Romans

ROMANS! This is the key word to understanding Christianity. ROMANS! The Romans ruled the world when Christianity began. The Romans were actively engaged in multiple wars with the Jews in the first and second centuries. The two main people groups in the New Testament are the Jews and the Romans. These are the only two people groups you really need to understand to understand the relevant history associated with the origin of Christianity. The Romans and Jews were mortal enemies. The Jews couldn't tolerate Roman occupation in Israel and the Romans couldn't tolerate rebellion against their rule. The Jews depended on their God to save them, but the Romans depended on military and psychological warfare. The Roman tactics were far superior to the Jewish tactics. The Jewish God was powerless against the Romans.

The book of Romans in the Christian Bible is the crown jewel of Paul's letters. This is why it is first in the canonical order. The book of Romans is considered by scholars to be an authentic Pauline letter, yet I will demonstrate to you how Paul could NOT have written this letter, according to the Christian traditions. The church claims that Paul was killed by the Roman Emperor Nero, who himself died in 68 CE, therefore Paul would have died prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple in 70 CE.

Chapter Selection

Comments

Romans 1

The first verse identifies the author as Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, yet Paul never even met Jesus before Jesus supernaturally disappeared into the sky. In Galatians 1:11-12, Paul gives his statement that he did not receive his knowledge from any man, but by divine revelation from Jesus Christ. Yet in Matthew 24:23-26, Jesus told his Apostles that if anyone says they saw the Lord/Messiah here or there or in the wilderness, DO NOT BELIEVE THEM! This is a major flaw in the Christian narrative. Paul taught the end of Judaism and started a new religion based on a man he never met, while also contradicting the teachings that are attributed to Jesus. Paul taught the end of Jewish Law, but Jesus taught obedience to the Jewish Law (Matthew 5:17-19). Modern Christianity is a religion that aligns more closely with Pauline teachings than Jesus teachings.

Verses 3-4 are interesting. Paul says Jesus was born of the offspring of David according to the flesh, which most certainly identifies Jesus as a normal human born through Davidic lineage, not from a virgin mother in a Divine union with God. Verse 4 goes on to say that Jesus was DECLARED to be the son of God by the resurrection from the dead. This indicates that Jesus did not become Divine until he was resurrected from the dead. Christians ignore these details because they are contradictions in the storyline, but these contradictions reveal the lies of Christianity.

In verse 5, Paul uses the phrase "obedience to the faith" which demonstrates Paul's expectation of belief in opposition to "obedience to Jewish Law." Paul's primary message is that faith is better than law, but the Jewish Law was all about obedience to the written word of God. When you put this in context of the 1st and 2nd Century wars between the Romans and the Jews, Paul is clearly siding with the Roman perspective. Paul is pro-Roman and anti-Jewish. If Paul existed (which is unlikely) and if Paul was a Jew, then he could have only been a Hellenized Jew, who was trained in the Greek and Roman culture and had a Greco-Roman worldview, not a Jewish worldview.

In verse 7, Paul identifies his audience as those who are in Rome, beloved of God, and called to be saints. Now why would a Jew in Israel be writing to people in Rome, concerning a guy that supposedly resurrected from the dead after Roman execution, as if they already believe the story? According to the book of Acts, Paul was a prominent Pharisaical Jew in Jerusalem in his early life, and doesn't travel to Rome until near the end of his life in the 60's. And how or why would Paul be writing to "all who are in Rome" unless he had approval from the Roman Emperor himself? It is not remotely logical that a brand new religion started in the Roman Empire, directly under the nose of the Roman Emperor, at the exact same time that the Romans were destroying the Jews because their religion was incompatible with the Roman Empire. My conclusion is that Paul was an undercover agent of Rome, who was pushing out the Roman propaganda associated with the conflicts with the Jews. I do not think Paul was a real person. I think Paul was a pen name for an unknown Roman official who was tasked by the Emperor to create a narrative to support their military campaign against the Jews. There are some very suspicious correlations between Paul and Flavius Josephus, that certainly identifies a connection between the two.

In verse 8, Paul says the faith of the Romans has been proclaimed throughout the whole world. This is outrageous! Paul has not even visited these people yet, but somehow their faith in Jesus has already spread to the whole world? Christians would have you believe that faith in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, almost instantly converted massive numbers of the citizens of Rome to Christianity even before Paul could visit them. Irenaeus tells us that Peter and Paul started the church in Rome, but it seems someone else started the Roman church before Paul.

In verses 10-12, Paul says he wants to visit them in Rome, for he longs to see them, so he can impart some spiritual gift to them, and so they can both be edified by each other's faith. To me, this indicates that Paul knew these Roman citizens personally. It would be very odd to express such affection for people you never met. To me, it makes sense that these are the people who sent Paul out on his mission, who have their own faith independent of Paul's teachings, and Paul is looking forward to coming back home to his "people" after successful completion of his mission.

In verses 13-15, Paul says he has often tried to visit Rome but has been hindered. Paul identifies his mission as a mission to the Gentiles, Greeks, and foreigners, but he suspiciously leaves out the Jews here. Paul is identifying his mission as a Greek and Gentile mission, not a Jewish mission.

In verses 16-17, Paul says he is not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also the Greek. I accept that this message was first intended for the Jews and later went to the rest of the Roman Empire, but not in the way Christians believe. The "Jesus narrative" was originally created for the purpose of giving the Jews an option to accept a crucified Jewish Messiah that was compatible with the Roman Empire, but whichever Jew who didn't believe the Roman narrative, would be killed. The Roman wartime propaganda campaign that we call Christianity today, was a Roman edict for the Jews to repent or perish.

Verse 18 brings up a key fact to date the authorship of the book of Romans. Paul says the "wrath of God" is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Now, who rejected the "gospel of Christ" and did they taste the wrath of God? Of course, the Jews were destroyed along with their city and their Temple in 70 CE. The logical question is, was Paul predicting their future destruction, or writing about their past destruction. If Paul was the author of Romans and also died before their destruction in 70 CE, then he had to be predicting the future. The much more logical and likely scenario is that this letter was written after 70 CE and attributed to a fictional prophet who lived in the past. The fact that there is no evidence that this letter existed prior to 70 CE, would increase the likelihood and probability that Paul did not write this letter, even though mainstream Biblical scholars consider this letter to be an authentic Pauline letter. It is a shame that we can't even trust Biblical Scholars to tell the truth.

Verses 20-32 share a common theme to demonize your enemies and accuse them of the most vile things you can think of, so you can justify their deaths. The vile humans who were being threatened with death were the rebellious Jews who caused the war.

