Question: Ask The Nuwaupians, If The Book St. Paul Disciple Or Deceiver Was So Accurate, Why Didn't Dr. York Point Out How Paul Was An Agent Working For The Roman Government?

They wouldn't have a clue because everything they know of Paul is from York and that was limited.

 The fact is, although the numerous re-revised editions of the booklet St. Paul Disciple Or Deceiver has some truths in them regarding various aspects of St. Paul's misinformation, York was apparently clueless on the fact that Paul was an agent for the Roman government which contributed to the creation of Roman Christianity.  The approach to this story from the biblical passages differs greatly from the limited assertions York has made regarding Paul.

Was St. Paul A Roman Counterinsurgency Agent Who Helped To Create Roman Christianity?:

This document is designed to bring attention and explain the hypothesis (to some) and fact (to others) that St. Paul was a Roman agent sent to infiltrate the "Jesus Movement", shortly after the removal of Jesus. I'm using the biblical narratives found in the book of Acts to show the actions of Paul, with sections from his Epistles (letters) when necessary. I first came across this hypothesis after hearing about a lecture given at the International Spy Museum in Washington D.C. on the topic of St. Paul being a Roman spy. 

I’ve investigated this issue, read the article by Thijs Voskuilen that appeared in "Small Wars and Insurgencies" (June 2005) pp. 192-215, entitled "Operation Messiah: Did Christianity Start as a Roman Psychological Counterinsurgency Operation?" which led to the collaborated book by Thijs Voskulien and Rose Mary Sheldon called, "Operation Messiah: St. Paul, Roman Intelligence and the Birth of Christianity".  

With great interest on this topic, I've consulted with the author and she was gracious enough to share with me additional information. Her vast knowledge as a Professor and scholar of military espionage in the ancient world was beyond valuable on this topic.  This article in part will assess the sources, create a NON-THEOLOGICAL, historical-intelligence narrative that makes sense and leave you the reader with the final judgement, in other words, this analysis is not and should not be viewed through theological lenses.  

Saul of Tarsus A/K/A Agent Saint Paul:

When trying to catch a spy the trick is often not to focus on the talking points, but to look at the context in which the subject operates.

-Does he suddenly live beyond his means?

-Does he have any suspicious friends?

-Does he disappear off the radar from time to time, only to return as if nothing out of the ordinary has happened, without a satisfactory explanation for his absence?

-Is he treated abnormally well by a Government that should really be his enemy?

This was the case regarding Paul. Spies have often been caught not because of the image they attempt to hide, but because of their behavior when they felt no one noticed, sometimes the treatment they received at the hands of others gave them away. In the story of Saul/Paul, we find these oddities, especially when it comes to his relationships with the Roman authorities.

1. Why was Paul NEVER accused of desertion after he chose to join the enemies of the Roman Government?

2. Why during the following 20 years of his life, he is NEVER charged nor arrested for being a dissident?

3. How is it possible that Paul was such good friends with Roman authorities, even though he was the leader of an organization that these very same authorities were persecuting?

Here's an example of #2,

Let's say St. Paul was head of a SWAT team for the DEA, FBI or Navy Seals field units, they're sent by the U.S. Government to round up and arrest the largest crime organization in the country, but then the field director and top agent suddenly leaves his unit to join the very cartel or syndicate he was sent to arrest, claiming he saw the Cartel's DEAD leader in a VISION, this is the same thing Paul did as the "biggest persecutor of the Church".

Paul as the top Police Commander was entering homes, dragging men and women off to prison and their deaths

 -Acts 8:3; 22:4

Entering synagogues, imprisoning and beating those who were in the Y'shua Revolutionary Army (to coin a phrase)

 -Acts 22:19

Paul being the top cop or military commander, defects to the other side and NEVER is he arrested nor mentioned as being a deserter by the Romans, WHY? Because he was working for them from the beginning, and deception is a essential feature of being an undercover agent.  Saul/Paul took part in a clandestine operation aimed against a Jewish fundamentalist organization, simply using the COVER STORY of being a CONVERT. 

