Questioning Paul

Volume 1: The Great Galatians Debate

Is Christianity Right or Wrong?

Letter to the Reader

Are you open to a Word of advice?

Considering the consequence, should blind faith in religious promises be
proven unreliable, nothing is more important, or more controversial, than
questioning the viability of popular beliefs. Therefore, since the worlds most
accepted religion is based almost entirely upon the letters written by Shauwl,
known today as Paul, as a result of having chosen the Latin name, Paulos, this
systematic evaluation of his foundational epistle may be among the most valuable
and challenging books you have ever encountered.
Speaking of controversial, this book does not stand alone. For those seeking
irrefutable proof that Islam is a false religion, that Allah is not God, that
Muhammad was not a prophet, and that the Quran is among the worst books ever
written, Id encourage you to read Prophet of Doom Islams Terrorist Dogma in
Muhammads Own Words. Over the course of one-thousand pages it provides the
best documented, most comprehensive, resolutely chronological, and
methodically contextual presentation of Islams five oldest and most credible
sources. (It is free at: www.ProphetOfDoom.net.)
For those curious as to whether Judaism is Torah adverse, rather than Torah
observant, you may want to consider An Introduction to God. This fifteen-
hundred page book provides an in depth analysis of the seven topics Yahowah
(which is Gods one and only name) wants everyone to understand: His Word,
His Name, His Teaching, His Covenant, His Instructions, His Invitations, and His
Way. By considering Gods perspective on these things, readers discover whether
or not Judaism is viable. Should you consider this book, you will learn who
Yahowah is, what He is like, what He wants, what He is offering, and how to
respond to Him. But fair warning: unless your mind is open, and until you are
willing to question and then disassociate yourself from religion and even politics,
you are not yet ready to meet God. (It is free at: www.IntroToGod.org.)
For agnostics who are reading these words, I have compiled Yada Yah for
you. Over the course of two-thousand-five-hundred pages, it proves beyond any
doubt that Yahowah exists and that He, as God, authored His Torah, Prophets,
and Psalms. Beginning with the creation account, the story of Eden, the flood, the
inception of the Covenant, the Exodus, the revelation of the Torah, and the arrival
of the Maaseyah Yahowsha, Yada Yah reveals that the agnostic arguments that
are postured against God are actually in opposition to religious myths human
constructs with which God, Himself, is opposed. Yahowah prefers evidence and
reason and wants you to be able to find Him through observation and
contemplation. Most agnostics find that they rather like God.
Now I realize that most all Christians chafe at the notion that Paul, not
Jesus, created their religion, but that is the only informed and reasoned
conclusion which can be drawn from the evidence. Since the Maaseyah
Yahowsha (the actual title and name of the individual errantly referred to as
Jesus Christ) was not only Torah observant, but also unreservedly upheld every
word scribed in the Torah, a person can neither understand, follow, nor benefit
from His words or deeds without also being Torah observant. And the moment an
individual becomes Torah (from towrah meaning Teaching and Guidance, not
Law) observant (from shamar meaning to close closely examine and carefully
consider, not keep), they cease to be Christian. The truth is: Yahowshas
testimony completely and irrefutably destroys the myth of Christianity. Support
for the worlds most popular faith is found only in the letters attributed to Paul.
Therefore, the underlying questions this book strives to answer are: is
Shauwls / Pauls message consistent with Yahowahs Torah Teaching and with
Yahowshas (a compound of Yahowah and yasha saves) words and deeds? And
if not, could Pauls letters have been inspired by the God Paul contradicted? In
other words: is Shauwls testimony credible? Should you believe Paulos? And if
you do, what is the consequence?
If you are religious, Im going to tell you something about yourself that you
may not realize. The tendency of the vast preponderance of religious individuals
is to avoid evaluating evidence, and especially the merits of arguments which
appear to undermine the credibility and mythos of their faith. Instead, believers
tend to dismiss documented and reasoned presentations by demeaning the
character and motivations of the messenger who bears disquieting news. So while
Questioning Paul isnt about me, I am willing to share the following information.
At the onset of this study, now over five years ago, I was inclined to believe
Pauls testimony. I thought that Shauwl (Pauloss given name which is
indistinguishable in Hebrew from Sheowl, the realm of the dead and demonic,
meaning to question) was an Apostle, that he encountered Jesus on the
road to Damascus, and that he spent three years in Arabia in preparation for his
missionjust as he had claimed. At the commencement of what would become
an comprehensive evaluation of Pauloss (a name which means lowly and little
in Latin) testimony, I was predisposed to think that scribal error, misleading
translations, errant transliterations, unsupported interpretations, confusion over
whether Shauwl was assailing the Torah or Rabbinic Law, and an overall
ignorance of the Torahs purpose, had collectively abetted religious doctrines
which were inconsistent with Pauls intended message.
But it will be Pauls letters, his words, not my preconceived notions, which
will ultimately determine whether or not the worlds most influential religious
character had the audacity to contradict God, to undermine His testimony, and to
establish a New Testament in place of an Old Testament especially
recognizing that according to Yahowah there is still only one Covenant and it has
yet to be renewed. But if he did, and if he made his case, then the Christian faith
may be valid. But if he didnt, billions of Christian souls have been misled their
lives shortchanged.
To arrive at the truth, we will have to resolve whether the man born as
Shauwl, who wrote as Paulos, and who is known as Paul, was assailing: Natural
Law, Roman Law, Rabbinic Law, or Yahowahs Towrahwhich actually means
Teaching, Guidance, Direction, and Instruction. We will have to closely
compare the oldest textual witnesses to modern-Greek manuscripts to determine if
Shauwls words have been affected by scribal error, attributing things to him that
he did not actually write. And after presenting Shauwls / Pauloss letters in
English, rendering them as completely and accurately as possible using the oldest
manuscripts, we will compare these findings to a variety of other translations to
ascertain whether or not translational errors have artificially altered our
impression of Shauwls / Pauloss purpose in writing his epistles.
Now, for those who may be wondering why I appear somewhat fixated on
this mans given name in addition to his chosen moniker, the answer is that
Yahowah used the former and Yahowsha referenced the latter to convey their
extraordinarily candid impressions of Shauwl / Paulos / Paul and his letters.
Therefore, paramount to our desire to know and our ability to understand what
God and man have to say, and about whom they are conversing, we must strive to
be as precise as possible in our translations and transliterations. By insisting upon
accurate and amplified translations, where the complete and correct meanings of
the words God and this man chose to communicate are known, we will learn the
truth. And by emphasizing the proven and proper ways to pronounce, and thus to
transliterate, the proper names of the individuals involved in this debate, we will
come to know who God is, who Paul is, and what they have to say about one
another.
By way of background, Questioning Paul was composed after I had compiled
the first 2,500 pages of the collection entitled Yada Yah A Conversation with
God. In this seven-volume study focusing on prophetic pronouncements, you will
find an amplified translation of the oldest manuscripts. This is augmented by
some commentary designed to help us better understand what Yahowah actually
revealed based upon the words God selected. As a result, I have grown very fond
of Yahowah, His nature, purpose, and plan. I am, therefore, not without bias. And
that perspective is pertinent because Paul purports to speak on behalf of the God I
have come to know, the God I have come to love by closely examining and
carefully considering His Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. So if and when Shauwl
contradicts or misquotes Yahowahs Word, because of this research, I am now in
a better position to hold him accountable than I would have been a decade ago.
Four years after Questioning Paul was initially published, I improved what I
had originally conveyed based upon what I had learned while compiling An
Introduction to God. During this comprehensive edit, in addition to producing
more exacting translations, I included a considerable amount of additional
evidence. While I should not have been surprised, it was then that I discovered
that Yahowah had spoken of Shauwl by name, exposing him for our benefit
through one of His minor prophets. This revelation is initially presented in the
Yaruwshalaim Source of Reconciliation chapter because it is keyed off a
comment Shauwl made about running.
Gods testimony in this regard is so utterly devastating to Shauwls
credibility, the question of bias becomes moot. To remain rational, and thus
moral, I was compelled to embrace a far more judgmental approach to Shauwl
much earlier in this review than his letter alone, at least up to that point, might
otherwise justify. But more on this in a moment.
Having personally met with Islamic terrorists from al-Qaeda in the immediate
aftermath of September 11th, 2001, I wrote Tea With Terrorists Who They Are?
Why They Kill? And What Will Stop Them? Thereafter, I compiled Prophet of
Doom Islams Terrorist Dogma in Muhammads Own Words. As a result, I have
come to understand Muhammad and Islam. Thats important because Shauwl and
Muhammad share many traits in common, making Pauls epistles, and especially
Galatians, remarkably similar to the Quran in substance and style.
I dont say these things to brag, because I have no basis for pride. Apart from
being willing to invest the time to learn, and then share what Ive discovered, I
possess no other qualifications which would impress anyone. Im not a scholar
nor am I a theologian. And since we are discussing labels, I have no affiliation
with any political party or religious group. I do not seek a following and I do not
profit from this research (at least not materially). And since it seems to be of
interest to many, racially Im a mutt, part Sioux, Irish, Scottish, and English. I am,
therefore, not Jewish (or more precisely: neither a descendant of Yahuwdah or
any other tribe comprising Yisrael).
 You should know that I have rewritten this book five times, because the
evidence I discovered did not conform to my expectations, and because Im
constantly learning. I began this project defending Paul, and therefore I positioned
his every word as favorably as the manuscripts and lexicons would allow. I then
emphasized the positive aspects of what he had said, and all too often glossed
over those things which were of concern, remaining silent when I should have
spoken. Frankly, it wasnt until the end of the third and fourth chapters of
Galatians that I realized that I had been played for a fool. But even then, I was
blind to the ploy Shauwl was using to manipulate his audience.
It was not until having lived with this material for many months, twelve
hours a day, six days a week, that I finally came to understand Shauwls strategy.
It had been there all the time, blatant and obvious for all the world to see but I
had read right through it. And even then, my eyes were opened as a result of a
daily barrage of hints from people all around the world, most of whom Ive never
met. So when I warn you that this will be hard to accept, I speak from experience.
But fortunately, I can also assure everyone that once Pauls ploy is understood,
once we have extricated his doctrine from our minds, we find God right before
our eyes, speaking to us from His Towrah: His voice clear, His purpose
unmistakable, His offer perfect. If you reject Paul and Christianity as I have done
for Yahowah and the Covenant, you will lose nothing and gain everything.
Confessions aside, I knew that Pauls letters were not Scripture (a
transliteration of the Latin word for writing), in the sense of being inspired
word-for-word by God, long ago. That was obvious. And yet I still believed that
he aspired to tell the truth, that he had personally met with Yahowsha, and then
had spent three years with Him before he embarked upon his mission. Therefore, I
considered his insights to be important. As a result, I initially skipped over his
propensity to misquote Yahowah and to never quote Yahowsha. I missed the
significance of what he changed, and thus I was blind to the strategy he was
deploying. This is especially painful for me to admit, because rationally
evaluating rhetoric was the one thing I had thought I had a propensity to do
reasonably well. But with Shauwl / Paulos, that was not the case.
Eventually, however, as I made my way through the text of Pauls first
epistle, it became obvious that something was dreadfully wrong. And while I
immediately recognized the character flaw emerging before my eyes as being the
same one that had made Muhammad, the founder of Islam, easy to manipulate, I
still couldnt put my finger on exactly what Paul was trying to accomplish.
Then I compared Shauwls review of a meeting he had been summoned to
attend at the behest of Yahowshas (Jesus actual name, meaning Yahowah
Saves) Disciples (a transliteration of the Greek word which means to follow and
to learn) in Yaruwshalaim (Jerusalems actual name, properly transliterated,
meaning Source from which Teaching and Guidance Regarding Reconciliation
Flows) with the detailed history of that same event in Acts, and I found the
differences to be alarming. But when I reached the preamble of Pauls ultimate
manifesto, beginning with the second and running through the third and fourth
chapters of Galatians, during my second pass through this material, the charade
was finally over. My eyes were opened and I came to understand the edifice he
was establishing. It was then that I discovered six (now seven) very specific
prophecies whereby Yahowah and Yahowsha admonished us to be skeptical of
Shauwl to avoid all association with him. After that, I found Pauls ultimate
confessions lurking in statements I had read many times before. Suddenly
everything fit. There were no longer any loose ends, no more mysteries or
questions.
Frankly, I was deceived initially by the purported relationship between
Shauwl and Yahowsha, and between Shauwl and Yahowshas Disciples:
Yaaqob (Jamess actual name, properly transliterated, meaning Established in
His Walk), Shimown (Peters actual name properly transliterated, meaning He
Listens), and Yahowchanan (Johns actual name properly transliterated meaning
Yahowah is Merciful). I was also seduced by Pauls place as the author of half of
the so-called Christian New Testament. Questioning such an individual was
well beyond my comfort zone. And yet, Yahowah, Himself, reveals that far too
few of us have been willing to do this very thing and with devastating and
deadly consequences.
Also challenging is the fact that we have all been conditioned to think in
terms of black and white, believing that everything a false prophet says must be
wrong. And yet that is not how charlatans deceive. Wrong is made to appear right
by blending misconceptions with accurate statements. A counterfeit is worthless,
and yet it prevails because it looks real on the surface, fooling the unsuspecting
into believing that it is the genuine article. Such is the nature of Pauls epistles.
The casual reader who is not keenly observant, closely examining and carefully
considering the text, while comparing Galatians to the Torah, is easily misled by
the blending of truth and lies.
In this regard, the last thing Satan desires is to be known as the Adversary.
He wants to be called the Lord and to be worshipped as if he were God
things Yahowah opposes. So we should expect the Adversarys religious schemes
to discredit the occult, to attack the Devil, all while corrupting Yahowahs
testimony to produce a counterfeit religious deity which appears worthy of
veneration. This is accomplished by discrediting and demeaning the nature, intent,
and testimony of the real God, and then by replacing these things with a new deity
and beliefs which appear more accommodating.
 Credible lies are woven side by side and intertwined with strands of truth,
which makes the resulting deceptions vastly more beguiling. This is exactly how
the serpent, representing Satan, confused Adam and Chawah (Eves actual name
properly transliterated, meaning source of life) in the Garden of Eden (meaning
great joy), thereby setting a precedent many others would follow. In fact, this is
precisely the strategy Shauwl deploys in his first epistle and then again in every
subsequent letter. But thats only half of the story.
So be forewarned, even though Paul admitted to being demon-possessed,
until you come to understand the way Satan uses religions to fool the masses into
worshipping him rather than engaging in a relationship with Yahowah, you may
not yet be receptive to how this fallen spiritual messenger inspired Shauwls
writings. But while that may be true for most, it may not be true for you. For
example, the following chapter is specifically designed to motivate Christians to
follow Yahowahs guidance and Yahowshas example, encouraging them to begin
questioning what they believe and what they have been told. If your mind is open,
even just a little, perhaps youll be exposed to something in the first chapter
which will trigger a willingness to think. And sometimes the smallest crack in a
faade can lead to the floodgates being opened.

If you are an atheist, agnostic, Secular Humanist, Hindu, or Buddhist, while

you are welcome to read Questioning Paul, your time would be better spent, at
least initially, reading Yada Yah or An Introduction to God. It is more important
that you come to know what is true than what isnt. And at this point, your
thinking isnt corrupted by religious sentiments which have to be jettisoned prior
to establishing a reliable foundation predicated upon evidence and reason.
If you are a Christian, and depending upon your attitude and inclinations, this
may not be the best place for you to start your journey of discovery. If you have
been given this material by a friend, and you do not yet know Yahowah or
understand His Torah, please visit and read www.YadaYah.com and
www.IntroToGod.org, and learn what God has to say, in the order He said it. His
story will make a great deal more sense if you begin where He began. This is
especially important advice as it relates to the Covenant and to your salvation. It
is also essential to this evaluation, because I will be consistently comparing Pauls
words to Gods Word, exposing to readers where and why they differ.
If you elect not to heed that advice, consider this a friendly warning: having
responded to over ten-thousand emails from religious individuals over the past ten
years, I have come to realize that evidence and reason are irrelevant to those who
are passionate about their faith. So if you define yourself as a Christian (as I once
did), especially an Evangelical or Catholic, if you believe that everything in your
Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God, if you go to church most
Sunday mornings, if you celebrate Christmas and Easter, if you are unwilling to
consider irrefutable proof that Gods name is not the Lord, and that His Sons
name is not Jesus Christ, and if you believe that your faith or religious
affiliations determine your salvation, then you arent even remotely ready to
consider the evidence presented in this book. It wont do you any good, because
you wont be able to process any of it.
The preponderance of Christians are predisposed to believe that Pauls letters
are Scripture, and are thus truthful. By that definition, they are beyond reproach
and thus cannot be questioned. As evidence of this mindset, while Christians will
say that their faith is predicated upon Jesus Christ, when asked to explain it,
they will invariably cite Paul rather than Yahowsha. And when confronted with
the realization that Pauls teachings differ substantially from Christs, and are
the antithesis of one another, this irresolvable conflict is lost on believers, as is the
reality that faith is an impoverished substitute for knowing.
If your mind is open, if there are aspects of your faith which trouble you, if
you realize that there are serious problems associated with Christianity, Judaism,
Islam, Hinduism, and Secular Humanism, if you really want to know God, then
what follows is for you.
The evidence you are about to consider, however, will be shocking. It leads
to a place I could not have imagined before I embarked upon this voyage. And
that is why I had to rewrite Questioning Paul five times based upon what I
learned along the way. Words are insufficient to express how divergent my
preconceived notions were from what I discovered.
It would have been much easier if I could have resolved the differences. But
since I cannot, reason and compassion dictate that I should be honest regarding
what Ive learned. And so while ninety percent of what I had written in Yada Yah
had nothing to do with Shauwl, based upon what I have discovered, it has now
taken me a year to cleanse those seven volumes of Pauls epistles.
Also, while Yada Yah and An Introduction to God recount the greatest story
ever told, this particular episode is not pleasant. In fact it saddens me to forewarn
you that there is something horribly wrong with the written legacy of the most
influential person who ever lived. But in due time, he will hang himself with his
words, not mine.
What you are going to read is thoroughly researched, comprehensively
translated, rationally presented, and overtly judgmental, which is the only proper
response to that which claims to be from God and yet is in discord with His
testimony. And once a person comes to know for certain that the edifice billions
of people are risking their souls upon is unworthy and unreliable, they cease to be
moral by keeping that realization to themselves. Those who think that it is loving
and kind to embrace and respect everyones faith, no matter how faulty, are
wrong.
While Ive done my best, if you find error with my translations of the oldest
extant manuscripts, or with my comparisons or reasoning, feel free to express
your concerns. Ill address them and then correct the record if necessary. But
please, dont quote a conflicting passage from one of Pauls epistles to negate
something he said elsewhere, as this would only prove that Paul contradicted
himself.
Yahowahs Word (the Torah and Prophets) and Yahowshas testimony (as
recorded in Mattanyah, Yahowchanan, and the Revelation to Yahowchanan, and
to a lesser degree the hearsay portraits found in Mark and Luke) comprise the lone
reservoir of reliable evidence worthy of our consideration relative to evaluating
Shauwls / Pauloss / Pauls veracity. The feelings and opinions of others, while
important to them, are irrelevant to this endeavor.

If you are a Christian, and if you are still contemplating whether to turn the
page or close this book, I have a proposition you may want to consider. Suppose I
told you that by comparing Pauls words to Gods Word, and also to Yahowshas
example, that I could prove beyond any doubt that Paul was not an Apostle, and
therefore that the religion predicated upon his letters was unreliable, would you be
willing to risk considering the evidence if it meant losing your faith? Whats more
important to you: your beliefs or the truth? And if it can be shown that these
things not only differ, but are irreconcilable, which would you choose?
But that is not all. What if in addition to proving that Pauls epistles, and thus
Christianity, are neither trustworthy nor reliable, I could also prove beyond any
doubt that there is a God whose testimony is dependable and unchanging, would
you sacrifice your religion for a relationship with Him through it?
These propositions are not hypothetical. What lies before you will do both. It
will take something rotten from you and it will replace it with something
extraordinarily wonderful. So if you are ready for the exchange of a lifetime, here
is something for you to consider:
 Yahowahs ( ) Towrah (towrah teaching, guidance, direction, and
instruction) is complete and entirely perfect (tamym without defect, lacking
nothing, correct, genuine, right, helpful, beneficial, and true), returning and
restoring (suwb transforming) the soul (nepesh consciousness).
Yahowahs testimony (eduwth restoring and eternal witness) is
trustworthy and reliable (aman verifiable, confirming, supportive, and
establishing), making understanding and obtaining wisdom (hakam
educating and enlightening oneself to the point of comprehension) simple for the
open-minded and receptive. (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:7)
That is Gods perspective on the nature and purpose of His Torah. What is
yours?

LE: 08-03-2013
 Questioning Paul
Volume 1: The Great Galatians Debate
Is Christianity Right or Wrong?

Shauwl Question Him

Are you Aware that God Asked you to Question Paul?

Most Christians believe that Paul, a Jewish rabbi born as Shauwl, a man who
wrote under the Roman pseudonym, Paulos, was the principal agent chosen by
God to communicate the precepts of a religion they believe was founded by
Jesus Christ, a belief system predicated upon faith in the Gospel of Grace. This
is surprising since there is only one, albeit inaccurate, citation from Jesus and
not a single statement from the Gospels, in the corpus of Pauls thirteen letters.
In spite of this, or unaware of it, these same Christians believe that the lone self-
proclaimed Apostle, someone who never walked a step alongside Yahowsha (the
actual name of the individual errantly called Jesus), was authorized to denounce
and discard Gods Torah, change His Covenant, dismiss His annual Feasts, and
reject His Sabbatheven contradict Yahowsha and His Disciples. On the
surface, this all seems preposterous, and yet no matter how illogical this may be,
it does not seem to matter to believers.
The religious miracle which makes the resulting religion popular is
performed in Shauwls / Pauloss / Pauls epistle to the Galatians which serves
as the blueprint for Pauline Doctrine. In its pages a stream of arguments are
presented against the Torah and on behalf of faith. But is it realistic to believe that
Paul could have annulled and discarded the Torah on Gods authority, as he
claims to have done? And if it was somehow possible that Gods initial plan was
ineffective, or worse, if it was an enslaving curse, what would make the
replacement faith credible, even remotely believable? Therefore, the question
before us is whether Christianity was established on the bedrock of Divine
revelation or on the shifting sands of one mans opinions.
In the end it all comes down to GalatiansPauls first letter, as evidenced by
the epistle itself. It is the first time where the Torah was assailed by someone
claiming to speak for God. Without Galatians, there is no credible debate between
observing the Torah, which is to examine its teaching, and faith, which is to
believe in the unknown or uncertain. So while there are many critical passages in
Pauls other letters, and most especially in Romans, Galatians provides the most
methodical approach to obfuscating Gods testimony.
Galatians is one of only two epistles where the Sabbath and Feasts are placed
in doubt, the other being Pauls letter to the Colossians. It is one of only two
letters where a replacement Covenant is presented, the other being Pauloss letter
to the Romans. So, without Galatians, there is no justification for rejecting
anything Yahowah (Gods one and only name) shared with us.
Galatians is the place where faith, which has become synonymous with
religion, was first pitted against Gods instructions. This was accomplished by
Paul mischaracterizing the Torahs nature, inferring that to observe was to obey
and that to guide was to legislate. As a result, a book filled with Yahowahs
teaching become synonymous with legalism. Wanting to be free to disregard
the Divine directions, Shauwl discredits and then discards the Torah in the
second and third chapters Galatians, so that in the fourth chapter, he can position
his advocacy for an entirely new and different covenant, relegating the one
codified by Moses (actually, Moseh, meaning to draw out) on Mount Sinai to
being of the flesh, to being an outdated and old-fashioned disciplinarian, which
enslaved and condemned everyone.
More than just being ground central for Christianitys disdain for all things
YahowahHis Name, His Word, His Torah, His Covenant, His Instructions, His
Sabbath, His Invitations to Meet, His Land, His Chosen People, His Way, and
even His Maaseyah, Yahowsha Galatians pits Pauls new religion against most
everything God has revealed. And in the epistle, the Disciple Shimown / Peter is
mercilessly condemned by Paul, and Yaaqob / James and Yahowchanan / John
are dismissed and demeaned.
In this light, Galatians and the book of Acts present conflicting accounts of
the Jerusalem Summit further isolating Paul from Yahowshas Disciples. Based
upon its timing and content, it is obvious that Galatians was Pauls response, his
rebuttal, to having had his message censured, his authority questioned, and his
reputation besmirched, by Yahowshas Disciples in Yaruwshalaim (meaning:
source from which guidance regarding reconciliation flows). Pauls summation of
this meeting sits in the midst of this epistle, as do both issues which prompted the
summitthe purpose of the Torah and the merits of circumcision. These themes
dominate Galatians, with Pauls position consistently running in direct opposition
to Yahowah, Yahowsha, the Disciples, and therefore to the Word of God. In due
time we will juxtapose these texts. So do not be concerned if you are currently
unaware of this meeting or of the incompatible accounts of it.
 Especially relevant to this discussion is Shimowns (He Listens, but errantly
called Peters) overall evaluation of Paul, and especially his Galatians letter, in
Second Shimown. In the midst of bluntly criticizing their content and style, we
are confronted with a statement, which at least when mistranslated and removed
from its context, is often used to assert that Pauls epistles should be afforded
Scriptural status. But if this lone dubious endorsement falters, if it isnt credible
in context, or if this isnt what Shimown actually wrote, then the idea of a New
Testament, comprised mostly of Pauls letters, being considered Scripture, in
the sense of having been inspired by God, vanishes. Evidence for such a
position would be relegated to the murk of myth and to the realm of human
tradition. So we will dissect Shauwls overt condemnation of Shimown, just as
we will study Shimowns direct and unabashed response to Shauwl under a
linguistic microscope, contemplating the Disciples view of the self-proclaimed
Apostles message and letters.
Christian theologians, of course, unanimously side with Paul over Peter with
regard to the Great Galatians Debate. In so doing, they have established their
religion in opposition to Yahowah, Yahowsha, the Disciples, and to the Word of
God. In their view, Paul was right to associate the Torah with bondage,
Yahowahs Feasts with Judaism, circumcision with the flesh, and Gods
conditions with legalism. For Christians, as a result of Paul announcing his new
covenant theory in the fourth chapter of Galatians, it is appropriate to divide the
Bible into two Testaments one Old and the other New, one failed and
counterproductive with the other providing the hope of salvation by rejecting the
old plan and placing ones faith in a new promise. For Christians, solely as a
result of Pauls epistles, hell awaits everyone who clings to the past by observing
the Torah, while heaven embraces all those who place their faith in Pauls Gospel
of Grace.
With the stakes this high, with the credibility of the religion of Christianity
resting upon one mans letter, with the salvation of billions of souls at stake, few
things could be as important as considering the possibility that Pauloss epistle to
the Galatians might not be trustworthy if he openly contradicted the God he
purported to represent. But if this world-renowned individual pulled off this feat,
if he managed to supersede something as famous as the Torah, and if he
supplanted it with something as nebulous as faith, and convinced the world that he
had done so without contradicting God, even with Gods blessing, Galatians
would have to be the most brilliantly written thesis of all time.
To determine if Shauwl changed everything, including our understanding of
God and Scripture, even the means to salvation, we are going to examine his
words under the lens of the worlds most acclaimed lexicons while referencing the
oldest extant manuscripts. Pauls thoughts will be scrutinized by juxtaposing each
proposal he makes against Yahowahs position on the same topic. We will leave
nothing to chance or supposition. And while we are cognizant that billions of
religious individuals believe that Galatians is Scripture, we will be honest, even if
the result is judgmental and thus deemed offensive. Regardless of how many
religious preconceptions succumb to the evidence, this pursuit of the truth will be
relentlessly rational.
For those who have not read the Letter to the Reader, you should know that at
the onset of this study, I was inclined to think that Paul did no such thing. At the
beginning of what would become an extraordinarily comprehensive evaluation of
Pauls veracity, I was predisposed to believe that scribal error, misleading
translations, unsupported interpretations, confusion over which nomos Paul was
assailing, and an overall ignorance of the Torahs purpose, had collectively
conspired to conceive religious teachings which were inconsistent with Pauls
intended message. And yet, it will be Shauwls words, not my preconceived
notions, which will determine whether or not the most influential man in human
history became such because he had the audacity to contradict God, to undermine
His testimony, and to establish a New Testament in place of the one he sought
to annul. If he did, and if he made his case, then Christianity might be on solid
footing. But if it wasnt appropriate to demean and dissolve the Torah, if faith
isnt the answer, billions have been tragically misled, their souls extinguished as a
consequence.
As a result, it is instructive to reinforce the fact that Pauls given name was
Shauwl. It is of Hebrew origin, and it means he questions or question him
depending upon how the pronoun is accommodated. And questioning him as a
result of what he questioned is precisely what we are going to do. And in this
vein, you should also know that the name, Shauwl, is indistinguishable in
Hebrew from Sheowl, meaning the grave, the pit, and the realm of the
dead. Also relevant, Shauwl has become known as Paul only because he
chose to speak and write under the Latin name, Paulos. It means little and
lowly, something which will loom large before we are finished.
To arrive at the truth, we, like those who have gone before us, must resolve
which nomos Paul was attacking: Rabbinic Law or Yahowahs Towrah which
actually means Teaching and Guidance. We will have to closely compare the
oldest textual witnesses to more modern-Greek manuscripts to determine if Pauls
words have been affected by scribal error, attributing things to Shauwl that he did
not actually say. And after presenting Pauloss letter in English, rendering it as
accurately and completely as possible from the oldest manuscripts, we will have
to compare our findings to other renderings to ascertain whether or not
translational errors have artificially altered our impression of his purpose in
writing this particular document. Fortunately, each of these questions can be
emphatically resolved.
One of the surprising obstacles we will have to overcome along the way will
become obvious in short order. Pauls letter to the Galatians is poorly written;
reflecting the worst writing quality found anywhere in texts comprising the
Christian New Testament. We will encounter a steady diet of inappropriate
words and worse. Many of Pauls sentences are incomprehensible. The fact that
the resulting literacy is well beneath the dignity of God is something we will
wrestle with, even though this doesnt seem to matter to a religion hell bent on
distancing itself from Yahowah, from His Covenant, from His Torah, from the
first four Statements He etched in stone, or from six of His seven Feasts (Hebrew:
Miqraey Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God).
Before we embark on this journey, there is something else you should know.
There are a handful of individuals who would like others to believe that Paulos
did not write Galatians. They use pedantic ploys to infer that this epistle, along
with Second Corinthians, First Thessalonians, Ephesians, and both personal letters
to Timothy, were foisted as a clever fraud, and then later attributed to Paul. In
support of this argument, there is phraseology prevalent in Galatians that appears
less frequently in the subsequent epistles claimed by this man perhaps the most
influential individual in human history.
In support of Galatians being from Paul, we must recognize that the book of
Acts reveals that he had the kind of contentious relationship with the Galatians
which is actually reflected in the epistle. We are told that the Galatians went from
believing that Paulos was the incarnation of a Greek god to wanting to stone him
for his caustic rhetoric.
Second, Shimown / Peter, in his second letter, evaluates an epistle Paul had
written expressly to this particular audienceone that we learn from his greeting
in First Peter has to be Galatia, because it is the only place where the addressees
overlap. Therefore, based upon the Disciples letter, we know that Paul wrote an
epistle to the Galatians. And if not this letter, then the authentic document has
been lost. But more than that, the language Shimown (He Listens) uses to
describe Galatians precisely reflects the contents we find in the surviving copy.
Third, the issues raised at the Yaruwshalaim (Jerusalem) Summit serve as
the centerpiece of this epistle. After reading Lukes (from the Latin Lucas)
testimony in Acts, it becomes clear that Galatians was Pauloss response to his
critics at this meeting. Status was paramount to Shauwl, and therefore, Galatians
chronicles his desire to position himself as favorably as possible, especially vis a
vis Yahowshas Disciples whom he routinely slights.
 Additionally, based upon the disparaging language, it appears that the letter
was written immediately after that meeting, long before tempers cooled. And that
means that Paulos would have had twelve subsequent opportunities to distance
himself from the letter scribed to the Galatians had it been a fraud because his
open letters to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Colossians,
and Philippians, as well as the personal notes to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon all
came later as did most of his testimony in Acts. Never once is he heard
denouncing the authenticity of his epistle to the Galatians, but is instead found
building his case against the Towrah and its Covenant upon the foundation he laid
therein.
Fourth, Galatians is all about Shauwl becoming Paulos, about his childhood,
his religious education, his questionable call, his self-proclaimed mission, his
adversarial preaching, his suspect credibility, and his personal trials and
tribulations. Within its text, we find Paul referring to himself as the parent of his
faithful children, as the perfect example to follow, as a person who can do no
wrong, and as someone who cannot lie. So if Paul didnt write it, Galatians was
either scribed by his publicist, or by someone who spent the better part of their
life polishing Pauls sandals.
Fifth, the oldest extant codex containing Pauls epistles, Papyrus 46, places
Galatians in the midst of the other letters claimed by and attributed to Paulos. In
order of their appearance in the codex, these epistles include: Romans, Hebrews,
1st and 2nd Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1st
Thessalonians. And since P46 is dated between 85 and 125 CE, we know that one
of the earliest collectors of Greek manuscripts believed that Paul had penned this
letter. As did Marcion in the second century, a man who looms large in this saga.
Sixth, Paulos had a propensity to sign his letters so that his audience would
have some assurance that he was the author. But with Galatians, he did more than
just sign his name. He personally attests to have written the conclusion with his
own hand using really big letters.
And seventh, Pauls signature term is charis, the name of the Greek
goddesses of hospitality and merriment. Their name was transliterated into
English as Grace as a result of the Roman moniker for these same goddesses,
the Gratia. Apart from Pauloss letters, the use of charis can only be attested in
one other place in an ancient Greek manuscript. Therefore, the frequency of
deploying the name of the Greek goddesses of charity and licentiousness in all of
these letters strongly suggests that this troubling and pagan aspect of Christianity
came from Paul as did Galatians.
I suppose that this may leave us with a third, albeit highly unlikely
alternative, that Paul was the author, but that he never intended this letter to be
circulated, much less to be considered Scripture. He was clearly angry, and may
well have dashed off an emotional response that, from a more sober perspective,
he would have wadded up and thrown away. Most of us have written letters like
this; and many have had the good sense to hold on to them long enough to soften
them once our passions have subsided. But if this is the case, what does it say
about the credibility of the rest of the testimony this man also claims was inspired
by God, indeed, what does it suggest about the veracity of the Christian New
Testament as a whole?
The only benefit of distancing this epistle from Paul is that it would not
tarnish the remainder of the letters attributed to him. But even then, the potential
benefit would be fraught with peril, in that it would open the floodgates to
questioning the appropriateness of everything originally written in Greek and not
Hebrew. Christianitys entire foundation would be torn asunder. Worse, because
the Galatians epistle was written in first person, and because it is based upon the
life of the self-proclaimed Apostle Paulos, if it is a counterfeit, not only does the
authority of more than half of the Christian New Testament become suspect, the
religion is deprived of doctrine.
In reality, as we will discover throughout this review, in substance, there is
very little difference between Galatians and the rest of Pauls letters. It is readily
apparent that the same individual wrote them, one that was promoting his own
unique message in his own unique way.
Ultimately, however, the only question which really matters is whether or not
Galatians is true. Is it the inspired Word of God, and thus Scripture, or not? If it is
valid, so is Christianity. But if it is invalid, the worlds most popular religion is
brought down with it.
This conclusion is inescapable because Galatians, even more than Pauls
other letters, is devoted to systematically demeaning, dismantling, and demoting
the Torah and its Covenant. So, without Galatians, there is no way to justify
Christianitys violation of the first four Statements Yahowah etched in stoneas
they would still stand. This would include the recognition that Yahowah is Gods
only name, that Yahowah, Himself, is our Savior, and that the Sabbath remains
set apart. Without Galatians, there would be no way to explain Christianitys
opposition to Yahowahs seven Miqraey Invitations to be Called Out and Meet
with God as they would still delineate the path to eternal life, to salvation,
adoption, enrichment, empowerment, and reconciliation, leading to living with
God as His children. Without Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews, there would only
be one Covenant, a familial accord which has yet to be renewed. There would be
no room for a New Testament, a Gospel of Grace, or a faith-based religion.
 Without Galatians, Yahowahs Torah, as is affirmed throughout the Psalms
and Prophets, remains the sole means to liberate humankind from religious and
political oppression. But with Galatians, the Torah is mankinds greatest foe, the
path to enslavement and condemnation.
Without Galatians, the Gospel of Grace would be stillborn, invalidated by
the promise of the Torah with its entirely different healing and beneficial
message. Without Galatians, our association with God would be based exclusively
upon the Torahs everlasting Covenant, upon knowing Yahowah and relying upon
Gods Guidance, not Pauls. Without Galatians, admission to heaven would be
predicated upon responding to Yahowahs Invitations to Meet with Him as this
seven-step path is articulated in the Torah and affirmed by Yahowsha. Without
Galatians, faith becomes irrelevant, as does the religion of Christianity, because
the God who authored the Torah can be known.
In this regard, you should know that faith is the opposite of trust. Trust
emerges from a discerning evaluation of the evidence, while faith thrives in the
absence of information and reason.
So, while there may be some lingering debate among a few individuals
regarding the authenticity of this epistle, we will proceed as if Galatians is
genuine. After all, billions of people the world over accept it as having been
written by Paul, a man they believe was inspired by God. But is that possible?
Could the God who created the universe, who conceived life, who authored the
Torah, who nurtured the Covenant, who freed a nation from slavery, and who
enlightened the world while proving His existence and verifying His witness
through prophecy, have contributed to a book which presents Him as incompetent
and impotent? Fortunately, that question can be answered. So long as you are
willing to invest the time to consider the evidence with an open mind, so long as
you are willing evaluate the facts rationally, not religiously, together we will
determine with absolute certainty whether or not Galatians, indeed the whole
corpus of Pauline literature, was inspired by God. If it was, it is trustworthy. If
not, it isnt reliable. And in the end, that is all this study portends to determine.
But there are far reaching implications associated with that determination.
And that is because the religion of Christianity was established as an extension of
the paradigm Paulos first proposed in his epistle to the Galatians. As a result of
this book, Yahowsha would be renamed and then recast from someone who
could be known into an object of faith reduced to a caricature that would
become exceedingly easy to manipulate. As a result, the Pauline Jesus Christ
was touted as a new and improved, more tolerant and accepting, nicer and loving,
version of the jealous and wrathful God of the old-fashioned Law, a God out of
touch with modern sensibilities. The perception of Yahowsha as the diminished
corporeal manifestation of Yahowah, set apart from God, would be lost in the fog
of myth. The realization that Yahowsha was Towrah observant would be
convoluted, twisted and inverted, with Christians, as a direct result of this letter,
believing that their Jesus had come to annul the old gods arcane and dreadful
Law, freeing them from its judgmental nature.
With Yahowshas name forgotten and replaced, the Savior would become
Jesus Christ and no longer Yahowah, Himself. In this way, the entirety of
Yahowahs testimony, His role as Creator, Father, and Savior, even as God,
would be discounted then dismissed, as would be His Torah and His Covenant.
Christians wouldnt speak of Him or pray to Him, preferring to focus on their
religious caricature. The Pauline Jesus Christ would become an object to be
painted with the impressions and opinions of believers, His own words and life
ignored because most everything He said and did was now in conflict with the
belief system Paul was foisting on an accepting world. Therefore, as a result of
what this new paradigm wrought, should Pauls epistle to the Galatians prove to
be unreliable for any reason, to be in conflict with Yahowah or Yahowsha, the
foundational assumptions of the Christian religion fall apart with it, as they could
neither be inspired nor be accurate. It is that simple, that clear cut. The fate of
your soul rests in the balance, as does every Christians.