Romans 2

1-9. Immediately after Paul demonizes people for various sins, he opens chapter 2 with a rebuke of anyone who would judge another person. It seems ironic that he forbids judging right after he does it himself. He says you are without excuse, whoever you are who judges another, for you condemn yourself, because you practice the same things. In verse 2, Paul says God judges according to truth. Therefore, you could draw the conclusion that if the city of Jerusalem is destroyed, it is God who did it (not the Romans-Amos 3:6). In verse 3, Paul reiterates the judgement of God. In verse 5, we get more threats about the wrath of God on those who have hard and unrepentant hearts. Again in verse 8, Paul says there is wrath and indignation, oppression and anguish on every soul of man who does evil, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. That is a lot of threats about the destruction of God and it is especially suspicious if Paul is predicting a Divine destruction that has not happened yet. All this supports the suggestion that this letter to the Romans was not written before 70 CE, but it was rather written after 70 CE as an explanation or justification for the destruction of the Jews and Jerusalem. The suggestion that Paul actually wrote this before 70 CE requires Divine foreknowledge and assumptions that are not even based on facts. The ONLY reason scholars say Paul wrote this letter is because the first verse says Paul wrote it and the book of Acts tells a story about Paul conducting his ministry before the Temple was destroyed. In other words, the Bible says so, therefore it must be true, even though scholars will openly admit the Bible is not reliable testimony.

10-16. In this section, Paul is not talking about justification through faith, he is emphasizing good works. Verse 10 says glory, honor, and peace to to every man who does good, to the Jew first and also the Greek. Verse 12 says those (Greeks) who sin without law also die without law and those (Jews) who sin under the law will be judged by the law. So Paul is saying that Jews live by their standards and Greeks live by their standards and God works it all out in the end based on his righteous perfect judgment according to our deeds. Verse 13 says it is not the hearers of the law but the doers of the law who will be justified. In verses 14-15, he makes the example of how Gentiles could be good people without ever hearing the Jewish laws, simply because the law is written on their hearts. Verse 16 is really interesting. Paul says God will judge the secrets of men, according to MY gospel by Jesus Christ. Paul is saying that God is going to judge people based on what Paul says. Who is this Paul that can confidently say God will judge people according to what Paul says? This is an extremely bold statement, especially since it is in a letter written to Romans who ruled the world. Outrageous!

In verses 17-29, Paul directs his attention at the Jews specifically. He instructs the Jews to approve the things that are excellent and not be a hypocrite. In verse 24, he says God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because the Jews don't practice what they preach. In verse 25, he says even if you are circumcised, but are not a good person, then your circumcision means nothing. In verse 26, he says a Gentile could be a good person without being circumcised and be justified. Verse 27 says the uncircumcised (Gentiles) will judge you circumcised Jews and find you guilty. This is another veiled reference to 70 CE, when the Gentiles judged the Jews in war. It is not a prediction of the future. It is a veiled reference to the past. In verse 28-29, Paul introduces the concept of a spiritual Jew. He says a Jew is not a Jew according to outward, fleshly things, but because of the inward man and the goodness of the heart. This is pure Greek philosophy. This is not a Jewish concept. Being a Jew is a matter of fleshly heritage and religious conformity to Jewish Law, but Paul completely changes the definition of a Jew here. Why would a Jew redefine what it means to be a Jew while explicitly saying that Gentiles can be better people than Jews? Come on! Paul is not who he claims to be.

Romans 3

1-4. In chapter 2 Paul concludes by redefining what it means to be a Jew and he begins chapter 3 asking what benefit is there to being a Jew, and he answers in a very telling way. Paul says THEY (the Jews), not WE were entrusted with the revelations from God. Paul is accidentally blowing his Greco-Roman cover. In verse 4, Paul teaches that men are unreliable, but God is always reliable. He says let God be true and every man a liar, then he quotes Psalm 51:4 where David is praising God as the one who is justified when he speaks and he prevails in judgment.

5-8. Paul then asks how God can righteously judge us if we are all liars, and why don't we just do evil so that God can demonstrate his goodness. Paul doesn't really answer his questions, but just concludes that we are evil (justly condemned) to even ask such hard questions.

9-18. Paul blows his cover again in verse 9 by saying are we better than they? For we previously warned both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. Paul is not identifying himself as a Jew here. Paul speaks of the Jews with the 3rd person pronoun "they." Paul then quotes Psalm 14:1-3, Psalm 53:1-3, and Ecclesiastes 7:20 to say that no one is righteous, no not one. He then quotes Psalm 5:9 and Psalm 140:3 concerning throats being open tombs and having poison of vipers in their lips. Then Psalm 10:7, saying their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Isaiah 59:7-8 and Psalm 36:1 as further scriptural references to evil people who lie.

19-20. Paul speaks of the Jews again in the 3rd person by saying, we know that whatever the Law says, it says to THOSE who are under the Law (not us Jews, but those Jews). He says in verse 20 that no flesh will be justified by the Jewish law, but the law only brought the knowledge of what sin is.

21-26. But NOW God has revealed righteousness apart from the Law. Oh really? What Jew is going to say they can obtain righteousness apart from the Law? None, that's who. The Law was the foundation of righteousness for the Jews, but Paul comes along and says righteousness can be obtained simply by believing a story about Jesus. Verse 25 says Jesus was sent by God to be an atoning sacrifice through faith in his blood. Even though the Jewish law says no one can pay for the sins of another (Ezek. 18:20), that God hates the shedding of innocent blood (Proverbs 6:17), and that whoever sacrifices their son or daughter is sacrificing to demons (Psalm 106:37-38), according to Paul you can be justified simply by believing in the human sacrifice, which required the shedding of the innocent blood of the son of God.

27-31. So Paul introduces the brand new concept of justification by faith. Paul is eliminating the law and presenting the concept that faith in a human sacrifice is now sufficient to justify you before God. In verse 31, he claims to establish the law rather than nullify it, but that is an outright lie, intended to present the new "Pauline" religion as a compliment to the Jewish Law, rather than what it truly is, a replacement.

Romans 4

1-8. Paul switches back to identifying as a Jew by calling Abraham OUR forefather according to the flesh. He quotes Genesis 15:6 to suggest that Abraham was justified by faith rather than by works. In verses 4-5, Paul says justification by works is not grace, but debt, but to him who DOES NOT WORK, he is justified simply by believing that God justifies the ungodly. If Paul had quoted Provers 17:15, we could have all seen that God hates the justification of the guilty, but that wouldn't serve Paul's purpose. Then he quotes David in Psalms 32:1 by saying blessed is the one to whom God does not charge with sin.

9-18. Paul then makes the case that God must approve of uncircumcised people because Abraham was uncircumcised when God first came to him. This could explain why Paul is conflicted about identifying as a Jew and why Paul introduces the concept of a spiritual Jew vs a fleshly Jew. Paul is justifying Gentiles by human philosophical interpretations of the Jewish Law. Paul is calling Abraham the father of faith and the father of circumcision, so he could be the father of Jews and Gentiles, according to Paul's philosophy. Verse 16 calls Abraham the father of us all, clearly indicating that Abraham is the father of not only the Jews but also the Gentiles (who have faith). Verse 17 quotes Genesis 17:5 which says Abraham would become the father of many nations. Verse 18 quotes Genesis 15:5 saying Abraham's offspring will be as numerous as the stars, but this actually goes against Paul's argument, because the previous verse in Genesis 15:4 clarifies that God is talking about a seed coming out of his body to provide literal offspring, not lumping Gentiles under the offspring of Abraham because they have faith.