In Acts: 26:16 he says the Lord appeared to him making he Paul a minister and a witness and to go to the Gentiles, yet Paul instead goes to the Hebrews in the synagogues to preach to them, arguing with them, antagonizing them to attack Paul. This is why they sought to kill him because he was once the head officer sent to arrest, beat and in some cases kill Jews. So they had no reason to trust him and the message he was speaking was anti-Jesus.

When reading the sources, you have to uncover the most likely course of events in between the so-called crucifixion and the end of Paul's life.  Some of what we're told may have been a cover story, so methods of analysis has been used to keep certain questions firmly in mind.

-  What, in the text, does not happen that, in a normal situation, would have been natural or likely to happen?

The obvious answer would be, if members of a dissident movement are arrested or executed by the authorities, which members are NOT arrested or executed?, who's under close scrutiny by the government, and becomes the next leader?, That man may very well be the traitor and/or operate under a pact with the authorities.  If that man used to work for the authorities as a member of the secret police, it does not require much imagination to think of the possibility that he went undercover to start a branch of a dissident movement monitored by the authorities.

-  What type of information does the writer NOT give, contrary to his information elsewhere?

If the writer of Acts (theological scholars agree was Luke) describes the Roman response to the course of events in some places (in the case of Jewish anger against Paul), why doesn't he continue mentioning responses elsewhere?  If Paul is preaching the alleged message of the former enemy of the state (that being Jesus), why do the Romans not act against him even protecting in some instances?

-Which aspects of the story does Luke highlight and which ones does he ignore, gloss over or forget to mention?

Case and point, on the road to Damascus, the overtly strange behaviors and/or actions of the soldiers who accompanied Paul  

An historian has to look for explanations in the domain of events on the ground, presumably caused by human motives and actions.  For example, when Acts tells us that "an Angel" freed Paul from a Roman prison, we have to disregard this irrational non-explanation of an historical event and assume that ordinary human beings released Paul, that is, men whose identities could not be disclosed, or are conveniently forgotten for whatever unexplained reason. Some alleged supernatural actions can not serve as a rational explanation for real events.

The intelligence needs on the Roman side were clear, once they had taken over Judea and turned it into a province in 6 CE, the biggest problem was collecting intelligence on all the anti-Roman groups no matter how small. Any subversive group that preached emancipation from Roman rule had to be tracked down and rooted out before becoming a terrorist organization like;

1. The Sicarii

2. The Zealots

3. The Nazarians

4. The Theudas and others.

It was Paul's job to find these groups, report them and have them arrested. This was Paul's strategy, go into the Synagogues, he went there and caused trouble, drawing away other Nazarites from the more nationalistic militant tendencies of the radical political Nazarites thus dividing the group.  Paul's methods was to arrive at a Jewish location, cause bickering and anger in a synagogue, provoke radicals and extremist to spew threats, people who Paul knew already distrusted him and would totally disagree with his rhetoric post conversion. 

Most are familiar with the three contradictions about the said vision in Acts 9:7, 22:9, 26:13, but the larger picture is this, Saul/Paul says in the first letter to the congregation of the Corinthians,

"...for I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures..." 

-I Corinthians 15:3

1. There were no scriptures written during the time of Paul about the head of the revolutionary Jesus group of it's leader dying for sin.

2. Saul/Paul was a Pharisee and his job was to find and arrest zealots and rebels. Saul/Paul claimed that he was a was a Pharisee and from a family of Pharisees in Jerusalem in the year 33 CE when they say Christ was crucified. In fact he would have seen the trial of Jesus, witnessed the beatings and execution of Jesus, thus no need to say, "according to the scriptures".  He would have had first hand knowledge, because he claimed,

"...I lived as a Pharisee..."

-Acts 26:4

This would make logical sense if Saul/Paul lived as a young Pharisee.  Keep in mind that Paul met with the same High Priest who turned Jesus over to Pilate, that man being Caiaphas, 

(49) "...And one of them, named Caiaphas, being a high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all (50) nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not (51) And this he spoke not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation..."

