My 7th and Last Letter to Ted Weiland.

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

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

Hello Ted,

I have listened to your “Anti-Paul Faction” part 1 and 2, and I found your statement that the “anti-Paul writer” was an “ignoramus, not my words, but Peter’s” – as your viewpoint of my position on Paul to be less than praise worthy.

So let’s look at 1st Peter 3:16:

(16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

The word “ignoramus” is not in there, is it?

There are only the words “unlearned”, and the “unstable”, for those who wrest the words of Paul to their own destruction.

Here is my question about 1st Peter 3:16 that you won’t be able to answer:

Where in the Bible does it say that someone who “wrests” Paul’s or anyone’s words in order to uphold the Law of God, His Commandments, Statutes and Judgments is headed to their own destruction?

It doesn’t say that anywhere in the Bible, does it?

On the other hand...

Christ said in Matthew 5:17 that not the least pen stroke of the law would be abolished as long as heaven and earth are here. Christ said in Matthew 7:21-23 that for all of the Christian ministers that do wonderful works, that even cast out devils in His Name, if they work “iniquity” or “anomos”, Christ will say “Depart from Me, I never knew you”. Anomos means working against, or teaching against God’s Laws.

So if a Christian evangelist is teaching that the Sabbath has been abolished or moved to another day, based on Paul’s instructions that the Sabbath is a shadow (Col 2:16), or that every day is alike and you can regard the Sabbath only if you think it is necessary in your own mind (Rom 14:5-6), then this Christian evangelist is “working iniquity” or “anomos” by wresting Paul’s words to destroy the 4th Commandment of the Sabbath. Christ will not accept anyone that is “anomos” or teaching against the Law. This is how someone “wrests” the epistles of Paul to their own destruction.

If a Christian evangelist teaches that eating unclean food is not a moral issue but only a health issue by “wresting” Paul’s writings where he said that “nothing is unclean unless you think it is” (Romans 14:14), then this Christian evangelist is overturning the dietary laws of Leviticus 11, contrary to Christ’s clear instruction that no part of the Law has been abolished (Matt 5:17). This Christian evangelist is also in danger of Christ saying “I never knew you”, which is the real “destruction” of 1 Peter 3:16.

If a Christian evangelist mixes the Holy Name of Christ with the pagan activities of December 25th, he is mixing the Holy with the profane. By this, he has committed blasphemy and has violated the 3rd Commandment by taking the Name of Christ in vain.

The “real Christ” was not born on December 25th, only Mithra. Sheldon Emry’s “Is Christmas Christian?” is a great reference. Even Paul did not promote the abomination of Christmas, as Christmas was a later invention of the Catholic church.

But by “wresting” Paul’s arguments to say that “every day is alike” so that if you want to regard Christmas to the Lord, then go ahead (Romans 14:5-6), then a Christian evangelist would be wresting the epistles of Paul, which are hard to understand, to his own destruction by violating the 3rd Commandment and blaspheming the Name of Christ with pagan traditions. And Christ will reject him. This is the meaning of 2nd Peter 3:16.

Also notice in 2 Peter 3:16, that there are both the “unlearned” and the “unstable”.

The “unlearned” are not “ignoramuses” but those that do not know the Bible and what Christ said about the Law. They depend on someone to teach them the Bible.

The “unstable” are those Christian evangelists that know that Christ did not abolish even the smallest jot or tittle of the Law, but they are “unstable” by boldly teaching others to disregard entire sections of the Law. These willful “unstable” blind teachers are leading their “unlearned” blind students to fall into the same ditch.

It is noble to teach others the Bible, but as a teacher we have a greater responsibility than the “unlearned”. Here is what Christ said about the teacher that knows better and disobeys, and unlearned that that does not know, and disobeys:

Luke 12:(47) And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

(48) But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

As teachers of the Bible, we are held to a higher standard. And if we are “unstable” and wrest the epistles of Paul to our own destruction, we will have a much greater punishment than the “unlearned”.