19-25. Paul continues his philosophy that Abraham was not just the literal bloodline ancestor of the fleshly Jews, but emphasizes the faith of Abraham so that all who have faith can claim Abraham as their father. This whole chapter is about arguments to justify Abraham as the father of Gentiles. Why would Paul be trying so hard to incorporate Gentiles into the Jewish promises? Paul admits he is the Apostle to the Gentiles (Romans 11 and Ephesians 3). The Gentiles were the Romans and this letter is written to the Romans. Paul conveniently avoids all the Jewish Scriptures that refute his philosophy and twists the Jewish Scriptures to fit his philosophy. This would not be required if Christianity were true.

Romans 5

1-5. Paul teaches justification by faith, but in chapters 1 and 2, he made a big deal about works and behavior, so which is it? Are we justified by being a good person or simply because we believe in Jesus? These two ideas are actually contradictory. In verse 3, Paul teaches the value of suffering and how suffering produces perseverance, then character, then hope. So apparently God doesn't want to save us from hardship, because that is how God builds our character. It's funny how we don't even need a God to experience suffering. We need a God to save us from suffering, but that is not what is being offered here. In verse 5 Paul says God has poured out the Holy Spirit into their hearts, but I guess that is just supposed to allow you to endure suffering better, because he offers no other benefits.

6-8. Paul emphasizes how Jesus died for ungodly sinners. If Jesus paid the price for ungodly sinners, then why would ungodly sinners have any debt left to pay? Why would ungodly sinners need to repent or change or believe anything? Christians will tell you that all people are ungodly sinners and the blood of Jesus only pays for those who repent and believe and live righteous lives, but Paul just got through teaching in Romans 2 that even those who do not have the law, but live good lives have the law written on their hearts, thereby indicating that if you are just a good person nothing else really matters. You should see the contradictions in Paul's teachings. Is it our behavior that matters or is it our faith that justifies, or did Jesus pay the debt for ungodly sinners? This is why there are so many denominations of Christianity.

9-10. Paul doubles down on the justification of God's enemies by the blood of Jesus. Since we, as the enemies of God, were justified by the blood of Jesus, we will be saved from God's wrath. If you have not studied the first century Roman-Jewish War that resulted in the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, then you cannot understand the context of Christianity. This war was the focal point that sparked the creation of Christianity. This is what all of Christianity is about. The Jesus story originated as a Roman wartime propaganda campaign against the Jews and it later developed into a world religion. The specific wrath of God being reference here by Paul is that first century war that resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple, and Paul is not predicting the future, this letter was written after the event, as a Roman narrative to control the Jews. Repent or perish. Obey Rome or die. When I reference Paul, I am referencing a pen-name, because Paul was not a real person who died in the 60's. It is easy to create characters who lived in the past, especially when no one even cares to acknowledge that these characters are never mentioned by independent sources outside the Bible. Josephus would have been a contemporary with Paul, but Josephus never talks about Paul, not even once.

11-21. This whole section is teaching Universal Salvation. Over and over, Paul makes the case that the blood of Jesus paid the price for sins. Paul never attaches any conditions to salvation in this section. Verse 11 says now we have received reconciliation. In verse 12, sin and death entered into the world through Adam and all men sinned after Adam. In verse 13, Paul says sin cannot be charged to you unless you are under law. Verse 14 says death reigned from Adam to Moses even though no law was given at that time. He is indicating that God could not hold people accountable to sin if God had not given them a law to set his standards for judgment. However, people still died. Verse 15 he says the free gift is not like the trespass, because even though all those people died between Adam and Moses as a result of Adam's sin, God gave a free gift to all through Jesus Christ. Now verse 15 does say "abound to many" instead of all, so Christians will use that detail to deny the universal application of the blood of Jesus, because they hate universal salvation because universal salvation essentially renders belief in Jesus useless. There is no need to believe in Jesus or even change your sinful behaviors if the blood of Jesus paid for all sin. Verse 18 says, through Adams sin, all were condemned, but through Jesus' death all men were justified to life. This whole section is talking about how Jesus remedied the curse of Adam, and it uses the word reconciliation over and over. It even makes universal application to all humanity and calls it a free gift, but Christians hate teaching universal salvation, because they want to be God's special chosen people who get to watch millions be tortured in fire for eternity who didn't accept their worldview. It is really sad. Verse 20 says the (Jewish) law (Torah) only came into play to amplify sin, just so God could multiply his grace on humanity by eliminating all that debt and oppression through Jesus. If only Christianity would accept what "Paul" is teaching in this section, they could truly have some good news of forgiveness, but they prefer bad news of condemnation and threats and control over peace and reconciliation.

Romans 6

1-4. The logical question after hearing all that universal salvation doctrine is to ask why should we stop sinning then. If the blood of Jesus paid for sins, why don't we just live it up? Paul quickly shuts down this notion that we can sin so that grace may abound, even though he just made that point by saying the law entered just so God could demonstrate his exceeding grace to overcome sin. In the last chapter he called salvation a free gift, but now he is tacking on some conditions. He introduces baptism for the first and only time in the book or Romans here as a symbolic death and rebirth, and he speaks of baptism as if his audience is already aware of the practice. Again, how could the Romans already be aware of water baptism. There were other Roman cults that also used water baptism as an initiation practice, namely Mithraism.

5-11. Paul explains the symbolism of water baptism in this section. He explains that baptism is a symbolic representation where people can symbolically experience the death and resurrection of Jesus. If you go down in the water like you have died and been buried, then when you are raised back up out of the water, it symbolizes your resurrection from the dead. And if we go through this symbolic ritual, then maybe we can float up into the sky to live with God in Heaven like Jesus did. He adds on that our sinful person actually dies and the person that is resurrected from water baptism is free from sin. He is indicating how you should live a new life without sin after you are baptized. This concept puts a lot of pressure on people to live perfect lives without sinning, and that includes just having an impure thought. This is an impossible standard, and Paul is teaching this bad news right after teaching what sounds like universal salvation and good news. Verse 10 is interesting. It says the death that Jesus died, he died to sin one time, but the life he lives, he lives to God. This verse could be understood to mean that Jesus stopped sinning after his death and resurrection, but that would destroy the whole perfect sacrifice concept. Paul is comparing our symbolic death and resurrection in baptism to the death and resurrection of Jesus and says we go in the water as sinners and come out living a new life. The Christian must assume that Jesus dying to sin, means he died for other people's sins, and not his own sins. Just listen to a Christian stutter and stumble to explain this verse, especially if you read the context.

12-14. Paul is encouraging the Romans to avoid sin, but he is not necessarily saying they have to live perfect, sinless lives, because he says not to let sin reign over you and that they are not under law but under grace. Grace implies forgiveness and liberty, but he just wants to emphasize that you shouldn't sin just for the fun of it. In verse 13, he says to present yourselves to God as alive from the dead. Paul is talking about the symbolic death and resurrection through baptism and not literally resurrected from physical death. This presents an opportunity for confusion regarding death and resurrection. Is the only resurrection the renewed mind after baptism or is it really the resurrected physical body that goes in the dirt, or is it the resurrected spirit of a man that comes out of the physical body upon physical death. Paul does not clarify this here, but he makes an attempt in 1 Corinthians 15.