-John 49-51

So the High Priest Caiaphas told the other Pharisees that Jesus must die to prevent the whole Jewish nation under Rome from suffering. Caiaphas as verse 51 says, was a high priest in "that same year", the day of Pentecost was only 50 days after the crucifixion, approximately 2 months after Jesus' death, so Caiaphas, a high priest Paul would have definitely known. During that time, Paul was in Jerusalem, placing Paul at the scene of Jesus' public trial and death, we see this in chapter 4 verse 5-6,

"And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem"

This is the same Caiaphas, who gave Jesus to Pilate, and Paul being a Pharisee in Jerusalem would have been there at the trial and or the execution of Jesus, thus he would have known exactly what Jesus looked like, but People forgot that Saul/Paul at that time was a Pharisee arresting and imprisoning those who were part of the Jesus group. Saul/Paul was there in Jerusalem at Stephen's killing and Paul was a top arresting officer gathering all those who followed or were members of the Jesus organization,

"As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison."

-Acts 8:3

So the evidence is clear, Saul/Paul knew exactly what Jesus looked like because he was in the same location Jesus was and Paul knew and stood with the same people who arrested and turned over Jesus to the Roman officials.

1. Saul worked for the High Priest and the Sadducees, and by extension he worked in Rome's interest. That interest was to squash any Messianic ideas with nationalistic undertones. Being part of a religion that believed in a Messiah was not a crime, but believing a living person was the Messiah and that living person would lead Judea to independence was a hanging offence, hanging from a cross that is.

2. Jesus (according to the story) was executed on a charge of sedition, and anyone continuing his movement or organization expressing Jewish nationalism had to be watched and controlled, especially if they employed anti-Roman overtones.

3. The only circumstance under which the high priest would employ it's police force to arrest and imprison people would be if those people had shown themselves in some way to be a political threat to the Sadducean hierarchy and the Roman regime. If Paul was employed by the high priest to arrest people, it can only mean one thing, and that is that Saul/Paul was a member of the High priest's police force. It would be his job to arrest anyone belonging to a movement that threatened the status quo.  

5. The High Priest was NOT a Pharisee but a Sadducee, and the Sadducees were opposed to the Pharisees. Paul says,

"...I belonged to the strictest sect of our religion and I lived as a Pharisee..."

-Acts 26:4

An enthusiastic Pharisee is to be acting hand and glove with the Sadducean High Priest, and Caiaphas was the high priest during that year of 33.

6. After the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, the Romans were on high alert because many of the Jesus members and supporters were still in Rome, and to be sure that there would be no rebellion, many were arrested, monitored, dispersed and/or killed.

(36) "For before these days rose up, Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody: to whom a number of men, about 400, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to naught.  (37) After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in days of taxing, and drew away much people after him, he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed."

-Acts 6:36-37

Theudas and Judas were affiliated with the Jesus movement, the Romans spied, monitored and destroyed hundreds of those followers, this was why it was necessary to spy on Jesus' followers because many started splinter groups that sought to rise up and overthrow the Roman Government.

The Incident in Damascus:

Remember, Paul was the chief officer or Police arresting radical Hebrews/Jews, causing havoc upon Israelite men and women, see Acts 8:1-3.  Sometime around 34 CE a small band of agents traveled to Damascus, the distance between Jerusalem and Damascus is about 145 miles.  In the narrative, we're told that at some point along the way Saul/Paul has a vision that resulted in his defection.  Paul is NEVER arrested for desertion or treason, why not?  Not content with his success in Jerusalem, Saul planned to extend his activities to the cities of the Jewish diaspora where members of Jesus' movement had fled in order to escape persecution, that's in (Acts 8:1, 11:19).  The real purpose behind the trip was not to arrest anyone, the operation was a trick, to insert Paul inside of Jesus' movement and over time provoke the followers into exposing themselves. Accomplishing this in Damascus was important, because the movement in Jerusalem would have recognized Paul as the prosecutor/Police, and would have been harder to infiltrate. The story in Acts 9 is unlikely, not merely because a dedicated persecutor under oath and orders suddenly switches sides overnight, but because of the way his fellow officers respond-or fail to respond to Paul's decision to join the enemy. On the spur of the moment, agent Paul, supposedly because of a vision, defects to the enemy.

