Wolf of Benjamin and leaven of the Pharisees

Genesis 49:27

Benjamin is a ravenous wolf ,
in the morning devouring his pray...

Matthew 7:15

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.."

Matthew 16:11

"Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees!"

Philippians 3:4

"If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.

A persecutor of the church (murderer) who is righteous under the law?

Murder is against the law, and Jesus got along with most Pharisees and there was a decree not to bother the followers of the Nazarene by Gamaliel the chief Pharisee so he (Saul) was also a collaborator with Rome and not a good Pharisee but a traitorous one who boasts about his Benjaminite descent and how great he was but his story is not one of a great man but one who goes from team to team and never gets along with anyone who isn't subservient to him.

Saul approves of the stoning of Steven, ravages the church going house to house arresting people and even after his "conversion" goes from Synagogue to Synagogue inciting uproars and riots and pisses off just about everyone and is in the end saved by a ridiculous amount of Roman soldiers and saved from the people who wanted him dead which is suspicious to say the least.


Matthew 24:23

"Then if anyone says to you, 'Look! Here is the Messiah!' or 'There he is!'--do not believe it. For false prophets and false messiahs will appear and produce great signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Take note, I have told you beforehand. So if they say to you, 'Look! He is in the wilderness, ' do not go out,'..."

Saul fits this prophecy, in edition to his Benjaminite evil Pharisee and Roman collaboroator status, the fact that he claims to have seen Jesus in secret in the wilderness and the all around disturbing behavior of Saul I have come to a conclusion.

The New Testament is a test of loyalty, intelligence and has two religions. Sauls, and the Apostles of Jesus and they did not agree at all.

I think it is safe to say that choosing to recognize Saul is rejecting Jesus.

Paul is the Wolf and the leaven, false prophet and all around traitor and scumbag.


The conspiracy is the Church knows it and ignores it, teaches about Paul more than Jesus with the exception of the Catholic Church who doesn't really care about the Bible but does make good translations and somewhat acknowleges a schism between Peter and Paul because it is in the Bible after all and Paul hates James and John too. Everyone really. But they won't go as far as I will.

a reply to: letmeaskyouaquestion


Another Gnosticism login?

a reply to: letmeaskyouaquestion

So this is about Ben and he being a Pharisee?

I thought the New Testament was to take all the books of the Old testament and make a reasonable message of God?
Could be wrong though..

Wikipedia - Pharisee

a reply to: tikbalang

The Old Testament and the New are complimentary. A prophecy from the Old Testament coming true in the New is how we got Yeshua the Messiah.

It is a fundamental part of Christianity and without it wouldn't exist. That is why it is one book in Christianity.

a reply to: infolurker

How does this relate to Gnosticism when they didn't reject Paul just interpreted him differently, and had his writings?

Also, do you have anything against Gnosticism? It sounds like you haven't studied it much so I am curious.

Some other things to consider:

1. Benjamin was the 13th son born to Jacob, Paul was the 13th apostle. 13 is seen as unlucky in many traditions.

2. Benjamin's name was changed by Joseph from a name meaning "son of my pain" to "son of the south", Paul's name was originally Saul.

3. Jesus mentions a "Queen of the South" who condemns men, Paul shares similarities with Benjamin whose name means "son of the south" and as we know the church that Paul founded was the "bride of Christ" or the "Queen". Paul is the "son/Queen of the south" who has condemned us.

Interesting parallels here, they're not coincidence.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I am definitely with you but he had 12 sons so it must have been 13th child with a sister before him.

Saul is pronounced the same as Sheol (shawl) which means darkness, underwold.

He tries being the 13th apostle but is not recognized by the Apostles and James.

He mentions a Titus and a Herodius as friends along with Apollos and Damis.

A theory is that Paul is Appollonius of Tyana and Marcion found his letters. Many parallels exist between the two including disciples named Demas and Lucian (Luke?)

I am actually sold but think Marcion added some to it and Appollonius was said to have had a falling out with the Nazarenes and started his own group called Nazoreans which is why we have the two spellings.