15-21. Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Paul says no. So this free gift is not so free after all. Paul says you can either be a slave of sin that leads to death or a slave of righteousness that leads to life. So Paul is placing the burden on people to eliminate sin from their lives, while also presenting a confusing message about how the blood of Jesus paid the sin debt and reconciled us to God, set us free from law and sin, but we still have to present ourselves as slaves of righteousness who eliminate sin from our lives.

22-23. But now that you have been set free from sin, you have become servants of God, which leads to eternal life. I suppose it would be nice if becoming a baptized Christian would result in some Divine intervention to actually remove sinful thoughts from our minds, but I know from 30 years of experience as a baptized Christian, that God does not miraculous remove all impure thoughts from your mind. Therefore, Paul is setting an impossible standard which places a big burden on you, while calling it a free gift of salvation. In verse 23 he says the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Maybe free doesn't really mean free in Greek, or maybe this is all just manipulation and false promises and human philosophy intended to control people. It is most certainly an evil attempt to control people with threats of punishment and false promises of eternal life. We have to rid the world of this evil manipulative book and religion. I want all people to be good to one another too, but I think we can do it without religious deception.

Romans 7

1-6. Paul says he is speaking to those who know the Law, and he is referencing the Jewish Law, but he is writing to people in Rome who were most likely NOT Jews. This seems like a plot hole to me. No one in Rome was living under Jewish Law, but Paul is writing as if they were. Paul uses the example of how a woman is bound to her husband as long as the husband is alive, but if the husband dies, then the woman can be joined to another man. In verse 4, Paul says these Romans were bound to the Law until Jesus died, so they could be joined to the resurrected Jesus. The Romans were not bound to the Jewish Law EVER, so why is Paul saying they were? The Jewish Law was only ever binding for Israelites living in Israel. I guess Paul can just make up whatever garbage he wants and people will just believe it. In verse 6, Paul says now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that in which we were held, so we serve in newness of spirit, and not oldness of letter. It is completely ludicrous to think the Jewish Law ended because Jesus died on a cross. The death of a man who claimed to be the son of God, is not the thing the Jews were waiting for to eliminate the Law that they thought came from God. Paul is clearly making up lies and excuses for why the Jewish Law was no longer applicable. It is FAR MORE LIKELY that no one would even suggest the Jewish Law was nullified or expired unless the Jewish Temple was destroyed, and it wasn't destroyed until 70 CE, which was after the Paul character was dead. This is evidence that Paul is a pen name for an anonymous author who was writing after the destruction of the Temple, for the purpose of explaining the Roman excuses to end Judaism.

7-12. Paul defends the Jewish Law and says it had a good purpose, but the purpose was now expired. Paul says in verse 8, apart from the law sin is dead. By this he means, you can't hold people accountable unless you have a law, but he goes on to say that because the law existed, it brought people into condemnation and death.

13-23. So since the law brought death, it is bad, right Paul? No, law, sin, and death is good according to Paul, because it just makes you realize you need Jesus. Paul gives his philosophy of how you can break the law with the flesh, but be conflicted in your spirit and still find justification. So even if you covet or commit adultery, as long as you realize it is wrong, then only your flesh sinned, but you spirit is still clean. He says in verses 17 and 20, so then it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwells in me.

24-25. Oh wretched man that I am, who will save me from this body of death. Oh yea, Jesus...cool. So then with my mind, I serve God, but with my flesh, I serve sin. Paul is not even teaching that you not commit adultery or covet here. He is teaching that you simply should not enjoy adultery or coveting. For as long as you agree that you shouldn't sin, then you can sin and blame it on your flesh, instead of your spirit. Ridiculous!

Romans 8

1-8. Paul continues his previous idea of the contrast between living in the flesh and living in the spirit. He just said you can sin as long as you don't enjoy it, or as long as you agree that it was wrong and you would rather do what is right. Now he says there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because they don't walk according to fleshly things but with a spiritual mind. In verse 2, he says the law of the spirit set him free from the law of sin and death. Imagine a prominent Jew in Jerusalem teaching that the Jewish Law was the law of sin and death and that it was no longer applicable simply because a man died on a cross. Anyone who taught this while the Jews had any authority in Israel would not have survived to get his message out. It only makes sense that this anti-Jewish narrative could be spread AFTER the Romans destroyed the Jews in 70 CE. The fact that there is no evidence for the existence of Paul or his letters in the first century, backs up this logical conclusion. Verse 7 says the mind of the flesh is hostile toward God, so it seems Paul is teaching about mindset and mental motivations, as opposed to physical observable actions.

9-11. Paul tells his ROMAN audience that they are not in the flesh but in the Spirit. Now obviously they were still living, fleshly humans, so he could only be talking about their mindset and thoughts. Verse 10 says, if Christ (mindset) is in you, then the body is dead due to sin, but the spirit is alive. Again, Paul is allowing sin in the fleshly body, as long as your mind is focused on Jesus. This is a wild concept that practically no one actually teaches today. Christians reject both the teachings of Jesus and Paul in many places. Verse 11 repeats twice that someone else raised up Jesus from the dead, which means Jesus did not raise himself, according to Paul. Paul did not think Jesus was the one, almighty god.

12-15. If you live after the flesh, you must die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. Did Paul just jump back to requiring a perfect sinless life, after all this talk about the flesh doing things against the spirit and still remaining justified? No wonder people are confused. Paul can't figure out what he is teaching himself.

16-19. Our spirit (mind) tells us that we are children of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if we suffer with him, then we will be glorified with him. I get the idea that the "spirit" according to Paul is just "intellect" or "attitude". He is not giving me the idea that he is referencing a supernatural spirit that performs supernatural things. It seems he is just talking about philosophy and mental motivations. His philosophy is that suffering leads to glorification. This is simply a human philosophy, derived from the age old question of why God lets bad things happen. Verse 19 says the creation is eagerly waiting for the revelation of the children of God. Now the Jews thought they were the children of God, but the Greeks and Romans were offended by this and they thought they should be considered the children of God. It is logical that this is another reference to 70 CE. We will see who God really likes after the war. Oh, surprise, surprise! God loves the Romans more than the Jews, because the Romans won the war.

20-25. The creation was subjected to vanity, and it longs to be delivered, just as Paul and the Romans also long to be delivered, adopted, and redeemed. In verse 23 he says the redemption of our bodies. Paul has been downplaying physical bodies and emphasizing the mind/spirit, but now he is longing for the redemption of his body? It seems he should have said souls or spirits there instead of body. In 25, he talks about the invisible hope and waiting for it with patience. So, according to Paul, even though Jesus had already set them free from bondage to law, simply by dying on the cross (which is a ridiculous concept), Paul was still waiting for something earnestly. What did Jesus accomplish? Why was Paul still longing to be redeemed? My only guess is that he is talking about dying and going to Heaven. If he was waiting on some earthly redemption, it never came, unless it was redemption from the Jews who caused so much trouble with their religion and law prior to 70 CE.

26-27. In this section, Paul does talk about a supernatural being called the Spirit. He says the Spirit intercedes for us and helps in our weaknesses. He is not just talking about the human mind here. He is talking about some supernatural spirit being.