Now, if you have a different viewpoint on 1 Peter 3:16, and think that those that keep God’s Commandments and ignore Paul’s statements that appear to conflict with Christ – and can somehow “prove” that supporting God’s Law without Paul is why someone is headed to destruction, I am all ears. You really need to lay that one out in one of your sermons. But I think it is the “other way around”, and that you really need to examine yourself before you apply 1 Peter 3:16 to someone else.

Also, by just withholding my name in your sermon, you are still not complying with what Christ commanded us Matthew 18:15-17. You are supposed to discuss this with me “one on one” first, and then with a few others, and then the church. You are not to go to the 3rd step first by taking it to the church in one of your sermons, even without using my name. You are not following the Commandments of Christ, brother.

And here is the consequence for you disregarding Matthew 18. If you find out later that I am right about the problems with Paul’s writings, since you took your stand for Paul publicly, your own pride and ego won’t let you admit that you were wrong. If you had worked with me in private, you could easily have backtracked at anytime and followed Christ over Paul. It is hard for any man to admit he was wrong, even to himself. But it is almost impossible for a man to overcome his pride and ego and admit he was wrong to a large group of people that follow him. By ignoring what Christ said you should do, now you may not want to change your mind about Paul, as you would be embarrassed to disgrace yourself in front of others. You should have waited and heard both sides first.

It takes a big man to admit he was wrong. And if you do find the truth about Paul being inferior to Christ, I believe your followers would respect you for admitting that you were wrong and now follow Christ only.

All you have to do, Ted, is to preach a 30 part series on the Words of Christ. If you study and preach Christ, you will become like Christ. If you study Paul, you will become like Paul, and you will choose Paul over Christ.

If you study Christ, and teach Christ, you will be forced to discover the differences in the doctrines of Christ and the teachings of Paul. I don’t have to do anything to convince you, Christ will prevail in this if you just teach His words.

So far, from what I have seen your sermon list, you have not taught one single lesson on the Gospels or the Teachings of Christ. Not one. And your listeners have never heard anything from you or your ministry about Christ’s teachings. As a Christian teacher, I would consider this situation to be “less than perfect”.

Please teach Christ. That is the purpose of my correspondence. It may take time for you to let go of Paul. But Christ will heal you, and you will ultimately reject Paul out of necessity, if you study only Christ and teach only Christ, and hold Him to be superior to Paul. Christ said that He is to be your only teacher and master. (Matt 23:8-9) Please obey Him, at least for your the sake of your unlearned followers.

So now I will try to answer your “Anti-Paul Faction” sermons.

You quote 1st John 4:3, where John calls anyone that said Christ did not come in the flesh an “antichrist”. John is actually condemning Paul’s doctrine that Christ came only in the “likeness” of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3, Phil 2:7). The people of that time believed that the “gods” came down only as a “likeness” (Acts 14:11), and Paul believes that all flesh is sinful while the only the mind can serve God. (Rom 7:25). So, according to teachings of Paul in two places, Christ was only a “likeness”, and did not actually come in the flesh as a real breathing human. This is why John condemned Paul in 1 John 4:3.

Then you quote 50 verses by Paul praising Christ. The Pauline churches all praise Christ, but they do not obey Him. Paul has given us a religion “about” Christ, while removing the religion “of” Christ. Paul’s doctrine is that all you have to do is to “love Christ” by praising Him. But Christ said, “If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). That is the “real love” of Christ, by our obedience to His Word.

So your quoting 50 verses of Paul’s “adoration” of Christ means nothing, as Paul doesn’t obey Christ on the law, the Sabbath, circumcision, or the dietary laws.

You also mentioned Paul’s eating meat offered to idols in 1st Corinthians 8. Christ said this was the doctrine of Baalim in Revelation 2:14. Instead of reconciling Paul to Christ, you vindicated Paul over Christ by disparaging the Words of Christ in the Book of the Revelation. Your answer was that Rev 2:14 was recorded by the Apostle John, and so it may not be accurate.