It is unprovable but plausible.

a reply to: letmeaskyouaquestion

Maybe living as someone you can relate to as Jesus with freewill, was the message of the New Testament?

Maybe the Bible is for commoners and the Old testament for schoolars?

But you seem sure, so you are probably right..

originally posted by: tikbalang
a reply to: letmeaskyouaquestion

Maybe living as someone you can relate to as Jesus with freewill, was the message of the New Testament?

Maybe the Bible is for commoners and the Old testament for schoolars?

But you seem sure, so you are probably right..

I think the Bible is for everyone but should be read in chronological order over a year or so once a day so you can investigate every detail.

Biblica.com has a great plan that does OT and NT and Proverbs/Psalms everyday.

I fail to understand the point you are making here. It is pretty common knowledge that Saul hated Christians and actively destroyed them and after he became Paul that all changed. What exactly are you saying?

a reply to: In4ormant

That's cool, not everyone agrees on everything.

My point was pretty clear just read the OP.

Saul is the wolf of Benjamin, leaven of the Pharisees and false prophet.

originally posted by: letmeaskyouaquestion
a reply to: In4ormant

That's cool, not everyone agrees on everything.

My point was pretty clear just read the OP.

Saul is the wolf of Benjamin, leaven of the Pharisees and false prophet.

I read it, just not sure what your point is but it's been a long day so I could be overlooking it. Let's just say that your interpretation is correct. Saul WAS the wolf of Benjamin would have been more appropriate. He still had a transformation. What your saying would only make his conversion from the persecutor he was to the man he became that more amazing.

a reply to: In4ormant

I literally just told you my point last message last sentence.

originally posted by: letmeaskyouaquestion
a reply to: In4ormant

I literally just told you my point last message last sentence.

I was more concerned with the point of your statement, not the statement itself.
Are you saying it to try and make Saul/Paul appear to be something else? Do you contend that Paul was faking it in his testimony?

Maybe I'm looking for elaboration where none exists.

originally posted by: In4ormant
I fail to understand the point you are making here.

As stated already, Paul is the wolf of Benjamin and leaven of the Pharisees and a false prophet.

It is pretty common knowledge that Saul hated Christians and actively destroyed them and after he became Paul that all changed. What exactly are you saying?

Also common knowledge that common 'knowledge' is often wrong.

I am saying his conversion was a sham and that he infiltrated the movement and then became openly hostile to James and Peter so he could make it a Roman religion because he was a collaborator.

A little more clear now? I had a long and boring day to so I understand.

originally posted by: letmeaskyouaquestion

originally posted by: In4ormant
I fail to understand the point you are making here.

As stated already, Paul is the wolf of Benjamin and leaven of the Pharisees and a false prophet.

It is pretty common knowledge that Saul hated Christians and actively destroyed them and after he became Paul that all changed. What exactly are you saying?

Also common knowledge that common 'knowledge' is often wrong.

I am saying his conversion was a sham and that he infiltrated the movement and then became openly hostile to James and Peter so he could make it a Roman religion because he was a collaborator.

A little more clear now? I had a long and boring day to so I understand.

Paul was not a false prophet. His conversion was well documented. His teachings and letters obviously show a love for Christ that he spent years proclaiming.

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: letmeaskyouaquestion
a reply to: In4ormant

I literally just told you my point last message last sentence.

I was more concerned with the point of your statement, not the statement itself.
Are you saying it to try and make Saul/Paul appear to be something else? Do you contend that Paul was faking it in his testimony?

Maybe I'm looking for elaboration where none exists.

No. Please see above message for requested elaboration. It exists you may not agree so you don't want to accept my answers. Not sure though, I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: letmeaskyouaquestion

originally posted by: In4ormant
I fail to understand the point you are making here.

As stated already, Paul is the wolf of Benjamin and leaven of the Pharisees and a false prophet.

It is pretty common knowledge that Saul hated Christians and actively destroyed them and after he became Paul that all changed. What exactly are you saying?

Also common knowledge that common 'knowledge' is often wrong.

I am saying his conversion was a sham and that he infiltrated the movement and then became openly hostile to James and Peter so he could make it a Roman religion because he was a collaborator.