28-30. All things work together for good to those who love God. Now if Paul was saying God protects believers from all harm, then we could all testify against Paul's claim. However, the appropriate way to take this is that even though bad things happen to believers, you are supposed to never stop believing that God has a greater end goal in mind, even if you don't see it. So, in my case as a believer for 46 years, who endured a lot of bad things, I can look back and say, God was just trying to drive me into atheism with all the hardships he sent me. In 29-30, Paul teaches predestination, which means God predetermines who will be saved or lost in the end and it is not by our own free will choices. So maybe God predestined me to be lost, which is why he sent enough hardships to me to cause me to stop believing in him, and this is better in the end, because it makes God happy to torture me for all eternity, even thought I sought after him with all my might for 46 years. That's cool, God.

31-34. In 32, Paul says God did not spare his own son, but delivered him up for us all. Certainly, Paul can't mean everyone by using the word all, because he was just talking about predestination of the believers. I also want to point out that Paul again distinguishes between God and Jesus. God delivered his son for us. God sacrificed his son for us, and this is why Paul concludes that God will freely give "us" (believers) all things. Paul is certainly pulling out the believers here for God's special blessings. In 33, he says who can bring a charge against God's chosen ones. So he is teaching exclusivity. In 34, Paul says Christ died and was raised and he sits at the right hand of God and makes intercession for us. Paul had already said the Spirit makes intercessions for him and this is certainly tying in to the Trinity doctrine, but since Jesus sits at God's right hand and was raised by God, they are clearly two different entities. It seems, early Christians would rather create (or more accurately adopt) a Trinity doctrine rather than recognize the inconsistent use of words in the writings and human philosophies.

35-39. So who can separate us from the love of Christ? This is another inconsistent use of words. Paul said God loved us enough to sacrifice his son, but the gospels say Jesus begged God to let this cup pass from him. It is as if Jesus was begging God not to kill him, but God decided to kill Jesus anyway, just to show those of us who would believe the story that he loves us enough to kill Jesus. Would you like for someone to show you they love you by killing someone for you? This is a ridiculous concept that Christianity is built on. It is like a kidnapper has two women tied in his basement and he told his favorite victim that he wanted to show her how much he loved her by killing his other victim. So he makes his favorite victim watch him kill his other victim as a demonstration of love. I know the Christian would reject that analogy and say it is more like God jumping in front of a bus to keep us from getting hit by the bus, but they fail to realize God is also driving the bus, and God is the one who placed us in the road with the inability to avoid the bus. In 36, Paul quotes Psalm 44:22, saying we are killed all day long and like sheep for the slaughter as justification for persecutions and bad things that happen in this life. He is teaching believers to be willing to die for their faith, even if God never shows up to save you from your enemies. This is a brainwashing tactic that is often used to motivate soldiers as they prepare for battle. You have to fight to the death. You must never seek to preserve your own life. You must die for the greater good and God will reward you after you die. Well, what if that is a lie? What if God doesn't reward you after you die? It is too late then. Dead people don't come back to inform the living that Christianity is a scam. That is what I am trying to warn you of, but you just think I am the crazy one. You believe Paul, who is a fictional character writing a contradictory human philosophy, but you reject logic and reason and reality, in favor of a fantasy.

Romans 9

1-5. "I swear I am not lying." So says every liar. The fact that Paul recognizes that whoever hears his words cannot vouch for anything he says, but has to solely take his word for it, is telling. Why would you have to swear you are not lying, if what you were saying could be verified? Someone who is not guilty of lying can just say, look at the evidence for yourself, you can see that I am telling the truth, but Paul just needs you to believe him because he said so. In verse 2, Paul says he has great sorrow and pain in his heart for his relatives the Jews/Israelites. Now why would Paul have great sorrow in his heart for the Jews, unless the Jews had suffered a great atrocity? The Jews did not suffer a great atrocity until the destruction of Jerusalem and their Temple and their lives in 70 CE. This is another veiled reference to an event that had not even happened yet in the fictional character of Paul's life. How can the scholars miss this? It is so obvious, I don't think they missed it. I think they are hiding it. Religion has always been a tool to control people, and it is time we find a better way to motivate people to good behavior. Verse 5 is very peculiar. Paul is talking about how the law came through the Jews and the Messiah came from the Jews, then he seems to imply that Jesus is the God over all. Either this is a translation error, or it is a contradiction. People use ridiculous translation errors like this to teach inconsistent and contradictory doctrines like "Jesus is God."

6-9. Paul goes back to his "spiritual Israel" doctrine in this section. Paul is fighting hard to explain how being Jewish is not about bloodline, but about faith. This is an absolute contradiction and Paul demonstrates his dishonesty in this passage. Paul quotes Genesis 21:12 where God told Abraham not to worry about Hagar and Ishmael, but to listen to Sarah, because Isaac was the seed through which his offspring would receive the inheritance. Genesis is clearly about bloodline, but Paul wants to twist it and say the exact opposite. Paul is quoting this verse and teaching that it means Abraham's offspring would only be "called" through Isaac, as if his offspring were only going to be called offspring, but were not really his offspring. So Paul is reinterpreting the prophecy and fulfilling it himself by being the person who "called" the Gentiles offspring of Abraham, even though they were not the offspring of Abraham.

10-13. Paul uses the example of Isaac and Rebekkah having twin sons Jacob and Esau to express how God exercises predestination of his chosen ones. Verse 11 says even before they were born, and before they ever did anything good or evil, God said the older would serve the younger and Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated. Paul has no problem with predestination and God arbitrarily choosing some over others for no other reason than because God wants to.

14-18. So the natural question is, is God unrighteous for predestination and arbitrary election? Paul says no. God can do whatever he wants, because he is God. It is amazing how Christians want to say God is the universal moral standard, but then say he is the only one allowed to do what he does. Is it moral for us to arbitrarily pick favorites from our kids and hate one and love the other? God did it. If God is our standard of morality, then you can justify almost any evil, because God has either done the evil or allowed the evil. Verse 16 destroys the argument for free will, because Paul says you see then it is not according to a man's will or effort, but all things are in accordance with God's design and purpose. You human will means nothing to God. God does whatever he wants whether you like it or not. Verse 17 uses Pharaoh as an example of how God raises people up for the very purpose of destroying them. Christians want to say that God simply picks evil people to use, but Paul is saying that God created Pharaoh just so he could destroy him.

19-21. So the natural question becomes, how can God find fault with us if he creates us to be evil. Paul's answer is, just shut up and don't question God. God is the potter and we are the clay. The potter makes some toilets and some flower vases and you have no say so over whether you are a toilet or not.

22-23. Paul says WHAT IF God just wants to show his power and ability to destroy and to show mercy on different people. Paul is not even claiming to know why God really does things, but he is admitting that he is just a human philosopher making suggestions as to why God allows evil. I am intrigued that the author is secretly admitting that he is just guessing and making suggestions, rather than hearing a Divine message from God.

24-26. Paul defends the Gentiles again by quoting Hosea 2:23 and Hosea 1:10. Saying I will call them my people who were not my people. Paul is defending the Romans hard here, while writing to Romans. Paul is teaching that the Jewish Scriptures were really about the Romans. Something I learned recently is that Josephus wrote that the Hebrew Scriptures were not translated into Greek yet during his life in the late first century, and if this is true then any quote from Paul from the Greek Septuagint would have been impossible. This would destroy any notion that the author of any of the Pauline letters could not have written in the first century at all. There is not one ounce of evidence that Paul's letters existed prior to 70 CE, but the scholars do not want you to know this. They want you to believe what they tell you without evidence. The scholars are corrupted.