I understand that Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the founder of
their religion, but that is not possible. I understand that Christians believe that it is
appropriate to address God as the Lord, but that is not possible. I understand
that Christians believe that the Jesus is the second person of a Trinity, and
represented the totality of God, but that is not possible.
I understand that Christians believe that God died for their sins, but that is not
possible. I understand that Christians believe that Gods purpose is to save us, but
that is not possible. I understand that Christians believe that salvation requires
nothing of them and that it is a product of faith, but that is not possible. I
understand that Christians believe that all souls go either to heaven or to hell, but
that is not possible.
I understand that Christians believe that Jesus was born on Christmas Day,
but that is not possible. I understand that Christians believe that Easter
commemorates Gods bodily resurrection from death, but that is not possible. I
understand that Christians believe that the Covenants renewal is depicted in their
New Testament, making it possible to ignore everything in the Torah, but that is
not possible. I understand that Christians believe that their Bible is the inerrant
Word of God, but that is not possible.
I understand that Christians believe that Paul met with Jesus on the road to
Damascus, that he had a conversion experience, that he was transformed from
being a murderer to serving as an apostle, someone chosen and inspired by God to
share the Gospel of Grace with the world, but that is not possible. I understand
that Christians believe that the Torah was written exclusively for Jews, that it was
comprised of old-fashioned laws that no one can obey, and that Jesus came to
free us from that Law, but that is not possible.
Therefore, most everything Christians believe is untrue. And faith in
something which is invalid is unreliable.
It is an irrefutable fact that no one named Jesus Christ lived in the first-
century of the Common Era. The name Jesus was initially conceived in the 17th
Century, shortly after the letter J was invented. The actual individual was not
Greek, and therefore, He did not have a Greek name. Jesus is not an accurate
transliteration of Iesou, Iesous, or Iesoun. More incriminating still, these Greek
corruptions of His name were never written on any page of any pre-Constantine
codex of the so-called Christian New Testament. Following the example of the
Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah, Prophets, and Psalms), a
Divine Placeholder was universally deployed to represent Yahowsha. Further,
Yahowsha, which is affirmed over 200 times in the Torah and Prophets, means
Yahowah Saves. This that means that Jesus cannot be the Savior.
Moreover, Jesus could not have come in His Fathers name. But Yahowsha
could and did. So since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this
irrefutable and essential fact, and cant even get His name right, what else might
be untrue? And now that you know that Jesus isnt accurate, are you going to
start using His actual name?
Christ is not a last name, as in Jesus Christ. Further, since He was not
Greek, it would be silly to ascribe a Greek title to Him. A title should never
follow a name, but instead precede it. And when a title is conveyed, it should be
accompanied by the definite article. Christos, the alleged basis of Christ,
speaks of the application of drugs, and is therefore an inaccurate translation of
Maaseyah, which means the Work of Yahowah. Divine Placeholders were
exclusively used to present Yahowshas Hebrew title on every page of every
Greek manuscript scribed in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and early 4th centuries CE. Also, a
thorough investigation of the historical evidence demonstrates that the
placeholders for Maaseyah were based upon Chrestus, not Christos, with the
former meaning Useful Implement. Since the Christian religion has deliberately
misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, and cant even get the title
which became the name of their religion right, what else might be untrue? And
now that you know that Christ isnt remotely accurate, are you going to start
using His actual title?
The Maaseyah Yahowsha emphatically stated that He did not come to
replace or to annul any aspect of the Torah, but instead to be the living
embodiment of it. Therefore, by upholding the existing standard, He could not be
the founder of a new religion. Yahowsha was without exception, Torah
observant. His every word and deed affirmed this, as did His participation in
Passover, Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits, and Seven Sabbaths. It would be
impossible as a result to follow Yahowsha without embracing the Torah. And the
moment a person becomes Torah observant, they cease to be a Christian, which is
why believers ignore almost everything Yahowsha did and said. So since the
Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential
fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that Yahowsha was
Torah observant, are you going to follow His example?
Throughout the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, God ascribes the title Lord to
Satan. The Adversary is called ha Baal the Lord, because he wants to control
the beneficiaries of freewill. The Adversarys prime objective is for mankind to
bow down to him, worshipping him as if the Lord was God. But the actual God
has a name, and He has no interest in control or desire to be worshipped. His
name, Yahowah, is pronounced as readily as any of the many thousands of other
words and names written throughout His witness. Based upon the Hebrew verb,
hayah, to exist, Yahowah is found 7000 times in His Torah, Prophets, and
Psalms. He not only encouraged us to use this name, but said that replacing of His
name with the title, Lord, was the most devastating thing humankind has ever
done. It opens the door to mischaracterizing His nature and to the acceptance of
false gods by any other name. Further, learning someones name is the first step in
initiating a relationship. And Yahowah wants us to relate to Him as children
would to a father. The proper perspective is to see our Heavenly Father on His
knees, offering to lift us up. And as the Author of freewill, God is opposed to
lording over anyone. So since the Christian religion has deliberately
misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And
now that you know that Gods name is pronounced Yahowah, are you going to
use it instead of Lord?
The Trinity is a Babylonian religious concept. This notion was part and
parcel of the pagan mythology of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans as well.
Yahowah never once mentions anything even remotely akin to a Trinity. He not
only says that He is one, but expressly asks us not to accept religious customs
such as this. Yahowsha is the diminished corporeal manifestation of Yahowah,
set apart from Him to serve us. He is, therefore, an aspect of God, not all of God.
The entirety of God would not fit into our solar system, much less into the body
of a physical being. And part of God does not make a second God. The Spirit is
also set apart. Her title, in fact, is the Ruwach Qodesh, which means Set-Apart
Spirit. Representing the Maternal aspects of Yahowahs nature, She serves as our
Spiritual Mother, thereby completing the symbolism of the Covenant Family the
very family we are invited to join. Since the Christian religion has deliberately
misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And
now that you know that God is one, are you going to start focusing your attention
on getting to know Yahowah instead of Jesus?
Yahowah is immortal. He cannot die. Man cannot kill God. Therefore, God
could not die for your sins. Yahowah and Yahowsha explained this, but
Christians seldom listen to Him. As the Passover Lamb, Yahowsha cited the
opening line of the 22nd Psalm, telling us that the Spirit of God departed, allowing
His physical body to die while His soul went to Sheowl to redeem us on
Unleavened Bread. The Psalm explains all of this, including the service His soul
provided for us on the Sabbath of Matsah. Therefore, according to God, God did
not die. As for His physical body, it was incinerated that same night in accordance
with the Torahs instructions. So there was no physical resurrection. And that
explains why, in all three encounters on FirstFruits, no one recognized Him. He
was the same soul, and now reunited with the same Spirit, but He was only partly
corporeal. Recognizing the relationship between energy and matter, one realizes
that being corporeal would be a liability, which is why there is no such thing as
bodily resurrection into the spiritual realm. So since the Christian religion has
deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be
untrue? And now that you know that God could not die for your sins, are you
going to follow His example and celebrate Passover, Unleavened Bread, and
FirstFruits with Him?
Speaking of the first three Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God,
they collectively depict the Way Yahowah has provided to perfect us. But saving
us isnt His priority. Yahowah is committed to His Covenant. Salvation is only
afforded to its children. It would be irrational for Yahowah to save souls who
dont know Him, who dont care what He had to say, who dont appreciate what
He is offering, and who have worshipped a god of mans making. Therefore,
before a soul can be saved, that individual must first come to know, understand,
accept, and then engage in the Covenant based upon the conditions articulated in
the Towrah. The first of these is to walk away from religion and politics, from all
things associated with Babylon. We are encouraged to rely on Yahowah instead,
walking along a path which makes us immortal and perfect children who are
prepared to be adopted into our Heavenly Fathers family, enabling His Spirit to
enrich us and empower us. Therefore, while salvation is a gift, it is the byproduct
of participating in the Covenant. So since the Christian religion has deliberately
misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And
now that you know that God has established a handful of conditions that must be
met to participate in this relationship, are you going to seek to understand these
things and then respond to God based upon what He is actually offering?
If God said, Love me or I will send you to hell to be tortured, He would not
only be unlovable, He would be sadistic. Because of this scenario, there is a
serious problem with the Christian god. However, the real God, Yahowah, said no
such thing. According to His testimony, most souls simply cease to exist upon
their mortal demise. They do not know God. God does not know them. There is
nothing more. No reward. No punishment. Yahowah provided each of us with the
gift of a soul so that we could be observant, giving us freewill so that we could
choose to know, ignore, or reject Him, and the benefit of a conscience so that we
could exercise good judgment during our lives. The relatively few souls who use
these gifts and get to know Yahowah as He revealed Himself in His Towrah, who
understand and accept the conditions of His Covenant, and who answer the
Invitations to walk to Him, live forever with God in His home. Those souls who
are beguiled by religion, or who just have no interest in God, cease to exist. And
those who oppose Yahowah, promoting anything which leads others away from
God, His Towrah or His Covenant, will spend eternity incarcerated in Sheowl,
something akin to a black hole. So since the Christian religion has deliberately
misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And
now that you know that most souls dont end up in heaven or hell, are you going
to start questioning those who have tried to deceive you, promising heaven to you
if you place your faith in them and their religion?
God is immortal. He was not born on any day, much less on the Winter
Solstice, Christmas Day, when the Son of the Sun was born in virtually every
pagan religion nine months, of course, after the celebration of Easter. Yahowah
consistently asks us to reject the religious mythology of pagan cultures, and yet
Christians incorporated Babylons two holiest days into their faith. This does not
please God; it angers Him, especially since Christians celebrate these pagan
holidays while ignoring, even rejecting, every one of His Meetings. This is
especially disappointing because Yahowshas purpose was to enable the promises
Yahowah had made regarding Passover, Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits, and
Seven Sabbaths. And after the Trumpets Harvest, He will fulfill Reconciliations
and Shelters upon His return. So since the Christian religion has deliberately
misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And
now that you know that God hates Christmas and Easter, are you going to answer
His Invitations on the days He designated?
The lone presentation of the Covenants renewal is detailed in Yirmayah 31.
And there, Yahowah reveals that this still future restoration of His relationship
will be with Yahuwdah and Yisrael, not with a Gentile church. In the same
discussion, He reveals that the only difference between the existing Covenant and
its reaffirmation is that upon His return He will personally place a complete copy
of His Towrah Guidance inside of us. This is significant because God would not
have created a New Testament repudiating His Torah, only to return to the
original plan. And with the Towrah woven into the very fabric of our nature, there
will come a time when Yahowahs Instructions can no longer be corrupted or
rejected. All memory of Paul, his letters, and his religion will be wiped out as a
result. So since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this
irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know
that God has only one Covenant, that it has not yet been renewed, and that its
restoration is predicated upon the incorporation of His Towrah into our lives, are
you going to consider reading it and integrating its guidance into your life?
The Christian New Testament isnt even remotely reliable. To pretend that
it is the inerrant word of God is absurd. There are over 300,000 known differences
between the oldest manuscripts and the texts which support legacy and modern
translations. No two codices agree on which words were originally written, and
that is just the beginning of the problems. No words representing church, cross,
holy, saint, Christian, Jesus, Christ, Lord, God, Ghost, Christmas, Easter,
communion, Last Supper, Trinity, or Gospel can be found in any ancient
manuscript, making all of these things religious corruptions. There are whole
sections of books that arent attested in the older witnesses, such as the discussion
with the adulterous woman in the 8th chapter of Yahowchanan, as well as the
concluding chapter of Mark. Neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitnesses, and thus
are hearsay. Pauls thirteen letters, combined with his starring role in Acts,
present doctrines which are diametrically opposed to Yahowshas words and
deeds, and thus cannot have been inspired by the same God. And then we have to
confront the issue of invalid, incomplete, and misleading translations, something
you will more fully appreciate by the time you have completed this book. So since
the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential
fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that you cannot rely on
the Christian New Testament, where are you going to turn for answers?
According to Yahowshas testimony during the Olivet Discourse, Paul could
not have seen Him on the road to Damascus. He told us not to believe anyone
who made such a claim. So if Shauwl saw a light, it was not Gods. Nor is his
message. And make no mistake, Pauls message was his own. He never accurately
quotes anything Yahowah or Yahowsha said. Moreover, Pauls preaching was
the antithesis of Gods testimony. If one can be relied upon, the other is a liar.
You can either believe Paul or trust God, but no one can accept both. By
comparing their words, this book will prove this point beyond a reasonable doubt.
You will hate Paul before we are through.
As for the rest of the points that have been raised here in hopes of motivating
Christians to begin questioning some of the many myths that have been woven
into the fabric of their religion, irrefutable evidence to support every conclusion is
provided in Yada Yah and in An Introduction to God. But before you consider
either, there was a reason for the questions. If you are not going to change your
thinking when confronted with evidence that undermines your beliefs, then
nothing matters. This book, any book, even Gods book cannot positively
influence a closed or irrational mind.
I have not yet responded to Christianitys most debilitating lie. I understand
that Christians, as a direct result of Pauls letter to the Galatians, have been led to
believe that the Torah was written exclusively for Jews, that it was comprised of
old-fashioned laws and arcane concepts that are impossible to obey, and that
Jesus came to free the world from it. But since addressing this position is the
purpose of this book, lets consider the evidence...

While we will analyze every word of Galatians, from Shauwls greeting to

his handwritten closing statement, our review of Christendoms foundational
treatise will commence at the same place Christians begin their assault on the
Torah. That occurs in Galatians 3, verses 10 through 14. So, lets take a moment
and consider the King James Version (Christianitys most influential bible
translation) and New Living Translations (the religions most recent and liberal
variation and among the most popular) depictions of these passages, juxtaposed
against a literal rendering of the earliest first-century manuscript of Shauwls
letter.
Reason dictates that if the following KJV and NLT translations are accurate,
then the Torah is Gods way of cursing humankindnot saving us. And if this
is true, Yahowah and Yahowsha are liars. The King James reads: For as many
as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every
one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do
them. (3:10)
More clearly presented, albeit less aligned with the Greek text, the New
Living Translation published: But those who depend on the law to make them
right with God are under his curse, for the Scriptures say, Cursed is everyone
who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in Gods Book
of the Law. (3:10) If they are correct, Gods Word is Gods curse.
According to the most scholarly and most respected resource, the Nestle-
Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear,
the statement Paul wrote actually conveys: For as many as from works of law
they are under curse they are. It has been written for (not applicable) curse on all
who not stay in all the things having been written in the small book of the law the
to do them.
Based upon the words Shauwl selected, the following is an even more
complete and accurate depiction of his pronouncement: Because (gar for) to
the degree that (hosos as many and as far as) out of (ek) tasks and activities
of (ergon works or actions associated with) the Towrah (nomou the means to
being nourished by that which is bestowed to become heirs, precepts which were
apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, and
prescriptions for an inheritance; from nemo that which is provided, assigned,
and distributed to heirs to nourish them (singular genitive, and thus a specific
characterization)) they are and they exist (eisin eisin) under (hupo by way of)
a curse (katara that which a supernatural power deploys when he wishes to
invoke harm by promoting evil, that which is accursed, denounced and detested),
for (gar because indeed) it has been written (grapho) that (hoti): To become
accursed (epikataratos to be exposed, abhorrent, and repugnant, slanderous,
hateful, and malicious (to become is a product of the nominative case)) everyone
(pas all and completely) who (hos) not (ou) remains in (emmeno stays and
continues in, perseveres with) all (pas) that (tois) having been written (grapho)
in (en) the scroll (to biblion the book or documented written record typically on
papyrus) of the (tou) Towrah (nomou the allotment which is parceled out, the
inheritance which is given, the nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed
and used to grow, the precepts which are apportioned, established, and received as
a means to be proper and to be approved, and the prescription to become an heir
(singular genitive, and thus restricted to a singular specific and unique
characterization)), the of (tou) to do (poieomai to make, produce, or perform)
them (autos). (Galatians 3:10)
Trimmed to its essentials, the statement reads: Because to the degree that
out of tasks and activities of the Towrah they exist under a curse which a
supernatural power deploys when he wishes to invoke harm by promoting
evil, doing what is accursed, denounced and detested, for it has been written
that: To become accursed, to become abhorrent, and repugnant, everyone
who not remains in all that having been written in the scroll of the Towrah,
to do them. (Galatians 3:10) Recognizing that the preceding translation is a
literal rendering of Papyrus 46, the oldest extant manuscript of Shauwls letter
(dated to the late first or early second century), its hard to explain the KJVs and
NLTs considerable variation from it.
One of our questions has already been resolved. While we will diligently
research every discernible connotation of nomos, not just once but multiple
times, Shauwl has clearly acknowledged what you will come to know. He is
using nomou to describe the Torah, as if nomos and towrah were synonymous.
We know this because in the attempt to prove this point he translated the Hebrew
word towrah into Greek as nomou. As a result, a Pauline apologist cannot say
that Paul was condemning Rabbinic Law instead of the Towrah without
contradicting Pauls own translation. Paul is, therefore, calling the Word of God,
Yahowahs foundational testimony, a curse.
Beyond emphatically demonstrating that Shauwl was using variations of
nomos to convey Torah throughout his letters, by rendering towrah as nomou,
to be intellectually honest, the meaning of towrah in Hebrew which is teaching,
instruction, direction, and guidance, must prevail over law. Therefore, not only
is Paul implicating himself by disparaging the Word of God, those who publish
Christian bibles are universally guilty of misrepresenting one of the most
important words ever written when they render towrah via nomos as law.
But there is more: Paul misquoted the Towrah. The passage he cited in the
context of the discussion in Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26 conveys a
message which is diametrically opposed to the point Paul was making. How then
can his point be valid if he had to misrepresent Gods position?
The Towrah reads: Invoking harm upon oneself is whoever relationally
and beneficially is not established, restored, and supported by the words of
this Towrah, approaching by engaging through them. And then the entire
family responded, This is true, acceptable, and reliable. (Dabarym 27:26)
But lets not be superficial. Since it is in your interest to verify every word of
both statements for yourself, here again, more fully amplified, is Gods testimony:
Invoking harm upon oneself (arar cursing oneself by making oneself
undesirable) is whoever relationally and beneficially (asher) is not (lo)
established (quwm restored, supported, encouraged, lifted up and caused to
stand, confirmed, and enabled to endure) by (eth with and through) the words
(dabar message and accounts) of this (ha zoth) Towrah (towrah source of
guidance, direction, teaching, and instruction), approaching (la) by engaging
through them (asah eth by acting upon them and doing productive things
according to them, celebrating and profiting with them). And then (wa) the
entire (kol) family (am people and nation) responded (amar answered,
promised, and declared), This is true, acceptable, and reliable (aman this is
affirming, supportive, verifiable, and dependable). (Dabarym / Words /
Deuteronomy 27:26)
So what now? Assuming that you found a Greek and Hebrew interlinear on
your shelf or online, and that you referenced a lexicon or two, looking up each
word to verify what you have just read, how are you going to deal with this? The
answer to this question may determine the fate of your soul, especially if you have
believed Paul up to this point.
While we could, we are not going to stop here. Before we are finished,
several hundred more nails will be driven into Pauls coffin. But if we are seeking
to know whether or not Galatians was inspired by God and is trustworthy, we
already have our answer. A person who deliberately misquotes God, to promote
the inverse of what God is saying, cannot be telling the truth when he claims to be
inspired by that same God. It is impossible.
Yahowah just said that we harm ourselves when we are not established and
restored by the words which comprise His Towrah, approaching Him by acting
upon them. Christianity is torn asunder by this statement, a position which cannot
be refuted without calling God, Himself, a liar. The very statement Paul
misquoted to establish his religion destroys it.
The Towrah verse Shauwl mangled in Galatians undermines the most
fundamental aspect of the Christian religion, of faith in its Gospel of Grace, as
well as Pauloss own position, because it obliterates the idea that the Torah is
pass. But even if observing the Torah wasnt presented as the lone means to
becoming restored and established, as God has just stated, if the Almighty was
actually a capricious prankster, and if His Torah was really a curse as Paul and
others have claimed, then citing it as evidence would be irrational, because
nothing God said could be trusted.
Christian apologists, steeped as they are in Pauline Doctrine, will say that the
Torah isnt a pick and choose sort of thing, and that to be redeemed and righteous,
a person would have to do everything the Torah requires all of the time, or else
they would be cursed by it judged and condemned. But that is not the message
conveyed in this Dabarym passagenor the message conveyed by Yahowsha.
God knows that we are not perfect, which is why He provided the means to
perfect us in the heart of His Torah.
And yet, since Paul has attempted to neuter the Torah, and to sever the
relationship between Gods testimony and the Maaseyah, rejecting the Torahs
Covenant and plan of salvation, most Christians are unaware of the Torahs
redemptive properties.
 As a result of Pauls epistles, Christians dont realize that when Yahowsha
said I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, that His Way and His definition of
the Truth were both found in His Torah. And that is why, in the midst of His
Instruction on the Mount, He called the Torah the narrow way to Life. It was by
fulfilling Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, that Yahowsha honored
the promises Yahowah had made in His Torah to make us immortal on Pesach /
Passover and perfect us on Matsah / Un-Yeasted Bread so that He could adopt us
into His family the next day during Bikuwrym / FirstFruits But by severing this
connection, by disassociating Yahowsha from Yahowahs Word, the
Maaseyahs life, His testimony, and His sacrifices become as meaningless as the
faith Christians place in them.
Moving on to Shauwls next thought, as it is found in the Nestle-Aland
Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear: But
that in law no one is made right along the God clear because the right from trust
will live. Amplified, and with the Greek text highlighted for your consideration,
we find: But (de it follows, moreover, and namely) because (oti) with (en
inside and with regard to) the Torah (nomo the allotment which is parceled
out, the inheritance which is given, and the prescription to become an heir)
absolutely no one (oudeis nothing, nobody, and not one; from oude heis not
even one) is vindicated or justified (dikaioo made or shown to be correct,
proper, or right, acquitted or declared righteous) by (para with and in the
opinion of) the God (to ) becomes evident (delos becomes clear and is
made plain (scribed in the nominative, where an adjective is presented influencing
the subject, God, in this case, renaming Him)) because (oti namely and for this
reason): Those who are correct, righteous, and proper (o dikaios those who
are right, upright, virtuous, and guiltless) out of (ek) faith (pistis originally
meant trust but evolved to faith or belief as a result of Shauwls usage in these
letters) will live (zao will be alive). (Galatians 3:11)
Buffed up a bit in the King James, he sounds a bit more eloquent, albeit no
more rational: But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is
evident: for, The just shall live by faith. Updated for modern sensibilities, the
New Living Translation passage reads: So it is clear that no one can be made
right with God by trying to keep the law. For the Scriptures say, It is through
faith that a righteous person has life. (3:11) And yet Pauls first point was
anything but clear, because he cited a passage which contradicted his premise.
But more telling still, the Scriptures dont actually say anything about faith,
much less that ones beliefs lead to being just or righteous.
Therefore, both positions are illogical. Even if no one was justified by the
Torah that would still not infer that the just or righteous shall live by faith. Rather
than cause and consequence, these ideas are unrelated. It is like saying: red
wagons dont work so it is evident we should put our faith in blue tricycles. More
to the point, if Gods Torah cannot be relied upon, in whom are we to express our
faith?
As I previously mentioned, the Scriptures do not say, It is through faith
that a righteous person has life. The passage Shauwl truncated actually reads:
Pay attention, he will be puffed up with false pride. His soul, it is not right
nor straightforward in him. So, through trust and reliance, by being firmly
established and upheld by that which is dependable and truthful, those who
are upright and vindicated live. (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:4)
This is almost breathtaking in its audacity. And this time the biggest issue
isnt just the inaccurate or inappropriate nature of Pauls citation, where he has
once again misrepresented Yahowahs intent by removing and twisting a snippet
of what God said. Whats amazing is that Yahowah is specifically warning us
about Shauwl in this passage. So by quoting it, Paul is taunting his audience,
arrogantly inferring that those foolish enough to fall for rhetoric arent sufficiently
resourceful or rational to realize that God is telling us to trust Him, not Shauwl.
In the third chapter, and then again in the concluding chapter of Questioning
Paul, Ill amplify the entirety of Gods indictment regarding Shauwl, but for now
ponder these highlights...
Upon My requirements and responsibilities, I have decided I will
literally and continually stand. And I will choose to always stand and present
Myself upon that which protects and fortifies.
So then I will be on the lookout in order to see what he will say about
Me, observing how he will question Me. But then, how can I be expected to
change My attitude, My thinking, or My response concerning My
disapproving rebuke? (2:1)
Then Yahowah answered, approaching me, and He said, Write this
revelation and then expound upon and reiterate it using letters upon writing
tablets so that by reciting this, he might run and go away. (2:2)
Still indeed, this revelation from God is for the of the Mowed Appointed
Meeting Times. It provides a witness and speaks, pouring out evidence in the
end which entraps. The extended period of time required for this question to
be resolved shall not prove it false. Expect him in this regard, because indeed,
he will absolutely come, neither being delayed nor lingering. (2:3)
Pay attention, he will be puffed up with false pride. His soul, it is not
right nor straightforward in him. So then through trust and reliance, by
being firmly established and upheld by that which is dependable and
truthful, those who are righteous and vindicated live. (2:4)
 Moreover, because the intoxicating wine and inebriating spirit of the
man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal is a high-minded moral
failure, and is arrogant with meritless presumptions, he will not rest, find
peace, nor live, whoever is open to the broad path, the duplicitous and
improper way, associated with Shauwl.
He and his soul are like the plague of death. And so those who are
brought together by him, accepting him, will never be satisfied. Most every
Gentile will gather together unto him, all of the people from different races
and nations. (2:5)
They do not ask questions, any of them, about him. Terse references to
the Word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, along with allusive sayings,
simplistic and contrived equivalencies, and mocking interpretations,
controlling through comparison, counterfeit and clichs, along with derisive
words arrogantly conveyed.
There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him,
and double dealings to be known regarding him. And so they should say,
Woe to the one who claims to be great so as to increase his offspring, acting
like a rabbi, when neither apply to him. For how long will they make pledges
based upon his significance, becoming burdened by his testimony?
(Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:6)
Evidence does not get any more compelling or relevant than this. Shauwl
took us directly to a prophecy that God had used to encourage us to Shauwl
Question Him.
Therefore, Yahowah revealed that a man named, Shauwl, coterminous
with the time He would fulfill His Mowed Appointed Meetings (during
Yahowshas participation in Mowed Miqraey of Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and
Shabuwah in 33 CE when Shauwl was studying to become a Rabbi in
Yaruwshalaim) would inappropriately attempt to convince people from different
races that he was authorized to replace Gods existing standard with a new and
different set of requirements. Further, as if He was reading Galatians, God told us
that Shauwl would be arrogant, circuitous, duplicitous, intoxicating, deceptive,
treacherous, and presumptuous. We were warned that this pseudo-rabbis way
would be improper, akin to a plague of death. And yet, according to God,
Shauwls broad, and therefore accommodating, path would become especially
popular with Gentiles because too few of them would actually question his
allusive sayings, his derisive words, his comparisons and counterfeits, which
would all be ripe with taunts and ridicule.
Shauwl has hung himself with these words, twisting the knot which would
become his noose. His statement is not only the antithesis of Gods instructions,
he has exposed us to Yahowahs ridicule of him. Moreover, and apart from the
prophecy, if Paul was right in disavowing Yahowahs standard, it would be
equivalent of God saying: I will save those who contradict Me and justify those
who negate and belittle the plan I have established. And yet, Yahowah
introduced His Habakkuk prophecy, affirming that He was not about to change.
Continuing to mislead by way of senseless and duplicitous prose, the KJV
renders Pauls next statement: And the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth
them shall live in them. Deploying a different tactic, the NLT authored
something which could only be considered appropriate in the context of religion.
This way of faith is very different from the way of law, which says, It is through
obeying the law that a person has life. (3:12)
Should the translation team deployed by Tyndale House Publishers,
Incorporated have meant that the way of the Christian faith is very different than
the way of the Torah, then they would be right. But can that way of faith be
right is the multi-billion soul question. Can Pauls thesis, his faith, his religion,
be very different from the way delineated by God in the Torah and still
reconcile fallen man into a relationship with that same God? Has God endorsed a
revised plan which is counter to the one He originally authored? And if He did
such a thing, wouldnt it make Him untrustworthy and unreliable?
Irrespective of the fact that Yahowah has provided the answer, at least the
battle lines have been drawn. According to the most popular modern translation, it
is now the Torah vs. Christianity. So let the Great Galatians Debate begin: are we
to trust Yahowahs Torah or put our faith in Shauwl / Paulos / Paul?
Amplified, and with the words Shauwl selected on display, the man God just
told us to question, wrote: But (de) the Towrah (nomou the allotment which is
parceled out, the inheritance which is given, the nourishment which is bestowed
to be used to grow, the precepts which are apportioned, established, and received
as a means to be proper and approved, and the prescription to become an heir)
exists (eimi is) not (ouk) out of (ek) faith or belief (pistis), but to the contrary
(alla making an emphatic contrast with an adversarial implication), The one
having done (o poieomai the one having made and performed as such
becoming) them (autos) will live (zao) with (en in and by) them (autos).
(Galatians 3:12)
Recognizing that Paul didnt express this thought very well, principally
because the Towrah passage he cited didnt fit his conclusion, in context we are
led to believe that Shauwl was suggesting that if an individual was to choose the
Towrah over faith, that they would have to live with the consequence. He is
inferring that the only way to live with the Towrah would be to do everything it
requires. So since he tried to usurp Gods credibility to prove his point, we must
turn to the passage he referenced to ascertain whether or not Yahowahs Towrah
actually said what Shauwl was asserting.
Opening Yahowahs Torah to Qara / Called Out / Leviticus, we find God
imparting guidance, whereby we are advised to avoid the kinds of religious myths
and practices which comprise Christianity:
Speak (dabar communicate using words) to (el) the Children of
Yisrael (beny Yisrael children who engage and endure with God), and (wa)
say (amar affirm) to them (el), I am (anky) Yahowah ( ), your God
(elohym). (18:1-2)
With regard to things which could be considered similar to (ka as with
and like) the practices (maaseh the pattern of behavior, the work, the things
done, undertakings, and pursuits) of the realm (erets land) of the Crucible of
Egypt (Mitsraym crucibles of religious, political, military, and economic
oppression) where (asher) you dwelt (yashab), you should not engage in or act
upon (lo asah you should not celebrate or profit from) similar (ka) pursuits
(maaseh patterns of behavior, things done, undertakings, and practices) in the
land (ba erets) of Kanaany (Kanaany Zealousness which subdues, bringing
people into subjection; commonly transliterated Canaan) which beneficially as a
result of the relationship (asher), I am (anky) bringing you (bow esh).
There (sham), you should not act upon or engage in (lo asah) their decrees
or customs (chuqah their prescriptions for living and their traditions and
statutes), never walking in or following them (lo halak never patterning your
life after them). (18:3)
With (eth) My means to exercise good judgment regarding the
resolution of disputes (mishpat My means to decide regarding justice and
judgment), you should continually engage and genuinely act (asah). With
(eth) My prescriptions for living (chuqah My inscribed recommendations
which cut you into the relationship), you should consistently examine and
carefully consider (shamar you should make a habit of consistently and
actually observing) for the purpose of approaching by (la) walking in them
(halak ba). I am (anky) Yahowah, your God (elohym). (Qara / Called Out /
Leviticus 18:4)
This admonition against religion, politics, and societal customs, was followed
by the statement Paul sought to usurp to prove his point. It reads:
And so (wa) you should choose of your own volition to actually and
completely observe (shamar under the auspices of freewill, you should
consider choosing to carefully and completely examine (qal perfect consecutive))
accordingly (eth) My prescriptions for living (chuqah My inscribed (and thus
written) instructions which cut you into a relationship (and thus into the
Covenant) with Me) and also (wa) My means to resolve disputes (mishpat My
means to exercise good judgment regarding redemption (thereby directing our
attention to His seven Invitations to Meet).
Whoever (asher relationally and beneficially) over time and as an
ongoing process acts upon and engages (asah consistently endeavors to
genuinely celebrate and continually benefit (qal imperfect)) with them (eth),
that man (ha adam that individual and person) indeed (wa emphasizing this)
is actually and completely restored to life as a result of this desire and his
decision, living forever (wa chayah he is literally revived, perfectly renewed,
actually nurtured, completely spared, and kept alive into perpetuity through this
exercise of freewill, raised, preserved, and allowed to flourish (qal perfect
consecutive)) through them (ba with and by them). I am (any) Yahowah
( ). (Qara / Called Out / Leviticus 18:5)
Yahowah is telling all who would listen that if a person wants to live, they
should pay attention to what He has to say and then act upon His offer. And let us
not forget, everything He had to say, everything He had to offer, was contained in
its entirety in the very book He was reciting: His Towrah!
Therefore, Paul has once again deliberately abbreviated and misappropriated
a passage which is inconsistent with his own message, perhaps hoping that the use
of some common words would be sufficient to convince his audience that God
supports his position.
But in the quoted verse, God absolutely and unequivocally did not say that
the law is very different than faith, that through faith a person has life, or
even through obeying the law a person has life, or anything remotely similar to
these propositions. There isnt even a Hebrew word for obey. To shamar
observe is to examine and consider, not keep. And to asah to act and
engage is to respond to what we have learned a concept light-years removed
from obey. Moreover, neither chuqah prescriptions for living or mishpat
means offered to resolve disputes are laws. These things represent the Way
Yahowahs Towrah chayah restores and renews our lives, at least for those
who consider them and act upon them.
Yahowah, speaking in first person, said that a close examination and careful
consideration of His prescriptions for living and His means to exercise good
judgment regarding His means to resolve disputes enable those to live who
respond to what He is offering. This is, of course, the antithesis of the Christian
position.
While we are making such distinctions, it is important to realize that it is
grotesquely inappropriate to refer to Yahowahs Torah as law, as Paul does
throughout his letters. The Hebrew word towrah means source from which
teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance flow. His presentation is
educational. His witness is enlightening. He is offering guidance which we are
free to embrace or reject, so He is not controlling. Moreover, His way is not
restrictive but instead liberating.
Rabbis, like Paul (who was trained to be a Pharisee), deliberately perverted
Yahs testimony to validate their own set of laws a set of religious arguments
recorded principally in the Talmud. So by referring to the Towrah as nomos,
should he have intended for it to infer law, Paul, who was educated in Hebrew,
demonstrated that he should not be trusted.
Those who would argue that Yahowsha refers to the Towrah as nomos in
His Teaching on the Mount would be inaccurate. Yahowsha spoke Hebrew and
Aramaic, never Greek. And the Disciple Mattanyah, who was an eyewitness to
Yahowshas initial and longest public declaration, wrote his biographical account
in Hebrew. Someone, perhaps a century later, translated the Mattanyahs
declaration into Greek. Moreover, as we shall soon discover, the etymological
history of nomos is actually harmonious with the Towrahs purpose, which is to
parcel out an allotment and to bestow an inheritance, providing prescriptions
regarding how to become an heir.
Paul, however, cannot be afforded any excuse. And that is because all of
Pauls letters, including Galatians, were originally written in Greek, and there is
no mistaking the fact that he was mischaracterizing the Towrah, presenting it as a
punitive set of laws. Further, he did so in full accord with rabbinical Judaism
a religious proposition Yahowsha thoroughly rebuked.
These things known, there is much more to nomos than meets the eye of the
casual observer. The word is based upon nemo to provide, assign, and
distribute an inheritance and to nourish heirs. It is an allotment which is
bestowed and parceled out for the purpose of feeding hungry sheep.
Metaphorically then, a nomos is a prescription for living which is given to us by
God so that we might live with Him as His children, be fed and grow, inheriting
all that is His to give. So in this regard, properly defined, nomos actually
provides a fitting depiction of Yahowahs Towrah teaching, guidance,
direction, and instruction on how to participate in His Covenant Family.
Moving on to the next statement as it is presented in the Nestle-Aland, King
James Version, and New Living Translation, we find: NA: Christ us brought out
from the curse of the law having become on behalf of us a curse because it has
been written, curse on all the one having hung on wood. KJV: Christ hath
redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written,
Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (3:13)
 If either the Nestle-Aland Interlinear or the King James Version has
accurately reflected Pauls thought then, according to Shauwl, the Torah is a
curse. For this interpretation of Pauls statement to be correct, rather than
fulfilling the Torah, Yahowsha liberated us from its clutches. It also means that
Yahowsha, rather than being the perfect Lamb of God as a result of always
observing the Towrah, embodied all of the Torahs negativity.
Absolving Paul of the untenable position he has been placed in by his own
testimony, as reflected in the Nestle-Aland Interlinear and the King James
Version, the New Living Translation twists the text to convey a different
perspective: But Christ has rescued us from the curse pronounced by the law.
When he was hung on the cross, he took upon himself the curse for our
wrongdoing. For it is written in the Scriptures, Cursed is everyone who is hung
on a tree. (3:13)
To the New Living Translations shame, there is no reference to a cross
anywhere in the Greek texts, much less in this passage. To Shauwls shame, the
Torahs position should not have been abridged, misappropriated, nor misquoted.
While the Torahs prediction is profoundly accurate, and stunningly prophetic, its
merit was mitigated by the way Paul truncated it.
But first things first: here is how the Greek text of Shauwls letter reads:
Christos ( placeholder for Maaseyah [but it is unlikely in this context and
with this audience that Shauwl would have associated the Maaseyah with
Yahowah]) us (ego) bought back (exagorazomai worked to atone and
purchase; from ek, out of, and agarazo, doing business in the marketplace where
(agora) people assemble for a public debate, to buy, sell, and vote) from (ek) the
curse (katara from the evil, hateful, abhorrent, loathsome, maligning, and
malicious influence) of the (tov) Towrah (nomou the means to being nourished
by that which is bestowed to become heirs, precepts which were apportioned,
established, and received as a means to proper and be approved, and prescriptions
for an inheritance; from nemo that which is provided, assigned, and distributed
to heirs to nourish them (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)),
having become (ginomai having existed as) for our sake (hyper ego) a curse
(katara a repugnant prayer, invoking the power to harm others by wishing evil
upon them, maligning and malicious), because (hoti) it has been written (grapho
inscribed): A curse on (epikataratos being exposed to divine slander and
vengeance) all (pas) the one (o) having hung (kremamai suspended) on (epi)
wood (xylon). (Galatians 3:13)
Paulos is reaffirming his hypothesis. According to the founder of the
Christian religion, Yahowahs Torah is an abhorrent and detestable curse which
promotes evil. From Shauwls perspective, Gods Word is malicious and
repugnant. Moreover, instead of the Maaseyah Yahowsha observing the
Towrah, affirming and fulfilling it as He, Himself, attests in the 5th and 7th
chapters of Mattanyah / Matthew, according to the only self-proclaimed apostle,
God opted to engaged in a business transaction whereby He has ransomed us, not
from sin, but instead from His Torah.
It is difficult to imagine the darkness which would have to come over a
person to prompt them to promote such a demonic deception. But perhaps one
thing is becoming clear, Shauwl may well have told the truth when he admitted
to being goaded and possessed by one of Satans demons. But even then, why
would so many Christians swallow this poison?
I suppose it is because, like all spellbinding deceivers before and after him,
Paul continues to weave a few credible threads through his evil tapestry. By citing
God, Shauwls lies appear plausible.
In reality, the redemption of the Covenants children is predicated upon
Yahowsha honoring and enabling the Torahs promises. So His sacrifices apart
from the Torah are meaningless. There would have been no reason for them, nor
any benefit to be derived from His otherwise inadvertent misfortune. Unless the
Maaseyahs sacrifices served a purpose, such as fulfilling the promises of eternal
life and redemption associated with Passover and Unleavened Bread in harmony
with the Torahs instructions, His life was irrelevant. In fact, if the Torah didnt
depict Yahowahs enduring plan of salvation, then Yahowsha would have been
an egregious liar who should not have been trusted, because He said and
performed otherwise.
And thats what is so odd about all of this. Shauwl is attempting to demean
and dismiss the Towrah while pretending to speak on behalf of its Author and its
living embodiment. There is no rational way to position God in opposition to His
own teaching, especially since He not only talked the talk, He walked the walk.
The statement Shauwl misquoted also comes from the Towrah, this time
from Dabarym / Words 21:23. The passage reads: Indeed when (wa ky) it
comes to pass over time (hayah) that by association (ba) an Individual (ysh
a Man) is considered to be guilty of sins (chata mishpat it is judged, decided,
determined, and thought that He is liable for sin in order to resolve disputes)
worthy of death (maweth), and He chooses to be dispatched to the realm of
the dead (wa muwth He passively allows Himself to be slain so as to be absent
from life, completely fulfilling the penalty (hophal stem perfect conjugation
consecutive mood)), and then (wa) you decide to completely and literally
suspend Him (talah eth you want to hang Him by fastening Him (qal perfect
consecutive)) on (al) a wooden timber (ets or tree), His corpse shall not
remain overnight (lo lyn nabelah His body must not endure the night, staying
there after sunset) on the timber (al ha ets near the wooden pillar).
 Rather instead (ky truthfully and certainly), you should surely prepare
and entomb His body (qabar qabar it is essential that you place His body in a
sepulcher) on this same day (ba ha yowm ha huw). Indeed because (ky), the
One being suspended (talah the one being hanged) is the cursed and abated
of (qalalah the maligned who fades away as a result of an owth and is
diminished, slighted, and decreased (in the construct form, the abated and
diminished is being associated with and is connected with and bound to)) God
Almighty (elohym). So you should not defile (wa lo tame you should not
cause to be unclean), accordingly (eth), your soil (adamah your land, realm,
and world; from adam mankind and human nature) which relationally and
beneficially (asher) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), gave (natan
produced, offered, and bestowed) to you (la for you to approach) as an
inheritance (nahalah to become an heir). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy
21:22-23)
This is a prophetic picture of the Maaseyahs fulfillment of the Torahs
presentation of Passover. Yahowahs testimony reveals to us that Yahowsha
would be considered to be guilty of sin worthy of death, that He would be
suspended from a wooden timber, that His body would be removed from the
upright pole before the sun set, that His carcass would be prepared and placed in a
sepulcher, as opposed to being buried in the ground, and that, as a result of having
our sins associated with Him, the Maaseyahs soul would become the slighted
and diminished of God in other words it would be separated and abated in
Sheowl on Matsah. It also tells us that His body, in keeping with Yahowahs
instructions regarding Passover, would cease to exist that night.
Yahowah uses prophecies like this one, and a thousand more like it, to prove
that He inspired His Scriptures. He did this so that we would be able to trust
everything else He has to say. Only God can get every prophecy right, every time
without fail.
In Roger Millers song, King of the Road, where the refrain repeats, Im a
man of means by no means, Pauls methodology is easily exposed. By simply
separating clauses, he is creating a false impression. So turning to our example,
while the country artist sang, I am a man of means, when that statement is
disassociated from by no means, without the negation, the initial phrase isnt
just misleading, its wrong. Similarly, by no means independent of Im a man
of means could be deployed by an unscrupulous individual to negate anything in
the song. But the technique is disingenuous. And since Paul isnt misrepresenting
the sentiments of country song, but instead misappropriating the Word of God, by
falsely conveying the impression that God is affirming the disillusion of His own
lyrics, Shauwl is disrespecting both God and his audience. The former was not
amused and has put us on notice that such tactics are deceitful, deadly, and
damning, condemning Shauwl by name for using them. But what about his
audience, what about the billions upon billions of Christians? Now that you know,
what are you going to do?
Thus far we have learned that Paul cannot be trusted. We now know that the
King James Version is unreliable and inaccurate, and that the New Living
Translation isnt a translation of the Greek text, its not even a faithful paraphrase,
but is instead a novelized account, whereby its authors became storytellers. To its
credit, the NLT reads smoothly, and it tickles the ears of the evangelical Christian
audience, which is why I suppose it has become so popular. But as a study tool,
other than to affirm Christian interpretations of Pauline Doctrine, it is of no
practical use and is potentially harmful.
We have learned that Paul has misapplied and misquoted Scripture with the
intent to mislead, which is troubling. All four citations were hastily and cleverly
abridged, deliberately taken out of context, and then purposefully altered to make
it appear as if Pauls message and Gods were in sync. One time would have been
inexcusable, but removing clauses from conversations will become a bad habit, an
epidemic which many Christians have come to emulate to justify their religious
views. It is also curious, indeed telling, that when considered as a whole, each of
the four statements Shauwl cited resolutely affirmed the Torahs enduring
promise to save us. Every one of Gods declarations undermined Pauline Doctrine
and thus the Christian religion.
And that means Paulos had no respect whatsoever for his audience. He
played Christians for fools because he believed they would be easy to fool.
I do not say this to insult you if you are a Christian, but to get you to realize
that what Im suggesting is true. Shauwl was so confident that his audience,
todays Christians, wouldnt question him that he flaunted his association with
Satan in everyones face, admitting that he was not only demon possessed, but
that he had been goaded into hyperbole, into overstated exaggeration, by the
Adversarys emissary. Are you surprised? Did this catch you unaware?
It shouldnt have. After all, there have been thousands upon thousands of
sermons questioning the nature of Pauls thorn in the flesh. And yet nary a one
of Pauls advocates conveys the specific and unabashed answer Paulos, himself,
scribed in his Second of two letters to Corinth, when he infamously wrote:
Because (gar for indeed) if (ean) I might want (thelo I may decide,
desire, propose, or enjoy) to brag (dauchaomai to boast and to glorify myself)
truthfully (aletheia honestly), I would not be (ouk esomai) foolish or
imprudent (aphron acting rashly without reason, inappropriate or unjustified).
 For then (gar because) I will say (ero) I am presently abstaining
(pheidomai I am currently refraining). But (de) someone (tis) not (un)
approaching (eis) me (eme) might ponder (logizomai may have reason to
logically conclude, embrace an opinion, or hold a view) beyond (hyper over
and above and because of) what (o) he sees (blepo he will be able to view and
discern) in me (me), or (e) something (ti) he hears (akouo he listens to,
receives, pays attention to) from (ek) me (emou), (12:6) and of the (kai te so
with regard to the) extraordinary superiority of the exaggerated (hyperbole ton
preeminence and exceedingly great, transcendent, magnificent, and awe-
inspiring aspects of the overstated) revelations (apokalypsis disclosures with
the appearance of instructions concerning the unknown).
Therefore (dio it should be self evident), in order that (hina for the
purpose that) I not become overly proud and be lifted up (me hyperairomai I
not become conceited, exalting myself beyond what would be justified, so as not
to be insolent, audaciously lifting myself above the source of my inspiration),
there was given to me (didomi ego there was deposited upon me, allowing me
to experience, there was granted and entrusted to me for my advantage) a sharp
goad and troubling thorn (skolops a sharp pointed prod used to control
animals, featuring poisonous scorpions stinger) in the body (te sarx
incorporated into the flesh and as an aspect of physical animal and human nature),
a messenger (angelos a spiritual envoy or demonic spirit) of Satan (Satan a
transliteration of satan, Hebrew for the Adversary), in order to (hina so as to)
strike and restrain me (kolaphizo adversely harm, beat, and torment me,
violently mistreating me to painfully afflict, attack, buffet, and batter me; from
kolazo to prune, control, check, curb, and restrain me), so that as a result (hina)
at the present time there is the possibility that I might not be conceited,
currently exalting myself beyond what would be justified, so as not to be able
to be insolent or audacious, lifting myself up (me hyperairomai I may not be
overly proud nor excessively exalted or lifted up, overdoing it (scribed in the
present tense, meaning at this time, in the passive voice, affirming that this is
being done to him, with the subjective mood indicating that this outcome is a
mere possibility, and in the first person singular, thereby identifying Paulos as the
one being possessed and controlled). (2 Corinthians 12:6-7)
As bad as this is, and this is as bad as bad ever gets, especially if you are a
Christian and have entrusted your soul to the credibility of this mans testimony, it
may be even worse when considered from the perspective of Shauwls
conversion experience when, on the road to Damascus, he first claims to have
heard the flashing light speak to him. In a desperate attempt to prove his
qualification, and thus justify his exaggerated revelations, under oath, Paulos
testified...
 And everyone (te pas) of us (emon) having fallen down (katapipto
having descended from one level to another, lower one) to the earth (eis ten ge),
I heard (akouo I paid attention, listening, comprehending, and obeying) a voice
(phone a sound, crying out) saying to me (lego pros ego speaking according
to me) in the (te) Hebrew (Hebrais) language (dialektos), Shauwl, Shauwl
(Saoul, Saoul a transliteration of the Hebrew name, Shauwl, meaning
Question Him, a designation synonymous with Sheowl the pit of the dead),
Why (tis) are you actually pursuing me (dioko me are you following me,
really striving with such intense effort to reach me, hastening and zealously
running toward me)? Its hard (skleros its demanding and difficult, even
rough, harsh, violent, and cruel, especially offensive and intolerable) for you (soi)
to resist (laktizo to kick, to strike with the heel) against (pros) the goad
(kentron a pointed sharp stick used to prick and prod and thus control animals
featuring the stinger of a deadly scorpion with the power to ruin and kill, making
resistance vain or perilous). (Acts 26:14)
While it may be hard to believe, even this gets worse in context, because the
line It is hard to resist the goad was plagiarized from the words of the Greek
god, Dionysus the pagan deity whose doctrine became part and parcel of
Christianity. Also, at this time, and by his own admission, Shauwl was actually
following Satan. He was hastily and violently killing anyone who admitted that
Yahowsha was the Maaseyah.
So there is no way to discount this testimony, to reject Pauls admission of
guilt. His confession to the Corinthians is duly recorded in Papyrus 46, a late first,
early second-century codex. If that witness isnt reliable, the entire Christian
New Testament becomes unreliable, because there are no older or more credible
codices that P46. So if you are a Christian, you must either deal with this by
rejecting all of Pauls letters as being demonically inspired, or the whole of the
New Testament as being wholly unreliable. Or, of course, you could put your
head in the sand, and be religious which is now akin to being irrational. At this
point, you can no longer claim ignorance nor should you.
If you are still a Christian, now that it has become obvious that Paul has
played you for a fool, that he has deliberately lied to you, are you going to remain
a victim? You have the option to reject Paul, but that will mean rejecting
Christianity. So what are you going to do? Are you at least open to knowing the
truth? Can you handle the truth? Do you want the truth?
Before we move on, lets pause a moment and consider the options at our
disposal regarding Pauls Scriptural misquotes. You can ignore them if you
believe that I have misrepresented Pauls or Yahowahs statements. But this
approach is easily resolved. Flip forward to the Towrah Teaching and
Guidance chapter where every Hebrew and Greek word delineated in these
statements is presented so that you can do your own due diligence and verify the
text and the translations for yourself. Or simpler yet, just compare standard
English translations of the Scripture passage and Shauwls quotation and note the
differences.
Since the first option to dismiss this problem is a nonstarter, you can accept
the fact that the citations are different, but attribute their divergence to an
inadvertent mistake on Pauls part. But if you do, you must also abandon the
notion that Pauls letters are Scripturethe inerrant Word of God. And with that
realization, the foundation of Christianity crumbles.
You can admit that there is a pattern of malfeasance with regard to all of
Pauls Scriptural citations, and recognize that they are misquoted and then twisted
to support his agenda, which means that he intended to misrepresent them. But if
you take this path, you will be compelled to label Paul a false witness. And at that
point, Christianity becomes false yet another popular and broad path that leads
to destruction.
Since the last two options are devastating, and the initial one is invalid, you
could blame the mistakes on scribal error, suggesting that Pauls Scriptural
quotations were correct initially, but that over time copyists inadvertently
misrepresented his words, creating a false impression. But this is a slippery slope.
The oldest meaningful codex of the Christian New Testament is Papyrus 46,
which is dated between 85 and 125 CE, thirty-five to seventy-five years after this
epistle was scribed, and it contains a complete copy of most all of Pauls letters. If
it isnt reliable, then nothing in the so-called Christian New Testament is
reliableas there is only one superior witness, Papyrus 75, which covers Luke
and John, and it was scribed one-hundred years later. Therefore, if scribes
significantly altered Pauls letters during this relatively short period of time, the
list of appropriately supported and reliable New Testament books would shrink
to two: portions of Luke and John. The rest, based as they are on far less reliable
and far more recent manuscripts, would be too suspect to believe. And of course,
that would mean that the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms would still stand
unchallenged.
Or you can take the quietly popular, albeit seldom articulated, Christian
position regarding these misquotesone derived from Marcion in the early
second century. He concluded that the God who inspired the Torah was mean-
spirited, and no longer relevanta position which many Christians hold, even if
they are too timid to voice it. As such, Marcion attempted to nullify the Torah by
encapsulating it within a collection which he labeled the Old Testament, and
thus suggested that it was the will of a now deceased, or at least irrelevant, deity.
Marcion promoted the myth that Paul was the only true Apostle, and that he alone
spoke for the new and improved god of his New Testament. Pauls letters were
canonized as a result a collection that included his epistles and edited portions
of Luke and Acts. Thereby, Shauwl of Tarsus, now Paulos of Rome, was
positioned and purported to correct the errors that the old God had made. As a
result, Pauls new faith forever separated believers: from Yahowah, from the first
four statements God etched in stone, from six of His seven Invitations to be
Called Out and Meet, from the Chosen People, from the Promised Land, and from
Yahowahs WordHis Torah.
Beyond the fact that this view makes a mans opinions more important than
Gods Word, the Maaseyah Yahowshas testimony is in complete harmony with
Yahowah and it is in total conflict with Shauwls epistles. Simply stated, the
Christian position is unsupportable; it is ignorant and irrational. So perhaps the
more revealing question might be: what about you?