The soldiers don't treat his actions as a criminal offence. They even aid him in contacting the enemy and do nothing to prevent him from going over to the other side, to the very same group they supposedly came to arrest.  If Saul/Paul went to the enemy BLIND (as claimed Acts 9:3-9) then the rest of the team would have their first prisoner.  Not even the second in command would stop Paul from changing sides, why not, because it was a set up, and a false story used to get inside the inner circle of Jesus' remaining disciples.  The first person he goes to is the weakest link, the compassionate one, Barnabas. What's important to note is, the light, voice and incident was so miraculous for Paul, but not enough for the others to have a similar conversion and follow Paul into the Jesus movement. Only Paul is converted, these scenarios are inconsistent with logic, but very consistent with a false story used to get those who believe in redemption, tricking them into accepting the agent Paul. Regardless of what happened to Paul, you must keep in mind that there were others present,  During the Damascus incident, his fellow agents had also heard/saw the light (this story is contradicted 3 times in Acts).  If this was the case, why didn't his fellow officers have a similar conversion experience?  It appears that none of the others were convinced enough to also decide to go over the Jesus movement with Paul, even though they were allegedly awed enough to forget about common sense, turn to the enemy for help and allow one of most important and best informed agents (Paul) to join that enemy.  The agents with Paul may have acted that way because they were fully aware that this operation was set up to plant an agent and obtain information. 

If the team was out to capture dissidents, the Paul's blindness (according to the story) would render him tactically handicapped.  The team should have returned him to Jerusalem or at least sought medical help.  Someone from the team could have been appointed to accompany Paul back to Jerusalem and continue the operation without Paul.  They don't even wait a few hours or days to see how long Paul's blindness might last.  Paul's fellow persecutors are never heard of again.  They don't stay anywhere near their colleague.  They don't even arrest him as a traitor nor do they arrest Ananias as a Nazarene.  They don't seem to have been the least bit concerned that Paul might reveal persecution tactics, names of informants or other secrets, even though Paul was the agent who had been given the operational instructions by the High Priest Caiaphas, see Acts 9:1.  They apparently didn't even care that they were going back to Jerusalem with their chief now working for the enemy.  They don't seem to to have feared any disciplinary action from their superiors by allowing a well-informed colleague to join the enemy, no concern about his mental stability, loyaly or dedication, unless it was all part of the counterinsurgency.  

What Would Be the Motivation for Saul/Paul to Fake His Conversion?

Let's bring it up to today.  By now most of you are aware of the raid on the Nuwaupian "Land" once at 404 Shady dale rd. (Tama-Re) on May 8th 2002, and aside from search warrants, Malachi York was the ring leader to be arrested.  Imagine for a moment that the FBI, GBI, the Putnam County Sheriff's Deputy's and other law enforcement agencies that assisted in the raid, and Sheriff Sills is leading the way.  Sheriff Sills was the main antagonist of York, constantly visiting the land and (to Nuwaupians and York, harassing them), fining them for county violations on their building permits, closing down sites on the land, imagine Sheriff Sills on the day of the raid claiming that he saw York in a vision, in a light, a light so bright that it blinded him for a period time and someone took him by the hand and all of a sudden Sheriff Sills now supports York and the doctrine of Nuwaubu/Nuwaupu/Wu-Nuwaup, leaving all those law enforcement agencies and agents at the gate (the Pylon).  That would make no sense whatsoever, this is the same thing that happened with the Paul scenario (according to the biblical text) when he Paul and his arresting officers were on their way to Damascus on a raid.

