion, it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves of the three essential parts of the ritual, without which it is not complete. The first part is milah, the cutting away of the outer part of the foreskin. The is done with one sweep of the knife. The second part, periah, is the tearing of the inner lining of the foreskin which still adheres to the gland, so as to lay it wholly bare. This was (and is) done by the operator — the mohel, the pro­fes­sion­al cir­cum­cis­er — with his thumb-nail and index finger. The third and essential part of the ritual is mesisah, the sucking of blood from the wound. Since the nine­teenth century, it has been per­mis­si­ble to finish this part of the ritual with a swab, but in all preceding centuries and certainly in the time of Paul it was necessary for the mohel to clean the wound by taking the penis into his mouth. In the case of a young adult male such as Timothy the bleeding would have been copious. We can easily imagine why Paul’s Gentile converts were unwilling to undergo the ritual; and, given the more liberal attitudes towards the Torah which had already begun to emerge among the Hellenists of Syrian Antioch, it is not sur­pris­ing that the custom of cir­cum­ci­sion should have started to wane. It took the extremism of Paul to think that the knife of cir­cum­ci­sion would actually ‘cut you off from Christ’. 2

In other words, Paul had to take the penis of Timothy in his mouth in order to cir­cum­cise him! Note also how strongly Paul opposes cir­cum­ci­sion elsewhere in the New Testament:

Galatians 5:2 – 6
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive cir­cum­ci­sion, Christ will profit you nothing.
3 Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth cir­cum­ci­sion, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Ye are severed from Christ, ye would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of right­eous­ness.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither cir­cum­ci­sion availeth anything, nor uncir­cum­ci­sion; but faith working through love.

However, when it came to saving himself from some trouble, Paul imme­di­ate­ly had Timothy cir­cum­cised so that the Jews would not bother him any further. Since we are aware of Paul’s intense oppo­si­tion to cir­cum­ci­sion no matter what the reasons are, surely his cir­cum­ci­sion of Timothy indicates the hidden homo­sex­u­al desires that he wished to fulfill at least once in his lifetime? He probably had a deep desire to take a penis into his mouth, so when an oppor­tu­ni­ty comes along, he decided to avail it. Hence he now has a good excuse to take a penis into his mouth and no one could object to that.

One cannot claim that someone other than Paul had cir­cum­cised Timothy, because it is clearly stated that it was Paul who had cir­cum­cised him. There was no pressing need for Paul to cir­cum­cise Timothy if indeed he was staunchly opposed to the practice, as related in the account in Galatians. But that he did went ahead and conducted the cir­cum­ci­sion gives us a reason to pause, as it suggests that he had homo­sex­u­al urges.

Now it is our turn to say:

Whatever inter­pre­ta­tion Christians may have given to Paul’s action later on (whether correctly or incor­rect­ly), the fact that Paul would put the penis of an adult man in his mouth is shameful and dis­gust­ing to say the least.

Please note that if such a tradition was located within any Islamic lit­er­a­ture or in the Qur’an, and if it is required to take the private organ with one’s mouth, the above is precisely the type of argument the Christian mis­sion­ar­ies would have vig­or­ous­ly pointed out in order to demonise Muslims and their religion. Hence the above paragraph is in reality the outcome if one happens to think like a pervert as the Christian mis­sion­ar­ies obviously are.

  1. A. N. Wilson, Paul The Mind Of The Apostle, (Pimlico, 1998), p. 128 []
  2. Ibid., p. 131 []

Appendix A: “O Christ-Worshippers!”

Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jauziyyah was a prominent Muslim jurist during Islam’s Golden Age. Apart from his juris­dis­tic prowess, he was also competent in composing qasidah (Arabic poetry). Among his more famous works was the qasidah entitled A’obbad al-Maseeh Fi Naqd al-Nasraniyyah (O Christ-Worshippers! In Refuting Christianity). This qasidah is well-known in the Muslim world and has even been turned into a song. The following is the English trans­la­tion of the poetry from the Arabic original.

O Christ-wor­ship­pers! We want an answer to our question [from your wise ones],
If the Lord was murdered by some people’s act, what kind of god is this?
We wonder! Was He pleased by what they did to Him?
If yes, blessed be they, they achieved His pleasure,
But if He was dis­con­tent­ed, this means their power has sub­ju­gat­ed Him!

Was the whole entity left without a Sustainer, so who answered the prayers?
Were the heavens vacated, when He laid under the ground somewhere?
Were all the worlds left without a God, to manage while His hands were nailed?
Why did not the angels help Him, when they heard him while he wailed?

How could the rods stand to bear the True Lord when He was fastened,
How could the irons reached Him and [had] His body pinned?
How could His enemies’ hands touch Him and slap His rear,
And was Christ revived by himself, or was the Reviver another god?

What a sight it was, a grave that enclosed a god,
Stranger still is the belly that confined Him!
He stayed there for nine months in utter darkness, fed by blood!
Then he got out of the womb as a small baby,
Weak and gasping to be breast-fed!
He ate and drank, and did what that naturally resulted1,
Is this [what you call] a god?
High Exalted be Allah above the lies of Christians,
All of them will be held account­able for their libels!

O Cross-wor­ship­pers! For what reason is this exalted
And blame [is cast upon those] who reject it?
Is it not logical to break and burn it, along with the one who innovated it?2
Since the Lord was crucified on it, and his hands were fastened to it?
That is really a cursed cross to carry,
So discard it, do not kiss it!3

The Lord was abused on it, and you adore it?
So [it is clear that] you are one of His enemies!
If you extol it because it carried the Lord of the Worlds,
Why don’t you prostrate yourself and worship graves,
Since the grave contained your god in it?4

So Christ-wor­ship­per, open your eyes,
This is what the matter is all about.

  1. Urination and defe­ca­tion. []
  2. Paul of Tarsus, founder of the Trinitarian faith. []
  3. i.e., don’t glorify it. []
  4. i.e., since someone who is a Christian abhors the idea of wor­ship­ping a grave, how is it possible for them to worship the cross? []