If I had not also been played for a fool, it would be difficult, at least now that
I know the truth, to be sympathetic. The truth is as obvious as the lie is apparent.
Our salvation is predicated upon Yahowahs testimony, not Pauls.
On the fourth page of what is erroneously referred to as the Christian New
Testament, the very first time Yahowshas testimony is recorded, He settles the
issue, removing any doubt that Shauwl / Paulos / Paul lied when he wrote in
Galatians that there was no life in the Torah. Listen...
But then (de providing a contrast), the One (o) having become the
answer (apokrinomai revealed the means to separate fact from fiction, to
distinguish between truth and deceit; from apo to separate and krino to
separate again), said (lego clarified, providing meaning using words), It has
been written (grapho it has been inscribed on a document, engraved in writing,
and recorded using letters and words), Not upon (ouk ep) bread (artos a
baked loaf of bread with yeast which aerates, food in general, that which raises up
from the ground, is elevated, or lifted up; from airo to rise up from the ground,
to take upon oneself, carry away, and carry off, removing that which had once
been associated) alone, by itself, without help (monos only by himself,
forsaken, merely, and destitute of help) will this man assuredly live (zao o
anthropos will this one man reliably conduct his life in a particular manner to
actually restore life (future middle indicative), but (alla certainly, making an
emphatic contrast) upon (epi) every (pas the whole and complete) spoken
statement (rhema verbal declaration) departing out (ekporeuomai going
forth and proceeding, leading and guiding the path of life) through (dia) the
mouth (stoma the spoken communication) of Yahowah (U a Divine
Placeholder for Yahowah). (Mattanyah / Yahowahs Gift / Matthew 4:4)
Yahowsha was debating Satan, Shauwls inspiration. The Devil, as he had
with Adam and Chawah in the Garden of Eden, was tempting Yahowsha. Using
the same ploy he had originally tested, the same strategy now on display
throughout Galatians, not so coincidently, the Adversary inverted the intent of
Gods testimony by removing it from its context and twisting it to convey the
wrong impression. Playing off of a similar circumstance, when the Children of
Yisrael were hungry in the wilderness, Satan recognized that Yahowah
miraculously fed them with mana, considered to be the bread of heaven. Now
after forty days in the wilderness, he realized that Yahowsha was hungry, so why
not turn a stone into bread and take a bite?
But this was ordinary bread, artos, bread puffed up by the deadly carbon
dioxide residue of fermenting yeast the fungus equated with religious and
political corruption. Come on, you can almost hear Satan pleading as he had
exactly 4000 years before, take a bite. Whats it going to hurt to ingest a little
corruption? Well what it would have hurt was our salvation by corrupting
Yahowsha, causing Him to be less than the perfect Passover Lamb. There was a
lot at stake.
But, unlike Chawah now just twenty years shy of six millennia ago,
Yahowsha knew the Word of God, and He cited it accurately to forestall the
temptation. It is the example we should follow. The Towrah is the antidote for
Satans poison. But of course to wield it, we first have to know it.
Yahowsha cited a passage from Dabarym, which is part of the Towrah. It was
perfectly applicable to this situation, just as it is ideally suited to resolve the
question of whether or not Paulos spoke for Yahowah when he claimed that he
denounced and destroyed the Towrah because Gods testimony was a lifeless and
enslaving curse with the power to condemn but not save. Yahowsha disagreed,
and siding with Yahowah against Shauwl, He said: Not upon bread alone, by
itself, without help will this man assuredly live, but upon every spoken
statement departing out, leading and guiding the path of life, through the
mouth of Yahowah.
Life, therefore, is a byproduct of Yahowahs statements. Whats more,
Yahowah speaks in first person in His Towrah and throughout His prophets. So
not only did Yahowahs Torah, His Prophets and Psalms represent the entire
reservoir of Godly proclamations at the time Yahowsha provided this answer, and
not only was this specific citation from the Towrah, Pauls first letter wouldnt be
written for another twenty years, excluding it from consideration. Moreover, one
of the many differences between Gods Word and Pauls epistles is that Yahowah
consistently speaks in first person in His Torah and Prophets, but it is Paul, not
God, who is found continually speaking in first person throughout the epistles.
And this is relevant because Yahowsha specifically correlated life with that which
had flowed from Yahowahs mouth. So not only was this realization the antithesis
of the Pauline style, there would be no possibility of an informed and rational
person interpreting Yahowshas statement to include anything Paul would
subsequently say or write to undermine this reality.
Yahowsha became the answer. He apokrinomai revealed the means to
separate fact from fiction, to distinguish between truth and deceit. Apokrinomai
is from apo to separate and krino to separate again. More specifically, krino
means to separate in the sense of distinguishing between fact and fiction,
discriminating between right and wrong, choosing between good and evil. To
krino is to examine and consider evidence to determine what is reliable and
proper. To krino is to exercise good judgment by separating that which can be
trusted from that which cannot. It is about discretion. It is about using our brain
to filter out the foolishness of Paul. Yahowsha was the living embodiment of the
Towrah, the Word of God in the flesh. By observing the Towrah, by acting upon
the Towrahs Guidance and by engaging in accordance with Yahowahs
Instructions, Yahowsha affirmed that the Towrah is the means to know Yahowah,
to participate in a relationship with Yahowah, to life and to salvation. So
Christians, since this was Yahowshas first recorded statement, He is leaving you
without excuse.
Now that we know that the Towrah is the antidote for Pauline Doctrine, lets
consider the passage Yahowsha cited. Here, Moseh is talking with the Children of
Yisrael after they had spent forty years in the wilderness.
And you benefited from His response (wa anah He answered you in a
way which you could choose to benefit you on an ongoing basis (in the piel stem
we are the beneficiaries of Gods answer, in the imperfect conjugation the
response provides ongoing benefits, and in the consecutive mood to which we can
choose to respond)) which is why (wa) He wanted you to be hungry (raeb He
decided you would benefit if He developed your appetite (in the hiphil stem God
brought about their longing for nutrition, in the imperfect He caused it to be
ongoing, and in the consecutive mood it was Gods will)). And so He could feed
you (wa akal so He might fulfill His desire to provide your ongoing substance,
continuously nourishing you (hiphil imperfect consecutive)) with (eth) the (ha)
mana (man a nourishing and sweet-tasting nectar from God considered to be
the bread of life; from mah an interrogative asking what is this and what does it
mean) which (asher) you did not know (lo yada you were actually and
completely unaware of (qal stem denotes reality and the perfect conjugation
indicates that which is complete)) and also (wa) your fathers (ab your
forefathers or ancestors) could not have known (lo yada) in order (maan
for the express purpose and intent) to make known to you (yada to enable you
to know and to become known (the hiphil stem reveals that God facilitated our
ability to learn, know, and understand, and the infinitive construct has the
characteristics of a verb and noun, thereby making those who seek known to
God)) that, indeed (ky truly and surely), not upon (lo al) bread (ha lechem a
baked loaf of bread with yeast and food in general; from lechem that which can
be adversarial) alone (la bad by itself, separated or isolated) shall man
continually live and actually be restored to life (chayah ha adam shall the or
this man, humankind and mankind, have life consistently and genuinely
preserved, being continually spared, nurtured, and restored (the qal stem speaks of
that which is actual and genuine, while the imperfect conjugation affirms the
continuance of life)), but (ky indeed rather) upon (al) everything (kol) which
flows out of (mowtsa which travels forth, leading and guiding every
incremental stage of a journey demonstrating the proper path through life; from
yatsa to go forth, leading us out by way of) the mouth (peh the
communication and spoken word) of Yahowah ( ) shall man continually
live and actually be restored to life (chayah ha adam shall the or this man,
humankind and mankind, have life consistently and genuinely preserved, being
continually spared, nurtured, and restored (the qal stem speaks of that which is
actual and genuine, while the imperfect conjugation affirms the continuance of
life)). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 8:3)
Unlike Paul, Yahowsha not only cited the complete statement from the
Towrah, He pulled it from a discussion which was perfectly suited to affirm Gods
guidance to answer the specific question being posed. He made the correlation
between life and Gods testimony the very path through life He, Himself, lived.
Since this is important, literally the means to life, and since the contrast
between Yahowsha and Shauwl is so considerable, lets examine Dabarym /
Words 8:3 in context. Moseh, the man Yahowah invited to scribe His Towrah, the
book Shauwl has sought to demean and discount, was reminiscing about what
they had heard, observed, learned, and experienced together over the past forty
years:
All of (kol) the terms and conditions (mitswah codicils of the covenant)
which beneficially (asher for the sake of the relationship) I (anky) have
instructed (tsawah have provided by way of directions and guidance) this day
(ha yowm) for you to genuinely choose to continuously observe (shamar for
you to want to closely examine and always carefully consider, electing to
consistently and literally focusing upon (the qal stem encourages us to literally
and actually focus, the imperfect conjugation reveals that our observations should
be ongoing and continual, and the paragogic nun ending makes our examination
volitional an thus subject to freewill)) for the purpose of approaching (la) by
actually responding and engaging (asah through acting upon, profiting from,
and celebrating what you learn) so that (maan for the intent and purpose of)
you elect to genuinely and continuously live (chayah you capitalize upon
freewill and are actually restored, your life always preserved (the qal stem reveals
that our response to what we observe literally restores our life, the imperfect
conjugation reveals that our nourishment, growth, and preservation will be
ongoing and continual, and the paragogic nun ending makes eternal life volitional
an thus subject to freewill)) and in addition (wa) you choose to be totally and
completely great, actually increasing in every possible way (rabah you can
elect to have every aspect of your nature multiplied (the qal stem affirms that this
promise to make us greater than we are is reliable, the perfect conjugation tells us
that the transformation will be complete, and the consecutive mood reveals that
we are empowered as a result of our choice to observe and respond) so that (wa)
you will be pleased to arrive (bow you will come to and be thrilled to be
completely included in (qal perfect consecutive)) and also so that (wa) you will
become an heir (yarash you will be given a complete inheritance as a child
choosing to receive all that is his or her fathers to provide (qal perfect
consecutive)) accompanied in (eth within and in accord with) the realm (ha
erets) which beneficially (asher as a result of the relationship) Yahowah
( ) promised in a sworn oath (shaba affirmed truthfully and reliably in
association with the promise inherent in seven) to (la) your fathers (ab your
ancestors and forefathers). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 8:1)
And so (wa) you should choose to literally and completely remember
(zakar you should actually want to recall every aspect of (qal stem perfect
conjunction consecutive mood) everything associated with (kol the entirety of
and every aspect of) the way (ha derek the specific path) which beneficially
(asher as a result of the relationship) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym),
walked with you (halak traveled, leading you so that you could follow Him (in
the hiphil perfect God is enabling our walk which He considers complete and
perfect)) these (zeh) forty (arbaiym a multiple of arba four, from raba
to be square, and thus to correct, right, out of dept, and in compliance) years
(shanah time of renewal and of a complete cycle of life) in the wilderness (ba
ha midbar in the desert) in order for (maan because the intent was for) you
to respond (anah you to answer), to approach (la) by exerting yourself
through the process of learning and understanding (nasah by testing and
evaluating what you had observed and experienced) to know and to become
known (la yada to recognize and realize, to acknowledge and understand)
what (eth) beneficially and relationally (asher) is in (ba) your heart (leb
your attitude, motivations, and deep-seeded emotional response) regarding
whether (ha as an interrogative) you will consistently and genuinely observe,
closely examining and carefully considering (ha shamar you would actually
and continually focus upon, scrutinize, evaluate, and prioritize) the terms and
conditions of His agreement (mitswah the authorized directions regarding His
Covenant, the written stipulations and provisions of the mutually binding
contract) or not (im lo). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 8:2)
The statement Yahowsha cited regarding bread in His defense against Satan
followed what we have just read, making it an ideal choice. The Towrah, as it
consistently does, reinforced the path to life. If you want to capitalize upon what
God is offering, listen to what God has to say. And the only way to do that is to
shamar closely examine and carefully consider, i.e., observe, His Towrah.
This would not be the only time Yahowsha would affirm this obvious reality.
Since our goal is to learn as much from God as is possible, before we thumb a
couple of pages ahead in this story, and ponder Yahowshas most declarative
statement regarding the Towrah, lets pause here in the Towrah a moment longer.
Next we find Moseh saying...
Your clothing did not wear out on you and your feet they did not swell
these forty years so that you would know, recognizing and acknowledging
(yada you would be aware and understand) with your heart (im leb in your
core), that, indeed (ky), in the manner (ka) which beneficially (asher for the
sake of the relationship) a man (iysh an individual) instructs and corrects
(yacar teaches and admonishes, providing guidance regarding that which is
potentially harmful, revealing the consequences of bad choices and behaviors
influencing) his children (beny his sons), Yahowah ( ), your God
(elohym), teaches and admonishes you, providing guidance regarding that
which is potentially harmful while revealing the consequences (yacar
instructs and corrects you so that you dont go astray and make those mistakes).
(Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 8:4-5)
And that is a summation of the Towrahs purpose. It is our Heavenly Fathers
advice to His children. It is comprised of the same kind of instruction we as
parents ought to give to our sons and daughters. It, therefore, not only provides us
with reliable guidance, it exposes us to that which is potentially harmful,
revealing the consequences of ignoring the advice.
And so since Yahowsha, Himself, the very first time He speaks to us, directs
us to this place in Yahowahs Towrah, lets take one more step in His direction.
And so (wa) you should genuinely choose of your own volition to thoroughly
and completely observe (shamar you ought to want to actually examine,
literally consider, and totally focus upon (qal perfect consecutive)) Yahowah
( ), your Gods (elohym), stipulations and provisions (mitswah terms
and conditions regarding the covenant contract) to approach (la) by walking
(halak journeying through life) in (ba) His ways (derek His paths and steps
through life), and (wa) for the purpose of coming to (la) revere and respect
(yare highly valuing) being with Him (eth). (Dabarym / Words /
Deuteronomy 8:6)
These would be Yahowahs provisions, not Pauls, stipulations rather than
leaps of faith, which enable us to approach God and to enjoy His company. And
these terms and conditions regarding the Covenant are being presented in
Yahowahs Towrah a document we are being encouraged to examine and
consider so that we can benefit from Gods guidance.
At the end of this chapter we will return to this encounter between Yahowsha
and Satan. Our purpose will be to demonstrate the strategy the Adversary
typically deploys so that we are attune to this preferred tactic as we make our way
through the corpus of Pauls letters, and especially Galatians, the Magna Carta of
Christianity. And secondarily, by considering Yahowshas response, we will learn
how we should react to similar deceptions.
But now lets rejoin the chronology presented by the Disciple Mattanyah. The
very next time we hear Yahowsha speak is in the fifth chapter. This time He isnt
negating Satans influence by debating a singular fallen spirit, but is instead
setting the stage by providing the proper perspective from which to evaluate
everything He would say and do over the course of three years. This speech to the
multitudes is known as the Sermon on the Mount. It is an ode to His Father
who is in Heaven.
Yahowshas presentation is especially germane considering Pauls claim to
have been authorized by Yahowsha to assault and annul the Towrah. So to
determine whether or not such a mandate was possible, lets examine Yahowshas
statements regarding the enduring authority of the Towrah during His Sermon on
the Mount.
The human manifestation of God is translated from Hebrew to Greek and
then to English saying:
You should not think or assume (me nomizomai you not consider,
expect, nor suppose at any time even the possibility of the commonly held or
popularly established presumption, never accepting the prevailing precept or
justification (negative particle, aorist active subjunctive verb)) that (hoti
namely) I actually came (erchomai I in fact appeared then, now, or in the future
(aorist active indicative)) to tear down, invalidate, put an end to, or discard
(kataluo to dissolve, destroy, disunite, subvert, overthrow, abrogate, weaken,
dismantle, or abolish, releasing or dismissing any of the implications, force,
influence, or validity of) the Towrah (ton nomon that which has been assigned
to nourish and provide an inheritance) or the Prophets (e tous prophetes those
who are inspired to speak and write based upon divine inspiration, making Gods
thoughts and plans known even before they happen).
I actually came not (ouk erchomai) to create a division, to dismiss, to
invalidate, or to discard (kataluo to tear down, to dissolve, to destroy, to
disunite, to subvert, to overthrow, to abrogate, to weaken, to dismantle, or to
abolish, dismissing any implication or its influence), but instead (alla to the
contrary, emphatically contrasting that to the certainty), to completely fulfill
(pleroo to proclaim and complete, conveying the true meaning and thinking, to
liberally supply, carrying out, accomplishing, and rendering it totally and
perfectly). (5:17)
Because (gar for this reason then so that you understand) in deed and in
truth (amen truly and reliably), I say to you (lego sy), until (hoes up to the
point that) with absolute certainty (an) the heaven and the earth (o ouranos e
ge the universe and the surface of the planet) cease to exist (parerchomai pass
away, disappearing), not ever under any circumstance shall (ou me there is no
way whatsoever, not even so much as a possibility that) one aspect of the
smallest letter (eis iota shall a single Yowd, the first letter in Yahowahs name
and the smallest character in the Hebrew alphabet) nor (e) a single stroke of the
pen (mia keraia one of the smallest line distinguishing any aspect of any
Hebrew letter) cease to be relevant (parerchomai be averted or neglected, have
any chance of being ignored or disregarded, being passed over or omitted,
perishing) from (apo being disassociated, separated, or severed from) the
Towrah (tou nomou that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an
inheritance) until with absolute certainty (hoes an) everything (pas every last
aspect, all and the totality of it) might take place (ginomai happens and occurs,
becoming a reality). (5:18)
Therefore (oun indeed and as a result), whoever may at any time (hos ean
if at any moment anyone introduces a contingency or condition whereby
individuals) dismiss or attempt to do away with (luo may seek to toss aside,
invalidate, or abolish, tearing away or asunder) one of the (mian ton) smallest
and least important of these (houtos ton elachistos) prescriptions and
instructions which are enjoined (entole rules, regulations, and authorized
directions, precepts, and teachings), and (kai) he may instruct or indoctrinate
(didasko he might teach, delivering moralizing discourses while conceiving and
instilling doctrine, expounding or explaining so as to enjoin) people (anthropos
humanity or mankind) in this manner (houto thusly and likewise), he will
actually be provided the name and will be judicially and legally summoned as
(kaleo he will be referred to and called by the proper name, literally and
passively summoned, called to task and designated), Little and Lowly (elachistos
Paulos in Latin, meaning: small and inadequate, insignificant and insufficient,
irrelevant and unimportant, immaterial and inconsequential (Paulos, the Latin
name Shauwl adopted as his own means elachistos little and lowly)) by the
kingdom of heaven (en te basileia ton ouranos by, within, among, and with
regard to the reign and royal authority of the heavens).
And then (de but by contrast), whosoever (hos an) might act upon it
(poieomai may engage through it, making the most of it, attempting to carry out
its assigned tasks (aorist active subjunctive)), and (kai) teach it (didasko try to
provide and share its instructions, expounding upon it), this (houtos these
things) will properly be referred to and named (kaleo it will be judiciously
and appropriately called and designated) great and important (megas
astonishingly valuable, splendid and sensible, albeit surprisingly uncommon)
among those who reign within the heavens (en te basileia ton ouranos by and
with regard to the kingdom and royal authority of the heavens). (Mattanyah /
Yahowahs Gift / Matthew 5:19)
That was as unequivocal as it was opposed to the Christian traditions Paulos
contrived. To discount or discard any aspect of the Torah, an individual such as
Paulos has to contradict Yahowsha. And it is irrational for anyone to claim to
have been granted authorization to speak on behalf of an individual when their
message is contradictory.
If Yahowsha told the truth, the notion of a New Testament is torn asunder
because His original testimony is still in vogue. And based upon this statement,
Pauls letters which seek to invalidate the Towrah must be discarded.
But if Yahowsha cannot be trusted, then nor can Paul, because he would be
speaking on behalf of a liar. In fact, if Yahowsha cannot be trusted, then the
whole New Testament has to be rejected, because it claims to chronicle
Yahowshas words and deeds.
Neither option is acceptable if you are a Christian. With regard to the
religions veracity, it actually does not matter if this statement from Yahowshas
most famous and well-attended public pronouncement is valid or invalid, properly
recorded or misrepresented. If His uncompromising declaration before the largest
audience He would ever address, a speech chronicled by His most literate
Disciple, isnt reliably conveyed, then nothing the Greek manuscripts claim to
document can be considered credible. And if Yahowshas words were accurately
translated into Greek and then responsibly retained, then there is no possibility
whatsoever that the Christian religion is reliable, because it is in complete and
irreconcilable conflict with the letters which comprise the words of the Towrah.
As a Christian, you cannot discount this statement without discounting
Yahowshas testimony. And the moment that is done, everything crumbles. But on
the other hand, to believe Him, you have to reject Christianity.
 Equally telling, especially since the Prophets were included, the majority of
Yahowahs prophecies, including His return and His ultimate renewal and
restoration of the Covenant with Yisrael and Yahuwdah, have not yet happened,
and the heavens and earth remain. Therefore, the Torah still stands. Now thats
something for Christians to think about, especially considering the subject and
speaker. Therefore, as a Christian reading this, since you are no longer ignorant of
this proclamation, your only options are to reject Christianity or be irrational. And
what do you suppose the merits might be of believing in something which is
irrational?
Since we are now undeniably aware of Yahowshas assessment of those who
attempt to dismiss and discard any portion of the Torah, and that He referred to
such attempts as Paulos, how can we consider Pauloss attempt to demean and
devalue the Towrah favorably? In this light, how is it that he convinced the world
that God had authorized him to do precisely what Yahowshas just testified should
not, and could not, be done? Said another way, is there any chance whatsoever
that God inspired, even condoned and endorsed, the writings of a man who
invalidated His Torah in view of this statement by Yahowsha? Do Christians
honestly believe that Paul can contradict God and still be trusted?
I realize that we have just begun our investigation, and that apart from the
four derogatory statements we have thus far considered, where Paul referred to
the Towrah as a curse, something abhorrent, repugnant, and malicious, and where
he claimed that absolutely no one could be saved by the Towrah, I have not yet
validated the assertion that Paul claimed to have destroyed and discarded the
Towrah after dissolving and dismantling it. So while we will cover all of this in
great detail, suffice it to say for now...
Having come to realize without investigation or evidence that by no
means whatsoever is made righteous or vindicated, man out of acting upon
the Towrah if not by faith in Iesou Christou, and we to Christon Iesoun,
ourselves, believed in order for us to be acquitted out of faith in Christou,
and not out of acting upon the Towrah, because out of works of the Towrah
not any flesh will be acquitted, vindicated, nor be made righteous. (2:16)
Because if that which I have actually torn down, dissolved, and
dismantled, invalidated, abolished, negated, abrogated, discarded, and
completely destroyed, this on the other hand I restore or reconstruct,
strengthening and promoting this edifice, I myself, bring into existence, and
recommend transgression and disobedience. (2:18) I then, because of the
Towrah, actually died and was separated in order that to God I might
currently live. In Christo I have actually been crucified together with. (2:19)
 O ignorant and irrational, foolish and senseless, unintelligent and
unreasonable, Galatians. To whom you bewitched, deceived, and slandered?
(3:1) This alone I want to learn from you: out of accomplishments of the
Towrah the spirit you received or alternatively out of hearing of belief? (3:2)
In this way, you are ignorant and irrational, lacking in knowledge and unable
to think logically. Having begun with spirit, now in flesh you are completing?
(3:3) So much and so long these things you suffered, you were affected and
you were vexed and annoyed without reason or result, even chaotically
without a plan. If indeed also thoughtlessly and for nothing without cause,
reason, or result. (3:4) The one, therefore then, supplying you the spirit and
causing to function and operating powers in you out of acting upon and
engaging in the tasks delineated in the Torah or out of hearing faith? (3:5)
Indeed, consequently, the Torah accordingly is against and contrary to
the promise of the god. Not may it be (It might be, although I dont want it to
be). For if, per chance, had been given the Torah the power and ability, the
capacity and resources, to impart life, certainly in the Torah would be the
righteous and vindicated. (3:21) To the contrary, emphatically and certainly,
written scripture imposed restrictions, completely shutting the door on
heaven, imprisoning everything under error and evil in order that the
promise out of the faith of Iesou Christou might be given to believers. (3:22)
But before the to come of the faith, under the control of the Towrah, we were
actually being held in custody as prisoners, restricted and trapped like fish in
a net, to the bringing about of faith was revealed. (3:23) As a result, the
Towrah has come to exist as our disciplinarian, a pedagogue which instructs
in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using strict, old-fashioned
methods with an overbearing demeanor by smiting and stinging those it
enslaves, extending until Christon in order that by means of the faith, or a
belief system, we might, at some point in time, while doing nothing ourselves,
be justified, with the possibility of someday being vindicated as a result of
being influenced. (3:24) But now having come the faith-based system of
belief, no longer do we exist under an old fashioned and strict disciplinarian
whose methods are antiquated and overbearing, even harsh. (3:25)
This is a literal translation, word for word as the text of Galatians actually
reads in Greek, something that will be conclusively demonstrated in due time. So
it sounds course and disjointed because it is poorly written. But if you look
beyond the sorry prose for a moment and consider the content, there is no
mistaking the fact that Paul is claiming that he has invalidated and destroyed the
Towrah because he views Gods testimony as inept, incompetent, and ineffective,
even old fashioned, mean spirited, and enslaving. He is also claiming to have
replaced the arcane and impotent Towrah with the faith of Iesou Christou,
which is now wholly suspect due to the testimony of said individual.
Indirectly incriminating Shauwl, a man who not only dismissed the Towrah,
but who also claimed to be a Rabbi and Pharisee, in addition to being a religious
expert, scholar, and writer, please consider what Yahowsha said next: For
indeed (gar because then), I say to you all (lego umin I actually affirm and
personally explain to you all (present active indicative)), that unless
conditionally (hoti ean because if) your (umon) righteousness, integrity, and
standing in the relationship (dikaiosyne acceptability of your thinking and
state of approval, upright nature accuracy of your understanding) is abundantly
superior to and immanently more appropriate than (perisseuo polys could
be considered vastly more abounding and greatly in excess of) the religious
teachers, experts, scribes, and scholars (ton Grammateus government
officials, politicians, public servants, reporters, writers, clerks, lawyers, and
judges), and Pharisees (Pharisaios members of a fundamentalist political and
religious party comprised of hypocritical Jews who coveted authority, were
overtly religious, set rules which others had to abide by, established religious
rituals and traditions, and interpreted Scripture to their liking), you will
absolutely never move into nor experience (ou me eiserchomai eis there is no
chance whatsoever that at any time you might ever do something which may
cause you to enter into (aorist active subjunctive)) the realm of the heavens (ten
basileia ton ouranos the sovereignty of the kingdom of the abode of God).
(Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 5:20)
Since we are still in the infancy of our study, it is still a bit presumptuous to
conclude that Pauls overall intent was to foreclose the Torah in order to promote
his new faith. And yet the translations of the Galatians passages we considered
suggest that Christian theologians are justified in their interpretation of Pauls
message when they cite this letter as evidence that he believed that the Torah was
an outdated and restrictive burden which had to be replaced with a much simpler
and accommodating approach. But why is it that not one Christian scholar has the
character, courage, or intellectual integrity to say that Pauls position, if Christians
have interpreted it correctly, is diametrically opposed to Yahowshas testimony on
life and the Towrah, as well as in direct conflict with Gods Word?
Speaking to those who are willing to invest the time required to actually
know Yahowah, to those who actively seek to learn the truth, to those willing to
engage in the process which leads to admission into Gods home, Yahowsha
provided a set of instructions which completely undermines the ignorance of blind
faith...
You should ask (aiteo at the present time it is desirable for everyone act
on their own initiative to earnestly request information, knowledge, and answers
(present active imperative second person plural)) and (kai as a logical
connective conjunction relates the flow of thought from one thing to another
while expressing the logical relationship between them) it will be given (didomi
in the future this will reliably produce the desired result (future passive indicative
third person)) to you (umin two or more of you or you all).
You should seek (zeteo at the present time it is desirable for everyone act
on their own initiative to attempt to find information, searching for knowledge
and answers (present active imperative second person plural)) and (kai
expressing the logical relationship) you will actually receive the discovery
(heuriskomai you will receive an education, you will be the beneficiary of
finding reliable learning, facilitated and aided in the process attaining the
information (future passive indicative third person)).
You should knock (krouo at the present time it is desirable for everyone act
on their own initiative to physically demonstrate and announce their presence at
the door desiring acceptance and admittance (present active imperative second
person plural)) and (kai expressing a logical relationship) it will be opened
(anoigo entry into the midst will be provided (future passive indicative third
person)) to you (umin). (7:7)
For then (gar because and for this reason) universally the one asking (pas
o aiteo without exception, the individual actively engaging is transformed and
(present active participle nominative)) receives (lambano he is selected and is
grasped by the hand (present active indicative)), (kai) the one seeking (zeteo
earnestly trying to obtain information though personal interaction so as to learn
(present active participle nominative)) actually finds (heuriskomai genuinely
participates in the discovery and receives an education from the information
(present active indicative)), and (kai) the one knocking (krouo the one
demonstrating and announcing his presence at the door desiring acceptance will
be given and granted what he seeks so (present active participle dative)) it will be
opened (anoigo access to understanding and entry into the midst will be
provided (future passive indicative third person)). (7:8)
This is wholly consistent with Yahowahs Towrah guidance where God
constantly encourages us to observe, which is to closely examine and carefully
consider, His instructions, especially the provisions associated with the Covenant,
and to listen to His prescriptions for living, so that we can act upon what we
discover and thereby come to be invited into His Home. This, however, is the
antithesis of Pauls proposition which is salvation through faith. Gods method
requires us to learn and then engage. But with faith, both the process and response
would be unnecessary, even counterproductive.
 Gods next statement is also hostile to Christianity, because Yahowsha is
directing our attention not to Himself, but instead to Yahowah, to our Heavenly
Father, and to the Fathers gift, which is found in the Towrah. But beyond this, by
juxtaposing these thoughts, Yahowsha is also revealing where we should look to
find the door to seek acceptance. He is even contrasting the merits of Yahowahs
testimony, His offer and promises, and the statements and promises of a man. He
is saying this in hopes that we will accept Yahowahs salvation promises instead
of promises promoted by a man, and that man almost certainly being Paul.
Should you be considering an alternative (e by comparison (scribed as a
logical disjunctive, a conjunction which provides a logical contrast between
opposites)), what (tis) man (anthropos) currently exists (estin is now actively
becoming (present tense nominative singular masculine)) from among you (ek
umon) whom (hos) when his son (o huios autos) asks for (aiteo will request
sometime in the future (future active indicative)) a loaf of bread (artos aerated
and thus yeasted bread), (me forming a question) will he give him (epididomi
autos will he hand to him) a stone (lithos a rock used for sealing graves or
making millstones)? (7:9)
Or should you be considering an alternative (kai e by comparison
(scribed as a logical disjunctive, a conjunction which provides a logical contrast
between opposites)), when he asks for (aiteo he actually will request (future
active indicative)) a fish (ichthys), (me forming a question) will hand him
(epididomi autos will he give to him) a snake (ophis a serpent which is
symbolic of Satan)? (7:10)
If (ei introducing a condition which must occur or be met before the
resulting event can be manifest), therefore (oun), you all (umeis) presently and
actively being (ontes currently existing and in the process of being (present
active participle)) troublesome and morally corrupt (poneros seriously
flawed, evil and annoying, blind and diseased) have in the past been familiar
with and have actually known how (oida have perceived and have shown that
you are genuinely aware of, having recognized how (perfect (a completed action
in the past) active indicative)) to give (didomi to provide) good and beneficial
(agathos moral, generous, and useful) gifts (doma presents) to your children
(tois umon teknon to your descendants and offspring), how much more by
contrast will (posos mallon) your Father (o umon pater), the One in the
Heavens (o en tois ouranos), actually give (didomi personally respond to
reliably produce, grant, and bestow (future active indicative)) something good,
moral, generous, and beneficial (agathos that which is upright and worthy,
capable and substantial, valuable and kind) to those asking Him (tois aiteo auton
actively responding to Him making a request of Him (present active
participle))? (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:11)
 So if Paulos is offering the gift of faith, and Yahowah is offering the gift of
the Covenant, which offer do you suppose might be more beneficial and capable,
more generous and substantial? And since this follows a presentation on asking
and seeking, do you suspect that Yahowsha is indicating where we ought to look
to find something which is reliably good, valuable, and kind? And since the
answers to these questions are obvious, why do Christians, who claim that their
religion is based upon Yahowsha, ignore this and turn to Paul instead? In light of
this, how did Shauwl manage to convince them that the Towrah was anything but
good, generous, capable, or beneficial?
Anything (pas everything), therefore (oun then), to whatever to the
degree or extent (ean hosos whenever and as far as) you might want or may
enjoy (thelo you might decide or presently desire, you may propose or be of the
opinion or currently think something might be so, perhaps personally being fond
of or taking pleasure in your will, your intent and your purpose (present active
subjunctive)) as a result of (hina that) men being human (oi anthropos
individuals representing mankind and humankind (nominative plural)) doing to
you (poieo umin actively attempting to perpetrate this against you, fashioning
and assigning these things with regard to you, trying to make you do them
(present active subjunctive dative)), also (kai) in this way (houto likewise in
this manner, thusly) you (umeis) should choose to actively do to them (poieomai
autois you may elect to perform and behave unto them (present active
imperative)).
This (houtos) then (gar for this reason) actually and presently is (estin
exists as) the Torah (o nomos becomes the means to being nourished by that
which is bestowed to become heirs, existing as the precepts which were
apportioned, established, and received as a means to prosper and to be approved,
and prescriptions for an inheritance; from nemo that which is provided,
assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them (nominative)) and the Prophets
(kai oi prophetes). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:12)
The moral here is that since we dont want a millstone, a premature burial, a
poisonous snake, or a serpent representing Satan given to us by men or by their
institutions, and would be vastly better served with Yahowahs good, generous,
and beneficial gift, we ought to offer our fellow man access to Gods gift
providing them with the valuable and kind offer found in our Heavenly Fathers
Towrah and Prophets.
Since context is the mothers milk of understanding, remember that
Yahowsha has been encouraging us to knock at a certain door, seeking admission,
and He has spoken of our Heavenly Fathers gift being especially valuable. He
has deliberately and decisively associated this especially good and generous gift
with Yahowahs Towrah and Prophets.
 Cognizant of this context, and especially noting the realization that the last
statement is as appropriate used as a conclusion to the discussion regarding the
relative value of mans offers compared to Gods, as it is in introducing the
narrow doorway which leads to life, and therefore speaking of Passover, lets
repeat that conclusion now as an introduction...
This (houtos) then (gar for this reason) actually and presently is (estin
exists as) the Torah (o nomos becomes the means to being nourished by that
which is bestowed to become heirs, existing as the precepts which were
apportioned, established, and received as a means to prosper and to be approved,
and prescriptions for an inheritance; from nemo that which is provided,
assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them (nominative)) and the Prophets
(kai oi prophetes):
Under the auspices of freewill, you all should choose at some point in
time to enter, personally engaging by moving (eiserchomai at a moment in
time you ought to want to personally act by electing to go in, beginning the
journey by choosing to experience (aorist active imperative)) through (dia by
way of and on account of) the narrow, specific, seldom-tread, and exacting
door (tes stenos pule the doorway with strict requirements which is highly
restrictive, the passageway which is unpopular and seldom walked, an
infrequently-trodden gateway whereby a stand will be taken to enable others to
stand, to be firmly established, and to be upheld (note: stenos is based upon
histemi which provides the concluding insights)) because (hoti for the reason
that namely) broad, man-made, and crafted to be wide open (platys molded,
malleable, plastic, and easily crafted and plied, a wide and artificial thoroughfare;
from plasso formed and molded by man, serving as the basis of plastic) is the
door (pule is the gate) and spacious (eurychoros as encompassing as nations,
widely regional, and broadly societal; sharing a base with eusebeia especially
religious, speaking of belief systems and their devout and pious practices) is the
way (e hodos is the path and journey, the popular way through life, the well
traveled road and route, the common course of conduct) which misleads and
separates (e apago that takes away, leading through deception; from ago
directs, leads, and guides to apo separation) into (eis) utter destruction
(apoleia needlessly squandering and ruining the valuable resource of ones
existence, causing it to perish; from apollumi to be put entirely out of the way,
to be rendered useless and to be abolished, coming to an end and ceasing to exist),
and a great many (kai polys the vast preponderance, an enormous number, and
to a very great degree, serving as a superlative of great, many, much, and a large
number) are those (eisin are actually the ones (present active indicative)) who
are influenced into moving while suffering the consequences of entering (oi
eiserchomai who as a result of being acted upon are affected by taking the first
step toward and then going in, manipulated in the process of beginning a journey
while experiencing the effect of going out (present middle passive participle
nominative)) through it (dia autos by way of it). (7:13)
Certainly (tis it is certain that), the specific doorway has strict
requirements, it is narrow, seldom-tread, and it is an exacting passageway (e
stenos pule the doorway is highly restrictive, the passageway is unpopular and
infrequently walked whereby a stand is taken to enable others to stand, to be
firmly established, and to be upheld), and it completely goes against the crowd
to the point of persecution (kai thlibomai it is so totally unpopular the past act
influences the future to the point of hardship and harassment, even to oppression
and affliction (perfect passive participle nominative)), the one way (e e hodos
the specific journey through life, the singular route and the path) which leads,
separating those guided (apago) unto (eis) life (zoe vigorous and flourishing
living, the fullness of a restored and active existence), but (kai) very few (oligos
an extremely small quantity over a very short time) are those (eisin o exist the
ones) finding it (heuriskomai autos presently learning and actively discovering
the location of it, themselves experiencing it). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew
7:14)
This may be the single most devastating declaration ever made against
religion. The one thing religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism,
Islam, and Socialist Secular Humanism have in common is that they are very
popular. A great many people have placed their faith in them, ranging from tens of
millions to many billions. But Yahowsha, the diminished manifestation of God,
just said that the popular ways are not only artificial and manmade, they lead to
destruction, needlessly squandering countless souls. And while this statement is
only catastrophic to Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, and Socialist Secular
Humanism when Yahowshas divine credentials are established, there is no out for
Christianity. Based upon this declaration alone in the midst of the Sermon on the
Mount, the moment Constantine made the Christian religion the official faith of
the Roman Empire, there was no longer any hope that it could be the path to life.
It must, therefore, be one of the many ways which lead to destruction.
Now, dont misunderstand. Yahowsha did not say that Christianity was
destructive because its popular, but only that the path to life is unpopular.
Christianity is deadly because it is based upon Shauwls man-made and artificial
path.
I am not trying to rub salt into an open wound if you are still a Christian, but I
would be remiss if I didnt remind you that Yahowah specifically revealed that
there would be a broad path, a duplicitous and improper way, associated with
Shauwl. As a result, Christianity is the plague of death being predicted in these
words...
 Pay attention, he will be puffed up with false pride. His soul, it is not
right nor straightforward in him. So, through trust and reliance, by being
firmly established and upheld by that which is dependable and truthful,
those who are upright and vindicated live.
Moreover, because the intoxicating wine and inebriating spirit of the
man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal is a high-minded moral
failure, and his is arrogant and meritless presumption, he will not rest, find
peace, nor live, whoever is open to the broad path, the duplicitous and
improper way, associated with Shauwl.
He and his soul are like the plague of death. And so those who are
brought together by him, receiving him, will never be satisfied. All of the
Gentiles will gather together unto him, all of the people from different races
and nations in different places.
But they do not ask questions, any of them, about him. Terse references
to the word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, with implied associations that
mock, controlling through comparison and counterfeit, along with allusive
sayings with derisive words arrogantly conveyed.
There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him,
and double dealings to be known regarding him. So they should say, Woe to
the one who claims to be great so as to increase his offspring, acting like a
rabbi, when neither apply to him. For how long will they make pledges based
upon his significance, becoming burdened by his testimony? (Chabaquwq /
Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:4-6)
In context, Yahowsha has identified the Torah as Gods gift and as the lone
path to life. He said that all other paths lead to destruction, needlessly
squandering a persons existence. So there is no getting around the fact that this
means that popular pathsand there are none more popular than Christianity
lead to the death and destruction of those who follow their edicts. This is a
profoundly important truth few Christians consider. And yet it is the reason, the
only reason, we are examining Paul and his letter to the Galatians.
As an interesting aside, Yahowshas instructions regarding eternal life tell us
to begin by entering through a specific doorway. And that is because the first of
seven steps to our salvation begins by answering Yahowahs invitation to walk
through the doorway labeled Passover. This doorway, featuring the blood of the
Passover Lamb, initiated the exodus from the crucible of Egypt, and the liberation
of Gods Chosen People from their enslavement in oppressive human political and
religious schemes. It represents the doorway to Gods home. And Yahowsha, as
the Passover Lamb, is the living embodiment of this doorway, representing the