Well, Mr. Weiland…

If you are going to repudiate John the Apostle, then since John and James gave Paul the right hand of fellowship in Galatians 2, then you need to repudiate Paul as well for shaking hands with John, and likewise reject all of the other books of the Bible.

Can you see a “logic problem” with that statement? I bet your listeners can! If that is the best you can do, then perhaps you are on the “wrong team” and need to return to Christ and His teachings. Or perhaps you are “unstable”, as 2nd Peter said, and won’t change no matter what. I am just a sower, I don’t have to pull the rocks out of anyone’s garden. That is God’s problem with the rocks you have in your soil. I am done.

I think I have answered the first two questions in your Part 1. Here are the rest:

3. Was there a wicked agenda by Paul?

Yes, to replace the law that was upheld by Christ with an anti-nomian religion that every Pauline church now teaches. Paul replaced Christ’s message of salvation through obedience to the 10 Commandments (Matt 19:16-19) with Paul’s ridiculous salvation by grace through faith. (Eph 2:8-9) Paul overturned the Law by calling it an obsolete schoolmaster, that was given by angels and not YHVH, and was associated with the “weak and beggarly elements”. This is apostasy, and Paul and the people who follow him are under the condemnation of Deuteronomy 13:1-5.

4. Why did Paul write his epistles?

So he would not have to work for a living, and could receive a double portion, or twice the average wage (1st Timothy 5:17), while holding back money from supporting widows under 60 years old (1 Tim 5:9) He wanted to live off other people’s “carnal” things in exchange for his “spiritual” things. (1 Cor 9:11) This directly conflicts with Christ’s command to “freely give, for freely you have received”. (Matt 10:8) Once a man receives his living by teaching the Bible to others, he is trapped into teaching whatever his benefactors want to hear. That is why Christ prohibited this practice.

5. Why did Paul teach the resurrection of Christ?

To fit in with everyone else, and to get on the “shearing the sheep” train. Ask Creflo Dollar, Charles Stanley, Billy Graham, Joel Osteen, or any preacher that rakes in the money the same question: “Why do you teach the resurrection of Christ”. It is for the money. And that is the same reason they won’t teach what Christ actually taught about not taking money for teaching. They only teach a religion “about Christ” that lets them live off someone’s “tithe”, as they are not smart enough to live a rich and comfortable life without a gimmick. These jokers teach God’s law has been abolished, or at least the sacrificial law has been “nailed to the cross”, yet they ask for a “tithe” offering, which is central to the sacrificial law that they say no longer exists. Christ is the door, and these are the thieves that break in and steal people’s hearts, minds, and wallets.

6. Why did Paul preach if he knew he was to be persecuted?

Did he really get persecuted? Ted, look at the word “forsake” in Acts 21:21 – it is “apostasia”. Paul is guilty of apostasy, which requires the death penalty.

Under the law of Deuteronomy 13:1-5, someone that is teaching against the God’s Law, like circumcision, or the other customs of the Law, is to be put to death. Paul taught against circumcision and the law in his epistles. So naturally, Paul deceived James and the Apostles and performed the Nazarite purification in Acts 21, so that Paul would not be put to death for his apostasy under the Law of Deuteronomy 13:1-5. Paul was also teaching in Ephesus that “the middle wall of partition was broken down” in the Temple (Eph 2:14), which Trophimus the Ephesian believed and defiled the Temple by entering it as a Gentile (Acts 21:29). This is why Paul lied before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23:6) and said he was there because of the resurrection of the dead, because if the truth of Paul’s epistles were known, they would have put him to death for apostasy. This is why Paul appealed to Caesar, to get away from Israel’s laws and live under Roman law to survive what he had done. He told this same lie to Agrippa in Acts 26:8 and said that he had been arrested for teaching the resurrection of the dead. His ploy worked, as his accusers could not follow him to Rome, and he lived 2 full years in a house in Rome and not in a Roman prison.