27-33. In 27, Paul says only a remnant of Israel will be saved. This makes sense if it was in reference to many Jews experiencing the Roman destruction in 70 CE, but Paul was supposed to be dead before then. The author quotes Isaiah 10:22-23, saying the Lord will make a short work on the earth. He quotes Isaiah 1:9, saying unless God had left us (Jews) a seed, we would be like Sodom and Gomorrah, which also makes sense if it was written AFTER the 70 CE Roman destruction of the Jews. Then he quotes Isaiah 8:14 about how God is going to lay a stumbling stone in Israel and cause the Israelites to stumble. The Christian narrative is that Jesus was what caused the Jews to stumble because they relied on obedience instead of faith, but my conclusion is that Christianity was created by the Romans simply by reinterpreting the Hebrew Scriptures in a way that would justify the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Jews in 70 CE. Paul is simply quoting verses that justify the destruction and confusion of the Jews, and he is not applying it to a future destruction, but to the destruction that already happened, which means the Christian character of Paul could not have written these letters.

Romans 10

1-4. Paul is writing to Romans and he calls them "brothers", but he speaks of the Jews with a 3rd person pronoun "they". My hearts desire is that THEY may be saved. Saved from what? He is most likely talking about salvation from death and destruction in a literal earthly war, rather than the salvation of their souls. Paul is simply flipping the script from an actual earthly event, to a mystical supernatural salvation of souls. Paul says THEY (the Jews) have zeal, but not according to knowledge (gnosis). Paul is a dreaded gnostic. Paul says THEY sought to establish THEIR own righteousness, so he is not identifying himself with the Jews, yet he calls the Romans his brothers. Think, McFly! Paul often calls Jesus by the title of Christ rather than by his name, like he does in verse 4 by saying Christ is the fulfillment of the law to those who believe. If the person of Jesus fulfilled the law, why is it necessary to believe he fulfilled it first? Did he fulfill the law or didn't he? Why do you have to believe he fulfilled it? The answer is because Christianity is a Roman gnostic philosophy, and Paul was a mythical character who taught the gnostic Roman philosophy.

5-11. Paul quotes Moses from Leviticus 18:5 saying the one who keeps God's statutes shall live by them, but he is actually mocking Moses and redefines righteousness according to a quote from Deuteronomy 30:12-14, saying the law is not too hard to keep and not too far away to understand. According to Paul the law was the word that HE preached about faith, as opposed to obedience to God's commandments. You just need to confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe that God raised him from the dead, then you will be saved. This conjures up the explicit idea of a Roman capturing a Jew in war and giving the prisoner an ultimatum to either confess with his mouth that Jesus is Lord and that he was resurrected from the dead, or be tortured to death. The Jews revolted against Rome in the 60's and they rejected the Lordship of Caesar, so after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 CE, the prisoners would be given this opportunity to spare their lives. Confess with your mouth or die.

12-18. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for there is one Lord over all. Who was the Lord of all Jews and Greeks in the first century. CAESAR VESPASIAN THATS WHO! Vespasian conquered the Jews in 70 CE, and all of the sudden, there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, according to Paul (who was not even alive to see the Jewish destruction). Paul says the "Lord" is rich to all who call on his name. Just praise the Roman Caesar and you conquered Jews will be spared at the merciful word of Caesar (like Josephus was spared). Verse 14, how could THEY (the Jews) believe unless someone tells them what to believe? The Romans claim to understand the Hebrew Scriptures better than the Hebrews and they are giving an ultimatum to the Jews to either accept the Roman instructions or die.

19-21. Paul quotes Deuteronomy 32:21 to support his narrative that God will provoke Israel to jealousy with those who are not a people (the Romans) and provoke them to anger by a foolish nation (the Romans). Then Paul quotes Isaiah 65:1 to say God was found by a nation that didn't seek him (Romans) and God was revealed to those who didn't ask for me (Romans). And about Israel, Paul quotes Isaiah 65:2 saying God stretched out his hands all day to a disobedient and contrary people. These verses were not prophesying about the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, they were written about the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, and the Romans found it extremely convenient to simply apply the previous scriptures about the destruction of Jerusalem to the current destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, which again is proof that Paul did not write this letter to the Romans. Everything is about the 70 CE war and destruction of Jerusalem and the Jews, but the fictional character of Paul did not even live to see 70 CE.

Romans 11

1-5. Now Paul wants to identify as a literal Israelite and biological descendant of tribe of Benjamin after calling the Israelites "they" and "them" over and over. Now Paul is saying God didn't cast off all of Israel, but the fact that he is saying God did cast off or reject some of his people is another reference to 70 CE, which Paul was not alive to see. The rejection of Israel and the salvation of the remnant of Israel can only be a reference to the war. Scholars must be deliberately hiding this to perpetuate the Christian religion, because when you know the history of the Jews and Romans in the first century, there is no other explanation. In verse 3, Paul references 1 Kings 19:10 to say Israel has killed your prophets, just like Jesus said in Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51. The Romans took the Jewish literature and created a fictional story about the Israelites killing the greatest prophet of all (Jesus) as the justification for the war. I suspect Josephus was the character who originated this idea to the Roman Caesar and the idea was developed and pushed on the world. The Romans were not good and honest people. They were a ruthless beast intent to dominate the world by any means necessary. Verse 5 says, even so at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. Verse 5 is a blatant reference to the destruction of the Jews in 70 CE. Only a remnant survived the war. WHY IS THIS NOT COMMON KNOWLEDGE?!?! I suggest it is because religion is a tool to control the masses and people are afraid to lose control, but I think truth matters and I think we need to change the world by using a foundation of truth and justice and equity, rather than mind control and manipulation.

6-12. Paul reiterates salvation by grace as opposed to works, but immediately contradicts himself by saying God only reveals the truth to the chosen ones while he hardens the rest. He quotes Deuteronomy 29:4 and Isaiah 29:10 to justify God actively causing stupidity, blindness, and deafness, so Paul does not teach free will. God is not giving people free will choices if he is actively hardening hearts blinding eyes, stopping ears, and causing a spirit of stupor. Then he quotes Psalms 69:22-23 to bolster his argument, let their table become a snare to them, let their eyes be darkened that they man not see, and may their backs be always bent. Verse 11 asks if the Jews stumbled that they might fall and that by their fall salvation came to the gentiles. The Jews fell in 70 CE when the Romans destroyed them in war and burned down Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple. Paul could not be referencing any fall of Israel before 70 CE, but Paul was dead before 70 CE, according to church tradition, therefore Paul could not write this letter to the Romans. The scholars consider this letter to the Romans to be an authentic letter written by Paul himself. It is simply impossible that any intelligent and informed person could honestly conclude this letter was written before the war. Verse 12 says the fall of Israel was riches for the world. The Jews were the primary enemies of the Roman Empire in the late first and early second centuries, and after the Jews were destroyed and put under Roman control, only then could the rest of the world benefit from the fall of Israel. The fall of Israel had nothing to do with Jesus. Jesus was a fictional character, created by the Romans, to justify the war.