Saul/Paul would need a cover story to enable him to infiltrate the Jesus movement, and what better way to do this than to convince them that he had suddenly seen Jesus. Once inside of Jesus' inner circle, or close enough to be listened to, he could develop a religious stance that would accomplish three goals.

Goal #1. Identify the extremist Nazarenes with nationalist tendencies who were a threat to the Romans and the temple establishment, then have them eliminated as we see similarly in Acts: 23:21

(in the story we see extremist plotting to kill Paul 40 in total, later those zealots would be arrested and Paul protected from harm) see Acts 12-27

Goal #2. Draw the other Nazarenes away from the nationalistic tendencies of the more radical political members, to divide the movement.

(Paul does this when he went to the Synagogues to preach, which is a form of sedition, causing trouble and conflict resulting in the more militant Nazarene Hebrews wanting to kill Paul) see Acts 9:20-22, 13:45-46, 14:1-6)

Goal #3. Appeal to a larger audience that would draw from both Jews and gentiles and eventually outnumber the Nazarenes, forming a new pro-Roman theology.

(This is what happened with the formation of the new religion inclusive of Gentiles and the more pro-Roman position) see Romans 13:1-7

If Paul was a indeed a Roman citizen, being employed as a spy for Rome would be patriotic. He would be persecuting the same people, just doing it in a more sophisticated way, with better weapons, finances and back up. He would identify the more politically radical members, so that later the arrest and forced removal could be done by lower-level officers. If it became a success, then it would neutralize the threat Jesus' political message posed to the Romans and their peace in Judea.

One of the strangest things we never see Paul admitting to in the presence of the Jews that he was a Roman, not even once! Now had the Judite's and Gentiles known this, then his job would have failed.  If Paul was a real Apostle to the Gentiles, why go to the synagogues at all? Paul had full accesses to the Romans, why not continue to convert the Roman authorities to drop their persecution efforts altogether?  He never makes this request anywhere in Acts. Paul is generally known as the Apostle to the Gentiles, so why would an agent provocateur address non-Jewish followers, if the Romans mainly had a problem with the Jewish core of the Messianic movement?  

Here's a few possible reasons:

1. To counter the tendency for non-Jews to join Jews in their religious and ethical practices, which were isolated from the rest of the Roman society.

2. To make sure that non-Jews were NOT susceptible to the revolutionary message that the original movement, or any other Jewish movement was spreading.

3. To counter the Jewish proselytizing, which the Roman government opposed.

Acts 9:23 speaks of a Jewish conspiracy against Paul's life, but it's not the Jews in the synagogues who are aggressively anti-Paul, it's the Nazarenes, the very people Paul had come to arrest.  Some of these men were far too intelligent to be taken in by the NEW Saul (Paul) and his cover story of conversion.  They didn't like the message he was spreading and they certainly didn't believe he had received any call or message from "Jesus".  Paul's mission in part was to PROVOKE and DIVIDE the Jesus movement, meanwhile Paul's fellow agent's kept their distance while he was spreading his own version of the Messianist message and causing havoc among the very same Nazarenes he had come to persecute.  It would be difficult to think of another group of Jews having such a big problem with Paul that they were willing to commit murder.

The intervention by Paul's colleagues would explain the team's remarkably passive behavior up to this point.  They had simply been waiting for the most aggressive and radically dangerous Messianists to be flushed out, provoked by the head provocateur Paul, with the rest of the team functioning as "bodyguards" on standby seems to be the more plausible, rational explanation for the passive behavior of the team of fellow agents while in Damascus.

From a psychological viewpoint, an undercover operation seems to be a somewhat more realistic scenario than one in which an experienced government agent suddenly tosses aside his previous sworn religious and political loyalties and changes his complex set of convictions to the polar opposite.

Now from a strategic viewpoint, a deception operation involving Paul as head provocateur seems a more likely scenario then one in which an entire team of heavily trained persecutors standing idly by as Paul deserts right under their noses to those being persecuted.  In a normal desertion situation, they would have taken measures to punish such a deserter, but according to Acts, this is never done nor mentioned. Now if Paul was giving them inside information on the persecuted movement he had joined, then this scenario would make perfect sense.  

