My 4th Letter to Ted Weiland.

From: John Hurt
1857 Brindley Hollow Rd
Buffalo Valley, TN 38548

To: Ted Weiland
Mission to Israel
PO Box 248
Scottsbluff, NE 69363

Ted,

I have listened to your 1 Timothy 5 Part 25, and 1 Timothy 6 Part 26, and I would like to ask you to quit teaching Paul’s doctrines and return to Christ for the following reasons:

1. In Part 25, you quoted Paul in 1st Corinthians 8:4-6 that an “idol is nothing”, which Paul uses as justification to eat meat offered to idols. This practice has been condemned by the True Apostles in Acts 15:20,29, by James when he confronted Paul over this doctrine in Acts 21:25, and by Christ in Revelation 2:14, 20. This is the doctrine of Baalim (Numbers 25:2), and no Christian minister should teach any part of Paul’s 1 Corinthians 8, as Paul’s doctrines contradicts the doctrines of YHVH, and of Christ and His True Apostles.

Paul is not a true apostle.

Ted, there can only be 12 Apostles (Matthew 19:28, Luke 22:30, Revelation 21:14), yet Paul claims to be number 13. Out of the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses let Paul’s apostleship be established, yet Paul is a single witness of his “apostleship”, his “road to Damascus” experience, and his personal “revelations” of Christ (Gal 1:12). If I told you that I was the only witness to being an apostle, that I met Christ “on the road to Nashville”, and that my personal “revelations” were superior to the instructions Christ gave His Apostles, would you believe me? No. Then why you do believe Paul? Paul is lying.

Paul claimed, under oath in a court of law, that he was indeed a Pharisee (Acts 23:26). Christ told us to beware of the leaven, or doctrines of the Pharisees, like Paul. (Matthew 16:6-12). Yet, why are Paul’s doctrines taught more than the doctrines of Christ? Is that Christ’s fault, or is it the Pauline pastors’ fault? What do you think? Christ said we are to teach only his doctrines, and no one else. Matthew 28:20. Why not teach Christ? What could it hurt?

2. In Part 25, you quoted from 2nd John 1:7, that the deceiver and the antichrist is someone that would say that Christ did not come in the flesh. This is the Apostle John’s condemnation of Paul as the antichrist, as seen from these passages:

First, study Acts 14:11, where the people of that time believed that “gods” came down “in the likeness” of men – not that the men themselves were “gods”, but that the fleshly men were the “avatar” or “likeness” of the “god”.

Then study Romans 8:3, and Philippians 2:7, where the same statements are made by Paul about Christ. Paul is telling us that Christ came only as a “likeness” of flesh, and was not truly a man like the rest of us, which is why He was perfect. This is the heart of “Gnosticism” that states that all flesh is evil.

Likewise, Paul teaches that if you have “knowledge” or “gnosis”, you can eat meat offered to idols. (1 Cor 8:1, 7, 10, 11) Gnosticism means “knowledge.” This is the “hidden knowledge” that lets you do whatever you want, and eat whatever you want. This "hidden knowledge" is Gnosticism.

Paul claims to receive his instruction “by revelation” (Galatians 1:12), in contrast to the 12 Apostles that walked with Christ and were taught by Him. By this “revelation”, Paul believed he was superior to the Apostles, and Peter (Galatians 2:11), a man who Christ made the “rock” of His church. This “revelation” is Paul’s “gnosis”, or “hidden knowledge” that Paul thinks makes him “by revelation” superior to Christ and His Apostles.

If you were to replace the word “faith” (pistis) with “knowledge” (gnosis) in all of Paul’s writings, you would see Paul for what he is. He believes that if you keep a thought or “knowledge” inside your head, like “faith”, then you will be saved. This is contrary to obedience to the 10 Commandments being the path to eternal life that was taught by Christ (Matthew 19:16-26). Paul and Christ do not agree on salvation.

Per Clement of Alexandria and others, Paul taught his Gnosticism to Theudas and many other people. To provide the links for this statement, go to Wikipedia, and search for “Theudas (teacher of Valentinius). Valentinius worked with the Gnostic Marcion in Rome, who proposed a New Testament of only Luke, Acts, and the writings of Paul – a true Gnostic, or “faith alone” Bible.

This is the leaven of Paul, the Gnostic Pharisee that opposes the obedience of Christ.

In your Part 26, you did a great job in teaching all the forms of slavery under YHVH’s law. But the “leaven” you added to the Word of God was that Paul’s recognition of slavery was somehow tied to YHVH’s laws about slavery – that they are the same. Through your ministry, you have subtly implied that Paul taught YHWH’s laws on Biblical slavery, which is incorrect.