first of seven steps to the final result, which is living with God in His home.
 Also relevant, the reason that there are strict requirements associated with
this specific doorway is because it is only available to the Children of the
Covenant. And to participate in this family relationship with our Heavenly Father,
we engage by accepting five very specific conditions.
Yahowsha was not yet finished warning Christians about the consequence of
disregarding the Torah. With these words, He would tell everyone willing to listen
to Him not to trust Paul:
At the present time you all should be especially alert, being on guard by
closely examining and carefully considering, thereby turning away from
(prosechete apo you all should choose to beware, presently paying especially
close attention, actively and attentively watching out for and guarding yourself
against so as to separate yourself from (present active imperative)) the false
prophets (ton pseudoprophetes those pretending to be divinely inspired
spokesmen, from pseudo deliberately false, lying, deceitful, and deceptive and
prophetes one who speaks of hidden things, declaring what he claims to have
received from God) who (hostis) come to you, currently appearing before you
(erchomai pros umas who approach you, moving toward or up to you, making
public appearances or statements against you (the present tense reveals that the
false prophet is currently in their midst, the middle voice indicates that he is self-
motivated, that his statements are affecting him, and that the more assertive he
becomes the more he is influenced by his aggressiveness and claims (i.e., one lie
leads to another), while the indicative mood affirms that this is actually
occurring)) from within (esothen as an insider and thus from the same race,
place, or group) by (en) dressing up in sheeps clothing (endyma probaton
cloaked in the outer garments of sheep (note: the root of probaton is probaino to
go beyond, to go farther and forward, to go on and on, overstepping ones
bounds)), yet (de but) they actually are (eisin they correspond to, represent,
are similar to, and exist without contingency as (present active indicative))
exceptionally self-promoting, self-serving, and swindling (harpax vicious,
carnivorous, and thieving, robbing, extorting, and destructive, ferocious,
rapacious, and snatching; extracting and compelling under duress; from harpazo:
to violently, forcibly, and eagerly claim and then seize for oneself so as to pluck
and carry away; itself a derivative of haireomai to take for oneself, choosing to
be)) wolves (lykos fierce individuals under dangerous pretenses who are vicious,
cruel, greedy, destructive, overreaching, voracious, avaricious, acquisitive, and
insatiable men impersonating beasts of prey). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew
7:15)
The first word in this statement, prosechete, is a compound of pros to
ones advantage with respect to or towards someone or something and echo
that which is accepted, grasped unto, held, possessed, considered, or regarded,
often addressing groups, organizations, or institutions a person might join, attend,
participate in, or congregate amongst. Therefore, by juxtaposing prosechete a
cautionary and guarded examination and consideration of pseudoprophetes
false prophets and the prosechete institutions they would have you embrace
and join, with apo disassociation and separation, Yahowsha told us to walk
away from religious organizations like churches.
Further implicating Paulos, while he got his lone prediction wrong when he
misrepresented the Taruwah Harvest and claimed in his first letter to the
Thessalonians that the harpazo snatching away, or rapture would occur during
his lifetime (1 Thessalonians 4:17), thereby making him a false prophet by any
standard, pseudoprophetes is less about errantly predicting the future than it is
indicative of someone who deliberately deceives by falsely claiming to have
been inspired by God. Therefore, because Shauwls message is consistently
deceitful, it is overwhelmingly obvious that he lied about his inspiration.
Also, this admonition was recorded in the present tense, which is to say that
the pseudoprophetes was present, currently lurking in their midst. That is relevant
because according to Shauwl, he was in this very place at this very time, learning
to be religious at a school for rabbis. And since the only false prophet of any
significance during this time and in this place is also the most significant false
prophet of all time, there is no mistaking Shauwl as the wolf in sheeps clothing.
That is not to say that there werent other Jews who led people astray in the
name of religion. Rabbi Akiba shaped Judaism into the religion which is practiced
today, but he never claimed to be a prophet and he lived a full century later.
Maimonides, the man who codified Judaisms thirteen pillars, wasnt a prophet
either, and he wrote over one millennia later in Islamic Egypt, not Yisrael.
Constantine, the warring founder of Roman Catholicism in the early fourth
century, could never be mistaken for a lamb. He wasnt a prophet, and he was
neither a Christian nor a Jew, so he too would be disqualified for many reasons.
Therefore, who else other than Paulos and his associates meet this criterion?
But there is more. By Yahowahs definition, Shauwl, as a Benjamite,
qualified as a wolf. Paulos claimed to be from the tribe of Benjamin in Romans
11:1: For indeed, I am an Israelite, from the seed of Abraham, from the tribe
of Benjamin (Beniamin a transliteration of the Hebrew Benyamyn).
And then this heads up from God: Benjamin is a wolf viciously tearing
apart, continually mangling and actually killing, plucking the life out of his
victims, in the early part of the day, consistently devouring his prey, and
during the dark of night at the end of the day, he divides and destroys,
apportioning and distributing that which has been spoiled. (Baresyth / In
the Beginning / Genesis 49:27)
 While there were many Benjamites, there is only one man known to have
publicly proclaimed to have been from the tribe of Benjamin who was present in
Yaruwshalaim during the time Yahowsha delivered His Instruction on the Mount.
Beyond this, Shauwl, who was learning to be a rabbi at the time, also admitted to
faking his true identity, which is the very essence of a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Proof of Pauls willingness to change his outward appearance to take advantage of
an unsuspecting audience is found in this confession...
And (kai) I became (ginomai) to the (tois) Jews (Ioudaios a crude
transliteration of Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yahowah) like (hos) Jews
(Ioudaios) in order that (hina) I might make a profit by procuring an
advantage over (kerdaino) Jews (Ioudaios).
To those (tois) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), in such a way to show a
weak relationship (hos) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), not being himself (me
on autos) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), for the purpose that (hina) those
under (tous hypo) Towrah (nomon) I might make a profit by procuring an
advantage over (kerdaino). (1C9:20)
To those (tois) Towrahless and thus without the Towrah (anomois), in
such a way to show a weak relationship with (hos) Towrahless (anomois), not
being (me on) Towrahless (anomois) of God (theou), to the contrary and
making a contrast (alla), in the Torah (ennomos) of Christou (Christou
foolishly transliterated from the Greek as Christ and errantly used as if a name;
from chrio which speaks of the application of drugs and medicinal ointments) in
order that (hina) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage and
winning over (kerdaino) those without the Towrah (tous anomois). (1C9:21)
I came to exist (ginomai) to the (tois) unable and morally weak (asthenes),
incapacitated and inadequate (asthenes), in order that (hina) those (tous)
impotent and sick (asthenes) I might make a profit by procuring an
advantage over (kerdaino).
To everyone (tois pasin) I have become (ginomai) every kind of thing
(panta) in order that (hina) surely by all means (pantos) some (tinas) I might
save (sozo). (1 Corinthians 9:20-22)
Even Machiavelli, the man who postured the immoral notion that the end
justifies the means, wasnt this belligerent. And youll notice, Paulos is asserting
that he is the savior, able to save anyone and everyone. This, of course, would be
in direct conflict with God, in tactics, capability, and numbers.
While the combination of Gods warnings and Pauls admissions are
devastating, leaving Shauwl and his associates as the only viable and known
potential culprits, there was a subtlety in Yahowshas depiction of the wolf. He
described the predator using a derivative of the same term Paulos selected to
present his harpazo rapture. It was such an odd choice for Paul, especially
considering its negative connotations that by being translated using it in His
public declaration, God gave us yet another clue regarding the identity of this
wolf in sheeps clothing.
I dont suppose that Yahowsha could have made His message any clearer for
us. He told us we could rely upon the Towrah and then He told us whom we
should not trust, revealing that a self-serving insider would feign an alliance with
Him so that he could more easily snatch souls away from God. He, of course, was
speaking about Pauland those who have allied themselves with him.
This is especially poignant, because on another occasion Yahowsha spoke of
the comparative influence He would have versus Paulos. Gods statement is one
of the reasons that I consider Paul to be the most influential (albeit not in a
positive way) man who ever lived. Yahowsha revealed: I (ego), Myself, have
come (erchomai I have shown Myself, appearing and becoming manifest) in the
name (en to onoma with the one and only name belonging to the person and
reputation (dative singular)) of the Father (tou pater the masculine archetype
parent of the family) of Mine (mou), and yet (kai) you do not receive Me (ou
lambano me you do not actually accept Me nor grasp hold of Me, you do not
choose or prefer Me, and thus you do not take hold of My hand nor take
advantage of and experience Me). But when (ean on the condition whenever)
another (allos completely different individual and entity) comes (erchomai
might appear, showing himself, and coming forth, presenting himself) in his own
name (en to onoma to idio with his own individual, unique, and distinctive,
private, and personal name), that individual (ekeinos that lone and specific
man, him, then and there (the demonstrative singles out the individual, the
accusative associates this man and name, while the singular masculine limits this
to a single male individual)) you all will actually receive (lambano you will all
accept, choose, and prefer). (Yahowchanan / Yah is Merciful / John 5:43)
Considering how often the founder of the Christian religion wrote: but I
Paulos say..., its a wonder more people dont recognize him as the one who not
only came in his own name, one that he actually chose for himself, but also as the
one so many would receive. Paulos even said imitate me. He wrote: if
someone teaches in opposition to what I say let him be accursed. He was not
only fixated on himself, he claimed the entire world for himself. And today, the
vast preponderance of Christian bible studies, sermons, and quotations are based
upon Pauls letters rather than Yahowshas pronouncements and almost never
upon His Sermon on the Mount.
But for those looking for it, second only to Yahowahs Torah, Prophets, and
Psalms, Yahowshas testimony is true. He went on to say...
 From (apo) their (autos) fruit (karpos that which they produce), by
conducting a careful, thorough, and competent inquiry in the future, you all
will be able to use evidence and reason to genuinely comprehend (epiginosko
by closely examining and carefully considering, and by processing and
evaluating everything logically, every one of you will be able to actually learn,
completely understand, and without reservation recognize and acknowledge;
epiginosko is to know for certain and to understand to the point of being
completely convince as a result of diligent observation and thoughtful
comprehension (translated in the future tense revealing that while the wolf was
currently among them, he had not yet revealed his fruit, which is to say some time
would pass before Shauwl became Paulos and he and his followers wrote their
letters, then in the middle voice we learn that those who are observant and
circumspect will benefit from what they discover regarding these evil men, and
finally in the indicative mood, Yahowsha is telling us that while the example is
metaphorical, such deceivers are very real)) them (autos).
Is it even rationally possible (meti introducing a rhetorical question where
the answer is always no) to collect (syllego to pick) a bunch of grapes
(staphyle) from (apo) a thorn (akantha something sharp an pointed often found
on a thorny bramble or brier), or from (e apo) a thistle (tribolos a three-
pronged thorny and prickly invasive wild plant that is injurious to other plants),
figs (suka)? (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:16)
Just as we can delight in the subtlety of Yahowshas use of a harpazo
rapture derivative to direct our attention to Pauls false prophecy, akantha,
translated thorn in verse 16, is from akmen, which means point. God is
thereby directing our attention to two of Pauls most incriminating statements.
And of the superiority of the exaggerated, magnificent, and awe-inspiring
aspects of the overstated revelations, therefore, it should be self-evident, in
order to not become overly proud, exalting myself beyond what would be
justified, there was given to me a sharp goad (skolops a troubling thorn at the
end of a pointed stick used to control dumb animals) in the body, a messenger of
Satan, in order to strike and restrain me. (2 Corinthians 12:7)
And then...I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language,
Shauwl, Shauwl, Why are you actually pursuing me, following me, and
really striving with such intense effort to reach me? Its hard, demanding,
difficult, and intolerable for you to resist against the goad (kentron a pointed
sharp stick used to prick and prod and thus control animals, making resistance
vain or perilous). (Acts 26:14) Having come to know Yahowah, and thus
Yahowsha, I have come to recognize that while religious deception is something
God abhors, He has a sense of humor.
 The tribolos suka comparison is also delightful. Tribolos is from treis,
meaning three and belos, which speaks of darts being thrown. Interestingly,
belos is derived from ballo, to thrust aside and toss away, to scatter, giving over
to the care of another with an uncertain result.
That got me to thinking. What are Pauls most lethal three prongs? And I
thought, perhaps: 1) His claim that he was an apostle speaking for God beguiling
people into believing that his letters should be considered the Word of God. 2)
His claim that the Towrah was an incompetent curse and that it had been annulled
in favor of salvation through faith in the gospel of grace. And 3) His claim that his
new covenant replaced the enslaving old covenant, when there is only one
Covenant and it represents the lone means to engage in a relationship with God.
And then, of course, there is the even more infamous trio, the Christian Trinity,
the Babylonian myth which was incorporated into Christianity as a result of
Pauls moronic the fullness of the godhead resided upon him bodily.
But there is more. You see, a tribolos, as a thorny and prickly wild plant, is
injurious to other plants. And in this example, the plant the thorny, prickly,
invasive, and insidious Shauwl would injure was the fig tree, which like the
grape vine, is Yahowahs symbol for Yisrael. Largely as a result of Pauloss
rampant anti-Semitism first expressed in Galatians, and then elevated to a
reprehensible rant in Thessalonians, Jews would become the enemies of
Christians, who would ultimately claim what they renamed Palestine and the
Holy Land as their own. So for Gods Chosen People, it would be 1900 years
from exile to return, a prophecy Yahowsha pronounced by referencing the fig
tree. It was a parable designed to reveal that Yisrael would blossom again, with
Yahuwdym causing the Land to grow again after centuries of neglect. And their
return would occur less than a generation prior to His return. So then from the
fig tree (suke) be instructed and learn from this symbolic illustration. No
matter how long it takes, when a young and tender shoot is ready to sprout
and its leaves grow, producing foliage, you know that summer is near. And in
this way, whenever you may see all of this, you should understand that it is
near, at the door. Truly I say to you that there is no chance whatsoever that
this generation will perish before all of these things come to exist.
(Mattanyah / Yahowahs Gift / Matthew 24:30-34) The pervasive influence of
Pauls letters continue to be a thorn in Yisraels side.
Also interesting, in the accusative plural neuter, sukon fig is pronounced
suka, which is a transliteration of Sukah, the seventh and final Invitation to be
Called Out and Meet with God. So while this statement was not delivered in
Greek, the transliteration of the Hebrew term may be relevant because it is
symbolic of camping out with God in the Promised Land a place and time
devoid of thistles.
 If Yahowshas next statement is true, a comprehensive examination of Pauls
words should be sufficient to determine whether his message is kalos genuine,
approved, and commendable or sapros corrupt, rotten and harmful, even
poneros seriously flawed, annoying, and worthless.
In this way (houto thusly, it follows, in like manner), every (pas) good
and useful (agathos valuable, beneficial, and generous, appropriate, and
pleasant) fruit tree (dendron) produces (poieomai creates, makes, and
furnishes) exceptionally suitable and commendable (kalos genuine, approved,
magnificent, admirable, advantageous, superior, attractive, fitting, valuable,
highly beneficial, and proper) fruit (karpos production and results).
But (de) a tree (dendron) which is corrupt, rotten, and harmful (sapros
bad, decayed, putrefied, unfit, unprofitable, unsuitable, unusable, and destructive)
bears (poieomai produces, creates, makes and provides) diseased and
worthless (poneros seriously flawed and faulty, annoying and perilous,
malicious, troubling, and painful) fruit (karpos production and results).
(Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:17)
With the test so simple, with the evidence so plentiful, with the stakes so
high, why do you suppose so few people have deployed this criterion to evaluate
the fruit of Pauls pen? Equally troubling, with God being so definitive, expressly
saying that cherry picking snippets from a rotten source isnt acceptable, why are
so many Christians willing to exonerate Paul because they rather like some of
what he has to say?
It is not possible (ou dynamai it is never within its capability nor
capacity) for a good and useful (agathos for a valuable, beneficial, and
appropriate) fruit tree (dendron) to produce (poieomai to create, make,
provide, or furnish) seriously flawed or disadvantageous (poneros diseased,
faulty, annoying perilous, troubling, counterproductive, or evil) fruit (karpos
production and results), nor (oude) a tree (dendron) which is corrupt, rotten,
and harmful (sapros bad, decayed, putrefied, unfit, unprofitable, unsuitable,
unusable, and destructive) to make (poieomai to create, produce, or provide)
suitable or commendable (kalos genuine, approved, admirable, advantageous,
fitting, valuable, beneficial, or proper) fruit (karpos production and results).
(Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:18)
God is not talking about fruit trees. He is not trying to get you to show a
preference for apricots over apples or pears over plums. A bad tree can on
occasion produce something edible. But such is not the case with a rotten prophet.
So the moral of the story is that if a person is speaking for Yahowah, everything
they write and say is beneficial and reliable. With His prophets, because He is
directing them, there are no mistakes and no misleading statements. But if there is
a single error, one putrid statement, the smallest corruption, in someones
testimony who claims his words have been nurtured by God, we must reject that
source entirely. Therefore, any one of the statements we have considered thus far
from Paul individually are sufficient in themselves to reject the entire callosum of
his letters rejecting them as harmful. And that is because, according to God,
good never produces something which is inappropriate and the product of evil is
always poisonous. So even that which may appear appropriate in an inappropriate
source must be rejected, because that appearance only serves to make the venom
more enticing to ingest. It is all or nothing.
When it comes to providing the proper perspective, there are few insights
more important than recognizing that Satan and his messengers make their
nauseating fruit appear delectable by coloring it with strokes from Gods brush.
These resulting counterfeits fool the unsuspecting, the unobservant, and the
indiscriminate into believing that a message crafted by the Adversary will lead
them to paradise. But just as a counterfeit bill is completely worthless even when
ninety-nine percent of its strokes are genuine, the more a false prophet says which
is true, the more deadly he becomes. And that is because by making his words
appear godly, they become more seductive and beguiling. Credibility is
Yahowahs strong suit, which is why deceivers like Paul misappropriate it to make
their lies appear credible. Paul has fooled five billion souls deploying this
strategy. And Satan, with the assistance of Paul, Akiba, Muhammad, and
Wieshaupt, has deceived ten billion souls, beginning long ago with Adam and
Chawah.
Any and every (pas) tree (dendron) not (me) producing (poieomai
creating or providing) suitable, fitting, genuine, approved, commendable, and
advantageous (kalos valuable, beneficial, and proper) fruit (karpos
production and results) shall actually be cut off and done away with (ekkopto
shall find themselves reliably cut down, removed, and eliminated (present passive
indicative)) and toward (kai eis) the fire (pyr a metaphor for judgment), it is
thrown (ballo he shall find himself moved, propelled, and cast, being nudged
he will fall (present passive indicative)). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:19)
Fire is symbolic of divine judgment, where Yahs light and energy are used to
refine and separate good while devouring that which is bad. Fire is not, however,
found in Sheowl, because the Judge is never present in the place of separation.
Moreover, without Yahowah, Sheowl is a dark and lightless place, precluding the
existence of fire.
It is therefore instructive to know that sources which are not consistently and
entirely kalos valuable, beneficial, and proper, suitable, fitting, and genuine,
approved, commendable, and advantageous, are ekkopto cut off, which
means removed from Yahowah. Moreover, they are ekkopto done away with
and tossed aside following judgment.
Also, please note that judgment is something rotten sources of information
regarding God endure. Yahs Covenant children will witness trials for clerics and
kings in addition to spectacular trials for the likes of Paul, Akiba, Constantine,
Muhammad, Maimonides, and Wieshaupt. Gods children, however, as a result of
the Towrahs provisions, will not be judged. Therefore, the sole purpose of
judgment is to determine which souls will spend eternity separated from God, as
opposed to those souls which will simply cease to exist. The former is a penalty,
justly earned for leading others away from God. The latter is a consequence of
being misled.
So then indeed (ara ge as a result and in reality), by (apo) their (autos)
fruit (karpos production), you will be able through careful observation and
studious contemplation to actually know and understand them (epiginosko
autos by conducting a careful, thorough, and competent inquiry in the future
you all will be able to use evidence and reason to genuinely comprehend them, by
closely examining and carefully considering, and by processing and evaluating
everything logically, every one of you will be able to actually learn, completely
understand, and without reservation recognize and acknowledge them; (translated
in the future tense revealing that since the rotten fruit had not yet been produced,
diagnosing the disease would have to wait, and in the middle voice we learn that
those who are observant and circumspect will benefit from what they discover
regarding the illegitimate tree and its deadly fruit, and finally in the indicative
mood, Yahowsha is telling us that while trees and fruit serve as metaphors,
deceivers actually exist and the consequence is real)). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift /
Matthew 7:20)
Since epiginosko speaks of that which can be known for certain based upon a
close examination and careful evaluation of the available evidence, this concept is
being presented as the antithesis of, and thus as the alternative to, faith. Therefore,
to the degree that Yahowshas statement was accurately translated, this is
especially relevant. And that is because faith is Pauls lone alternative to
observing the Towrah.
It is surprising, but nonetheless true, that God and man differ dramatically on
the concept which has become synonymous with religion. God, rather than asking
us to blindly believe Him, wants us to read His testimony so that we come to
know Him. That is why the Towrah and Prophets were written and given to us.
And this voyage of discovery which leads to knowing Yahowah is vastly superior
to believing that He exists. Similarly, actually engaging in His Covenant is better
than believing that you have a relationship with God.
 The reason this particular instruction from God is being shared in the opening
chapter of this book, one devoted to examining and evaluating the merits of Pauls
letters, is because we are doing exactly what Yahowsha asked of us. So if you are
a Christian, you now have a trio of choices. You can continue reading Questioning
Paul, you can dedicate the time to do a similar study on your own, or you can
continue to live a lie, pretending to follow someone whose words you are prone to
ignore.
And speaking of ignoring, if you are an agnostic, youd be better served to set
this book aside temporarily and read An Introduction to God or Yada Yah. And
that is because you are fortunate. Unlike those whose religious beliefs are crafted
to repel everything that is adverse to their faith, and especially Gods own
testimony, being an agnostic your mind isnt a house of cards which must be
brought down before something sensible can be established in its place. For you,
there is no clutter to clear away, no religious mythology which has to be rejected
or defended. Nothing has to be exorcised prior to considering Yahowahs
testimony.
As an agnostic, your mind is already open. You are keenly aware of the
merits of evidence and reason. So you are prepared to consider Gods testimony
on its own merits. For you, it is just a matter of wielding evidence and applying
reason in a different venue, and perhaps for the first time observing the Creator
rather than His creation. But then once you have come to know Yahowah as He
revealed Himself, once you understand what He is offering, once you respond to
Him rationally and engage in His Covenant, you will want to return to this book.
And that is because once you have come to know Yah, you will want to share
what you have learned, especially with those who have been misled, especially
with Christians.
That is not to say, however, that this book wont appeal to agnostics. By
reading Questioning Paul, you will find comfort in the wisdom of rejecting the
Christian religion. By coming to understand where and how Christians were
misled, you will discover that your aversion to religion is something God shares.
This would also hold true for the many agnostic Yahuwdym. Three of the
earliest beneficiaries of the initial edition of Questioning Paul were Jews, a
computer engineer, a pulmonary surgeon, and a leader in the Messianic
movement. By seeing Yahowsha stripped of his Hellenistic and Pauline, thus
Christian, garb, and with the foolishness of religion no longer associated with
Him, the diminished corporeal manifestation of Yahowah suddenly became
credible.
Now returning to His Instruction on the Mount, from the beginning
Yahowsha has been resolute and precise. There has been no equivocation
whatsoever. For example, we were told that not so much as a single one of the
smallest of strokes of the individual letters comprising any of the words of the
Towrah would be negated or annulled. Equally uncompromising, He has said that
a rotten tree never produces good fruit and similarly that a sound tree is always
beneficial. So with this in mind, as we approach His next statement, to be
consistent, the negation provided by ou when applied to pas must be rendered
not any rather than not all. The former is absolute and the latter is equivocal.
Beyond this, with pas scribed in the singular rather than plural, any, is a far
better fit than all. Also, in the nominative form and negated, not any serves as
the subject of the verb, saying, written legon, the present, active, and singular
form of lego.
The reason this is important is because a criterion is being established which
is excluding either some or all who refer to God as Lord from heaven. Seeking
some wiggle room, bibles published by Christian organizations prefer not all,
but there is no reason to suspect that God is changing course and is being the least
bit uncertain here, making not any a far better fit in this presentation.
Since context is the lifes blood of understanding, and consistency is Gods
hallmark, one cannot responsibly translate Gods testimony by taking Him out of
character or context. Therefore, recognizing Yahowahs overt animosity toward
being called Lord, since it is the derogatory title He uses to describe Satan, and
since as our Heavenly Father He cannot be our Lord, and since knowing His
name is essential to our salvation, we have to either translate the singular pas as
any or anyone or change Gods nature, plan, and testimony.
In this light, you should know that Yahowsha delivered His Instruction on
the Mount in either Hebrew or in Aramaic, but not in Greek. There is no evidence
that He ever spoke Greek. Moreover, every report we have from this time
regarding Mattanyah affirms that the Disciple initially presented his eyewitness
testimony in Hebrew. So at the very least, the text we are evaluating was
translated out of Hebrew and into Greek one hundred years removed and one
thousand miles away from where this was spoken. Then adding yet another layer
of concern, not only were the scribes who copied these manuscripts in Egypt less
than meticulous, they were actually encouraged to harmonize texts so that the
result would better mesh with the proclivities of those paying the bills all too
typically a religious institution. This free hand explains why there are over three-
hundred thousand known discrepancies between ancient and modern manuscripts.
Therefore, when conveying the proper meaning of any word God, Himself, has
spoken or is translated as having conveyed, the best rendering is one which is
consistent with the words meaning, with the grammar of the sentence, with the
context of the discussion, and which does not require us to alter Gods nature or
message.
 That is what Ive done here, but since pas is more often rendered all than it
is any or anyone, the selection of other than a primary definition isnt one I
am comfortable making without full disclosure without you knowing why
especially since our salvation is riding upon presenting Gods words correctly.
Not (ou absolutely never under any circumstances shall) any (pas
anyone (scribed as an adjective in the nominative case in the singular masculine))
one saying (legon one speaking, calling, or implying (scribed in the present
tense active voice participle form in the singular nominative masculine)) to Me
(moi), Lord (kyrie master, owner, one who rules over, controls, or enslaves)
Lord (kyrie master, owner, one who rules over, controls, or enslaves), will
actually as a result enter into (eiserchomai eis will in the future, and based
upon how this influences the speaker, move inside or genuinely experience
(scribed in the future tense, middle voice which signifies that those calling
Yahowsha Lord are affected by this decision, and in the indicative mood which
means that this statement is describing reality, and in the third person singular))
the kingdom of the heavens (ten basileian ton ouranon the spiritual realm and
abode of God), but by contrast (alla rather certainly and emphatically) the one
presently acting upon (o poieomai the one currently and actively engaging in
(scribed in the present active participle singular nominative masculine)) the
purpose and desire (thelema the will and mindset, the design and
determination, the resolve and intent) of (tou) My (mou) Father (patros), the
One (tou) in the heavens (en tois ouranois in the spiritual realm). (Mattanyah
/ Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:21)
If you do not know Yahowshas name, you do not know Him nor do you
know the Father who sent Him. His name defines who He is, from whom and why
He came. When it is changed, the result is no longer God. And when the object of
ones belief ceases to be credible, their faith is in vain.
Similarly, if you do not know Yahowahs name, you do not know God. If you
do not know God, He does not know you. If He does not know you, you can
neither be in a relationship with Him nor be saved by Him. This is why those who
call Yahowah and Yahowsha Lord are excluded from heaven.
If you are still among those referring to God by Satans title, then you are
unaware of Yahowahs will which is to serve His Covenant children as their
Father. Lord and father are mutually exclusive concepts. God cannot be your
Father if he is your Lord.
Since all God wants, the only reason He created the universe, conceived life,
engaged in our lives, and provided His guidance was so that we would be able to
choose to engage in His family-oriented Covenant relationship, by
mischaracterizing Gods nature and purpose in this way, those who refer to God as
the Lord are negating our Heavenly Fathers terms and provisions. This then
bars entry into heaven. And that is because salvation is a byproduct or benefit of
the Covenant. It is yet another thing Christians have reversed. And few things are
as revealing in this regard as the misrepresentation of Yahowahs nature from
Father to Lord. It is why referring to God as Lord was used as a litmus test to
identify those who would be excluded from heaven. And it is why Yahowsha
spoke of the purpose and desire of My Father in heaven. The contrast is
between mans view where their god is a Lord, and Gods view where He is our
Father. This is the very essence of the Covenant and thus of the Towrah. It is
why Yahowah chose to rename the first child of the Covenant Abraham
Merciful and Enriching Father.
And should you be clinging to the myth that God is referred to as the Lord
throughout Scripture, the truth is just the opposite. God spoke or wrote His name,
Yahowah, exactly 7000 times in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. Religious rabbis
and Christians then copyedited God, substituting Lord for His name.
Equally instructive, if one must act upon the purpose and desire of our
Heavenly Father to enter heaven, then salvation does not come by way of faith as
Paul asserts. To respond to Gods will, His intent, we must first come to know
what He is offering and what He wants. And that brings us right back to the
Towrah, to the one place Yahowah introduces His purpose and plan.
Since this comes as a shock to those lost in religion, as believers almost
universally refer to their god as Lord, especially Christians, Yahowsha
completely destroyed their every illusion.
Many (polys a very great number and the preponderance of people) will
say (erousin will in the future actually and actively communicate (lego scribed
in the future active indicative third person plural)) to Me (moi) in that specific
day (en ekeinos te hemera in this relatively distant period of time), Lord (kyrie
master, owner, one who rules over, controls, or enslaves) Lord (kyrie master,
owner, one who rules over, controls, or enslaves), not (ou) in Your (to so) name
(onoma persona and reputation), we actively spoke genuinely inspired
utterances (propheteuo we prophesy, at some point in time actually making
your thoughts known beforehand (aorist active indicative first person plural)),
and (kai) in Your (to so) name (onoma persona and reputation), we drove out
(ekballo we sent and threw out, we expelled and sent forth (aorist active
indicative first person plural)) demons (daimonion evil spirits and devils, or
inferior gods, minor divinities, and pagan goddesses), and (kai) in Your (to so)
name (onoma persona and reputation), many mighty and miraculous things
(pollas dynamis with great supernatural power extensive political and religious
institutions), we made and did (poieomai we engaged in, performed, worked,
and profited from (aorist active indicative first person plural)). (Mattanyah /
Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:22)
While it requires a considerable reorganization of the Greek, thereby moving
the negation of ou past the dative article, the, past the possessive pronoun,
Your, and past the dative noun, name, since the third definition of ou depicts a
question in which the speaker expects a resounding yes to be the answer, one
might assume that Christians, having not listened to what Yahowsha just said,
might ask:
Lord, Lord, didnt we speak inspired utterances in Your name, cast out
demons in Your name, and establish mighty political and religious
institutions in Your name?
But the answer to that question is a resounding no! Not one Christian in a
million knows or uses Yahowshas name. In fact, once a person comes to know
His name and understand what it means, he or she can no longer be a Christian.
And that is because Yahowshas name means Yahowah Saves. And that means
that the means to salvation is found in the Towrah rather than in the New
Testament.
You will not find a church where the sermon is delivered in Yahowshas
name. Christians speak on behalf of Paul instead. They are inspired by Pauline
doctrine instead of Yahowahs Towrah. In all of their many books, in all of their
vast libraries, in all of their superficial bible studies, in all of their thoughtless
radio and television programs, and in all of their religious institutions, they never
speak or write in the name of God. Most dont even know it.
As for driving out demons, the moment you come to understand that
Christian clerics, like Paul, are inspired by Satan, it is easy to see why they would
be able to exorcise demons. The Adversary controls both. So casting out demonic
spirits becomes the perfect ruse.
Easily confused by this sleight of hand, it is reasonable to assume that
Christians will be making this claim to validate their godly credentials, but
Yahowsha is translated suggesting that they will have professed to throwing out
daimonion inferior gods and pagan deities. Whats funny about this possibility
is that Pauls strategy was to replace Yahowah with Iesou Christou, thereby,
demoting the inferior and impotent god of the obsolete and arcane Old
Testament with the all accepting, always nice, graceful god of his superior New
Testament. But in actuality, knowing the only real God was replaced by faith in
the Gospel of Grace the evil spells of pagan goddesses.
Equally stimulating is pollas dynamis, which while I translated many mighty
and miraculous things, could just as accurately have been rendered extensive
political and religious institutions. Satans minions do both, but are better at
establishing the latter. So it will come as a tremendous shock to the systems of
Christians when they learn that their institutions, their churches, nations, and
denominations, were not established in the name of God.
Further, mighty deeds and miracles are so often claimed by those inspired
by the Adversary that Yahowah tells us that when we see them we ought to be
especially wary. Yahowah isnt a showoff but Satan is. God does not have to
prove His status or power, but Satan does. Moreover, Christians almost
universally claim that their lives or those that they love have been miraculously
transformed, something they errantly attribute to God. So Yahowsha is telling
them that these things are neither proof nor valid, neither good nor appropriate.
In an informed and rational world, Yahowshas conclusion would have
scuttled Pauline Doctrine and destroyed the religion of Christianity with it. And so
it is ironic Christians believe that their religion was created by the individual who
cratered it before it was born.
And then (kai tote so at that time) I will profess to them (homologeo
autois I will admit, assert, and declare to them (future active indicative) that
because (oti) I never at any time knew you (oudepote ginosko umas at no time
was I acquainted with you, not even once or for a moment did I acknowledge you
or understand you), you all must depart from Me (apochoreo apo emou you
are now ordered to leave, going away and separating yourselves from Me (present
active imperative)) those (oi) of you involved in (ergazomai ten you all actively
engaging in (present middle participle plural)) Towrah-lessness (anomia who
are in opposition to and have attempted to negate the Towrah, thereby those of
you without the Towrah, who demonstrate a contempt for the Towrah and are
thereby in violation of the allotment which provides an inheritance). (Mattanyah
/ Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:23)
There are two reasons the multitudes were sent away, both of which are
related, either of which results in being rejected by God. Initially, Yahowsha said
that He never knew them, which means that the overwhelming preponderance
of people dont know Him either. If they are involved in a relationship with god,
their god is not real.
When God says at no time was I acquainted with you, it means that these
individuals have all failed to capitalize on the Covenant. No matter what they may
have felt or believed, they were not engaged in a relationship with God. Beyond
this, when God says that not even once for a moment did I acknowledge you or
understand you, it means that He never heard any of their prayers and that their
opinions, even conclusions, regarding Him and their religion were
incomprehensible. And this means that every argument Christians pose to justify
their opposition towards Yahowahs name, towards observing His Towrah, or
towards engaging in the Covenant, are moot. God isnt interested in them.
The point Yahowsha is making here is one that took me a very long time to
fully assimilate. But Gods position is both simple and reasonable, even necessary.
Salvation is only afforded to the children of the Covenant. And in fact, salvation,
which entails becoming immortal, becoming perfected, being adopted while being
enriched and empowered, collectively serve as the benefits of the Covenant. It
would be senseless, even irritating, for God to save those who do not know Him
those who hold contrarian views toward Him. After all, God has to live with those
who are saved for eternity.
As a result of this, Christians would be wrong believing that Gods intent is to
save everyone, or even that salvation is His priority. And also because a
relationship is worthless unless both parties participate and benefit, salvation
cannot be the byproduct of faith alone. A person has to engage with God in
accordance with the terms and conditions of His Covenant to be saved.
The second criterion for exclusion is being anomia Towrah-less. These
are related concepts because the only place where the terms and conditions of the
Covenant are presented is in the Towrah. If a person is without the Towrah, they
are estranged from the Covenant. And if they arent participants in the Covenant,
they cannot enter Gods home in heaven, because they are neither His children nor
saved.
Beyond this, Yahowsha has just delineated the issue which will define our
debate. According to Yahowsha, to reject the Towrah is to be rejected by God.
But according to Paul, the inverse is true. He writes that a person must reject the
Towrah to be accepted by God. So who do you suppose is right? Is salvation, as
Yahowsha just declared, a product of the Covenant relationship and His Towrah
Instructions or is it as Paul professes: that salvation is the result of faith?
But since Paul claims to speak on behalf of the individual his letters
contradict, how could he be right? Said another way, based upon Yahowshas
statement regarding admission into heaven, why would anyone in their right mind
believe that Paul was telling the truth?
Before you consider Yahowshas overall conclusion to His Instruction on the
Mount, take pause and reflect on everything He has said, especially relative to the
merits and enduring nature of the Towrah.
Everyone (pas), therefore then (oun) who (ostis) presently and actively
listens to (akouo who currently pays attention and really seeks to hear and
understand (present active indicative)) these (toutous) statements (logos
treatise, testimony, and words, discourse, teaching, and instruction) of Mine
(mou), and (kai) he or she genuinely acts upon them (poieomai autous he or
she actively and actually engages as a result of them (present active indicative
third person singular)), will be likened to (homoioo will become like, compared
to, and be considered similar to, resembling) a wise (phronimos an intelligent
and astute, a prudent and sensible, a thoughtful and judicious) individual (andros
a person) who (ostis) edifies and strengthens (oikodomeo builds and
constructs, restores and repairs, establishes and erects) his or her (autos) house
(oikia home, family, household, and relationship) upon the (epi ten) rock (petra
bedrock). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:24)
Second only to their disdain for Yahowahs testimony, as Gods Word is
written in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, the Christian aversion to Yahowshas
testimony is telling. They are somehow unaware that they spoke with the same
voice. And while Christians will acknowledge Yahowchanans assertion that
Yahowsha is the Word of God, there is a disconnect in their minds between that
statement and the realization that He was therefore the living embodiment of the
Torah and Prophets. So to listen to Him, you will have to read them. After all, that
is why He began this instruction affirming the validity, value, and enduring nature
of the Towrah and Prophets.
In this regard, Yahowshas statement mirrors Yahowahs constant
recommendation throughout His Towrah whereby God encourages us to shama
listen to His Guidance. But more than this, Yahowshas statement also reflects
Yahowahs consistent counsel, whereby God instructs us to asah act upon
His advice. Therefore, for us to participate in a relationship with God, we must
first come to know Him, understand what He is offering, and then respond by
choosing to engage in the Covenant in accordance with our Heavenly Fathers
terms and provisions.
Emphasizing the benefits of listening to and observing the Word of God,
Yahowsha likens such individuals with phronimos, being intelligent and astute,
prudent and sensible, thoughtful and judicious. And then speaking of what flows
from this understanding, Yahowsha makes a connection between the beryth
family-oriented Covenant relationship, which is from beyth family and
home, with oikia household and family. So youll note, a family and home
is being edified and established, not a church or religious institution. God is still
pointing thoughtful individuals toward His Covenant family and Heavenly home.
Also relevant, Yahowsha is translated using petra to convey bedrock. He is
speaking of the role the Towrah plays in the establishment of the Covenant. This
is illuminating because it undermines the foundation of Roman Catholicism and
thus Christianity. The Church claims that Peter, which is a transliteration of
petros, meaning stone, is the rock upon which their church was built. It is
why they claim that their pope sits on the seat of saint Peter. But it is obvious
when we read Yahowshas exchange with Shimown (He Listens) Kephas
(Aramaic for Rock), that the Rock upon which Gods Called Out are
established and edified is the Disciples realization that Yahowsha is Yahowah
Saving us, the Maaseyah the Work of Yahowah as predicted and promised by
God in His Towrah. With Yahowahs Towrah as bedrock, the foundation,
Yahowsha, as a part of Yahowah set apart from Him, becomes the Rock of our
Salvation.
And even when (kai) the rain (e broche a besprinkling (akin to a
baptism)) descends (katabaino falls down), (kai) the rivers (oi potamos a
torrent or floods; from pino libations) come (erchomai appear moving people
from one place to another), and the rapidly shifting winds (anemos violent,
agitated, and tempestuous (emotional, stormy, passionate, uncontrolled, and even
hysterical) changes in doctrine) blow (pneo), descending upon (prospipto
rushing upon and striking against, bowing and battering) this specific (te ekeine)
home and household (te oikia the family), then (kai) it shall not fail (ouk pipto
it will not fall, will not be bowed, it will not be destroyed, it will not become
inadequate) because (gar) the foundation was previously established and is
enduring (themelioo the foundation was firmly laid in the past and is now
providing ongoing benefits (pluperfect passive indicative)) upon (epi) bedrock
(petra solid rock). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:25)
While Christians will tell you that Paul won the argument over the viability
of the foundation God had laid with His Torah, Yahowsha begs to differ. He
recognizes that not only is it the primary source of guidance regarding the
Covenant and the Path to Salvation, it is also the most effective protection against
the torrents of rapidly shifting winds others would bring against us. Fortunately,
so long as we are grounded in the Towrah, our home is secure.
This knowledge is the reason Yahowsha provided this perspective on the
Towrah along with His conclusions regarding those who would seek to discount
its value in the midst of His initial public declaration. Gods guidance begins here.
This is where the journey begins.