A little more clear now? I had a long and boring day to so I understand.

Paul was not a false prophet. His conversion was well documented. His teachings and letters obviously show a love for Christ that he spent years proclaiming.

I accept this as your opinion and I have my reasons, you have yours. It is best to just accept that we don't agree and move on.

originally posted by: letmeaskyouaquestion

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: letmeaskyouaquestion

originally posted by: In4ormant
I fail to understand the point you are making here.

As stated already, Paul is the wolf of Benjamin and leaven of the Pharisees and a false prophet.

It is pretty common knowledge that Saul hated Christians and actively destroyed them and after he became Paul that all changed. What exactly are you saying?

Also common knowledge that common 'knowledge' is often wrong.

I am saying his conversion was a sham and that he infiltrated the movement and then became openly hostile to James and Peter so he could make it a Roman religion because he was a collaborator.

A little more clear now? I had a long and boring day to so I understand.

Paul was not a false prophet. His conversion was well documented. His teachings and letters obviously show a love for Christ that he spent years proclaiming.

I accept this as your opinion and I have my reasons, you have yours. It is best to just accept that we don't agree and move on.

I would suggest reading the book of Acts and Pauls' letters.

-In his farewell address to the Ephesian believers in Acts 20, he tells them that “night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears” (Acts 20:31).

-He tells the Galatian believers they are his “little children” (Galatians 4:19).

-He reminds the Corinthians that whenever they experience pain, he is wounded as well (2 Corinthians 11:29).

-He speaks of believers in Philippi as “having them in his heart” (Philippians 1:7).

-He tells the Thessalonian church that he “abounds” in love for them (1 Thessalonians 3:12) and demonstrated that fact by living among them and helping build up a Christian community.

-Paul spkoe in the letter to the Romans of the sorrow he felt for his fellow Israelites who had not come to faith in Christ: "I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (Romans 9:1-3).


*you want anyone who doesn't agree with you to 'move on'?*

Are you looking for a pulpit of nodding bobble heads to spout your ideas at?

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: letmeaskyouaquestion

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: letmeaskyouaquestion

originally posted by: In4ormant
I fail to understand the point you are making here.

As stated already, Paul is the wolf of Benjamin and leaven of the Pharisees and a false prophet.

It is pretty common knowledge that Saul hated Christians and actively destroyed them and after he became Paul that all changed. What exactly are you saying?

Also common knowledge that common 'knowledge' is often wrong.

I am saying his conversion was a sham and that he infiltrated the movement and then became openly hostile to James and Peter so he could make it a Roman religion because he was a collaborator.

A little more clear now? I had a long and boring day to so I understand.

Paul was not a false prophet. His conversion was well documented. His teachings and letters obviously show a love for Christ that he spent years proclaiming.

I accept this as your opinion and I have my reasons, you have yours. It is best to just accept that we don't agree and move on.

I would suggest reading the book of Acts and Pauls' letters.

-In his farewell address to the Ephesian believers in Acts 20, he tells them that “night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears” (Acts 20:31).

-He tells the Galatian believers they are his “little children” (Galatians 4:19).

-He reminds the Corinthians that whenever they experience pain, he is wounded as well (2 Corinthians 11:29).

-He speaks of believers in Philippi as “having them in his heart” (Philippians 1:7).

-He tells the Thessalonian church that he “abounds” in love for them (1 Thessalonians 3:12) and demonstrated that fact by living among them and helping build up a Christian community.

-Paul spkoe in the letter to the Romans of the sorrow he felt for his fellow Israelites who had not come to faith in Christ: "I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (Romans 9:1-3).


*you want anyone who doesn't agree with you to 'move on'?*

It's better than arguing. You can say whatever you want to and I never indicated that I only wanted people to agree with me.

Our conversation has just run its course.

Are you looking for a pulpit of nodding bobble heads to spout your ideas at?

That is not fair at all. I have not been rude and I am not spouting.

You keep asking questions and I keep answering. But now I have given you your answers and wish you a good day .

I have read all of the Bible and am not going to change my mind.