In keeping with the Roman aims, Paul's plan was to short-circuit their nationalistic tendencies and spread a new message to the world that Jesus was NOT a political, nationalistic revolutionary, but rather that he was a peace-loving savior, not for the Jews only, but for all.  Paul would have to discover just the right audience to whom to sell this new ideology.  As the story goes, Paul takes his message to Gentiles, not because Jesus told him to, but because he was frustrated with the Jews.

"...And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will GO UNTO THE GENTILES..."

-Acts 18:6

Paul Protected by the Roman Opposition:

We see high ranking government officials treating Paul a Jew, deserter, Messianist, proselytizer and instigator of riots, extremely well, well enough that he's allowed to send letters (Epistols) via couriers to continue his teachings, which would make it pointless to have him imprisoned if the point was to stop him from teaching the doctrine of the enemies of the state.

1. Claudius Lysias Protects Paul, why would a Roman care about Paul?  This was after all a minor street incident, so why save an unknown Roman (Paul) from a street riot, unless he had connections high up or was an important Roman asset that needs to be kept alive Acts 23:22-27

2. Governor Felix gives Paul easy treatment and liberties, Acts 24:23

3. Festus finds Paul innocent of any charges worth of death, Acts 25:25

4. King Agrippa finds Paul innocent of all charges, Acts 26:31

5. Julius treats Paul with an unusual courtesy to go with friends and have refreshments, treatments unheard of by Romans to their prisoners, Acts 27:3

6. In the ship wreck, prisoners would be left to drown but Paul amazingly was to be saved by all means Acts 27:42-43

7. Paul gets to stay at the home of a chief Roman "Publius" of the Isle of Malta for 3 days, Acts 28:7

8. Paul seeks Caesar's judgement, and appeals to Caesar and NOT God according to Acts 25:10, even though Jesus said to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar and unto God the things that are God's" Matthew 22:21.

9. Once Paul was inside the inner circle of Jesus' movement he could start the job of altering their teachings and spread his new doctrine that was anti Law and pro Roman:

"...therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" 

-Romans 3:28

"...ye are not under the law, but under grace..." 

-Romans 6:14

"...Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us..."

-Galatians 5:2

"...because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression (violation) 

-Romans 4:15

"...But avoid foolish questions, and GENEALOGIES, and contentions, and strivings about the law: for they are unprofitable and vain..."

-Titus 3:9

Yet revolutionary Jesus, the man Paul claims to have spoken to and met in a vision saying he said go out and teach the gentiles, says this of the law,

"Think not that I have come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill...till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled (suwf in Hebrew-end, final)"

-Matthew 5:17

As for gentiles, "Go not into the ways of the Gentiles and into any city of the Samaritans, enter ye not, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel..."

-Matthew 10:5-6

John (one who rejected Paul) is said to have said, "...Whosoever committed sin transgress also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law..."

-I John 3:4

Why was Paul given so much freedom.

Why did the Romans not deem him a threat to public order, especially if he was going to be tried for treason?

Why are there no records of the death of Paul?, all we have are possible scenarios, assertions and speculations on the death of Paul, NO DOCUMENTATION. As far as we know, after Paul completed his mission of infiltration and counterinsurgency, he was rewarded and lived out his life in relative peace and seclusion, with continued protection from the Roman government. 

Why did they not consider his preaching seditious when just a few years later they would be pursuing Christianity as a dangerous superstition circa 66 CE? Because it was all a pre-orchestrated effort to divide and eliminate the Jesus Revolutionary Movement, altering the teachings to be more Roman inclined as we read in the following example.

" Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor ".

-Romans 13:1-7

Paul spends the entire second half of Acts being protected by the imperial courts from accusations made by angry Jews and pagans. This is not because of his oratorical skills or his beliefs. Paul was recognized as a Roman citizen, a man of education and culture, and he had influence with the Herodian and Roman administration. No other Jew, Nazarene, Zealot or Pharisee has this distinction. 