Lets lay out some ground rules before we consider Pauls opening comments
in Galatians. Calling the Christian New Testament Scripture is a human edict,
not a Godly directive. Neither Yahowah, Yahowsha, nor any of the Disciples,
ever referred to anything in addition to the Hebrew Torah, Prophets, and Psalms
as such.
 According to Yahowah and Yahowsha, the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms
comprise the totality of Scripture. Therefore, the only aspects of the Greek
historical and eyewitness accounts which should be considered inspired by God
are the words and deeds of Yahowsha.
Shauwls epistles, on the other hand, contain only one citation from
Yahowsha (which he got wrong), and no accurate quotations from the Torah.
This realization serves as an admission that his letters contain his opinions.
Therefore, our mission will be to determine whether his opinions were accurate.
In this light, you may have noticed in the four Galatian arguments already
cited that Shauwls thoughts were inadequately and incompetently conveyed,
opening the door to invalid interpretations. But this is just the beginning. As we
shall see, Shauwls letter to the Galatians was so poorly compiled, it is insulting
to suggest that God inspired it word for word as it was written.
To understand any message, we must consider it in context. The practice of
citing isolated comments to make a point is often misleading and is usually
invalid. It is how the church justifies religious doctrines which are contrary to the
Torah. And they get by with their sleight of hand because most Christians are
unwilling to compare clerical pontifications to the statements from God which
oppose them. Most arent even willing to check to see if the context of the
discussion from which the snippets were removed altered their intended meaning.
And ironically, since Paul deployed this tactic with reckless abandon,
subconsciously Christians may now believe that this strategy is appropriate.
According to Yahowah and Yahowsha, there is nothing man can say or do
that has the authority to alter or negate, to replace or abolish, any aspect of the
Torah and most especially its provisions regarding Gods nature, His
relationship with us, or His plan salvation. So, any proposition to the contrary is
contrary to God. Therefore, the Christian myth that Grace has replaced the Torah
is invalid. Similarly, the Christian belief that that they live under a New
Testament based upon a New Covenant, both of which replaced the Old
Testament and its previously existing Covenant, is torn asunder by Yahowshas
Instructions on the Mount. Gods testimony and covenant were not replaced. They
cannot be altered or annulled. What was is. What is will be.
First among the many reasons behind the Christian confusion regarding the
relationship between the Torah and the Covenant is derived from Pauls letters,
and most especially his notion that there are two covenants with a new one
already established. This polarization was based upon an outright lie, with Paul
claiming that the Torahs Covenant was made with Hagar, not Sarah, and thus
was enslaving.
 While we have only reviewed four arguments from Galatians, it would not be
presumptuous to conclude that these citations intended to begin a debate between
observing the Torah and faith. Even from the most favorable vantage point,
the best that could be said of Paul is that his words infer that men and women
cannot work their way to God. But if that is what he wanted to infer, there would
have been no reason to misappropriate and misquote the Towrah or demean it.
To be saved, at least according to the Towrah, we must first come to know
Yahowah, to understand the terms and conditions of the Covenant, and then act
upon them. Its provisions then save us. And while that is simple enough, since we
are many chapters removed from knowing for certain if Shauwl intended to
convey something contrary to this, lets be patient as we turn over every card in
his hand one after another.
Second, the Christian perspective of God and His plan are backwards and
upside down. It is from the end, rather than from the beginning. It is salvation
before relationship. But to properly appreciate a set of plans, and the home built
by way of those plans, you have to start with a firm foundation, not with the roof.
The Torah is the beginning and the foundation, while Revelation is the cupola set
upon the roof of His Tabernacle.
Third, Christians confuse observing the Torah with Judaism, as if these
things were related. But they are not. Religious Jews manage their lives in
accordance with the Talmud, which is based upon their oral traditions. The
Talmud, in fact, is written very similarly to Pauls letters, in that the Talmud is
comprised of rabbinic arguments which seek to twist the Torah in order to elevate
mans opinions above Gods. The religion of Judaism, therefore, is in conflict
with the Torah which is why it was exposed and condemned by Yahowsha. Also,
rabbis, who have no Scriptural authority or legitimacy, dont understand that
observing the Torah doesnt mean to do it, but instead to closely examine
and carefully consider what it says so that those who are observant comprehend
its message.
Fourth, the essence of the Torah isnt a set of laws to be followed, but instead
the Towrah is a word picture of Yahowahs purpose, His teaching and guidance,
so that we come to know Him and understand what He is offering. It is a portrait
of Yahs Covenant. And it serves to convey His plan of salvation. The Torahs
every story and example represent facets on a marvelous jewel, providing a
perspective from which to observe, enjoy, and benefit from Yahowahs brilliant
Light. The Torah is overwhelmingly metaphorical and symbolic, painting word
pictures to help us know Yahowah, understand His plan of reconciliation, and rely
on His provision. In this light, it is better to understand the relevance of Passover
and Unleavened Bread, and to capitalize upon these gifts, than it is to simply do
what is delineated on the right date. Understanding leads to trust, trust leads to
reliance, and reliance leads to salvation. Our works, beliefs, and faith dont lead to
any of these places.
Fifth, the Torah and Yahowsha are inseparable. According to Yahowah, the
Torah is the Word of God and Yahowsha is the Word made fleshthe living
embodiment of the Torah. So the very notion that we must choose between the
Torah or Gods favor is an attempt to divide the indivisible.
Those familiar with one of the Towrahs great scenes may recall the moment
Moseh was inspired by Yahowah to depict Yahowshas mission: Yahowah,
your God, will raise up for you a prophet like me from your midst, from your
brothers. Listen to Him. This is according to all that you desired of
Yahowah, your God, in Horeb, in the day of the assembly, saying, Let us not
continuously hear the voice of Yahowah, our God, nor see this great fire, lest
we die. And Yahowah said to me, Well spoken. I will raise up for them a
prophet like you from among their brothers. I will put My words in His
mouth and He will speak as I direct Him. The one who will not listen
intelligently to My words which He shall speak in My Name, I shall
investigate. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:15-19)
Thereby, Yahowah encouraged us to listen to the words Yahowsha would
speak and now has spoken. He said that His words would serve as affirmations
and citations of the Torah, itself. And yet Christians chose to reject most of what
Yahowah said and ignore most of what Yahowsha proclaimed, while at the same
time listening to a man who never cited either accurately.
Sixth, the Torah exists to convey the benefits of the Covenant. It is the
foundation of life. It explains everything Yahowsha said and did. He was
resolutely Torah observant. He came to enable the promises associated with the
first four Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God by paying the toll so
that His Father would become our Father. By so doing, all five benefits associated
with the Covenant were realized.
As Yahowsha told the men on the road to Emmaus immediately after
fulfilling Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread, and FirstFruits, if you want to understand
Him, who He is, what He said, and what He did, you have to change your
perspective, your attitude, and your thinking to that of the Torah and Prophets.
According to Yahowsha, it isnt the Torah versus Mercy, but instead the Torah
providing Gods gift. The Torah is the source of the healing and beneficial
message that the human term Gospel corrupts.
Seventh, perhaps the biggest issue of all is reflected in a discussion
Yahowsha had with His disciples. When they failed to understand that the yeast
which was being removed from our souls on Unleavened Bread was none other
than religious and political pontifications, teachings, and doctrines, Yahowsha
said: How is it that you did not think so as to understand (noeo use your
mind to comprehend) that I was not speaking about a loaf of bread when I
said Be alerted to and turn away from (prosecho apo beware of, guard
against, and distance yourself from) the yeast (zyme leavening fungus) of the
Pharisees (the overtly religious leaders) and Sadducees (the worldly-minded,
liberal political leaders)? (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 16:11)
For the most part, religious people dont think. They are opposed to evidence
and reason when these things invalidate their faith. And the few who are open-
minded are usually handicapped by corrupted data in the form of horribly errant
translations. Beyond these issues, while believers will protest that the Old
Testament contains the inerrant Word of God, when Gods words are deployed
against their religion, they are summarily rejected.