So here are my questions for you: If Paul teaches YHVH’s laws on Biblical Slavery, then why didn't Paul teach that there is a difference between the slavery of a Hebrew and a non Hebrew, or that the Hebrew should be released after 7 years, or at the Jubilee? Did not Paul say that we are all one in Christ, and therefore we are all “Abraham’s seed”? If so, why did Paul not teach the year of release for all slaves, as we are “one in Christ”? That would be teaching Biblical slavery, per Paul’s doctrines, correct?

No, Paul is upholding Roman slavery which is perpetual slavery for everyone, and Paul is telling the gullible like Onesimus that they should not even avoid or resist slavery. Paul is not going to make the Romans angry with some “year of release” or “jubilee” clause that is clearly stated in YHVH’s law. Paul knows who butters his bread, just like he knows his own wolf’s hide hidden under the sheep skin. Paul is lawless.

And why didn’t Paul teach that Christ said He came to set the captives free in “the acceptable year of the Lord”? (Isaiah 61:1-2, Luke 4:18-19) Because Paul is a Roman Pharisee opposed to Christ and the freedom of the slave. And Rome depends on perpetual slavery, just like the banks have made us all slaves today. Does Paul ever condemn usury? No. Slavery? No. Have the doctrines of Christ helped eliminate slavery? Yes. Paul and Christ are opposed on this matter.

Under Paul and the Catholic church, slavery has flourished. After the Reformation and a renewed teaching of Christ that Christ came to set the captives free, do we see slavery first abolished in England the USA, the home of the Reformation.

Paul is a great supporter of Rome and Roman slavery, for the following reason:

If you look up “Costobarus” in Josephus and online, you will find that he is the brother of “Saul” of the Royal Household of Herod. I believe this is the false apostle Saul/Paul, who is an Edomite Jew like Herod. Saul/Paul had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch (Acts 13:1). Paul also claims “Herodian” as his kinsman (Romans 16:11).

Paul’s biological relationship to Herod would explain why Paul was born a Roman citizen, (Acts 22:28) as Roman citizenship for an entire household "at birth" was given to the royal houses of Judea and other provinces to secure them as allies of Rome. It would also explain why Paul was rescued from the mob by Roman soldiers (Acts 22), and why he was kept in Herod's Judgment Hall (and not some dungeon or jail) in Acts 23:35, and why he was so important that he was guarded by 200 soldiers, 70 horsemen, and 200 spearmen to take him to Caesarea, as he was a high value person. (Acts 23:23). Paul also seems to be on friendly terms with Agrippa, as Agrippa was Paul's relative through Herod.

Paul's family relation to Herod also explains why the chief priests would send Paul to Damascus, (Acts 9) as Damascus was outside their jurisdiction and Herod's, but Damascus was ruled by a relative of Herod, and Paul would have better access to any legal proceedings in Damascus since he was of the Herodian royal family. Paul's connections also explain why Luke was able to get access to the Roman correspondence concerning Paul (Acts 23:26-30), something impossible for a normal Roman prisoner. Even in Rome, Paul spent 2 years in his own hired house awaiting his trial, something that would be impossible for a "nobody" that lived off the wages of a tent maker.

If you have a better explanation why the Roman government treated Paul with “kid gloves”, I am all ears. Why did the Romans crucify Christ and His Apostles, but keep Paul as a guest in the Judgment hall? Is it because Paul was “one of theirs”? Yes!

Your claims that Romans 13 is about a “Christian ecclesia” that “bears not the sword in vain” – in the 1st Century – under Roman rule – is impossible, because it never happened anywhere during this time period. You need to show a credible 1st Century instance of this before you make these claims to support the doctrines of Paul in Romans 13.

Regardless, the other 99% of Christian – dumb – truly believes that Paul in Romans 13 is saying that government officials are the “ministers of God for your good”, just like they believe God’s law has been abolished by the writings and superior authority of Paul. Perhaps they are right, and you are wrong, and these statements are believed at face value by the vast majority of “Christians” because they really are Paul’s doctrines.

You are defending someone that needs to be cast out. With this information, you need to put Paul on trial, like the church at Ephesus (Revelation 2:2), and test his claims to be an “apostle”. If you find him to be a liar, as in Ephesus, you need to avoid his doctrines.

I do appreciate your teachings on the US Constitution. There is no fault there. But I am not going to listen to you recite Paul’s writings in 2nd Timothy, as it hurts to listen to you defend this Pharisee. I would rather watch a baby eat razor blades.

I know you gave up a lot of things for the truth. I am certain that if you prayed on this matter, God would answer you that Christ is all you need to teach.

And the people that listen to you, they would be very blessed if you changed your focus from Paul to Christ.

John Hurt

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

My 5th Letter to Ted Weiland: June 21st, 2023