What is presented here is a short set of reasons why I support the notion that Saul/Paul was a Roman spy sent to infiltrate the revolutionary Jesus movement, and once accepted, he Paul could then do the work of altering its teachings, have certain people removed or killed and establish a passive religion that would no longer pose a threat to the Roman social order which Jesus' movement caused (according to the scriptures).

In the world of espionage, deception is key.  St. Paul was an admitted liar, using deception this is made clear in his Epistles.

"What then? not withstanding. every way, whether in PRETENCE, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."

-Philippians 1:18 (KJV)

"What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense of in truth, Christ is proclaimed: and in this I rejoice.  Yes, and I will rejoice.

-Philippians 1:18 (New American Standard Bible 1995)

"But so what?  Just this-that every way, whether by false or true motives, the Messiah is being proclaimed. Because of this, I rejoice and will continue to rejoice.

-Philippians 1:18 (International Standard Version 2008)

"For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner?"

-Romans 3:7

"But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile."

-2 Corinthians 12:16 (King James Version)

"But be it so: I did not burthen you: but being crafty I took you by guile."

-2 Corinthians 12:16 (Douay-Rheims Bible)

"But be it so.  I did not myself burden you: but, being crafty, I caught you with guile."

2 Corinthians 12:16 (English Revised Version)

Certain individuals in various Social Media chats have indicated that I'm using York's writings to support my argument, however if you were to check the books where York speaks on Paul, what I have presented is NOT part of York's Paul narrative, so why didn't York give you these sets of facts regarding Paul?  Keep in mind that York REVERTED BACK to Christianity, using Paul's talking points just months before his arrest, and the belief that Jesus of 2000 years ago was real and that he was our Savior,

 "...what better way to eliminate Ha Mashiakh, Al Masih, the Messiah than to make one think that he does not exist. Well, he does. THE YASHU'A, ISA, HARU, TAMMUZ, JESUS OF 2000 YEARS AGO IS REAL. HE'S REAL!!! "

-Malachi York: Is it Black Man's Christianity or White Man's Christianity? pg. 359

On a live recording, we hear York's stance on Jesus and how even after the years of attacking the bible, the concept of Jesus and even Paul, York tells his audience that he was converted, sort of like the conversion of Paul, minus the blinding light.

"...because you didn't get the holy ghost, you don't know what it means to get the holy ghost and be saved, ain't my fault (inaudible) you think you got a monopoly on knowledge and I'm the one who taught you niggah...I'm happy that Christ found favor in me...God don't exist, all that sounds good for whole bunch of demons who want to hear that, and that's what frightens me, you know what frightened me, I realized over a period of time the doctrine I taught I was growing weeds, because I was teaching the bible is wrong, and this is wrong and that is wrong... and the reason why they they liked that doctrine so much is because they're demons, and when you start talking about Christ and salvation and Resurrection and the spirit of God and the glory of God, they get mad a me...you don't decide to get saved, Dr. Malachi Z. York didn't decide to become a Christian or to get saved, I was quite content in Egyptology, I knew what I was talking about...when God chooses you, I don't care where you at, I don't care what you doing...if God chose you..and something hit's you like bam!.. then you hear yourself saying, Jesus is real...if you understand what I'm saying and the person standing next to you thinks this is some kind of joke, you better get on away from that person...I'm talking about the power of God transforming your life, you may not believe it, you may not believe it cause I would have told you last year get out of my face with that crap...but when it got down to the reality of it all, everybody here is going to stand at the door of death, I want to ask you a simply question, what do you got to loose or gain right now, some of you don't believe that Jesus Christ is your personal savior, right, but if you did accept him, how would it change your life for the worst? "     

-Malachi York: You Want to Question Me, and I Taught You! 

"...If you're living in the body of Christ, you'll be a part of the rapture, if you're not in the body of Christ, you will be left behind..."

-Malachi York: (2001)