Since we will be using Yahowahs testimony as the only completely

unassailable source of information regarding Gods nature and plan, lets
conclude this opening chapter by giving our God, our Father, our Creator, and our
Savior the last word...
This is what Yahowah revealed through the prophet, Yashayah: Woe
(howy), the people from different races and places (gowy) bear blame and are
guilty for having wandered away (hata). The peoples (am) distortions and
corruptions, their propensity to warp, alter, twist, and pervert (awon) are
numerous and significant, burdensome and troubling (kabed). They are
descendants (zera) of those who have done wrong, harming themselves
(raa). They are children (benym) of those who corrupt, pervert, and destroy
(shahat). They have rejected and abandoned (azab) Yahowah ( ). They
have spurned, belittled, maligned, disparaged, and defamed (naas) the Set-
Apart One (qadowsh eth) of Yisrael (Yisrael). They are strangers who have
gone astray (zuwr), having turned their backs (ahowr). (Yashayah /
Salvation is from Yahowah / Isaiah 1:4)
I am (any) Yahowah ( ). This is My name (huw shem). And (wa)
the manifestation of My power (kabowd) I will not give (lo natan) to (la)
another (acher), nor (wa) My renown and reputation (tahilah) to (la)
religious imagery (pacyl). (Yashayah 42:8)
Yahowah ( ) was willing, even desirous (chaphets), for the sake of
(maan) His sense of honesty and fairness, and His commitment to doing what
is right regarding your vindication (tsedeq), to reveal His nurturing,
empowering, enriching, and enabling (gadal) Towrah, His Teaching and
Instruction, His Guidance and Direction (Towrah), and to prove its worth (wa
adar). (Yashayah 42:21)
Listen, and pay attention to Me, so that you respond appropriately to
Me (qashap el) My family (am) and (wa) My people (leom). To Me (el)
listen, carefully considering, weighing, testing, evaluating, and thinking
about what you hear, and then respond (azan), because indeed (ky), the
Towrah, the Source of Teaching and Guidance (Towrah) from Me (min eth),
shall be brought forth and shall be disseminated (yatsa), and (wa) My means
to justifiably resolve disputes (mishpat) will accordingly (la) shine upon and
enlighten (owr) the family (am). (Yashayah 51:4)
Then (wa) He shall reveal (galah) the glorious presence and
manifestation of power (kabowd) of Yahowah (hwhy). And all (kol) living
creatures (basar), they will see (raah) Yahdow the Unity of Yah (Yahdow).
Indeed (ky), He is the Word (ha dabar), the verbal spokesman and mouth
(peh) of Yahowah (hwhy). (Yashayah 40:5)
Look and see, pay attention and behold (hineh), Yahowah ( ), our
Upright One and Foundation (edownay), arrives (bow) with the blast of a
trumpet (ba hazaq). He is the Sacrificial Lamb (zarowa). He is the Proverb
and the Parable, a picture of the Word which is vivid and easy to see (la
masal). Behold (hineh) Him, our recompense and fare for the passage, our
ransom (sakar) is associated with Him (ethow). He does the work to pay our
debt (paulah) to clear the way to appear before His presence (la paneh). As a
Shepherd (ka raah) shepherds, leads, protects, and feeds His flock (raah
eder), the Sacrificial Lamb (zarowa) will gather (qabas) His sheep (talaym).
And in His chest (ba cheyq), He will lift them up (nasa), nursing, nurturing
(uwl) and guiding them (nahal). (Yashayah 40:10-11)
This is what Yahowah revealed through Moseh in His Towrah: Pertaining
to (achar) these (el-leh) conversations (dabarym), the Word (dabar) of
Yahowah ( ) came to exist with (hayah el) Abram (abram) in the form
of (ba) a personal, visual, and illuminating manifestation which could be seen
and experienced (machazeh) to say (amar): Do not be awed or intimidated
(yare al) Abram. I am (anoky) your protector, defending you from harm
(magen la), your exceedingly (maod) great (rabah) reward (sakar).
(Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis 15:1)
And (wa) God (elohym) conveyed (dabar) all of (kol) these words
(dabar), providing perspective (eleh) in our presence (eth), saying (amar): I
am (anky) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), who beneficially (asher)
descended to serve, bringing you out of and delivering you (yasa) from the
realm (min erets) of the crucible of oppression and judgment (mitsraym), out
of the house (min beyth) of slavery and servitude (ebed). You will not exist
with (lo hayah la) other (aher) gods (elohym) in relation to (al) My
presence (paneh). (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 20:1-3)
You should observe, closely examining and carefully considering
(shamar) this word and its message (dabar) as a clearly communicated and
engraved prescription of what you should do to live (choq) and (wa) as a
enduring and restoring witness (ed) to your children (beny) forever
(owlam). (Shemowth 12:24)
You should not ever add to (lo yasap al) the Word (ha dabar), which as
a blessing (asher), I (anky) am instructing and guiding you all with (tsawah
eth). And you should never subtract (wa lo gara) from it (min) if you are to
properly observe (la shamar) the terms of the covenant (mitswah) of Yahowah
( ), your God (elohym), which as a favor (asher) I am (anky) guiding
you (tsawah eth). (Dabarym / Words / Dabarym 4:2)
Exclusively without exception (raq) be observant (shamar) as your goal.
And pay very close attention to (maod shamar) your soul (nepesh) lest you
forget or overlook (sakah) the words (dabarym) which you have seen with
your eyes. And lest they are removed from your heart. All of the days of your
life, you shall make them known (yada) to your children and to your
childrens children.
The day which you were present, standing (amad) before (paneh)
Yahowah, your God, in Horeb, in which Yahowah ( ) said to me to
summon and assemble (qahal) the family (am) so that I might have them
hear (shama) the words (dabar) which will cause them to learn (lamad) to
revere, to respect (yare), and to approach Me all of the days which as a
result of the relationship they shall live (chay) on the earth (adamah), and so
that they might teach (lamad) their children. (Dabarym 4:9-10)
And Yahowah ( ) spoke the word (dabar) as God to you (el) from
the midst of the fire (esh), words (dabarym) the sound of which (qowl) you
heard (shama). But a visual form (tamuwnah), you did not seebut only
(zuwlah) heard the sound. He told you all about (nagad la) His Family-
Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth) with you. Which, as a result of the
relationship, He instructed and directed (sawah) you to act upon (asah la)
the Ten Statements (dabar), writing them (katab) on two tablets of stone.
And Yahowah ( ) instructed and guided (sawah) me at this time
(eth) that She (the Set-Apart Spirit, our Spiritual Mother and Counselor)
(hy) would teach (lamad) you regarding the clearly communicated
prescriptions for living (choq) and the means used to achieve justice and
resolve disputes, even to exercise good judgment (mishpat), so that you might
act upon them, celebrating and profiting from them. (Dabarym 4:12-14)
During the time of adversity and emotional distress (tsar), all of these
words (ha dabar) will find you, especially those in the last (acharyth) of days,
and then you will return and you will be restored (suwb) forever and
eternally (owlam) to Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym). (Dabarym 4:30)
From the heavens He has individually and deliberately prepared you to
listen to (shama) His voice (qowl) for the explicit purpose of instructing you
(la yacar). And upon the Almightys earth, He enabled you to see and witness
(raah) His magnificent light (gadowl esh) and His words (dabar) which you
heard (shama) from the midst of the fire (esh). And truthfully, underlying
this is His love (ahab) for your fathers. And He has chosen to favor (bahar)
their descendants after them. He has descended to serve, leading you (yasa)
into His presence with His magnificent and enormous power (gadowl), away
from (min) the Crucible of human oppression (Mitsraym). (Dabarym 4:36-37)
So you should recognize and acknowledge (yada) this day, returning
your heart to God, because indeed (ky) Yahowah ( ), He is Almighty God
(huw ha elohym) in the heavens (ha shamaym) above and on the earth (ha
erets) below. There is no other. You should observe, closely examining and
carefully considering (shamar) His clearly communicated and inscribed
prescriptions of what we should do to live (choq), and the terms and
conditions of His binding contract (mitswah), which relationally I have
instructed and guided you (sawah) this day. Because, as a result of the
relationship, He is good to you and beneficial for you (yatab la), and also for
your children after you, for the express purpose of elongating your days.
(Dabarym 4:39-40)
This is (zeth) the Towrah, the Teaching (ha Towrah), which beneficially
He placed before Moseh (Moseh) and the Children of Yisrael those who
engage and endure with God (ben Yisrael). This is the Enduring Witness and
Restoring Testimony (ed), the clearly communicated prescriptions (choq),
the means used to achieve justice and resolve disputes (mishpat), which God
(elohym) spoke to (dabar) Moseh (Moseh) and to the Children of Yisrael (ben
Yisrael) when He led them (yasa) away from oppression and from judgment
(mitsraym). (Dabarym 4:44-45)
These are (wa zeth) the terms and the conditions of the binding
covenant contract (mitswah), the clearly communicated prescriptions of what
we should do in life to live (choq), and the means used to achieve justice and
resolve disputes (mishpat), which beneficially (asher) Yahowah ( ), your
God (elohym), instructed and guided (sawah) you to (la) learn and teach
(lamad) what should be done (la asah) in the realm into which (ba ha erets
asher) you all (atem) are going to pass over into (abar sam) as an
inheritance (la yaras), for the intent and purpose that (maan) you really
come to revere and respect (yare) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), by
observing (shamar) all of (kol) His clearly communicated prescriptions of
what we should do in life to live (chuwqah) and (wa) His terms and conditions
(mitswah), which (asher) I (anky) have instructed and directed (sawah) you
individually (atah), your children (wa ben), and your childrens children (wa
ben ben) all (kol) of the days (yowmym) of your lives (chayym), and for the
purpose of (maan) elongating (arak) your days (yowmym), and so that (wa)
you listen (shama), Yisrael, those of you who engage and endure with God
(Yisrael), and so that (wa) you are focused and observant (shamar), thereby
(la) acting upon (asah) that which relationally (asher) is good and beneficial
for you (yatab la), and which beneficially (wa asher) will cause you to
substantially increase, grow dramatically, and become exceedingly great and
powerful (rabah maod), consistent with (ka) that which (asher) Yahowah
( ), your God (elohym), promised and affirmed to (dabar) your fathers
(ab) on your behalf (la).
Yisrael (meaning individuals who engage and strive, persist and endure
with God) (Yisrael), listen to and hear (shama) Yahowah ( ), your God
(elohym). Yahowah ( ) is one (echad). You should choose to truly and
totally love (wa ahab eth) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), with (ba)
all (kol) your heart (leb), and with all (wa ba kol) your soul (nepesh), and with
all (wa ba kol) your capacity and capability (maod).
These (eleh) words (dabar) which (asher) I am (anky) guiding you with
(sawah) this day (ha yowm), they should come to exist and always be (wa
hayah) on (al) your heart (leb). Your goal should be to choose to teach them
by reciting them to (wa la sanan) your children (ben). And you should
consistently speak about them (wa dabar ba) during your life (ba yashab), and
inside your home and with your family (wa ba beyth), and as you walk,
traveling through life (ba halak), and along the Path (ba derek), and when you
lie down to rest (wa ba sakab), and when you stand up (wa quwm).
And you should choose to fasten them (wa qasar) as a sign (la owth)
upon your hand, influencing your actions (al yad), and they should come to
exist (wa hayah) between your eyes, influencing your perspective (bayn ayn).
And (wa) you should write them (katab) upon the doorframes (al mazuwzah)
of your home (beyth), and upon your gates (wa ba saar). (Dabarym 6:1-9)
Indeed (ky), you should listen to (shama ba) the voice and invitation
(qowl), of Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), for the purpose of
approaching by examining and considering (la shamar) the terms and
conditions of His binding contract (mitswah) and His clearly communicated
prescriptions and inscribed recommendations of what we should do in this
life to live (wa chuwqah), which are inscribed and permanently memorialized
(ha katab) in (ba) the written scroll (ha seper) of this (zeth), the Towrah (ha
Towrah). And that is because (ky) you will return and be restored (suwb) to
(el) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), with all (ba kol) your heart (leb)
and with all (wa ba kol) your soul (nepesh). (Dabarym 30:10)
For indeed (ky), the utterly powerful and exceedingly great (maod)
Word (dabar) of your God (el) facilitates your approach and brings you near
(qarowb)ingrained in your speech (ba peh) and in your heart (wa ba leb)
to engage with Him (la asah). (Dabarym 30:14)
And (wa) it came to be (hayah) just when (ka) Moseh completely
finished (kalah) writing (katab) the words (dabar) of the Towrah (ha Towrah)
upon this, the Almightys (ha zeth al) written scroll (sepher), successfully
completing (tamam) the Eternal Witness and Restoring Testimony (ed),
Moseh instructed (sawah) the Lowy (ha lowy) lifting up and carrying (nasa)
Yahowahs ( ) Ark (arown) of the Family-Oriented Covenant (beryth),
saying (amar), Accept and grasp hold of (laqah) the written scroll (sepher) of
the Towrah (ha Towrah) and place (sym) this (zeh) alongside (eth min sad)
Yahowahs ( ) Ark (meaning: His Source of Enlightened Freewill)
(arown) of the Covenant Relationship (beryth). Your God (elohym), He will
always exist (hayah) there (sham) for you (la) in (ba) the Enduring Witness
and Restoring Testimony (ed). (Dabarym 31:24-26)
In His next book, one scribed by Yahowsha, Yahowah introduced the living
embodiment of His Towrah by name: Later (achar), therefore (ken),
Yahowsha recited and proclaimed (qara) all of (kol) the words (dabar) of the
Towrah (ha Towrah), the blessings of peace and prosperity (ha barakah) and
also the slights and denunciations (ha qalalah), just as (ka) all of these things
(kol) were written (katab) in (ba) the written scroll (seper) of the Towrah (ha
Towrah).
There did not exist (lo hayah) a Word (dabar) from (min) all (kol) that
which (asher) Moseh (Moseh) had instructed and directed (sawah) which
(asher) Yahowsha ( ) did not (lo) read, recite, call out, or proclaim
(qara) in a straightforward manner in the presence of (neged) the entire (kol)
assembled community (qahal) of Yisrael those individuals who engage and
endure with God (Yisrael), including the women (ha isah) and the little
children (tap), as well as (wa) the foreigners from other races and places (ger)
who were walking (halak) among them (ba qereb). (Yahowsha / Yahowah
Saves / Joshua 8:34-35)
 And then Yahowsha ( ) wrote (katab) these (eleh) words (dabar)
in (ba) Gods (elohym) Towrah (Towrah). (Yahowsha 24:26)
Now that weve heard from Yahowah through His prophet Yashayah, His
co-worker Moseh, and His namesake Yahowsha, lets consider what God
inspired Dowd, the man errantly known as David, to reveal to us in song: On
behalf of (la) the eternal and glorious One (ha nasah / nesah), a song
(mizmowr) of (la) Dowd / Love (dowd): The heavens (shamaym) quantify the
unit of measure, exactly and accurately of (caphar) the manifestation of
power (kabowd) of God (el). Its spreading out and expanse (raqya) makes
conspicuous (nagad) His handiwork (yad maaseh). Day unto day (yowm la
yowm) pours out (naba) answers (emer), and night unto night reveals
(hawah) knowledge which leads to understanding (daat).
Nothing exists without (ayn) the Word (emer). Nothing exists when and
where (wa ayn) the spoken and written message (dabarym) of the voice which
calls out (qowl) is corrupted or is negated, ceasing (bely) to be heard, no
longer regarded or understood (shama). (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:1-3)
His (huw) going forth is (mowtsa) from (min) the uttermost part of
(qatseh) the heavens, or spiritual realm (samaym). His arrivals (taquwphah)
are unto the distant end of time (qatsah). And nothing (wa ayn) is hidden
(satar) from (min) His light (chamah).
Yahowahs ( ) Towrah (Towrah) is complete and entirely perfect
(tamym), returning, restoring, and transforming (suwb) the soul (nepesh).
Yahowahs ( ) enduring testimony and restoring witness (eduwth) is
trustworthy and reliable, verifiable and dependable (aman), making
understanding (hakam) simple for the open-minded (pethy).
Yahowahs ( ) directions (piquwdym) are right (yashar), causing the
heart to rejoice (leb samah). Yahowahs ( ) terms and conditions
(mitswah) are morally pure and are purifying (bar), shining a light toward
understanding (owr ayn).
Revering and respecting (yirah) Yahowah ( ) is cleansing and
restoring (tahowr), sustaining and establishing us (amad) forever (ad). The
means to exercise good judgment and to resolve disputes (mishpat) of
Yahowah ( ) are trustworthy and reliable, enduring and dependable
(emeth). They are wholly (yahdaw) vindicating and righteous (tsadaq).
(Mizmowr 19:5-9)
This which (asher) we have heard (shama) and we have known (yada),
our fathers (ab) communicated to us in writing (la chapar / cheper). These
things were not concealed (lo kachad) from (min) their children (ben) from
one generation to (dowr la) the next or to the last (acharown). They
recounted and recorded (chapar / cheper) Yahowahs ( ) glorious love
songs (tahillah), His power and influence (azuwz), and the wonderful and
astounding things (pala) which as a result of the relationship (asher) He has
done and will do (asah).
He took a stand to establish (quwm) an enduring witness to this restoring
testimony (eduwth) with (ba) Yaaqob (Yaaqob), bringing about (suwm) the
Towrah (Towrah) with (ba) Yisrael, with those who engage and endure with
God (Yisrael) which as a result of the relationship (asher) He instructed and
directed (sawah) our fathers (ab) to make it known (la yada) to their
children (la ben). He did so for the express purpose (maan) that the next, as
well as the last (acharown), generation (dowr) would come to know, to
become acquainted with, and to understand (yada). These children (benym)
will have children (yalad) who rise up, stand upright, and take a stand
(quwm), and they will relate and proclaim this (caphar) to (la) their children
(benym).
And they will place (wa sym) in them (ba) their trust and reliance upon
(kecel) God (elohym). And they will not forget or improperly respond to (wa
lo shakach) Gods (el) work (maalal). And so the terms and conditions of
His binding contract (mitswah) will save them (natsar).
And they will not be (wa lo hayah) like (ka) their fathers (ab), a
generation (dowr) too stubborn to change (sarar), and a generation (wa dowr)
who was defiantly rebellious and embittered (marah), whose hearts (leb) were
not prepared (lo kuwn), and who was not true to nor nurtured by (wa lo
aman eth) Gods (el) Spirit (ruwach).
The children (beny) of the Northern Kingdom (Ephraym) submitted, and
they yielded to (nasaq) those who betrayed them while wielding their
weapons (ramah). And they were overthrown and destroyed (hapak) in the
day (ba yowm) the battle was waged (qarab). They did not observe (lo
shamar) the Covenant Relationship (beryth) with God (elohym). And with
regard to His Towrah Teaching (wa ba Towrah), they resisted and refused
(maan) to (la) walk (halak). (Mizmowr 78:3-10)
Yahowah ( ), make known to me (yada) Your ways (derek). Teach
me (lamad) Your path (orah). Direct me to walk (darak) by (ba) trusting and
relying upon You (emeth). Teach me (lamad), because indeed (ky), You are
(atah) the God (elohym) of my salvation (yasha). With You (eth), I
confidently expect and anticipate deliverance (qawah) every day (kol yowm).
 Yahowah ( ), remember and invoke (zakar) Your mercy (racham)
and Your steadfast love and unfailing kindness (chesed). For indeed (ky) they
(hem) are from (min) time immemorial (olam).
The sins (chataah) of my youth (nauwrym) and rebellion (pesha) do not
remember (lo zakar) as (ka) Your love for me is remembered (chesed zakar la
atah) on account of (maan) Your goodness (towb), Yahowah ( ).
Yahowah ( ), the Almighty (al), is good, beneficial, and generous
(towb) and always right (yashar), therefore (ken), He is the Source of teaching
and instruction, and He guides and directs (yarah) sinners (hata) along the
Way (ba ha derek).
He enables the way of (derek) the unpretentious and sincere who respond
and answer His call (anaw) with His means to achieve justice and resolve
disputes (ba ha mishpat). He provides the information to teach (lamad) those
who appropriately respond to (anaw) His Way (derek).
All (kol) of the mannerisms and conduct (orah) of Yahowah ( ) are
merciful and beyond reproach (checed), and they are trustworthy and
reliable (emeth) for (la) those who are preserved by (natsar) His Family-
Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth) and by His enduring Witness
(edah).
As a result (maan) of Your name (shem), Yahowah ( ), You will
choose to genuinely and completely forgive (wa salah) my sin (la awon),
because indeed (ky), He (huw) is great (rab).
Hence (zeh), whatever (my) individual (ysh) respects and reveres (yare)
Yahowah ( ), He will teach him (yarah) in (ba) the way (derek) he should
choose (bahar).
His soul (nepesh) in (ba) the most favorable, pleasing, and festive
circumstances (towb) will dwell and endure (lyn), and his descendants (zera)
will inherit (yaras) the realm (erets). A very close and intimate fellowship
with (cowd) Yahowah ( ) is certain for (la) those who respect and revere
Him (yare), because His Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth),
He makes known to him (yada).
My eyes (ayn) will continually be (tamyd) upon (el) Yahowah ( ),
because indeed (ky), He (huw), Himself, will come (yatsa) removing the
restraints from (min resheth) my feet (regel), turning me around and
preparing me (panah) to have mercy on me (el chanan) as a unique child (ky
yahyd) and I am (wa any) humbled (any). (Mizmowr 25:4-16)
 As a result of (min) Yahowah ( ), the steps (mitsad) of each
individual (geber) are prepared and firmly established (kuwn). And (wa) His
Way (derek) is a pleasurable experience (chaphets). Indeed, though (ky) he
falls (napal), he is not cast down (lo tuwl). Indeed (ky), Yahowah ( ) is
sustaining and upholding him in His hand (samak yad).
Every day (kol yowm) He is merciful and compassionate (chanan),
accompanying (lawah) His children (zera), kneeling down in love to bless
them (la barakah). And so (wa) I encourage you to consider acting upon and
actively engaging with (asah) that which is good, beneficial, agreeable,
generous, and pleasing (towb) and as a result (wa) live (sakan) forever (la
owlam).
For indeed (ky), Yahowah ( ) loves (ahab) good judgment, the
process of evaluating evidence so as to render a just and fair verdict which
resolves disputes (mishpat). So (wa) He will not abandon (lo azab) those who
steadfastly seek His protection (chacyd). Throughout eternity (la owlam),
they shall be watched over and cared for (shamar), but (wa) the offspring
(zera) of the wicked (rasa) will be cut off (karat).
The upright, vindicated, and righteous (tsadyq) shall inherit (yaras) the
realm (erets), and they shall live (wa sakan) forever (la ad) within it (al).
The mouth (peh) of the upright and vindicated (tsadyq) passionately and
boldly proclaims (hagah) wisdom, providing the capacity to understand
(hakamah), and their tongue (lason) speaks the Word (dabar) of good
judgment and of justly resolving disputes (mishpat). The Towrah Teaching
(Towrah) of his God (elohym) is in his heart (ba leb), so his steps (ashur) will
never waver (maad). (Mizmowr 37:23-31)
And now returning to His Towrah, we discover: There is one (echad)
engraved prescription for living (chuqah) for all of you to approach (la), for
the assembled community (qahal) and for (wa la) those from different races
and places (ha ger). The clearly communicated and inscribed prescription
(chuqah) for living together (guwr) is everlasting and eternal (owlam) and for
(la) all of your generations (dowr). It is exactly the same for you as for (ka ka)
the foreigner and newcomer (ger). This was, this is, and this will always exist
(hayah) as the means to approach (la) the presence (paneh) of Yahowah
( ).
One (echad) Towrah (Towrah) and (wa) one (echad) means to resolve
disputes (mishpat) shall continually exist (hayah) for you to approach (la) and
for newcomers from different races and places to approach (wa la ha ger),
with you all (eth) living together (guwr). (Bamidbar / In the Wilderness /
Numbers 15:15-16)
 Since Yahowah resolved any and all questions regarding how to approach
Him, the only thing which remains is to question what Shauwl had to say
regarding his approach God. I dont suspect they are the same.

LE: 05-01-2013
 Questioning Paul
Volume 1: The Great Galatians Debate
Is Christianity Right or Wrong?

Shauwl Question Him

Are you Aware that God Asked you to Question Paul?

Most Christians believe that Paul, a Jewish rabbi born as Shauwl, a man who
wrote under the Roman pseudonym, Paulos, was the principal agent chosen by
God to communicate the precepts of a religion they believe was founded by
Jesus Christ, a belief system predicated upon faith in the Gospel of Grace. This
is surprising since there is only one, albeit inaccurate, citation from Jesus and
not a single statement from the Gospels, in the corpus of Pauls thirteen letters.
In spite of this, or unaware of it, these same Christians believe that the lone self-
proclaimed Apostle, someone who never walked a step alongside Yahowsha (the
actual name of the individual errantly called Jesus), was authorized to denounce
and discard Gods Torah, change His Covenant, dismiss His annual Feasts, and
reject His Sabbatheven contradict Yahowsha and His Disciples. On the
surface, this all seems preposterous, and yet no matter how illogical this may be,
it does not seem to matter to believers.
The religious miracle which makes the resulting religion popular is
performed in Shauwls / Pauloss / Pauls epistle to the Galatians which serves
as the blueprint for Pauline Doctrine. In its pages a stream of arguments are
presented against the Torah and on behalf of faith. But is it realistic to believe that
Paul could have annulled and discarded the Torah on Gods authority, as he
claims to have done? And if it was somehow possible that Gods initial plan was
ineffective, or worse, if it was an enslaving curse, what would make the
replacement faith credible, even remotely believable? Therefore, the question
before us is whether Christianity was established on the bedrock of Divine
revelation or on the shifting sands of one mans opinions.
In the end it all comes down to GalatiansPauls first letter, as evidenced by
the epistle itself. It is the first time where the Torah was assailed by someone
claiming to speak for God. Without Galatians, there is no credible debate between
observing the Torah, which is to examine its teaching, and faith, which is to
believe in the unknown or uncertain. So while there are many critical passages in
Pauls other letters, and most especially in Romans, Galatians provides the most
methodical approach to obfuscating Gods testimony.
Galatians is one of only two epistles where the Sabbath and Feasts are placed
in doubt, the other being Pauls letter to the Colossians. It is one of only two
letters where a replacement Covenant is presented, the other being Pauloss letter
to the Romans. So, without Galatians, there is no justification for rejecting
anything Yahowah (Gods one and only name) shared with us.
Galatians is the place where faith, which has become synonymous with
religion, was first pitted against Gods instructions. This was accomplished by
Paul mischaracterizing the Torahs nature, inferring that to observe was to obey
and that to guide was to legislate. As a result, a book filled with Yahowahs
teaching become synonymous with legalism. Wanting to be free to disregard
the Divine directions, Shauwl discredits and then discards the Torah in the
second and third chapters Galatians, so that in the fourth chapter, he can position
his advocacy for an entirely new and different covenant, relegating the one
codified by Moses (actually, Moseh, meaning to draw out) on Mount Sinai to
being of the flesh, to being an outdated and old-fashioned disciplinarian, which
enslaved and condemned everyone.
More than just being ground central for Christianitys disdain for all things
YahowahHis Name, His Word, His Torah, His Covenant, His Instructions, His
Sabbath, His Invitations to Meet, His Land, His Chosen People, His Way, and
even His Maaseyah, Yahowsha Galatians pits Pauls new religion against most
everything God has revealed. And in the epistle, the Disciple Shimown / Peter is
mercilessly condemned by Paul, and Yaaqob / James and Yahowchanan / John
are dismissed and demeaned.
In this light, Galatians and the book of Acts present conflicting accounts of
the Jerusalem Summit further isolating Paul from Yahowshas Disciples. Based
upon its timing and content, it is obvious that Galatians was Pauls response, his
rebuttal, to having had his message censured, his authority questioned, and his
reputation besmirched, by Yahowshas Disciples in Yaruwshalaim (meaning:
source from which guidance regarding reconciliation flows). Pauls summation of
this meeting sits in the midst of this epistle, as do both issues which prompted the
summitthe purpose of the Torah and the merits of circumcision. These themes
dominate Galatians, with Pauls position consistently running in direct opposition
to Yahowah, Yahowsha, the Disciples, and therefore to the Word of God. In due
time we will juxtapose these texts. So do not be concerned if you are currently
unaware of this meeting or of the incompatible accounts of it.
 Especially relevant to this discussion is Shimowns (He Listens, but errantly
called Peters) overall evaluation of Paul, and especially his Galatians letter, in
Second Shimown. In the midst of bluntly criticizing their content and style, we
are confronted with a statement, which at least when mistranslated and removed
from its context, is often used to assert that Pauls epistles should be afforded
Scriptural status. But if this lone dubious endorsement falters, if it isnt credible
in context, or if this isnt what Shimown actually wrote, then the idea of a New
Testament, comprised mostly of Pauls letters, being considered Scripture, in
the sense of having been inspired by God, vanishes. Evidence for such a
position would be relegated to the murk of myth and to the realm of human
tradition. So we will dissect Shauwls overt condemnation of Shimown, just as
we will study Shimowns direct and unabashed response to Shauwl under a
linguistic microscope, contemplating the Disciples view of the self-proclaimed
Apostles message and letters.
Christian theologians, of course, unanimously side with Paul over Peter with
regard to the Great Galatians Debate. In so doing, they have established their
religion in opposition to Yahowah, Yahowsha, the Disciples, and to the Word of
God. In their view, Paul was right to associate the Torah with bondage,
Yahowahs Feasts with Judaism, circumcision with the flesh, and Gods
conditions with legalism. For Christians, as a result of Paul announcing his new
covenant theory in the fourth chapter of Galatians, it is appropriate to divide the
Bible into two Testaments one Old and the other New, one failed and
counterproductive with the other providing the hope of salvation by rejecting the
old plan and placing ones faith in a new promise. For Christians, solely as a
result of Pauls epistles, hell awaits everyone who clings to the past by observing
the Torah, while heaven embraces all those who place their faith in Pauls Gospel
of Grace.
With the stakes this high, with the credibility of the religion of Christianity
resting upon one mans letter, with the salvation of billions of souls at stake, few
things could be as important as considering the possibility that Pauloss epistle to
the Galatians might not be trustworthy if he openly contradicted the God he
purported to represent. But if this world-renowned individual pulled off this feat,
if he managed to supersede something as famous as the Torah, and if he
supplanted it with something as nebulous as faith, and convinced the world that he
had done so without contradicting God, even with Gods blessing, Galatians
would have to be the most brilliantly written thesis of all time.
To determine if Shauwl changed everything, including our understanding of
God and Scripture, even the means to salvation, we are going to examine his
words under the lens of the worlds most acclaimed lexicons while referencing the
oldest extant manuscripts. Pauls thoughts will be scrutinized by juxtaposing each
proposal he makes against Yahowahs position on the same topic. We will leave
nothing to chance or supposition. And while we are cognizant that billions of
religious individuals believe that Galatians is Scripture, we will be honest, even if
the result is judgmental and thus deemed offensive. Regardless of how many
religious preconceptions succumb to the evidence, this pursuit of the truth will be
relentlessly rational.
For those who have not read the Letter to the Reader, you should know that at
the onset of this study, I was inclined to think that Paul did no such thing. At the
beginning of what would become an extraordinarily comprehensive evaluation of
Pauls veracity, I was predisposed to believe that scribal error, misleading
translations, unsupported interpretations, confusion over which nomos Paul was
assailing, and an overall ignorance of the Torahs purpose, had collectively
conspired to conceive religious teachings which were inconsistent with Pauls
intended message. And yet, it will be Shauwls words, not my preconceived
notions, which will determine whether or not the most influential man in human
history became such because he had the audacity to contradict God, to undermine
His testimony, and to establish a New Testament in place of the one he sought
to annul. If he did, and if he made his case, then Christianity might be on solid
footing. But if it wasnt appropriate to demean and dissolve the Torah, if faith
isnt the answer, billions have been tragically misled, their souls extinguished as a
consequence.
As a result, it is instructive to reinforce the fact that Pauls given name was
Shauwl. It is of Hebrew origin, and it means he questions or question him
depending upon how the pronoun is accommodated. And questioning him as a
result of what he questioned is precisely what we are going to do. And in this
vein, you should also know that the name, Shauwl, is indistinguishable in
Hebrew from Sheowl, meaning the grave, the pit, and the realm of the
dead. Also relevant, Shauwl has become known as Paul only because he
chose to speak and write under the Latin name, Paulos. It means little and
lowly, something which will loom large before we are finished.
To arrive at the truth, we, like those who have gone before us, must resolve
which nomos Paul was attacking: Rabbinic Law or Yahowahs Towrah which
actually means Teaching and Guidance. We will have to closely compare the
oldest textual witnesses to more modern-Greek manuscripts to determine if Pauls
words have been affected by scribal error, attributing things to Shauwl that he did
not actually say. And after presenting Pauloss letter in English, rendering it as
accurately and completely as possible from the oldest manuscripts, we will have
to compare our findings to other renderings to ascertain whether or not
translational errors have artificially altered our impression of his purpose in
writing this particular document. Fortunately, each of these questions can be
emphatically resolved.
One of the surprising obstacles we will have to overcome along the way will
become obvious in short order. Pauls letter to the Galatians is poorly written;
reflecting the worst writing quality found anywhere in texts comprising the
Christian New Testament. We will encounter a steady diet of inappropriate
words and worse. Many of Pauls sentences are incomprehensible. The fact that
the resulting literacy is well beneath the dignity of God is something we will
wrestle with, even though this doesnt seem to matter to a religion hell bent on
distancing itself from Yahowah, from His Covenant, from His Torah, from the
first four Statements He etched in stone, or from six of His seven Feasts (Hebrew:
Miqraey Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God).
Before we embark on this journey, there is something else you should know.
There are a handful of individuals who would like others to believe that Paulos
did not write Galatians. They use pedantic ploys to infer that this epistle, along
with Second Corinthians, First Thessalonians, Ephesians, and both personal letters
to Timothy, were foisted as a clever fraud, and then later attributed to Paul. In
support of this argument, there is phraseology prevalent in Galatians that appears
less frequently in the subsequent epistles claimed by this man perhaps the most
influential individual in human history.
In support of Galatians being from Paul, we must recognize that the book of
Acts reveals that he had the kind of contentious relationship with the Galatians
which is actually reflected in the epistle. We are told that the Galatians went from
believing that Paulos was the incarnation of a Greek god to wanting to stone him
for his caustic rhetoric.
Second, Shimown / Peter, in his second letter, evaluates an epistle Paul had
written expressly to this particular audienceone that we learn from his greeting
in First Peter has to be Galatia, because it is the only place where the addressees
overlap. Therefore, based upon the Disciples letter, we know that Paul wrote an
epistle to the Galatians. And if not this letter, then the authentic document has
been lost. But more than that, the language Shimown (He Listens) uses to
describe Galatians precisely reflects the contents we find in the surviving copy.
Third, the issues raised at the Yaruwshalaim (Jerusalem) Summit serve as
the centerpiece of this epistle. After reading Lukes (from the Latin Lucas)
testimony in Acts, it becomes clear that Galatians was Pauloss response to his
critics at this meeting. Status was paramount to Shauwl, and therefore, Galatians
chronicles his desire to position himself as favorably as possible, especially vis a
vis Yahowshas Disciples whom he routinely slights.
 Additionally, based upon the disparaging language, it appears that the letter
was written immediately after that meeting, long before tempers cooled. And that
means that Paulos would have had twelve subsequent opportunities to distance
himself from the letter scribed to the Galatians had it been a fraud because his
open letters to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Colossians,
and Philippians, as well as the personal notes to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon all
came later as did most of his testimony in Acts. Never once is he heard
denouncing the authenticity of his epistle to the Galatians, but is instead found
building his case against the Towrah and its Covenant upon the foundation he laid
therein.
Fourth, Galatians is all about Shauwl becoming Paulos, about his childhood,
his religious education, his questionable call, his self-proclaimed mission, his
adversarial preaching, his suspect credibility, and his personal trials and
tribulations. Within its text, we find Paul referring to himself as the parent of his
faithful children, as the perfect example to follow, as a person who can do no
wrong, and as someone who cannot lie. So if Paul didnt write it, Galatians was
either scribed by his publicist, or by someone who spent the better part of their
life polishing Pauls sandals.
Fifth, the oldest extant codex containing Pauls epistles, Papyrus 46, places
Galatians in the midst of the other letters claimed by and attributed to Paulos. In
order of their appearance in the codex, these epistles include: Romans, Hebrews,
1st and 2nd Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1st
Thessalonians. And since P46 is dated between 85 and 125 CE, we know that one
of the earliest collectors of Greek manuscripts believed that Paul had penned this
letter. As did Marcion in the second century, a man who looms large in this saga.
Sixth, Paulos had a propensity to sign his letters so that his audience would
have some assurance that he was the author. But with Galatians, he did more than
just sign his name. He personally attests to have written the conclusion with his
own hand using really big letters.
And seventh, Pauls signature term is charis, the name of the Greek
goddesses of hospitality and merriment. Their name was transliterated into
English as Grace as a result of the Roman moniker for these same goddesses,
the Gratia. Apart from Pauloss letters, the use of charis can only be attested in
one other place in an ancient Greek manuscript. Therefore, the frequency of
deploying the name of the Greek goddesses of charity and licentiousness in all of
these letters strongly suggests that this troubling and pagan aspect of Christianity
came from Paul as did Galatians.
I suppose that this may leave us with a third, albeit highly unlikely
alternative, that Paul was the author, but that he never intended this letter to be
circulated, much less to be considered Scripture. He was clearly angry, and may
well have dashed off an emotional response that, from a more sober perspective,
he would have wadded up and thrown away. Most of us have written letters like
this; and many have had the good sense to hold on to them long enough to soften
them once our passions have subsided. But if this is the case, what does it say
about the credibility of the rest of the testimony this man also claims was inspired
by God, indeed, what does it suggest about the veracity of the Christian New
Testament as a whole?
The only benefit of distancing this epistle from Paul is that it would not
tarnish the remainder of the letters attributed to him. But even then, the potential
benefit would be fraught with peril, in that it would open the floodgates to
questioning the appropriateness of everything originally written in Greek and not
Hebrew. Christianitys entire foundation would be torn asunder. Worse, because
the Galatians epistle was written in first person, and because it is based upon the
life of the self-proclaimed Apostle Paulos, if it is a counterfeit, not only does the
authority of more than half of the Christian New Testament become suspect, the
religion is deprived of doctrine.
In reality, as we will discover throughout this review, in substance, there is
very little difference between Galatians and the rest of Pauls letters. It is readily
apparent that the same individual wrote them, one that was promoting his own
unique message in his own unique way.
Ultimately, however, the only question which really matters is whether or not
Galatians is true. Is it the inspired Word of God, and thus Scripture, or not? If it is
valid, so is Christianity. But if it is invalid, the worlds most popular religion is
brought down with it.
This conclusion is inescapable because Galatians, even more than Pauls
other letters, is devoted to systematically demeaning, dismantling, and demoting
the Torah and its Covenant. So, without Galatians, there is no way to justify
Christianitys violation of the first four Statements Yahowah etched in stoneas
they would still stand. This would include the recognition that Yahowah is Gods
only name, that Yahowah, Himself, is our Savior, and that the Sabbath remains
set apart. Without Galatians, there would be no way to explain Christianitys
opposition to Yahowahs seven Miqraey Invitations to be Called Out and Meet
with God as they would still delineate the path to eternal life, to salvation,
adoption, enrichment, empowerment, and reconciliation, leading to living with
God as His children. Without Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews, there would only
be one Covenant, a familial accord which has yet to be renewed. There would be
no room for a New Testament, a Gospel of Grace, or a faith-based religion.
 Without Galatians, Yahowahs Torah, as is affirmed throughout the Psalms
and Prophets, remains the sole means to liberate humankind from religious and
political oppression. But with Galatians, the Torah is mankinds greatest foe, the
path to enslavement and condemnation.
Without Galatians, the Gospel of Grace would be stillborn, invalidated by
the promise of the Torah with its entirely different healing and beneficial
message. Without Galatians, our association with God would be based exclusively
upon the Torahs everlasting Covenant, upon knowing Yahowah and relying upon
Gods Guidance, not Pauls. Without Galatians, admission to heaven would be
predicated upon responding to Yahowahs Invitations to Meet with Him as this
seven-step path is articulated in the Torah and affirmed by Yahowsha. Without
Galatians, faith becomes irrelevant, as does the religion of Christianity, because
the God who authored the Torah can be known.
In this regard, you should know that faith is the opposite of trust. Trust
emerges from a discerning evaluation of the evidence, while faith thrives in the
absence of information and reason.
So, while there may be some lingering debate among a few individuals
regarding the authenticity of this epistle, we will proceed as if Galatians is
genuine. After all, billions of people the world over accept it as having been
written by Paul, a man they believe was inspired by God. But is that possible?
Could the God who created the universe, who conceived life, who authored the
Torah, who nurtured the Covenant, who freed a nation from slavery, and who
enlightened the world while proving His existence and verifying His witness
through prophecy, have contributed to a book which presents Him as incompetent
and impotent? Fortunately, that question can be answered. So long as you are
willing to invest the time to consider the evidence with an open mind, so long as
you are willing evaluate the facts rationally, not religiously, together we will
determine with absolute certainty whether or not Galatians, indeed the whole
corpus of Pauline literature, was inspired by God. If it was, it is trustworthy. If
not, it isnt reliable. And in the end, that is all this study portends to determine.
But there are far reaching implications associated with that determination.
And that is because the religion of Christianity was established as an extension of
the paradigm Paulos first proposed in his epistle to the Galatians. As a result of
this book, Yahowsha would be renamed and then recast from someone who
could be known into an object of faith reduced to a caricature that would
become exceedingly easy to manipulate. As a result, the Pauline Jesus Christ
was touted as a new and improved, more tolerant and accepting, nicer and loving,
version of the jealous and wrathful God of the old-fashioned Law, a God out of
touch with modern sensibilities. The perception of Yahowsha as the diminished
corporeal manifestation of Yahowah, set apart from God, would be lost in the fog
of myth. The realization that Yahowsha was Towrah observant would be
convoluted, twisted and inverted, with Christians, as a direct result of this letter,
believing that their Jesus had come to annul the old gods arcane and dreadful
Law, freeing them from its judgmental nature.
With Yahowshas name forgotten and replaced, the Savior would become
Jesus Christ and no longer Yahowah, Himself. In this way, the entirety of
Yahowahs testimony, His role as Creator, Father, and Savior, even as God,
would be discounted then dismissed, as would be His Torah and His Covenant.
Christians wouldnt speak of Him or pray to Him, preferring to focus on their
religious caricature. The Pauline Jesus Christ would become an object to be
painted with the impressions and opinions of believers, His own words and life
ignored because most everything He said and did was now in conflict with the
belief system Paul was foisting on an accepting world. Therefore, as a result of
what this new paradigm wrought, should Pauls epistle to the Galatians prove to
be unreliable for any reason, to be in conflict with Yahowah or Yahowsha, the
foundational assumptions of the Christian religion fall apart with it, as they could
neither be inspired nor be accurate. It is that simple, that clear cut. The fate of
your soul rests in the balance, as does every Christians.