13-24. Paul says he is speaking to Gentiles, since he was the Apostle to the Gentiles, but he says he is trying to provoke the Jews to jealousy so he could save some of them. Verse 15 says but if the rejection of the Jews resulted in the reconciliation of the world, then they too could be revived from the dead if they would just accept his message. I take this to mean, any Jew would be allowed to live in the Roman Empire, if they would just reject their Jewish religion and heritage, and accept Roman rule. Paul was not literally talking about resurrection of dead bodies, but giving the defeated Jews an opportunity to live in the Roman Empire, rather than get killed in war as rebel scum. Verse 17-24 is the Olive branch parable. Paul says some branches were broken off, speaking of the Jews who were destroyed in war, and wild olive branches were grafted in to the tree, speaking of the new life for Romans, then God is surely able to graft the Jews back into the life giving tree, if they would just accept Roman demands. Verse 22 says God's severity was toward those who fell, speaking of the Jews in 70 CE, but God's goodness was shown to the Romans, by giving them the military victory over their enemies, the Jews.

25-27. Paul says a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, but all Israel will be saved as is it written in Jeremiah 31:33-34 and Isaiah 59:20 saying, a deliverer will come out of Zion and he will turn away ungodliness from Jacob. There are many references from Josephus and Tacitus and Suetonius that said there was an ancient oracle that a ruler would come from Zion, but the Jews foolishly thought it was about themselves, however according to the Roman narrative, this deliverer was Caesar Vespasian.

28-32. Concerning the gospel, the Jews were enemies for the sake of you Romans, but concerning election, they are beloved for the father's sake. Therefore everyone has sinned and everyone will be redeemed back to God. Verse 32 says, for God has bound all under disobedience, so he might have mercy on all.

33-36. Isn't God amazing? God's ways are unsearchable and past finding out, but apparently Paul is just the fictional character to explain the unknowable God. For who has known the mind of the Lord (Isaiah 40:13) and who has first given to him that it might be repaid (Job 41:11). For of him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory for ever, amen. My question is who is the "him" there? The whole context is about God, not Jesus, but Christians want to call Jesus "God" and confuse everything. Paul is not talking about Jesus here, he is talking about God instead.

Romans 12

I have never noticed this before, but the entire twelfth chapter is Paul's "sermon on the mount." Paul is addressing his Roman brothers and gives them some basic tidbits of wisdom for how to live a good life and be a good person. Such things as present your bodies as a living sacrifice, don't be conformed to the world, but renew your mind, don't think too highly of yourself, use the talents God gave you to the best of your ability, abhor evil and cling to good, show brotherly love, rejoice in hope, endure troubles, pray always, help the needy, be hospitable, bless those who persecute you, rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep, associate with the humble, repay no one evil for evil, be at peace with everyone, vengeance belongs to God, feed the hungry, give the thirsty a drink, and overcome evil with good. Paul says very little about faith in this chapter, but verse 3 is interesting because it says God has apportioned to each person a measure of faith. This indicates that people can only have as much faith as God gives them. You cannot grow your own faith, God gives you a measured portion of faith.

Romans 13

1-8. Paul gives a heavy approval for the Roman Empire in chapter 13. Verse 1, let every soul be in subjection to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God and those who exist are ordained by God. Verse 2, whoever resists Rome resists God and they will receive judgment. This is exactly what happened to the Jews when they resisted Rome, they were judged. Verse 3, rulers are not a terror to good work, so if you don't want to be afraid of Rome, then do good. Verse 4, human rulers are servants of God, and if you are evil, then the human rulers will not bear the sword in vain. The human ruler is the avenger for wrath to him who does evil. Now I find this very interesting, that Paul is making such a strong defense of human rulers and authority. You could make the argument from Paul here that Jesus had to be an evil person if those in authority decided to crucify him, because after all, governments are appointed by God and they don't bear the sword in vain and they are ordained by God to carry out vengeance on evil doers. So be in subjection to Rome (v. 5) and pay your taxes (v. 6), and pay your debts (v. 7), and owe no one anything except brotherly love (v. 8).

9-10. Paul lists some of the ten commandments, do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet, then he says whatever other commandments there are are all summed up in this saying, to love your neighbor as yourself. So Paul lists 4 of the 10 commandments and it seems like he forgot the others and just says, if there are any other commandments they all just mean love your neighbor. He suspiciously left out the command not to worship other gods, not to make idols, and to keep the Sabbath because these are all things that the Romans were not interested in. Loving your neighbor is cool though.

11-14. So lets wake up and throw off the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. Lets not party and get drunk, be sexually promiscuous and lustful, lets not be in strife and jealousy, but lets put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh and its lusts.

So this whole chapter is about being a good person and avoiding oppression from authorities, such as Rome, because Rome only punishes bad people. Paul seems oblivious to the fact that Rome supposedly crucified Jesus.

Romans 14

1-9. Now accept one who is weak in faith. This would most likely be a reference to Jews, because Jews focused on obedience, rather than faith, so any Jew that wanted to live in the post-Jewish war, Roman Empire had to change his whole lifestyle and worldview. Verse 2 says some who are weak in faith have food restrictions, but everyone should just eat whatever they want and not fight about it. Verse 5 says some esteem one day above another (meaning the Jews) but some consider every day alike (meaning Gentiles), but whether you observe special days or not, it doesn't matter, just don't fight about it. Again, this really only makes sense after the destruction of the Jews in war. Paul is saying that none of the Jewish Law really matters anymore, which would only make sense after their Temple and nation fell.

10-11. Don't judge your brother (Jews and Gentiles are now brothers), because we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written in Isaiah 45:23, as I live says the Lord, to me every knee will bow and every tongue confess. Isaiah 45: 22-24 actually says, Look to me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. 23 I have sworn by myself. The word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and will not be revoked, that to me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall take an oath. 24 They will say of me, there is righteousness and strength only in Yahweh. Isaiah 45 is saying every knee will bow to Yahweh God, but Paul says every knee will bow to Christ. Paul is quoting Jewish Scriptures about Yahweh, and attributing it to his brand new post-Jewish war, Roman deity. This is a huge problem.

12-21. So let's not judge one another or cause others to stumble or fall, because the old Jewish laws are not binding, since the Jews lost the war. Verse 14, Paul says he is convinced that nothing is unclean of itself, so you can eat pigs and shellfish all you want now that the Jews have no authority in the land. Verse 17, for the Kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but peace and righteousness and joy in the Holy Spirit. Verse 19, so lets follow after things that make for peace, instead of worry about a bunch of rules and regulations from the Jewish God. Just don't judge one another and don't deliberately try to cause others to stumble.

22-23. Faith is what really matters, so whether you eat or not, just be motivated by faith, but if you eat without faith, then it is a sin. Well, there goes freedom from law. Paul makes a new law that even though he considers all things to be clean now, now you will sin if you just don't have faith.

