Before reading this book, I had the fundamental problem: when 4D STS throughout our history have been deceiving people with massive shows of power in their religious revelations, such as Fatima or Joseph Smith of the Mormons, how can we accept that Paul's revelations were not by 4D STS? Why would Paul be the special exception? Wouldn't it be wiser to regard the source of Paul's revelations as 4D STS?
After finishing the book, I see my problem was my assumptions. It turns out, we don't know what Paul's revelations were, so my assumption that Paul had received shows of power revelations was wrong.
But then, there were other problems.
The first is that Paul's appears to have made a mistake in violating free will by the use of deception. Paul pretended to be someone else, pretended to be like his Jewish audience, only to try to convert them to his religion. I think it was a mistake of Paul to have anything to do with Judaism and the Jerusalem church, and I think it was a mistake to make a connection from Jewish Adam to Christ and Yahweh to Christ.
For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one other the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law.
What happened to "strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish"?! One would think that outright lying would be a definite "spot or blemish."
I think what Paul did was teaching a radical new understanding of religion, but using the vessel of an existing religion, which in Paul's case was Judaism. Paul's Judaism was totally opposite of the Jerusalem Judaism. It was Judaism in brand name only, but clearly anyone could see it was not Judaism when the Law no longer applied.
Mark appears to have made a mistake in creating fictional Jesus in the place of Paul. It can be argued that Jesus was not deception because Jesus might have been code word for Paul that Paul's followers recognized, but nonetheless fake Jesus and the fake life of Jesus quickly outgrew and concealed the historical facts and Paul's true teachings.
Instead of Paul overtaking and converting Judaism/Jewish Christianity by deception within the Jewish ranks, Paul's Christianity was overtaken from within through the Gospels by supporters of Judaism/Jewish Christianity. The Gospel of Mark opened the door to the hijackers such as Matthew to take Mark's Jesus and make him teach the opposite of what Paul taught, eg Torah not abolished and Law to be obeyed. Thus, the defeated Judaism was resurrected in the form of post-Paul Christianity.
Was this a case of live by the sword, die by the sword? Paul and Mark tried to use Judaism/Jewish Christianity and fake Jesus as the groundwork or framework for the new religion of Pauline Christianity, but 4D STS turned the table and used fake Jesus to legitimize Judaism/Jewish Christianity and subjugate Paul's teaching. It appears the use of deception or codenames was not without consequence.
Keeping information between the lines was a mistake (or the redactors coverup was complete). It would have been better that the information was stated plainly in light. For the information between the lines was kept in a sort of darkness to outsiders, and over the time darkness would grow to eclipse the information completely.
Perhaps Paul's Christianity didn't even last 100 years. Might there have been a different outcome if Paul and Mark had not engaged in deception, had not tried to incorporate Judaism or Jewish elements, or had not created a fictitious Jesus character?
Might this be a warning to us now, not to follow Paul's tactic of using a preexisting religion to introduce new ideas (ideas new to the current generation)?
There are obviously advantages to using an existing religion to seek converts, so it is understandable why Paul did it. We might be faced with the same dilemma as Paul. People today can accept Paul, at least a lot more readily than people can accept anything to do with the Cassiopaeans. There are some of Paul's teachings that align with what the Cassiopaens have said. So it might seem easier to present Cassiopaean ideas as a new understanding/interpretation of Paul as to piggyback on the thousand year old household name of Christianity. Paul seemed to do the same thing by piggybacking on Judaism. I think it is a mistake.
Perhaps this potential issue is solved, by sincerely representing Paul's teachings, as Laura has done in this book, and not adding anything else that cannot be attributed directly to Paul. Anything else would then need to be taught as something separate than Paul's Christianity, however complementary it might be.
Other scattered thoughts that I don't know how to incorporate into the above.
There is also a problem of Paul preaching to know nothing of this world. That seems to be opposite of the C's, who encourage awareness of this world, as knowledge cannot be in a vacuum.
For I resolved to know nothing (to be acquainted with nothing, to make a display of the knowledge of nothing, and to be conscious of nothing) among you except Jesus Christ (the Messiah) and Him crucified.
It reminds me of the Gurdjieff groups that exist today.
I think the C's want us to learn and acquire knowledge. It was first body and immediate environment, then the world, then the cosmos. Like Castanada seers, we must master the petty tyrants of this world first before we can deal with beyond this world.
On a different thought, Mark thought he was being ironic in pointing out that the Jewish Christian messiah didn't come with angel legions to destroy the Romans, but that Jesus came with the Roman legions to destroy Jerusalem and the temple. But behold, has the Jewish messiah materialized in the form of Israel and Mossad, controlling the Roman equivalent, American military and the US, as something that they move around easily?