I understand that Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the founder of
their religion, but that is not possible. I understand that Christians believe that it is
appropriate to address God as the Lord, but that is not possible. I understand
that Christians believe that the Jesus is the second person of a Trinity, and
represented the totality of God, but that is not possible.
I understand that Christians believe that God died for their sins, but that is not
possible. I understand that Christians believe that Gods purpose is to save us, but
that is not possible. I understand that Christians believe that salvation requires
nothing of them and that it is a product of faith, but that is not possible. I
understand that Christians believe that all souls go either to heaven or to hell, but
that is not possible.
I understand that Christians believe that Jesus was born on Christmas Day,
but that is not possible. I understand that Christians believe that Easter
commemorates Gods bodily resurrection from death, but that is not possible. I
understand that Christians believe that the Covenants renewal is depicted in their
New Testament, making it possible to ignore everything in the Torah, but that is
not possible. I understand that Christians believe that their Bible is the inerrant
Word of God, but that is not possible.
I understand that Christians believe that Paul met with Jesus on the road to
Damascus, that he had a conversion experience, that he was transformed from
being a murderer to serving as an apostle, someone chosen and inspired by God to
share the Gospel of Grace with the world, but that is not possible. I understand
that Christians believe that the Torah was written exclusively for Jews, that it was
comprised of old-fashioned laws that no one can obey, and that Jesus came to
free us from that Law, but that is not possible.
Therefore, most everything Christians believe is untrue. And faith in
something which is invalid is unreliable.
It is an irrefutable fact that no one named Jesus Christ lived in the first-
century of the Common Era. The name Jesus was initially conceived in the 17th
Century, shortly after the letter J was invented. The actual individual was not
Greek, and therefore, He did not have a Greek name. Jesus is not an accurate
transliteration of Iesou, Iesous, or Iesoun. More incriminating still, these Greek
corruptions of His name were never written on any page of any pre-Constantine
codex of the so-called Christian New Testament. Following the example of the
Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah, Prophets, and Psalms), a
Divine Placeholder was universally deployed to represent Yahowsha. Further,
Yahowsha, which is affirmed over 200 times in the Torah and Prophets, means
Yahowah Saves. This that means that Jesus cannot be the Savior.
Moreover, Jesus could not have come in His Fathers name. But Yahowsha
could and did. So since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this
irrefutable and essential fact, and cant even get His name right, what else might
be untrue? And now that you know that Jesus isnt accurate, are you going to
start using His actual name?
Christ is not a last name, as in Jesus Christ. Further, since He was not
Greek, it would be silly to ascribe a Greek title to Him. A title should never
follow a name, but instead precede it. And when a title is conveyed, it should be
accompanied by the definite article. Christos, the alleged basis of Christ,
speaks of the application of drugs, and is therefore an inaccurate translation of
Maaseyah, which means the Work of Yahowah. Divine Placeholders were
exclusively used to present Yahowshas Hebrew title on every page of every
Greek manuscript scribed in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and early 4th centuries CE. Also, a
thorough investigation of the historical evidence demonstrates that the
placeholders for Maaseyah were based upon Chrestus, not Christos, with the
former meaning Useful Implement. Since the Christian religion has deliberately
misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, and cant even get the title
which became the name of their religion right, what else might be untrue? And
now that you know that Christ isnt remotely accurate, are you going to start
using His actual title?
The Maaseyah Yahowsha emphatically stated that He did not come to
replace or to annul any aspect of the Torah, but instead to be the living
embodiment of it. Therefore, by upholding the existing standard, He could not be
the founder of a new religion. Yahowsha was without exception, Torah
observant. His every word and deed affirmed this, as did His participation in
Passover, Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits, and Seven Sabbaths. It would be
impossible as a result to follow Yahowsha without embracing the Torah. And the
moment a person becomes Torah observant, they cease to be a Christian, which is
why believers ignore almost everything Yahowsha did and said. So since the
Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential
fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that Yahowsha was
Torah observant, are you going to follow His example?
Throughout the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, God ascribes the title Lord to
Satan. The Adversary is called ha Baal the Lord, because he wants to control
the beneficiaries of freewill. The Adversarys prime objective is for mankind to
bow down to him, worshipping him as if the Lord was God. But the actual God
has a name, and He has no interest in control or desire to be worshipped. His
name, Yahowah, is pronounced as readily as any of the many thousands of other
words and names written throughout His witness. Based upon the Hebrew verb,
hayah, to exist, Yahowah is found 7000 times in His Torah, Prophets, and
Psalms. He not only encouraged us to use this name, but said that replacing of His
name with the title, Lord, was the most devastating thing humankind has ever
done. It opens the door to mischaracterizing His nature and to the acceptance of
false gods by any other name. Further, learning someones name is the first step in
initiating a relationship. And Yahowah wants us to relate to Him as children
would to a father. The proper perspective is to see our Heavenly Father on His
knees, offering to lift us up. And as the Author of freewill, God is opposed to
lording over anyone. So since the Christian religion has deliberately
misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And
now that you know that Gods name is pronounced Yahowah, are you going to
use it instead of Lord?
The Trinity is a Babylonian religious concept. This notion was part and
parcel of the pagan mythology of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans as well.
Yahowah never once mentions anything even remotely akin to a Trinity. He not
only says that He is one, but expressly asks us not to accept religious customs
such as this. Yahowsha is the diminished corporeal manifestation of Yahowah,
set apart from Him to serve us. He is, therefore, an aspect of God, not all of God.
The entirety of God would not fit into our solar system, much less into the body
of a physical being. And part of God does not make a second God. The Spirit is
also set apart. Her title, in fact, is the Ruwach Qodesh, which means Set-Apart
Spirit. Representing the Maternal aspects of Yahowahs nature, She serves as our
Spiritual Mother, thereby completing the symbolism of the Covenant Family the
very family we are invited to join. Since the Christian religion has deliberately
misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And
now that you know that God is one, are you going to start focusing your attention
on getting to know Yahowah instead of Jesus?
Yahowah is immortal. He cannot die. Man cannot kill God. Therefore, God
could not die for your sins. Yahowah and Yahowsha explained this, but
Christians seldom listen to Him. As the Passover Lamb, Yahowsha cited the
opening line of the 22nd Psalm, telling us that the Spirit of God departed, allowing
His physical body to die while His soul went to Sheowl to redeem us on
Unleavened Bread. The Psalm explains all of this, including the service His soul
provided for us on the Sabbath of Matsah. Therefore, according to God, God did
not die. As for His physical body, it was incinerated that same night in accordance
with the Torahs instructions. So there was no physical resurrection. And that
explains why, in all three encounters on FirstFruits, no one recognized Him. He
was the same soul, and now reunited with the same Spirit, but He was only partly
corporeal. Recognizing the relationship between energy and matter, one realizes
that being corporeal would be a liability, which is why there is no such thing as
bodily resurrection into the spiritual realm. So since the Christian religion has
deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be
untrue? And now that you know that God could not die for your sins, are you
going to follow His example and celebrate Passover, Unleavened Bread, and
FirstFruits with Him?
Speaking of the first three Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God,
they collectively depict the Way Yahowah has provided to perfect us. But saving
us isnt His priority. Yahowah is committed to His Covenant. Salvation is only
afforded to its children. It would be irrational for Yahowah to save souls who
dont know Him, who dont care what He had to say, who dont appreciate what
He is offering, and who have worshipped a god of mans making. Therefore,
before a soul can be saved, that individual must first come to know, understand,
accept, and then engage in the Covenant based upon the conditions articulated in
the Towrah. The first of these is to walk away from religion and politics, from all
things associated with Babylon. We are encouraged to rely on Yahowah instead,
walking along a path which makes us immortal and perfect children who are
prepared to be adopted into our Heavenly Fathers family, enabling His Spirit to
enrich us and empower us. Therefore, while salvation is a gift, it is the byproduct
of participating in the Covenant. So since the Christian religion has deliberately
misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And
now that you know that God has established a handful of conditions that must be
met to participate in this relationship, are you going to seek to understand these
things and then respond to God based upon what He is actually offering?
If God said, Love me or I will send you to hell to be tortured, He would not
only be unlovable, He would be sadistic. Because of this scenario, there is a
serious problem with the Christian god. However, the real God, Yahowah, said no
such thing. According to His testimony, most souls simply cease to exist upon
their mortal demise. They do not know God. God does not know them. There is
nothing more. No reward. No punishment. Yahowah provided each of us with the
gift of a soul so that we could be observant, giving us freewill so that we could
choose to know, ignore, or reject Him, and the benefit of a conscience so that we
could exercise good judgment during our lives. The relatively few souls who use
these gifts and get to know Yahowah as He revealed Himself in His Towrah, who
understand and accept the conditions of His Covenant, and who answer the
Invitations to walk to Him, live forever with God in His home. Those souls who
are beguiled by religion, or who just have no interest in God, cease to exist. And
those who oppose Yahowah, promoting anything which leads others away from
God, His Towrah or His Covenant, will spend eternity incarcerated in Sheowl,
something akin to a black hole. So since the Christian religion has deliberately
misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And
now that you know that most souls dont end up in heaven or hell, are you going
to start questioning those who have tried to deceive you, promising heaven to you
if you place your faith in them and their religion?
God is immortal. He was not born on any day, much less on the Winter
Solstice, Christmas Day, when the Son of the Sun was born in virtually every
pagan religion nine months, of course, after the celebration of Easter. Yahowah
consistently asks us to reject the religious mythology of pagan cultures, and yet
Christians incorporated Babylons two holiest days into their faith. This does not
please God; it angers Him, especially since Christians celebrate these pagan
holidays while ignoring, even rejecting, every one of His Meetings. This is
especially disappointing because Yahowshas purpose was to enable the promises
Yahowah had made regarding Passover, Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits, and
Seven Sabbaths. And after the Trumpets Harvest, He will fulfill Reconciliations
and Shelters upon His return. So since the Christian religion has deliberately
misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And
now that you know that God hates Christmas and Easter, are you going to answer
His Invitations on the days He designated?
The lone presentation of the Covenants renewal is detailed in Yirmayah 31.
And there, Yahowah reveals that this still future restoration of His relationship
will be with Yahuwdah and Yisrael, not with a Gentile church. In the same
discussion, He reveals that the only difference between the existing Covenant and
its reaffirmation is that upon His return He will personally place a complete copy
of His Towrah Guidance inside of us. This is significant because God would not
have created a New Testament repudiating His Torah, only to return to the
original plan. And with the Towrah woven into the very fabric of our nature, there
will come a time when Yahowahs Instructions can no longer be corrupted or
rejected. All memory of Paul, his letters, and his religion will be wiped out as a
result. So since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this
irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know
that God has only one Covenant, that it has not yet been renewed, and that its
restoration is predicated upon the incorporation of His Towrah into our lives, are
you going to consider reading it and integrating its guidance into your life?
The Christian New Testament isnt even remotely reliable. To pretend that
it is the inerrant word of God is absurd. There are over 300,000 known differences
between the oldest manuscripts and the texts which support legacy and modern
translations. No two codices agree on which words were originally written, and
that is just the beginning of the problems. No words representing church, cross,
holy, saint, Christian, Jesus, Christ, Lord, God, Ghost, Christmas, Easter,
communion, Last Supper, Trinity, or Gospel can be found in any ancient
manuscript, making all of these things religious corruptions. There are whole
sections of books that arent attested in the older witnesses, such as the discussion
with the adulterous woman in the 8th chapter of Yahowchanan, as well as the
concluding chapter of Mark. Neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitnesses, and thus
are hearsay. Pauls thirteen letters, combined with his starring role in Acts,
present doctrines which are diametrically opposed to Yahowshas words and
deeds, and thus cannot have been inspired by the same God. And then we have to
confront the issue of invalid, incomplete, and misleading translations, something
you will more fully appreciate by the time you have completed this book. So since
the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential
fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that you cannot rely on
the Christian New Testament, where are you going to turn for answers?
According to Yahowshas testimony during the Olivet Discourse, Paul could
not have seen Him on the road to Damascus. He told us not to believe anyone
who made such a claim. So if Shauwl saw a light, it was not Gods. Nor is his
message. And make no mistake, Pauls message was his own. He never accurately
quotes anything Yahowah or Yahowsha said. Moreover, Pauls preaching was
the antithesis of Gods testimony. If one can be relied upon, the other is a liar.
You can either believe Paul or trust God, but no one can accept both. By
comparing their words, this book will prove this point beyond a reasonable doubt.
You will hate Paul before we are through.
As for the rest of the points that have been raised here in hopes of motivating
Christians to begin questioning some of the many myths that have been woven
into the fabric of their religion, irrefutable evidence to support every conclusion is
provided in Yada Yah and in An Introduction to God. But before you consider
either, there was a reason for the questions. If you are not going to change your
thinking when confronted with evidence that undermines your beliefs, then
nothing matters. This book, any book, even Gods book cannot positively
influence a closed or irrational mind.
I have not yet responded to Christianitys most debilitating lie. I understand
that Christians, as a direct result of Pauls letter to the Galatians, have been led to
believe that the Torah was written exclusively for Jews, that it was comprised of
old-fashioned laws and arcane concepts that are impossible to obey, and that
Jesus came to free the world from it. But since addressing this position is the
purpose of this book, lets consider the evidence...

While we will analyze every word of Galatians, from Shauwls greeting to

his handwritten closing statement, our review of Christendoms foundational
treatise will commence at the same place Christians begin their assault on the
Torah. That occurs in Galatians 3, verses 10 through 14. So, lets take a moment
and consider the King James Version (Christianitys most influential bible
translation) and New Living Translations (the religions most recent and liberal
variation and among the most popular) depictions of these passages, juxtaposed
against a literal rendering of the earliest first-century manuscript of Shauwls
letter.
Reason dictates that if the following KJV and NLT translations are accurate,
then the Torah is Gods way of cursing humankindnot saving us. And if this
is true, Yahowah and Yahowsha are liars. The King James reads: For as many
as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every
one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do
them. (3:10)
More clearly presented, albeit less aligned with the Greek text, the New
Living Translation published: But those who depend on the law to make them
right with God are under his curse, for the Scriptures say, Cursed is everyone
who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in Gods Book
of the Law. (3:10) If they are correct, Gods Word is Gods curse.
According to the most scholarly and most respected resource, the Nestle-
Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear,
the statement Paul wrote actually conveys: For as many as from works of law
they are under curse they are. It has been written for (not applicable) curse on all
who not stay in all the things having been written in the small book of the law the
to do them.
Based upon the words Shauwl selected, the following is an even more
complete and accurate depiction of his pronouncement: Because (gar for) to
the degree that (hosos as many and as far as) out of (ek) tasks and activities
of (ergon works or actions associated with) the Towrah (nomou the means to
being nourished by that which is bestowed to become heirs, precepts which were
apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, and
prescriptions for an inheritance; from nemo that which is provided, assigned,
and distributed to heirs to nourish them (singular genitive, and thus a specific
characterization)) they are and they exist (eisin eisin) under (hupo by way of)
a curse (katara that which a supernatural power deploys when he wishes to
invoke harm by promoting evil, that which is accursed, denounced and detested),
for (gar because indeed) it has been written (grapho) that (hoti): To become
accursed (epikataratos to be exposed, abhorrent, and repugnant, slanderous,
hateful, and malicious (to become is a product of the nominative case)) everyone
(pas all and completely) who (hos) not (ou) remains in (emmeno stays and
continues in, perseveres with) all (pas) that (tois) having been written (grapho)
in (en) the scroll (to biblion the book or documented written record typically on
papyrus) of the (tou) Towrah (nomou the allotment which is parceled out, the
inheritance which is given, the nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed
and used to grow, the precepts which are apportioned, established, and received as
a means to be proper and to be approved, and the prescription to become an heir
(singular genitive, and thus restricted to a singular specific and unique
characterization)), the of (tou) to do (poieomai to make, produce, or perform)
them (autos). (Galatians 3:10)
Trimmed to its essentials, the statement reads: Because to the degree that
out of tasks and activities of the Towrah they exist under a curse which a
supernatural power deploys when he wishes to invoke harm by promoting
evil, doing what is accursed, denounced and detested, for it has been written
that: To become accursed, to become abhorrent, and repugnant, everyone
who not remains in all that having been written in the scroll of the Towrah,
to do them. (Galatians 3:10) Recognizing that the preceding translation is a
literal rendering of Papyrus 46, the oldest extant manuscript of Shauwls letter
(dated to the late first or early second century), its hard to explain the KJVs and
NLTs considerable variation from it.
One of our questions has already been resolved. While we will diligently
research every discernible connotation of nomos, not just once but multiple
times, Shauwl has clearly acknowledged what you will come to know. He is
using nomou to describe the Torah, as if nomos and towrah were synonymous.
We know this because in the attempt to prove this point he translated the Hebrew
word towrah into Greek as nomou. As a result, a Pauline apologist cannot say
that Paul was condemning Rabbinic Law instead of the Towrah without
contradicting Pauls own translation. Paul is, therefore, calling the Word of God,
Yahowahs foundational testimony, a curse.
Beyond emphatically demonstrating that Shauwl was using variations of
nomos to convey Torah throughout his letters, by rendering towrah as nomou,
to be intellectually honest, the meaning of towrah in Hebrew which is teaching,
instruction, direction, and guidance, must prevail over law. Therefore, not only
is Paul implicating himself by disparaging the Word of God, those who publish
Christian bibles are universally guilty of misrepresenting one of the most
important words ever written when they render towrah via nomos as law.
But there is more: Paul misquoted the Towrah. The passage he cited in the
context of the discussion in Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26 conveys a
message which is diametrically opposed to the point Paul was making. How then
can his point be valid if he had to misrepresent Gods position?
The Towrah reads: Invoking harm upon oneself is whoever relationally
and beneficially is not established, restored, and supported by the words of
this Towrah, approaching by engaging through them. And then the entire
family responded, This is true, acceptable, and reliable. (Dabarym 27:26)
But lets not be superficial. Since it is in your interest to verify every word of
both statements for yourself, here again, more fully amplified, is Gods testimony:
Invoking harm upon oneself (arar cursing oneself by making oneself
undesirable) is whoever relationally and beneficially (asher) is not (lo)
established (quwm restored, supported, encouraged, lifted up and caused to
stand, confirmed, and enabled to endure) by (eth with and through) the words
(dabar message and accounts) of this (ha zoth) Towrah (towrah source of
guidance, direction, teaching, and instruction), approaching (la) by engaging
through them (asah eth by acting upon them and doing productive things
according to them, celebrating and profiting with them). And then (wa) the
entire (kol) family (am people and nation) responded (amar answered,
promised, and declared), This is true, acceptable, and reliable (aman this is
affirming, supportive, verifiable, and dependable). (Dabarym / Words /
Deuteronomy 27:26)
So what now? Assuming that you found a Greek and Hebrew interlinear on
your shelf or online, and that you referenced a lexicon or two, looking up each
word to verify what you have just read, how are you going to deal with this? The
answer to this question may determine the fate of your soul, especially if you have
believed Paul up to this point.
While we could, we are not going to stop here. Before we are finished,
several hundred more nails will be driven into Pauls coffin. But if we are seeking
to know whether or not Galatians was inspired by God and is trustworthy, we
already have our answer. A person who deliberately misquotes God, to promote
the inverse of what God is saying, cannot be telling the truth when he claims to be
inspired by that same God. It is impossible.
Yahowah just said that we harm ourselves when we are not established and
restored by the words which comprise His Towrah, approaching Him by acting
upon them. Christianity is torn asunder by this statement, a position which cannot
be refuted without calling God, Himself, a liar. The very statement Paul
misquoted to establish his religion destroys it.
The Towrah verse Shauwl mangled in Galatians undermines the most
fundamental aspect of the Christian religion, of faith in its Gospel of Grace, as
well as Pauloss own position, because it obliterates the idea that the Torah is
pass. But even if observing the Torah wasnt presented as the lone means to
becoming restored and established, as God has just stated, if the Almighty was
actually a capricious prankster, and if His Torah was really a curse as Paul and
others have claimed, then citing it as evidence would be irrational, because
nothing God said could be trusted.
Christian apologists, steeped as they are in Pauline Doctrine, will say that the
Torah isnt a pick and choose sort of thing, and that to be redeemed and righteous,
a person would have to do everything the Torah requires all of the time, or else
they would be cursed by it judged and condemned. But that is not the message
conveyed in this Dabarym passagenor the message conveyed by Yahowsha.
God knows that we are not perfect, which is why He provided the means to
perfect us in the heart of His Torah.
And yet, since Paul has attempted to neuter the Torah, and to sever the
relationship between Gods testimony and the Maaseyah, rejecting the Torahs
Covenant and plan of salvation, most Christians are unaware of the Torahs
redemptive properties.
 As a result of Pauls epistles, Christians dont realize that when Yahowsha
said I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, that His Way and His definition of
the Truth were both found in His Torah. And that is why, in the midst of His
Instruction on the Mount, He called the Torah the narrow way to Life. It was by
fulfilling Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, that Yahowsha honored
the promises Yahowah had made in His Torah to make us immortal on Pesach /
Passover and perfect us on Matsah / Un-Yeasted Bread so that He could adopt us
into His family the next day during Bikuwrym / FirstFruits But by severing this
connection, by disassociating Yahowsha from Yahowahs Word, the
Maaseyahs life, His testimony, and His sacrifices become as meaningless as the
faith Christians place in them.
Moving on to Shauwls next thought, as it is found in the Nestle-Aland
Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear: But
that in law no one is made right along the God clear because the right from trust
will live. Amplified, and with the Greek text highlighted for your consideration,
we find: But (de it follows, moreover, and namely) because (oti) with (en
inside and with regard to) the Torah (nomo the allotment which is parceled
out, the inheritance which is given, and the prescription to become an heir)
absolutely no one (oudeis nothing, nobody, and not one; from oude heis not
even one) is vindicated or justified (dikaioo made or shown to be correct,
proper, or right, acquitted or declared righteous) by (para with and in the
opinion of) the God (to ) becomes evident (delos becomes clear and is
made plain (scribed in the nominative, where an adjective is presented influencing
the subject, God, in this case, renaming Him)) because (oti namely and for this
reason): Those who are correct, righteous, and proper (o dikaios those who
are right, upright, virtuous, and guiltless) out of (ek) faith (pistis originally
meant trust but evolved to faith or belief as a result of Shauwls usage in these
letters) will live (zao will be alive). (Galatians 3:11)
Buffed up a bit in the King James, he sounds a bit more eloquent, albeit no
more rational: But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is
evident: for, The just shall live by faith. Updated for modern sensibilities, the
New Living Translation passage reads: So it is clear that no one can be made
right with God by trying to keep the law. For the Scriptures say, It is through
faith that a righteous person has life. (3:11) And yet Pauls first point was
anything but clear, because he cited a passage which contradicted his premise.
But more telling still, the Scriptures dont actually say anything about faith,
much less that ones beliefs lead to being just or righteous.
Therefore, both positions are illogical. Even if no one was justified by the
Torah that would still not infer that the just or righteous shall live by faith. Rather
than cause and consequence, these ideas are unrelated. It is like saying: red
wagons dont work so it is evident we should put our faith in blue tricycles. More
to the point, if Gods Torah cannot be relied upon, in whom are we to express our
faith?
As I previously mentioned, the Scriptures do not say, It is through faith
that a righteous person has life. The passage Shauwl truncated actually reads:
Pay attention, he will be puffed up with false pride. His soul, it is not right
nor straightforward in him. So, through trust and reliance, by being firmly
established and upheld by that which is dependable and truthful, those who
are upright and vindicated live. (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:4)
This is almost breathtaking in its audacity. And this time the biggest issue
isnt just the inaccurate or inappropriate nature of Pauls citation, where he has
once again misrepresented Yahowahs intent by removing and twisting a snippet
of what God said. Whats amazing is that Yahowah is specifically warning us
about Shauwl in this passage. So by quoting it, Paul is taunting his audience,
arrogantly inferring that those foolish enough to fall for rhetoric arent sufficiently
resourceful or rational to realize that God is telling us to trust Him, not Shauwl.
In the third chapter, and then again in the concluding chapter of Questioning
Paul, Ill amplify the entirety of Gods indictment regarding Shauwl, but for now
ponder these highlights...
Upon My requirements and responsibilities, I have decided I will
literally and continually stand. And I will choose to always stand and present
Myself upon that which protects and fortifies.
So then I will be on the lookout in order to see what he will say about
Me, observing how he will question Me. But then, how can I be expected to
change My attitude, My thinking, or My response concerning My
disapproving rebuke? (2:1)
Then Yahowah answered, approaching me, and He said, Write this
revelation and then expound upon and reiterate it using letters upon writing
tablets so that by reciting this, he might run and go away. (2:2)
Still indeed, this revelation from God is for the of the Mowed Appointed
Meeting Times. It provides a witness and speaks, pouring out evidence in the
end which entraps. The extended period of time required for this question to
be resolved shall not prove it false. Expect him in this regard, because indeed,
he will absolutely come, neither being delayed nor lingering. (2:3)
Pay attention, he will be puffed up with false pride. His soul, it is not
right nor straightforward in him. So then through trust and reliance, by
being firmly established and upheld by that which is dependable and
truthful, those who are righteous and vindicated live. (2:4)
 Moreover, because the intoxicating wine and inebriating spirit of the
man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal is a high-minded moral
failure, and is arrogant with meritless presumptions, he will not rest, find
peace, nor live, whoever is open to the broad path, the duplicitous and
improper way, associated with Shauwl.
He and his soul are like the plague of death. And so those who are
brought together by him, accepting him, will never be satisfied. Most every
Gentile will gather together unto him, all of the people from different races
and nations. (2:5)
They do not ask questions, any of them, about him. Terse references to
the Word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, along with allusive sayings,
simplistic and contrived equivalencies, and mocking interpretations,
controlling through comparison, counterfeit and clichs, along with derisive
words arrogantly conveyed.
There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him,
and double dealings to be known regarding him. And so they should say,
Woe to the one who claims to be great so as to increase his offspring, acting
like a rabbi, when neither apply to him. For how long will they make pledges
based upon his significance, becoming burdened by his testimony?
(Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:6)
Evidence does not get any more compelling or relevant than this. Shauwl
took us directly to a prophecy that God had used to encourage us to Shauwl
Question Him.
Therefore, Yahowah revealed that a man named, Shauwl, coterminous
with the time He would fulfill His Mowed Appointed Meetings (during
Yahowshas participation in Mowed Miqraey of Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and
Shabuwah in 33 CE when Shauwl was studying to become a Rabbi in
Yaruwshalaim) would inappropriately attempt to convince people from different
races that he was authorized to replace Gods existing standard with a new and
different set of requirements. Further, as if He was reading Galatians, God told us
that Shauwl would be arrogant, circuitous, duplicitous, intoxicating, deceptive,
treacherous, and presumptuous. We were warned that this pseudo-rabbis way
would be improper, akin to a plague of death. And yet, according to God,
Shauwls broad, and therefore accommodating, path would become especially
popular with Gentiles because too few of them would actually question his
allusive sayings, his derisive words, his comparisons and counterfeits, which
would all be ripe with taunts and ridicule.
Shauwl has hung himself with these words, twisting the knot which would
become his noose. His statement is not only the antithesis of Gods instructions,
he has exposed us to Yahowahs ridicule of him. Moreover, and apart from the
prophecy, if Paul was right in disavowing Yahowahs standard, it would be
equivalent of God saying: I will save those who contradict Me and justify those
who negate and belittle the plan I have established. And yet, Yahowah
introduced His Habakkuk prophecy, affirming that He was not about to change.
Continuing to mislead by way of senseless and duplicitous prose, the KJV
renders Pauls next statement: And the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth
them shall live in them. Deploying a different tactic, the NLT authored
something which could only be considered appropriate in the context of religion.
This way of faith is very different from the way of law, which says, It is through
obeying the law that a person has life. (3:12)
Should the translation team deployed by Tyndale House Publishers,
Incorporated have meant that the way of the Christian faith is very different than
the way of the Torah, then they would be right. But can that way of faith be
right is the multi-billion soul question. Can Pauls thesis, his faith, his religion,
be very different from the way delineated by God in the Torah and still
reconcile fallen man into a relationship with that same God? Has God endorsed a
revised plan which is counter to the one He originally authored? And if He did
such a thing, wouldnt it make Him untrustworthy and unreliable?
Irrespective of the fact that Yahowah has provided the answer, at least the
battle lines have been drawn. According to the most popular modern translation, it
is now the Torah vs. Christianity. So let the Great Galatians Debate begin: are we
to trust Yahowahs Torah or put our faith in Shauwl / Paulos / Paul?
Amplified, and with the words Shauwl selected on display, the man God just
told us to question, wrote: But (de) the Towrah (nomou the allotment which is
parceled out, the inheritance which is given, the nourishment which is bestowed
to be used to grow, the precepts which are apportioned, established, and received
as a means to be proper and approved, and the prescription to become an heir)
exists (eimi is) not (ouk) out of (ek) faith or belief (pistis), but to the contrary
(alla making an emphatic contrast with an adversarial implication), The one
having done (o poieomai the one having made and performed as such
becoming) them (autos) will live (zao) with (en in and by) them (autos).
(Galatians 3:12)
Recognizing that Paul didnt express this thought very well, principally
because the Towrah passage he cited didnt fit his conclusion, in context we are
led to believe that Shauwl was suggesting that if an individual was to choose the
Towrah over faith, that they would have to live with the consequence. He is
inferring that the only way to live with the Towrah would be to do everything it
requires. So since he tried to usurp Gods credibility to prove his point, we must
turn to the passage he referenced to ascertain whether or not Yahowahs Towrah
actually said what Shauwl was asserting.
Opening Yahowahs Torah to Qara / Called Out / Leviticus, we find God
imparting guidance, whereby we are advised to avoid the kinds of religious myths
and practices which comprise Christianity:
Speak (dabar communicate using words) to (el) the Children of
Yisrael (beny Yisrael children who engage and endure with God), and (wa)
say (amar affirm) to them (el), I am (anky) Yahowah ( ), your God
(elohym). (18:1-2)
With regard to things which could be considered similar to (ka as with
and like) the practices (maaseh the pattern of behavior, the work, the things
done, undertakings, and pursuits) of the realm (erets land) of the Crucible of
Egypt (Mitsraym crucibles of religious, political, military, and economic
oppression) where (asher) you dwelt (yashab), you should not engage in or act
upon (lo asah you should not celebrate or profit from) similar (ka) pursuits
(maaseh patterns of behavior, things done, undertakings, and practices) in the
land (ba erets) of Kanaany (Kanaany Zealousness which subdues, bringing
people into subjection; commonly transliterated Canaan) which beneficially as a
result of the relationship (asher), I am (anky) bringing you (bow esh).
There (sham), you should not act upon or engage in (lo asah) their decrees
or customs (chuqah their prescriptions for living and their traditions and
statutes), never walking in or following them (lo halak never patterning your
life after them). (18:3)
With (eth) My means to exercise good judgment regarding the
resolution of disputes (mishpat My means to decide regarding justice and
judgment), you should continually engage and genuinely act (asah). With
(eth) My prescriptions for living (chuqah My inscribed recommendations
which cut you into the relationship), you should consistently examine and
carefully consider (shamar you should make a habit of consistently and
actually observing) for the purpose of approaching by (la) walking in them
(halak ba). I am (anky) Yahowah, your God (elohym). (Qara / Called Out /
Leviticus 18:4)
This admonition against religion, politics, and societal customs, was followed
by the statement Paul sought to usurp to prove his point. It reads:
And so (wa) you should choose of your own volition to actually and
completely observe (shamar under the auspices of freewill, you should
consider choosing to carefully and completely examine (qal perfect consecutive))
accordingly (eth) My prescriptions for living (chuqah My inscribed (and thus
written) instructions which cut you into a relationship (and thus into the
Covenant) with Me) and also (wa) My means to resolve disputes (mishpat My
means to exercise good judgment regarding redemption (thereby directing our
attention to His seven Invitations to Meet).
Whoever (asher relationally and beneficially) over time and as an
ongoing process acts upon and engages (asah consistently endeavors to
genuinely celebrate and continually benefit (qal imperfect)) with them (eth),
that man (ha adam that individual and person) indeed (wa emphasizing this)
is actually and completely restored to life as a result of this desire and his
decision, living forever (wa chayah he is literally revived, perfectly renewed,
actually nurtured, completely spared, and kept alive into perpetuity through this
exercise of freewill, raised, preserved, and allowed to flourish (qal perfect
consecutive)) through them (ba with and by them). I am (any) Yahowah
( ). (Qara / Called Out / Leviticus 18:5)
Yahowah is telling all who would listen that if a person wants to live, they
should pay attention to what He has to say and then act upon His offer. And let us
not forget, everything He had to say, everything He had to offer, was contained in
its entirety in the very book He was reciting: His Towrah!
Therefore, Paul has once again deliberately abbreviated and misappropriated
a passage which is inconsistent with his own message, perhaps hoping that the use
of some common words would be sufficient to convince his audience that God
supports his position.
But in the quoted verse, God absolutely and unequivocally did not say that
the law is very different than faith, that through faith a person has life, or
even through obeying the law a person has life, or anything remotely similar to
these propositions. There isnt even a Hebrew word for obey. To shamar
observe is to examine and consider, not keep. And to asah to act and
engage is to respond to what we have learned a concept light-years removed
from obey. Moreover, neither chuqah prescriptions for living or mishpat
means offered to resolve disputes are laws. These things represent the Way
Yahowahs Towrah chayah restores and renews our lives, at least for those
who consider them and act upon them.
Yahowah, speaking in first person, said that a close examination and careful
consideration of His prescriptions for living and His means to exercise good
judgment regarding His means to resolve disputes enable those to live who
respond to what He is offering. This is, of course, the antithesis of the Christian
position.
While we are making such distinctions, it is important to realize that it is
grotesquely inappropriate to refer to Yahowahs Torah as law, as Paul does
throughout his letters. The Hebrew word towrah means source from which
teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance flow. His presentation is
educational. His witness is enlightening. He is offering guidance which we are
free to embrace or reject, so He is not controlling. Moreover, His way is not
restrictive but instead liberating.
Rabbis, like Paul (who was trained to be a Pharisee), deliberately perverted
Yahs testimony to validate their own set of laws a set of religious arguments
recorded principally in the Talmud. So by referring to the Towrah as nomos,
should he have intended for it to infer law, Paul, who was educated in Hebrew,
demonstrated that he should not be trusted.
Those who would argue that Yahowsha refers to the Towrah as nomos in
His Teaching on the Mount would be inaccurate. Yahowsha spoke Hebrew and
Aramaic, never Greek. And the Disciple Mattanyah, who was an eyewitness to
Yahowshas initial and longest public declaration, wrote his biographical account
in Hebrew. Someone, perhaps a century later, translated the Mattanyahs
declaration into Greek. Moreover, as we shall soon discover, the etymological
history of nomos is actually harmonious with the Towrahs purpose, which is to
parcel out an allotment and to bestow an inheritance, providing prescriptions
regarding how to become an heir.
Paul, however, cannot be afforded any excuse. And that is because all of
Pauls letters, including Galatians, were originally written in Greek, and there is
no mistaking the fact that he was mischaracterizing the Towrah, presenting it as a
punitive set of laws. Further, he did so in full accord with rabbinical Judaism
a religious proposition Yahowsha thoroughly rebuked.
These things known, there is much more to nomos than meets the eye of the
casual observer. The word is based upon nemo to provide, assign, and
distribute an inheritance and to nourish heirs. It is an allotment which is
bestowed and parceled out for the purpose of feeding hungry sheep.
Metaphorically then, a nomos is a prescription for living which is given to us by
God so that we might live with Him as His children, be fed and grow, inheriting
all that is His to give. So in this regard, properly defined, nomos actually
provides a fitting depiction of Yahowahs Towrah teaching, guidance,
direction, and instruction on how to participate in His Covenant Family.
Moving on to the next statement as it is presented in the Nestle-Aland, King
James Version, and New Living Translation, we find: NA: Christ us brought out
from the curse of the law having become on behalf of us a curse because it has
been written, curse on all the one having hung on wood. KJV: Christ hath
redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written,
Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (3:13)
 If either the Nestle-Aland Interlinear or the King James Version has
accurately reflected Pauls thought then, according to Shauwl, the Torah is a
curse. For this interpretation of Pauls statement to be correct, rather than
fulfilling the Torah, Yahowsha liberated us from its clutches. It also means that
Yahowsha, rather than being the perfect Lamb of God as a result of always
observing the Towrah, embodied all of the Torahs negativity.
Absolving Paul of the untenable position he has been placed in by his own
testimony, as reflected in the Nestle-Aland Interlinear and the King James
Version, the New Living Translation twists the text to convey a different
perspective: But Christ has rescued us from the curse pronounced by the law.
When he was hung on the cross, he took upon himself the curse for our
wrongdoing. For it is written in the Scriptures, Cursed is everyone who is hung
on a tree. (3:13)
To the New Living Translations shame, there is no reference to a cross
anywhere in the Greek texts, much less in this passage. To Shauwls shame, the
Torahs position should not have been abridged, misappropriated, nor misquoted.
While the Torahs prediction is profoundly accurate, and stunningly prophetic, its
merit was mitigated by the way Paul truncated it.
But first things first: here is how the Greek text of Shauwls letter reads:
Christos ( placeholder for Maaseyah [but it is unlikely in this context and
with this audience that Shauwl would have associated the Maaseyah with
Yahowah]) us (ego) bought back (exagorazomai worked to atone and
purchase; from ek, out of, and agarazo, doing business in the marketplace where
(agora) people assemble for a public debate, to buy, sell, and vote) from (ek) the
curse (katara from the evil, hateful, abhorrent, loathsome, maligning, and
malicious influence) of the (tov) Towrah (nomou the means to being nourished
by that which is bestowed to become heirs, precepts which were apportioned,
established, and received as a means to proper and be approved, and prescriptions
for an inheritance; from nemo that which is provided, assigned, and distributed
to heirs to nourish them (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)),
having become (ginomai having existed as) for our sake (hyper ego) a curse
(katara a repugnant prayer, invoking the power to harm others by wishing evil
upon them, maligning and malicious), because (hoti) it has been written (grapho
inscribed): A curse on (epikataratos being exposed to divine slander and
vengeance) all (pas) the one (o) having hung (kremamai suspended) on (epi)
wood (xylon). (Galatians 3:13)
Paulos is reaffirming his hypothesis. According to the founder of the
Christian religion, Yahowahs Torah is an abhorrent and detestable curse which
promotes evil. From Shauwls perspective, Gods Word is malicious and
repugnant. Moreover, instead of the Maaseyah Yahowsha observing the
Towrah, affirming and fulfilling it as He, Himself, attests in the 5th and 7th
chapters of Mattanyah / Matthew, according to the only self-proclaimed apostle,
God opted to engaged in a business transaction whereby He has ransomed us, not
from sin, but instead from His Torah.
It is difficult to imagine the darkness which would have to come over a
person to prompt them to promote such a demonic deception. But perhaps one
thing is becoming clear, Shauwl may well have told the truth when he admitted
to being goaded and possessed by one of Satans demons. But even then, why
would so many Christians swallow this poison?
I suppose it is because, like all spellbinding deceivers before and after him,
Paul continues to weave a few credible threads through his evil tapestry. By citing
God, Shauwls lies appear plausible.
In reality, the redemption of the Covenants children is predicated upon
Yahowsha honoring and enabling the Torahs promises. So His sacrifices apart
from the Torah are meaningless. There would have been no reason for them, nor
any benefit to be derived from His otherwise inadvertent misfortune. Unless the
Maaseyahs sacrifices served a purpose, such as fulfilling the promises of eternal
life and redemption associated with Passover and Unleavened Bread in harmony
with the Torahs instructions, His life was irrelevant. In fact, if the Torah didnt
depict Yahowahs enduring plan of salvation, then Yahowsha would have been
an egregious liar who should not have been trusted, because He said and
performed otherwise.
And thats what is so odd about all of this. Shauwl is attempting to demean
and dismiss the Towrah while pretending to speak on behalf of its Author and its
living embodiment. There is no rational way to position God in opposition to His
own teaching, especially since He not only talked the talk, He walked the walk.
The statement Shauwl misquoted also comes from the Towrah, this time
from Dabarym / Words 21:23. The passage reads: Indeed when (wa ky) it
comes to pass over time (hayah) that by association (ba) an Individual (ysh
a Man) is considered to be guilty of sins (chata mishpat it is judged, decided,
determined, and thought that He is liable for sin in order to resolve disputes)
worthy of death (maweth), and He chooses to be dispatched to the realm of
the dead (wa muwth He passively allows Himself to be slain so as to be absent
from life, completely fulfilling the penalty (hophal stem perfect conjugation
consecutive mood)), and then (wa) you decide to completely and literally
suspend Him (talah eth you want to hang Him by fastening Him (qal perfect
consecutive)) on (al) a wooden timber (ets or tree), His corpse shall not
remain overnight (lo lyn nabelah His body must not endure the night, staying
there after sunset) on the timber (al ha ets near the wooden pillar).
 Rather instead (ky truthfully and certainly), you should surely prepare
and entomb His body (qabar qabar it is essential that you place His body in a
sepulcher) on this same day (ba ha yowm ha huw). Indeed because (ky), the
One being suspended (talah the one being hanged) is the cursed and abated
of (qalalah the maligned who fades away as a result of an owth and is
diminished, slighted, and decreased (in the construct form, the abated and
diminished is being associated with and is connected with and bound to)) God
Almighty (elohym). So you should not defile (wa lo tame you should not
cause to be unclean), accordingly (eth), your soil (adamah your land, realm,
and world; from adam mankind and human nature) which relationally and
beneficially (asher) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), gave (natan
produced, offered, and bestowed) to you (la for you to approach) as an
inheritance (nahalah to become an heir). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy
21:22-23)
This is a prophetic picture of the Maaseyahs fulfillment of the Torahs
presentation of Passover. Yahowahs testimony reveals to us that Yahowsha
would be considered to be guilty of sin worthy of death, that He would be
suspended from a wooden timber, that His body would be removed from the
upright pole before the sun set, that His carcass would be prepared and placed in a
sepulcher, as opposed to being buried in the ground, and that, as a result of having
our sins associated with Him, the Maaseyahs soul would become the slighted
and diminished of God in other words it would be separated and abated in
Sheowl on Matsah. It also tells us that His body, in keeping with Yahowahs
instructions regarding Passover, would cease to exist that night.
Yahowah uses prophecies like this one, and a thousand more like it, to prove
that He inspired His Scriptures. He did this so that we would be able to trust
everything else He has to say. Only God can get every prophecy right, every time
without fail.
In Roger Millers song, King of the Road, where the refrain repeats, Im a
man of means by no means, Pauls methodology is easily exposed. By simply
separating clauses, he is creating a false impression. So turning to our example,
while the country artist sang, I am a man of means, when that statement is
disassociated from by no means, without the negation, the initial phrase isnt
just misleading, its wrong. Similarly, by no means independent of Im a man
of means could be deployed by an unscrupulous individual to negate anything in
the song. But the technique is disingenuous. And since Paul isnt misrepresenting
the sentiments of country song, but instead misappropriating the Word of God, by
falsely conveying the impression that God is affirming the disillusion of His own
lyrics, Shauwl is disrespecting both God and his audience. The former was not
amused and has put us on notice that such tactics are deceitful, deadly, and
damning, condemning Shauwl by name for using them. But what about his
audience, what about the billions upon billions of Christians? Now that you know,
what are you going to do?
Thus far we have learned that Paul cannot be trusted. We now know that the
King James Version is unreliable and inaccurate, and that the New Living
Translation isnt a translation of the Greek text, its not even a faithful paraphrase,
but is instead a novelized account, whereby its authors became storytellers. To its
credit, the NLT reads smoothly, and it tickles the ears of the evangelical Christian
audience, which is why I suppose it has become so popular. But as a study tool,
other than to affirm Christian interpretations of Pauline Doctrine, it is of no
practical use and is potentially harmful.
We have learned that Paul has misapplied and misquoted Scripture with the
intent to mislead, which is troubling. All four citations were hastily and cleverly
abridged, deliberately taken out of context, and then purposefully altered to make
it appear as if Pauls message and Gods were in sync. One time would have been
inexcusable, but removing clauses from conversations will become a bad habit, an
epidemic which many Christians have come to emulate to justify their religious
views. It is also curious, indeed telling, that when considered as a whole, each of
the four statements Shauwl cited resolutely affirmed the Torahs enduring
promise to save us. Every one of Gods declarations undermined Pauline Doctrine
and thus the Christian religion.
And that means Paulos had no respect whatsoever for his audience. He
played Christians for fools because he believed they would be easy to fool.
I do not say this to insult you if you are a Christian, but to get you to realize
that what Im suggesting is true. Shauwl was so confident that his audience,
todays Christians, wouldnt question him that he flaunted his association with
Satan in everyones face, admitting that he was not only demon possessed, but
that he had been goaded into hyperbole, into overstated exaggeration, by the
Adversarys emissary. Are you surprised? Did this catch you unaware?
It shouldnt have. After all, there have been thousands upon thousands of
sermons questioning the nature of Pauls thorn in the flesh. And yet nary a one
of Pauls advocates conveys the specific and unabashed answer Paulos, himself,
scribed in his Second of two letters to Corinth, when he infamously wrote:
Because (gar for indeed) if (ean) I might want (thelo I may decide,
desire, propose, or enjoy) to brag (dauchaomai to boast and to glorify myself)
truthfully (aletheia honestly), I would not be (ouk esomai) foolish or
imprudent (aphron acting rashly without reason, inappropriate or unjustified).
 For then (gar because) I will say (ero) I am presently abstaining
(pheidomai I am currently refraining). But (de) someone (tis) not (un)
approaching (eis) me (eme) might ponder (logizomai may have reason to
logically conclude, embrace an opinion, or hold a view) beyond (hyper over
and above and because of) what (o) he sees (blepo he will be able to view and
discern) in me (me), or (e) something (ti) he hears (akouo he listens to,
receives, pays attention to) from (ek) me (emou), (12:6) and of the (kai te so
with regard to the) extraordinary superiority of the exaggerated (hyperbole ton
preeminence and exceedingly great, transcendent, magnificent, and awe-
inspiring aspects of the overstated) revelations (apokalypsis disclosures with
the appearance of instructions concerning the unknown).
Therefore (dio it should be self evident), in order that (hina for the
purpose that) I not become overly proud and be lifted up (me hyperairomai I
not become conceited, exalting myself beyond what would be justified, so as not
to be insolent, audaciously lifting myself above the source of my inspiration),
there was given to me (didomi ego there was deposited upon me, allowing me
to experience, there was granted and entrusted to me for my advantage) a sharp
goad and troubling thorn (skolops a sharp pointed prod used to control
animals, featuring poisonous scorpions stinger) in the body (te sarx
incorporated into the flesh and as an aspect of physical animal and human nature),
a messenger (angelos a spiritual envoy or demonic spirit) of Satan (Satan a
transliteration of satan, Hebrew for the Adversary), in order to (hina so as to)
strike and restrain me (kolaphizo adversely harm, beat, and torment me,
violently mistreating me to painfully afflict, attack, buffet, and batter me; from
kolazo to prune, control, check, curb, and restrain me), so that as a result (hina)
at the present time there is the possibility that I might not be conceited,
currently exalting myself beyond what would be justified, so as not to be able
to be insolent or audacious, lifting myself up (me hyperairomai I may not be
overly proud nor excessively exalted or lifted up, overdoing it (scribed in the
present tense, meaning at this time, in the passive voice, affirming that this is
being done to him, with the subjective mood indicating that this outcome is a
mere possibility, and in the first person singular, thereby identifying Paulos as the
one being possessed and controlled). (2 Corinthians 12:6-7)
As bad as this is, and this is as bad as bad ever gets, especially if you are a
Christian and have entrusted your soul to the credibility of this mans testimony, it
may be even worse when considered from the perspective of Shauwls
conversion experience when, on the road to Damascus, he first claims to have
heard the flashing light speak to him. In a desperate attempt to prove his
qualification, and thus justify his exaggerated revelations, under oath, Paulos
testified...
 And everyone (te pas) of us (emon) having fallen down (katapipto
having descended from one level to another, lower one) to the earth (eis ten ge),
I heard (akouo I paid attention, listening, comprehending, and obeying) a voice
(phone a sound, crying out) saying to me (lego pros ego speaking according
to me) in the (te) Hebrew (Hebrais) language (dialektos), Shauwl, Shauwl
(Saoul, Saoul a transliteration of the Hebrew name, Shauwl, meaning
Question Him, a designation synonymous with Sheowl the pit of the dead),
Why (tis) are you actually pursuing me (dioko me are you following me,
really striving with such intense effort to reach me, hastening and zealously
running toward me)? Its hard (skleros its demanding and difficult, even
rough, harsh, violent, and cruel, especially offensive and intolerable) for you (soi)
to resist (laktizo to kick, to strike with the heel) against (pros) the goad
(kentron a pointed sharp stick used to prick and prod and thus control animals
featuring the stinger of a deadly scorpion with the power to ruin and kill, making
resistance vain or perilous). (Acts 26:14)
While it may be hard to believe, even this gets worse in context, because the
line It is hard to resist the goad was plagiarized from the words of the Greek
god, Dionysus the pagan deity whose doctrine became part and parcel of
Christianity. Also, at this time, and by his own admission, Shauwl was actually
following Satan. He was hastily and violently killing anyone who admitted that
Yahowsha was the Maaseyah.
So there is no way to discount this testimony, to reject Pauls admission of
guilt. His confession to the Corinthians is duly recorded in Papyrus 46, a late first,
early second-century codex. If that witness isnt reliable, the entire Christian
New Testament becomes unreliable, because there are no older or more credible
codices that P46. So if you are a Christian, you must either deal with this by
rejecting all of Pauls letters as being demonically inspired, or the whole of the
New Testament as being wholly unreliable. Or, of course, you could put your
head in the sand, and be religious which is now akin to being irrational. At this
point, you can no longer claim ignorance nor should you.
If you are still a Christian, now that it has become obvious that Paul has
played you for a fool, that he has deliberately lied to you, are you going to remain
a victim? You have the option to reject Paul, but that will mean rejecting
Christianity. So what are you going to do? Are you at least open to knowing the
truth? Can you handle the truth? Do you want the truth?
Before we move on, lets pause a moment and consider the options at our
disposal regarding Pauls Scriptural misquotes. You can ignore them if you
believe that I have misrepresented Pauls or Yahowahs statements. But this
approach is easily resolved. Flip forward to the Towrah Teaching and
Guidance chapter where every Hebrew and Greek word delineated in these
statements is presented so that you can do your own due diligence and verify the
text and the translations for yourself. Or simpler yet, just compare standard
English translations of the Scripture passage and Shauwls quotation and note the
differences.
Since the first option to dismiss this problem is a nonstarter, you can accept
the fact that the citations are different, but attribute their divergence to an
inadvertent mistake on Pauls part. But if you do, you must also abandon the
notion that Pauls letters are Scripturethe inerrant Word of God. And with that
realization, the foundation of Christianity crumbles.
You can admit that there is a pattern of malfeasance with regard to all of
Pauls Scriptural citations, and recognize that they are misquoted and then twisted
to support his agenda, which means that he intended to misrepresent them. But if
you take this path, you will be compelled to label Paul a false witness. And at that
point, Christianity becomes false yet another popular and broad path that leads
to destruction.
Since the last two options are devastating, and the initial one is invalid, you
could blame the mistakes on scribal error, suggesting that Pauls Scriptural
quotations were correct initially, but that over time copyists inadvertently
misrepresented his words, creating a false impression. But this is a slippery slope.
The oldest meaningful codex of the Christian New Testament is Papyrus 46,
which is dated between 85 and 125 CE, thirty-five to seventy-five years after this
epistle was scribed, and it contains a complete copy of most all of Pauls letters. If
it isnt reliable, then nothing in the so-called Christian New Testament is
reliableas there is only one superior witness, Papyrus 75, which covers Luke
and John, and it was scribed one-hundred years later. Therefore, if scribes
significantly altered Pauls letters during this relatively short period of time, the
list of appropriately supported and reliable New Testament books would shrink
to two: portions of Luke and John. The rest, based as they are on far less reliable
and far more recent manuscripts, would be too suspect to believe. And of course,
that would mean that the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms would still stand
unchallenged.
Or you can take the quietly popular, albeit seldom articulated, Christian
position regarding these misquotesone derived from Marcion in the early
second century. He concluded that the God who inspired the Torah was mean-
spirited, and no longer relevanta position which many Christians hold, even if
they are too timid to voice it. As such, Marcion attempted to nullify the Torah by
encapsulating it within a collection which he labeled the Old Testament, and
thus suggested that it was the will of a now deceased, or at least irrelevant, deity.
Marcion promoted the myth that Paul was the only true Apostle, and that he alone
spoke for the new and improved god of his New Testament. Pauls letters were
canonized as a result a collection that included his epistles and edited portions
of Luke and Acts. Thereby, Shauwl of Tarsus, now Paulos of Rome, was
positioned and purported to correct the errors that the old God had made. As a
result, Pauls new faith forever separated believers: from Yahowah, from the first
four statements God etched in stone, from six of His seven Invitations to be
Called Out and Meet, from the Chosen People, from the Promised Land, and from
Yahowahs WordHis Torah.
Beyond the fact that this view makes a mans opinions more important than
Gods Word, the Maaseyah Yahowshas testimony is in complete harmony with
Yahowah and it is in total conflict with Shauwls epistles. Simply stated, the
Christian position is unsupportable; it is ignorant and irrational. So perhaps the
more revealing question might be: what about you?