24-26. Now to him who is able to establish you according to MY gospel and preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the mystery that has been kept secret for long ages, but now is revealed through ME. Well, aren't we all lucky God revealed the truth to Paul. If it weren't for Paul, I guess we would all still be in darkness from the truth. Paul says the eternal God expects obedience to faith from all nations in verse 25, and in 26 he says glory to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, so Paul is not calling Jesus the only wise and eternal god, but he is saying that Jesus is the way to access the true god.

Romans 15

1-3. Paul says we who are strong (meaning Romans) need to bear with the weak (meaning the Jews after their defeat in war). Now we (Romans) need to build up our neighbor, which is what you do after you defeat your enemy in war. You give them a path to recovery, as long as it conforms to the victors expectations and culture. Verse 3 says for Christ didn't please himself. I find it very interesting when Paul uses the stand alone title of Christ to refer to the Jesus character. Christ is not a name, but Paul uses that word like a name. We roll over this use of words, because we are trained to think the guys name was Jesus Christ, but it wasn't. I think Paul is referring to an idea, not a person. Paul then quotes Psalm 69:9 and attributes it to Christ, when the context of the passage is clearly either about David or anyone who is going through hard times. Psalm 69 is not a prophecy about Jesus. This is how Christians created the Jesus story. They would find a verse or passage in the Hebrew Scriptures about going through hard times or suffering and they would CLAIM that was a prophecy about a future Messiah. If you will read Psalm 69, you will understand that it is not about a future Messiah who was going to bear our reproaches.

4-6. Paul says we are supposed to learn from those things that were previously written. He certainly likes to refer back to the Jewish Scriptures, but he wants to reinterpret them and create a new story that conforms to Greek philosophy and Roman culture. Paul is encouraging unity under Christ Jesus, by quoting the Jewish Scriptures and telling the Jews how they should interpret them in accordance with Greek philosophy and Roman culture. Paul is essentially telling the Jews to stop thinking they are different and get with the Roman program. Paul said they should glorify THE God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. That means Paul considered Jesus to have a God and Father. It is amazing that some people are so blind and brainwashed to think that Jesus is God, when the Bible New Testament consistently says Jesus had a God. No almighty God has a God and Father above him. You can either think Jesus was another god, or that Jesus wasn't a god at all, but the Trinity doctrine is pure nonsense.

7-12. Paul says "therefore accept one another" but what he means is, the Jews should accept the Gentiles, because he goes on a tirade of quoting Jewish Scriptures in support of the Gentiles. Paul quotes 2 Samuel 22:50, Psalm 18:49, Deuteronomy 32:43, Psalm 117:1, and Isaiah 11:10 all in support of the Gentiles. I suspect there is some funny business going on here, that would require additional Greek and Hebrew word studies to uncover. These verses are based on the Hebrew word "goy" (H1471) and it can mean non-Jewish people or it could be a reference to Jewish people too. As I understand it, it means nations or people as a collective group of peoples and the context would be pertinent to decide the appropriate use. However, Paul is defining the word to mean Gentiles, and more precisely Romans. I suspect Paul is quoting the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and there is evidence that the full Septuagint was not even available during Paul's supposed lifetime.

13-21. In verse 14, Paul calls the Romans his brothers again. Paul is certainly more aligned with the Romans than the Jews. Paul created the idea of spiritual Jews who were not literal descendants of Abraham, but those who can call Abraham their father through faith. In verse 16, Paul calls himself a priest of the good news of God to the Gentiles, so not only can you call Abraham your father if you are not a literal descendant, but Paul can call himself a priest of God, even though he is not a Levite. You must see how Paul is just redefining every aspect of Judaism. This only makes sense if it was written after the destruction of the Jews and their Temple in 70 CE, yet "scholars" want to pretend like a Jew wrote this letter to Romans prior to 70 CE. That is not remotely possible. Paul goes on to brag about his work among the Gentiles and the signs and wonders worked through him, yet there is no historical record of the person of Paul outside the Bible. Weird, huh? Paul quotes Isaiah 52:15 in support of the Gentiles hearing the word of God through Paul, but Isaiah 52 is all about resettling Israel and Jerusalem after Babylonian captivity. Paul simply pulls verses out of their context and applies them to his own situation with his own interpretation, and people just allow him to do it. Crazy!

22-29. Paul wants to visit his brothers in Rome, but he has to go to Jerusalem first, and then on his trip to Spain, he plans to stop by Rome to visit with them a while, which will also give the Romans an opportunity to "help" him on his journey. This is an indication that the Romans were his financiers for his travels. That would explain his affection for the Romans. In verse 26, Paul says Macedonia an Achaia have made a contribution for the poor in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was a very powerful and rich city prior to 70 CE. If Paul is taking up a collection of money to help Jerusalem, that would be a strong indication that it was after the war.

30-33. Paul pleads with the Romans to pray for him as he goes to Jerusalem, that he may be delivered from those who are disobedient in Judea. I guess God didn't answer Paul's prayer or the Roman's prayers, because Paul would be arrested when he goes to Jerusalem and he only travels to Rome as a prisoner who appealed his case to Caesar as a Roman citizen. It is strange how God supposedly worked miracles through Paul, but God decided to let Paul be arrested and beheaded, according to Christian church tradition. It is strange how all the apostles and Paul and Jesus also disappeared without a trace in actual history. It is almost like this is all a mythical story...because it is.

Romans 16

Greetings and salutations. Chapter 16 is mostly a laundry list of names of unknown characters. As far as I know, there is not a single name in this list of names that can be definitively tied to any real historical figure. I will list every name here and point out a couple interesting things along the way. Phoebe (our sister), Prisca and Aquila (Paul's fellow workers), Epaenetus (my beloved in Achaia, Greece), Mary, Andronicus and Junia (Paul's relatives and fellow prisoners), Amplias, Urbanus, Stachys, Apelles, those of the household of Aristobulus, Herodion (my kinsman, INTERESTING), those of the household of Narcissus, Tryphaena and Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus and his mother (and my mother), Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and their brothers, Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, Olympas and all the saints with him, Timothy (Paul's fellow worker), Lucius, Jason, Sosipater (Paul's relatives), and Tertius (who says he wrote this letter), Gaius, Erastus (the treasurer of the city), and Quartus. Whoever these people were, Paul supposedly knew them intimately and even claimed to be some of their relatives. When he calls Herodion his relative, that indicates to me that he may have been related to the Herod family, which was the Royal family appointed by Rome over Judea. I think Paul is a fictional character based on the character of Josephus, who himself was likely a pen name for the Piso family, who were relatives of the Herod family. This list of names is so long and detailed, scholars should be able to pinpoint the date of the letter based on the lives of those mentioned in it, but they can't. The reason they can't is because there is no historical evidence for these characters. When you read a Spiderman comic, you can't find the historical link to the character there either. I find it interesting that Andronicus and Junia are Paul's fellow prisoners, because Paul was not yet arrested in Chapter 15, but since Tertius claims to be the person writing this, it is at least logical that Tertius wrote the final chapter after Paul was arrested. Chapter 16 is essentially useless, unless we can pinpoint some of these characters in history. If I ever find a historical link to any of these characters, I will update this page. Until then, Paul might as well have greeted Spiderman and the Incredible Hulk.