Paul also waived his Roman citizenship card to get out of being whipped. (Acts 22:25-30). The only times we see that Paul was stoned, whipped, etc. are in small hamlets away from Jerusalem and with no real witnesses, and so we have to trust Paul’s word for it. Paul is not a credible witness. Paul’s timeline in Galatians 1 and 2 (3 years before seeing Peter, 14 years in Arabia) does not match up with Paul’s timeline in Acts. Someone is lying here. With Paul, I believe he is lying when he opens his mouth.

Even if Paul was persecuted, and performed miracles, this is exactly what Deuteronomy 13:1-6 describes what a false prophet will do. So if Paul was persecuted, so what? So was Spartacus, and a lot of other people that ran afoul of the laws of the 1st Century. It does not prove anything that “according to Paul”, he miraculously escaped stoning (which always fatal), shipwrecks, beatings, etc. Paul is making this up to get credibility with those that read his writings.

7. Why are Paul’s epistles in the New Testament Canon?

Because they were placed in the canon by men, not God. Marcion came up with the very first canon, which was an abbreviated Luke, the book of Acts, and the writings of Paul. This did not go over well. Constantine and his Government of Men – they controlled and owned the “Universal”, or “Catholic” church. This government run “church” created the list of 27 books in the New Testament canon, and included Paul because of his statements about the Roman Government being “the ministers of God for the for good” in Romans 13. They wanted Paul in the canon because Paul overturned the Law and abolished the Sabbath day. Constantine wanted everyone to worship on the “Day of the Sun” and moved the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Constantine could only achieve this by instructing his “Catholic” church to place Paul’s writings in our Bible. Christ and YHVH did not put Paul in our Bible, evil corrupt men did this.

Paul’s writings may be in the Bible by God to be a test for all of us, like the test of Deut. 13:3, where YHVH proves us with these false prophets to know if we really love Him or not. Do you love your church that follows Paul more than Christ? A good question! Perhaps that is why Paul is in our Bible, to see who each of us really loves and obeys.

8. Paul’s quotations of scripture in Romans 9 and elsewhere is proof he is from God:

No, this is proof that Paul is not from YHVH, or even a valid teacher. Paul misuses the quotations of Hosea 1:11 and 2:23, which in their context are about disobedient Israel and Judah, and falsely uses these passages to say that Gentiles are allowed into the church. What he should have used, is Isaiah 56, where the sons of the stranger are taken into the church so that “My house shall be a house of prayer for all people”, which Christ quoted. The reason Paul did not use Isaiah 56 is that for the strangers to enter the church, they have to keep the Sabbath day holy and not pollute it. (Isaiah 56:6). Paul definitely did not want anyone keeping the Sabbath day holy, so he stooped to incorrectly using two passages out of Hosea for the admission of Gentiles into the church instead of quoting Isaiah 56, as Christ did.

Paul also misuses Habakkuk 2:4 which states that the “just shall live by being faithful” in the original Hebrew. Likewise, he misquotes Genesis 15:6, where it states that “Abraham believed God, and counted it to God for righteousness” as a basis for his bogus “faith alone” doctrine. All of the translators of our Bibles are really “theologians” and have a bias in keeping these passage as Paul renders them, and not as they are in the original Hebrew. If you really study Paul’s quotations of scripture, it will give you all the evidence you need that Paul is a false teacher.

9. Why did God let Paul inspire people to “love Christ” for the last 2,000 years?

You need to define what “love” really is. Christ said that if you love me, keep my commandments. Through Paul, Christians have been told to “love” Christ, but never obey what Christ told them. The Adversary, through Paul, Constantine, and the Catholic church, has deceived Christians for the last 2,000 years that they were “loving” Christ by having “faith”, that is, keeping a thought in their head that they believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, without ever obeying what Christ told them to do. The Pauline churches call it “dispensationalism”, where they “dispense” with the laws that Christ told us to follow in Matthew 5:17-20, as they say “that is all Old Testament” and whatever Christ said before He died applies only to that time. No, Paul and Constantine have not shown anyone what “loving Christ” really means. Loving Christ means obedience to Him. If you love Christ, you will keep His Commandments. John 14:15

10. 2nd Peter 3:15-17

I have already covered this at the first of this letter, and thank you for at least reading some of what I wrote. But what you left out was my next question: “If 2nd Peter 3:16 is valid, then how does Peter have the authority to lift up Paul over Christ?”

Both Peter and Paul are inferior to Christ (John 13:16). Yet the writings of Paul are held in higher regard than the teachings of Christ. So this would be a good question for you to answer, Ted: “If Peter is supporting Paul to make Paul’s writings superior to Christ, then, just like Paul, where does Peter get his authority?” You can’t answer it, can you?

So here are my questions for you, which you cannot answer as a follower of Paul:

1. In Matthew 24:26, Christ warns that we are not to believe anyone who said they saw Christ in the desert, or in their secret chambers before Christ’s return. Paul said he saw Christ in the desert outside Damascus, and Ananias saw Christ in his secret chambers. Who should we believe about this? Christ, or Paul and Ananias? Who is lying here?

2. Paul’s name is not on the list of the 12 Apostles called by Christ (Matt 10:2), and Matthias replaced Judas (Acts 1: 26) keeping the number of Apostles at 12. There are only 12 foundations for the Jerusalem in heaven for the 12 Apostles (Rev 21:14) and only 12 thrones for the 12 Apostles in Matt 19:28. So how is Paul the 13th Apostle? How can you make a “13th Apostle” fit into these passages? Got any ideas?

3. For anyone to become an Apostle, Peter said you had to be with Christ from the time of His baptism until His resurrection. (Acts 1:22) Paul was not with Christ during this time and so does not qualify as an Apostle. So how can Paul be an Apostle?

4. Exactly how and when did Paul become an Apostle? In Acts 26:16, Paul is never called an Apostle by Christ, only a witness or a minister. If Christ did make Paul an Apostle “on the road to Damascus”, why does the story of Christ speaking to Paul change each time Paul tells it? In Acts 9:15, Christ talks not to Paul, but Ananias about Paul and his mission to the Gentiles. In Acts 22:17-21, Paul said he was in a trance in the temple, and this time, Christ talks directly to Paul about his mission. In Acts 26:17, Paul comes up with another story, and forgets all about Ananias and the “trance in the temple” story, and this time Paul said that Christ sent him to the Gentiles while he was on the road to Damascus. Which one is right? Why can’t Paul keep his story straight?

5. By Acts 15:22, Paul is still not listed as an Apostle, or even as an “elder” of the church. So, his “apostleship” starting on the road to Damascus is not possible, is it? The timeline is wrong. So when did Paul become an Apostle? Maybe Paul became an “apostle” when he was before the legal court of the Sanhedrin, under oath, claiming to everyone that he was still a Pharisee, and not a Christian. Yes, that is when Paul became an “apostle”, but not an “apostle” of Christ. No man can serve two masters. You can’t be a Pharisee in front of the Sanhedrin, and a Christian at the same time.

But what is your explanation, Ted? Exactly how and when did Paul become an Apostle? What other proof in the Bible do we have? At the mouth of 2 or 3 witness let this be established. Where is the 2nd witness to Paul’s apostleship? Even in 2nd Peter 3:15, the supposed Peter calls Paul a “brother”, and not an “Apostle”. If Paul’s writings were actually regarded as “scripture” then why didn’t Peter call Paul an “Apostle” as well?

If there is no second witness, other than Paul who has shown beyond all doubt to be a professional liar, then why does any rational person consider Paul to be an “apostle? No, Paul has no “apostolic” authority from Christ, other than his own lies.

Now Ted, I can ask you 100 more questions, and you won’t be able to answer any of them. That is why we should have met in private.

So the only question you can answer is: Will you teach Christ and His Doctrines?

Will you study what Christ said in the Gospels, and do an in depth analysis for you and your followers? Or will you just preach Paul, as you always have? Ezekiel 22:26

You don’t have to repudiate Paul immediately. If you study the Words of Christ, then Christ will lead you to find out the truth about Paul. I hope that is the path you follow.

John Hurt