If I had not also been played for a fool, it would be difficult, at least now that
I know the truth, to be sympathetic. The truth is as obvious as the lie is apparent.
Our salvation is predicated upon Yahowahs testimony, not Pauls.
On the fourth page of what is erroneously referred to as the Christian New
Testament, the very first time Yahowshas testimony is recorded, He settles the
issue, removing any doubt that Shauwl / Paulos / Paul lied when he wrote in
Galatians that there was no life in the Torah. Listen...
But then (de providing a contrast), the One (o) having become the
answer (apokrinomai revealed the means to separate fact from fiction, to
distinguish between truth and deceit; from apo to separate and krino to
separate again), said (lego clarified, providing meaning using words), It has
been written (grapho it has been inscribed on a document, engraved in writing,
and recorded using letters and words), Not upon (ouk ep) bread (artos a
baked loaf of bread with yeast which aerates, food in general, that which raises up
from the ground, is elevated, or lifted up; from airo to rise up from the ground,
to take upon oneself, carry away, and carry off, removing that which had once
been associated) alone, by itself, without help (monos only by himself,
forsaken, merely, and destitute of help) will this man assuredly live (zao o
anthropos will this one man reliably conduct his life in a particular manner to
actually restore life (future middle indicative), but (alla certainly, making an
emphatic contrast) upon (epi) every (pas the whole and complete) spoken
statement (rhema verbal declaration) departing out (ekporeuomai going
forth and proceeding, leading and guiding the path of life) through (dia) the
mouth (stoma the spoken communication) of Yahowah (U a Divine
Placeholder for Yahowah). (Mattanyah / Yahowahs Gift / Matthew 4:4)
Yahowsha was debating Satan, Shauwls inspiration. The Devil, as he had
with Adam and Chawah in the Garden of Eden, was tempting Yahowsha. Using
the same ploy he had originally tested, the same strategy now on display
throughout Galatians, not so coincidently, the Adversary inverted the intent of
Gods testimony by removing it from its context and twisting it to convey the
wrong impression. Playing off of a similar circumstance, when the Children of
Yisrael were hungry in the wilderness, Satan recognized that Yahowah
miraculously fed them with mana, considered to be the bread of heaven. Now
after forty days in the wilderness, he realized that Yahowsha was hungry, so why
not turn a stone into bread and take a bite?
But this was ordinary bread, artos, bread puffed up by the deadly carbon
dioxide residue of fermenting yeast the fungus equated with religious and
political corruption. Come on, you can almost hear Satan pleading as he had
exactly 4000 years before, take a bite. Whats it going to hurt to ingest a little
corruption? Well what it would have hurt was our salvation by corrupting
Yahowsha, causing Him to be less than the perfect Passover Lamb. There was a
lot at stake.
But, unlike Chawah now just twenty years shy of six millennia ago,
Yahowsha knew the Word of God, and He cited it accurately to forestall the
temptation. It is the example we should follow. The Towrah is the antidote for
Satans poison. But of course to wield it, we first have to know it.
Yahowsha cited a passage from Dabarym, which is part of the Towrah. It was
perfectly applicable to this situation, just as it is ideally suited to resolve the
question of whether or not Paulos spoke for Yahowah when he claimed that he
denounced and destroyed the Towrah because Gods testimony was a lifeless and
enslaving curse with the power to condemn but not save. Yahowsha disagreed,
and siding with Yahowah against Shauwl, He said: Not upon bread alone, by
itself, without help will this man assuredly live, but upon every spoken
statement departing out, leading and guiding the path of life, through the
mouth of Yahowah.
Life, therefore, is a byproduct of Yahowahs statements. Whats more,
Yahowah speaks in first person in His Towrah and throughout His prophets. So
not only did Yahowahs Torah, His Prophets and Psalms represent the entire
reservoir of Godly proclamations at the time Yahowsha provided this answer, and
not only was this specific citation from the Towrah, Pauls first letter wouldnt be
written for another twenty years, excluding it from consideration. Moreover, one
of the many differences between Gods Word and Pauls epistles is that Yahowah
consistently speaks in first person in His Torah and Prophets, but it is Paul, not
God, who is found continually speaking in first person throughout the epistles.
And this is relevant because Yahowsha specifically correlated life with that which
had flowed from Yahowahs mouth. So not only was this realization the antithesis
of the Pauline style, there would be no possibility of an informed and rational
person interpreting Yahowshas statement to include anything Paul would
subsequently say or write to undermine this reality.
Yahowsha became the answer. He apokrinomai revealed the means to
separate fact from fiction, to distinguish between truth and deceit. Apokrinomai
is from apo to separate and krino to separate again. More specifically, krino
means to separate in the sense of distinguishing between fact and fiction,
discriminating between right and wrong, choosing between good and evil. To
krino is to examine and consider evidence to determine what is reliable and
proper. To krino is to exercise good judgment by separating that which can be
trusted from that which cannot. It is about discretion. It is about using our brain
to filter out the foolishness of Paul. Yahowsha was the living embodiment of the
Towrah, the Word of God in the flesh. By observing the Towrah, by acting upon
the Towrahs Guidance and by engaging in accordance with Yahowahs
Instructions, Yahowsha affirmed that the Towrah is the means to know Yahowah,
to participate in a relationship with Yahowah, to life and to salvation. So
Christians, since this was Yahowshas first recorded statement, He is leaving you
without excuse.
Now that we know that the Towrah is the antidote for Pauline Doctrine, lets
consider the passage Yahowsha cited. Here, Moseh is talking with the Children of
Yisrael after they had spent forty years in the wilderness.
And you benefited from His response (wa anah He answered you in a
way which you could choose to benefit you on an ongoing basis (in the piel stem
we are the beneficiaries of Gods answer, in the imperfect conjugation the
response provides ongoing benefits, and in the consecutive mood to which we can
choose to respond)) which is why (wa) He wanted you to be hungry (raeb He
decided you would benefit if He developed your appetite (in the hiphil stem God
brought about their longing for nutrition, in the imperfect He caused it to be
ongoing, and in the consecutive mood it was Gods will)). And so He could feed
you (wa akal so He might fulfill His desire to provide your ongoing substance,
continuously nourishing you (hiphil imperfect consecutive)) with (eth) the (ha)
mana (man a nourishing and sweet-tasting nectar from God considered to be
the bread of life; from mah an interrogative asking what is this and what does it
mean) which (asher) you did not know (lo yada you were actually and
completely unaware of (qal stem denotes reality and the perfect conjugation
indicates that which is complete)) and also (wa) your fathers (ab your
forefathers or ancestors) could not have known (lo yada) in order (maan
for the express purpose and intent) to make known to you (yada to enable you
to know and to become known (the hiphil stem reveals that God facilitated our
ability to learn, know, and understand, and the infinitive construct has the
characteristics of a verb and noun, thereby making those who seek known to
God)) that, indeed (ky truly and surely), not upon (lo al) bread (ha lechem a
baked loaf of bread with yeast and food in general; from lechem that which can
be adversarial) alone (la bad by itself, separated or isolated) shall man
continually live and actually be restored to life (chayah ha adam shall the or
this man, humankind and mankind, have life consistently and genuinely
preserved, being continually spared, nurtured, and restored (the qal stem speaks of
that which is actual and genuine, while the imperfect conjugation affirms the
continuance of life)), but (ky indeed rather) upon (al) everything (kol) which
flows out of (mowtsa which travels forth, leading and guiding every
incremental stage of a journey demonstrating the proper path through life; from
yatsa to go forth, leading us out by way of) the mouth (peh the
communication and spoken word) of Yahowah ( ) shall man continually
live and actually be restored to life (chayah ha adam shall the or this man,
humankind and mankind, have life consistently and genuinely preserved, being
continually spared, nurtured, and restored (the qal stem speaks of that which is
actual and genuine, while the imperfect conjugation affirms the continuance of
life)). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 8:3)
Unlike Paul, Yahowsha not only cited the complete statement from the
Towrah, He pulled it from a discussion which was perfectly suited to affirm Gods
guidance to answer the specific question being posed. He made the correlation
between life and Gods testimony the very path through life He, Himself, lived.
Since this is important, literally the means to life, and since the contrast
between Yahowsha and Shauwl is so considerable, lets examine Dabarym /
Words 8:3 in context. Moseh, the man Yahowah invited to scribe His Towrah, the
book Shauwl has sought to demean and discount, was reminiscing about what
they had heard, observed, learned, and experienced together over the past forty
years:
All of (kol) the terms and conditions (mitswah codicils of the covenant)
which beneficially (asher for the sake of the relationship) I (anky) have
instructed (tsawah have provided by way of directions and guidance) this day
(ha yowm) for you to genuinely choose to continuously observe (shamar for
you to want to closely examine and always carefully consider, electing to
consistently and literally focusing upon (the qal stem encourages us to literally
and actually focus, the imperfect conjugation reveals that our observations should
be ongoing and continual, and the paragogic nun ending makes our examination
volitional an thus subject to freewill)) for the purpose of approaching (la) by
actually responding and engaging (asah through acting upon, profiting from,
and celebrating what you learn) so that (maan for the intent and purpose of)
you elect to genuinely and continuously live (chayah you capitalize upon
freewill and are actually restored, your life always preserved (the qal stem reveals
that our response to what we observe literally restores our life, the imperfect
conjugation reveals that our nourishment, growth, and preservation will be
ongoing and continual, and the paragogic nun ending makes eternal life volitional
an thus subject to freewill)) and in addition (wa) you choose to be totally and
completely great, actually increasing in every possible way (rabah you can
elect to have every aspect of your nature multiplied (the qal stem affirms that this
promise to make us greater than we are is reliable, the perfect conjugation tells us
that the transformation will be complete, and the consecutive mood reveals that
we are empowered as a result of our choice to observe and respond) so that (wa)
you will be pleased to arrive (bow you will come to and be thrilled to be
completely included in (qal perfect consecutive)) and also so that (wa) you will
become an heir (yarash you will be given a complete inheritance as a child
choosing to receive all that is his or her fathers to provide (qal perfect
consecutive)) accompanied in (eth within and in accord with) the realm (ha
erets) which beneficially (asher as a result of the relationship) Yahowah
( ) promised in a sworn oath (shaba affirmed truthfully and reliably in
association with the promise inherent in seven) to (la) your fathers (ab your
ancestors and forefathers). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 8:1)
And so (wa) you should choose to literally and completely remember
(zakar you should actually want to recall every aspect of (qal stem perfect
conjunction consecutive mood) everything associated with (kol the entirety of
and every aspect of) the way (ha derek the specific path) which beneficially
(asher as a result of the relationship) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym),
walked with you (halak traveled, leading you so that you could follow Him (in
the hiphil perfect God is enabling our walk which He considers complete and
perfect)) these (zeh) forty (arbaiym a multiple of arba four, from raba
to be square, and thus to correct, right, out of dept, and in compliance) years
(shanah time of renewal and of a complete cycle of life) in the wilderness (ba
ha midbar in the desert) in order for (maan because the intent was for) you
to respond (anah you to answer), to approach (la) by exerting yourself
through the process of learning and understanding (nasah by testing and
evaluating what you had observed and experienced) to know and to become
known (la yada to recognize and realize, to acknowledge and understand)
what (eth) beneficially and relationally (asher) is in (ba) your heart (leb
your attitude, motivations, and deep-seeded emotional response) regarding
whether (ha as an interrogative) you will consistently and genuinely observe,
closely examining and carefully considering (ha shamar you would actually
and continually focus upon, scrutinize, evaluate, and prioritize) the terms and
conditions of His agreement (mitswah the authorized directions regarding His
Covenant, the written stipulations and provisions of the mutually binding
contract) or not (im lo). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 8:2)
The statement Yahowsha cited regarding bread in His defense against Satan
followed what we have just read, making it an ideal choice. The Towrah, as it
consistently does, reinforced the path to life. If you want to capitalize upon what
God is offering, listen to what God has to say. And the only way to do that is to
shamar closely examine and carefully consider, i.e., observe, His Towrah.
This would not be the only time Yahowsha would affirm this obvious reality.
Since our goal is to learn as much from God as is possible, before we thumb a
couple of pages ahead in this story, and ponder Yahowshas most declarative
statement regarding the Towrah, lets pause here in the Towrah a moment longer.
Next we find Moseh saying...
Your clothing did not wear out on you and your feet they did not swell
these forty years so that you would know, recognizing and acknowledging
(yada you would be aware and understand) with your heart (im leb in your
core), that, indeed (ky), in the manner (ka) which beneficially (asher for the
sake of the relationship) a man (iysh an individual) instructs and corrects
(yacar teaches and admonishes, providing guidance regarding that which is
potentially harmful, revealing the consequences of bad choices and behaviors
influencing) his children (beny his sons), Yahowah ( ), your God
(elohym), teaches and admonishes you, providing guidance regarding that
which is potentially harmful while revealing the consequences (yacar
instructs and corrects you so that you dont go astray and make those mistakes).
(Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 8:4-5)
And that is a summation of the Towrahs purpose. It is our Heavenly Fathers
advice to His children. It is comprised of the same kind of instruction we as
parents ought to give to our sons and daughters. It, therefore, not only provides us
with reliable guidance, it exposes us to that which is potentially harmful,
revealing the consequences of ignoring the advice.
And so since Yahowsha, Himself, the very first time He speaks to us, directs
us to this place in Yahowahs Towrah, lets take one more step in His direction.
And so (wa) you should genuinely choose of your own volition to thoroughly
and completely observe (shamar you ought to want to actually examine,
literally consider, and totally focus upon (qal perfect consecutive)) Yahowah
( ), your Gods (elohym), stipulations and provisions (mitswah terms
and conditions regarding the covenant contract) to approach (la) by walking
(halak journeying through life) in (ba) His ways (derek His paths and steps
through life), and (wa) for the purpose of coming to (la) revere and respect
(yare highly valuing) being with Him (eth). (Dabarym / Words /
Deuteronomy 8:6)
These would be Yahowahs provisions, not Pauls, stipulations rather than
leaps of faith, which enable us to approach God and to enjoy His company. And
these terms and conditions regarding the Covenant are being presented in
Yahowahs Towrah a document we are being encouraged to examine and
consider so that we can benefit from Gods guidance.
At the end of this chapter we will return to this encounter between Yahowsha
and Satan. Our purpose will be to demonstrate the strategy the Adversary
typically deploys so that we are attune to this preferred tactic as we make our way
through the corpus of Pauls letters, and especially Galatians, the Magna Carta of
Christianity. And secondarily, by considering Yahowshas response, we will learn
how we should react to similar deceptions.
But now lets rejoin the chronology presented by the Disciple Mattanyah. The
very next time we hear Yahowsha speak is in the fifth chapter. This time He isnt
negating Satans influence by debating a singular fallen spirit, but is instead
setting the stage by providing the proper perspective from which to evaluate
everything He would say and do over the course of three years. This speech to the
multitudes is known as the Sermon on the Mount. It is an ode to His Father
who is in Heaven.
Yahowshas presentation is especially germane considering Pauls claim to
have been authorized by Yahowsha to assault and annul the Towrah. So to
determine whether or not such a mandate was possible, lets examine Yahowshas
statements regarding the enduring authority of the Towrah during His Sermon on
the Mount.
The human manifestation of God is translated from Hebrew to Greek and
then to English saying:
You should not think or assume (me nomizomai you not consider,
expect, nor suppose at any time even the possibility of the commonly held or
popularly established presumption, never accepting the prevailing precept or
justification (negative particle, aorist active subjunctive verb)) that (hoti
namely) I actually came (erchomai I in fact appeared then, now, or in the future
(aorist active indicative)) to tear down, invalidate, put an end to, or discard
(kataluo to dissolve, destroy, disunite, subvert, overthrow, abrogate, weaken,
dismantle, or abolish, releasing or dismissing any of the implications, force,
influence, or validity of) the Towrah (ton nomon that which has been assigned
to nourish and provide an inheritance) or the Prophets (e tous prophetes those
who are inspired to speak and write based upon divine inspiration, making Gods
thoughts and plans known even before they happen).
I actually came not (ouk erchomai) to create a division, to dismiss, to
invalidate, or to discard (kataluo to tear down, to dissolve, to destroy, to
disunite, to subvert, to overthrow, to abrogate, to weaken, to dismantle, or to
abolish, dismissing any implication or its influence), but instead (alla to the
contrary, emphatically contrasting that to the certainty), to completely fulfill
(pleroo to proclaim and complete, conveying the true meaning and thinking, to
liberally supply, carrying out, accomplishing, and rendering it totally and
perfectly). (5:17)
Because (gar for this reason then so that you understand) in deed and in
truth (amen truly and reliably), I say to you (lego sy), until (hoes up to the
point that) with absolute certainty (an) the heaven and the earth (o ouranos e
ge the universe and the surface of the planet) cease to exist (parerchomai pass
away, disappearing), not ever under any circumstance shall (ou me there is no
way whatsoever, not even so much as a possibility that) one aspect of the
smallest letter (eis iota shall a single Yowd, the first letter in Yahowahs name
and the smallest character in the Hebrew alphabet) nor (e) a single stroke of the
pen (mia keraia one of the smallest line distinguishing any aspect of any
Hebrew letter) cease to be relevant (parerchomai be averted or neglected, have
any chance of being ignored or disregarded, being passed over or omitted,
perishing) from (apo being disassociated, separated, or severed from) the
Towrah (tou nomou that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an
inheritance) until with absolute certainty (hoes an) everything (pas every last
aspect, all and the totality of it) might take place (ginomai happens and occurs,
becoming a reality). (5:18)
Therefore (oun indeed and as a result), whoever may at any time (hos ean
if at any moment anyone introduces a contingency or condition whereby
individuals) dismiss or attempt to do away with (luo may seek to toss aside,
invalidate, or abolish, tearing away or asunder) one of the (mian ton) smallest
and least important of these (houtos ton elachistos) prescriptions and
instructions which are enjoined (entole rules, regulations, and authorized
directions, precepts, and teachings), and (kai) he may instruct or indoctrinate
(didasko he might teach, delivering moralizing discourses while conceiving and
instilling doctrine, expounding or explaining so as to enjoin) people (anthropos
humanity or mankind) in this manner (houto thusly and likewise), he will
actually be provided the name and will be judicially and legally summoned as
(kaleo he will be referred to and called by the proper name, literally and
passively summoned, called to task and designated), Little and Lowly (elachistos
Paulos in Latin, meaning: small and inadequate, insignificant and insufficient,
irrelevant and unimportant, immaterial and inconsequential (Paulos, the Latin
name Shauwl adopted as his own means elachistos little and lowly)) by the
kingdom of heaven (en te basileia ton ouranos by, within, among, and with
regard to the reign and royal authority of the heavens).
And then (de but by contrast), whosoever (hos an) might act upon it
(poieomai may engage through it, making the most of it, attempting to carry out
its assigned tasks (aorist active subjunctive)), and (kai) teach it (didasko try to
provide and share its instructions, expounding upon it), this (houtos these
things) will properly be referred to and named (kaleo it will be judiciously
and appropriately called and designated) great and important (megas
astonishingly valuable, splendid and sensible, albeit surprisingly uncommon)
among those who reign within the heavens (en te basileia ton ouranos by and
with regard to the kingdom and royal authority of the heavens). (Mattanyah /
Yahowahs Gift / Matthew 5:19)
That was as unequivocal as it was opposed to the Christian traditions Paulos
contrived. To discount or discard any aspect of the Torah, an individual such as
Paulos has to contradict Yahowsha. And it is irrational for anyone to claim to
have been granted authorization to speak on behalf of an individual when their
message is contradictory.
If Yahowsha told the truth, the notion of a New Testament is torn asunder
because His original testimony is still in vogue. And based upon this statement,
Pauls letters which seek to invalidate the Towrah must be discarded.
But if Yahowsha cannot be trusted, then nor can Paul, because he would be
speaking on behalf of a liar. In fact, if Yahowsha cannot be trusted, then the
whole New Testament has to be rejected, because it claims to chronicle
Yahowshas words and deeds.
Neither option is acceptable if you are a Christian. With regard to the
religions veracity, it actually does not matter if this statement from Yahowshas
most famous and well-attended public pronouncement is valid or invalid, properly
recorded or misrepresented. If His uncompromising declaration before the largest
audience He would ever address, a speech chronicled by His most literate
Disciple, isnt reliably conveyed, then nothing the Greek manuscripts claim to
document can be considered credible. And if Yahowshas words were accurately
translated into Greek and then responsibly retained, then there is no possibility
whatsoever that the Christian religion is reliable, because it is in complete and
irreconcilable conflict with the letters which comprise the words of the Towrah.
As a Christian, you cannot discount this statement without discounting
Yahowshas testimony. And the moment that is done, everything crumbles. But on
the other hand, to believe Him, you have to reject Christianity.
 Equally telling, especially since the Prophets were included, the majority of
Yahowahs prophecies, including His return and His ultimate renewal and
restoration of the Covenant with Yisrael and Yahuwdah, have not yet happened,
and the heavens and earth remain. Therefore, the Torah still stands. Now thats
something for Christians to think about, especially considering the subject and
speaker. Therefore, as a Christian reading this, since you are no longer ignorant of
this proclamation, your only options are to reject Christianity or be irrational. And
what do you suppose the merits might be of believing in something which is
irrational?
Since we are now undeniably aware of Yahowshas assessment of those who
attempt to dismiss and discard any portion of the Torah, and that He referred to
such attempts as Paulos, how can we consider Pauloss attempt to demean and
devalue the Towrah favorably? In this light, how is it that he convinced the world
that God had authorized him to do precisely what Yahowshas just testified should
not, and could not, be done? Said another way, is there any chance whatsoever
that God inspired, even condoned and endorsed, the writings of a man who
invalidated His Torah in view of this statement by Yahowsha? Do Christians
honestly believe that Paul can contradict God and still be trusted?
I realize that we have just begun our investigation, and that apart from the
four derogatory statements we have thus far considered, where Paul referred to
the Towrah as a curse, something abhorrent, repugnant, and malicious, and where
he claimed that absolutely no one could be saved by the Towrah, I have not yet
validated the assertion that Paul claimed to have destroyed and discarded the
Towrah after dissolving and dismantling it. So while we will cover all of this in
great detail, suffice it to say for now...
Having come to realize without investigation or evidence that by no
means whatsoever is made righteous or vindicated, man out of acting upon
the Towrah if not by faith in Iesou Christou, and we to Christon Iesoun,
ourselves, believed in order for us to be acquitted out of faith in Christou,
and not out of acting upon the Towrah, because out of works of the Towrah
not any flesh will be acquitted, vindicated, nor be made righteous. (2:16)
Because if that which I have actually torn down, dissolved, and
dismantled, invalidated, abolished, negated, abrogated, discarded, and
completely destroyed, this on the other hand I restore or reconstruct,
strengthening and promoting this edifice, I myself, bring into existence, and
recommend transgression and disobedience. (2:18) I then, because of the
Towrah, actually died and was separated in order that to God I might
currently live. In Christo I have actually been crucified together with. (2:19)
 O ignorant and irrational, foolish and senseless, unintelligent and
unreasonable, Galatians. To whom you bewitched, deceived, and slandered?
(3:1) This alone I want to learn from you: out of accomplishments of the
Towrah the spirit you received or alternatively out of hearing of belief? (3:2)
In this way, you are ignorant and irrational, lacking in knowledge and unable
to think logically. Having begun with spirit, now in flesh you are completing?
(3:3) So much and so long these things you suffered, you were affected and
you were vexed and annoyed without reason or result, even chaotically
without a plan. If indeed also thoughtlessly and for nothing without cause,
reason, or result. (3:4) The one, therefore then, supplying you the spirit and
causing to function and operating powers in you out of acting upon and
engaging in the tasks delineated in the Torah or out of hearing faith? (3:5)
Indeed, consequently, the Torah accordingly is against and contrary to
the promise of the god. Not may it be (It might be, although I dont want it to
be). For if, per chance, had been given the Torah the power and ability, the
capacity and resources, to impart life, certainly in the Torah would be the
righteous and vindicated. (3:21) To the contrary, emphatically and certainly,
written scripture imposed restrictions, completely shutting the door on
heaven, imprisoning everything under error and evil in order that the
promise out of the faith of Iesou Christou might be given to believers. (3:22)
But before the to come of the faith, under the control of the Towrah, we were
actually being held in custody as prisoners, restricted and trapped like fish in
a net, to the bringing about of faith was revealed. (3:23) As a result, the
Towrah has come to exist as our disciplinarian, a pedagogue which instructs
in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using strict, old-fashioned
methods with an overbearing demeanor by smiting and stinging those it
enslaves, extending until Christon in order that by means of the faith, or a
belief system, we might, at some point in time, while doing nothing ourselves,
be justified, with the possibility of someday being vindicated as a result of
being influenced. (3:24) But now having come the faith-based system of
belief, no longer do we exist under an old fashioned and strict disciplinarian
whose methods are antiquated and overbearing, even harsh. (3:25)
This is a literal translation, word for word as the text of Galatians actually
reads in Greek, something that will be conclusively demonstrated in due time. So
it sounds course and disjointed because it is poorly written. But if you look
beyond the sorry prose for a moment and consider the content, there is no
mistaking the fact that Paul is claiming that he has invalidated and destroyed the
Towrah because he views Gods testimony as inept, incompetent, and ineffective,
even old fashioned, mean spirited, and enslaving. He is also claiming to have
replaced the arcane and impotent Towrah with the faith of Iesou Christou,
which is now wholly suspect due to the testimony of said individual.
Indirectly incriminating Shauwl, a man who not only dismissed the Towrah,
but who also claimed to be a Rabbi and Pharisee, in addition to being a religious
expert, scholar, and writer, please consider what Yahowsha said next: For
indeed (gar because then), I say to you all (lego umin I actually affirm and
personally explain to you all (present active indicative)), that unless
conditionally (hoti ean because if) your (umon) righteousness, integrity, and
standing in the relationship (dikaiosyne acceptability of your thinking and
state of approval, upright nature accuracy of your understanding) is abundantly
superior to and immanently more appropriate than (perisseuo polys could
be considered vastly more abounding and greatly in excess of) the religious
teachers, experts, scribes, and scholars (ton Grammateus government
officials, politicians, public servants, reporters, writers, clerks, lawyers, and
judges), and Pharisees (Pharisaios members of a fundamentalist political and
religious party comprised of hypocritical Jews who coveted authority, were
overtly religious, set rules which others had to abide by, established religious
rituals and traditions, and interpreted Scripture to their liking), you will
absolutely never move into nor experience (ou me eiserchomai eis there is no
chance whatsoever that at any time you might ever do something which may
cause you to enter into (aorist active subjunctive)) the realm of the heavens (ten
basileia ton ouranos the sovereignty of the kingdom of the abode of God).
(Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 5:20)
Since we are still in the infancy of our study, it is still a bit presumptuous to
conclude that Pauls overall intent was to foreclose the Torah in order to promote
his new faith. And yet the translations of the Galatians passages we considered
suggest that Christian theologians are justified in their interpretation of Pauls
message when they cite this letter as evidence that he believed that the Torah was
an outdated and restrictive burden which had to be replaced with a much simpler
and accommodating approach. But why is it that not one Christian scholar has the
character, courage, or intellectual integrity to say that Pauls position, if Christians
have interpreted it correctly, is diametrically opposed to Yahowshas testimony on
life and the Towrah, as well as in direct conflict with Gods Word?
Speaking to those who are willing to invest the time required to actually
know Yahowah, to those who actively seek to learn the truth, to those willing to
engage in the process which leads to admission into Gods home, Yahowsha
provided a set of instructions which completely undermines the ignorance of blind
faith...
You should ask (aiteo at the present time it is desirable for everyone act
on their own initiative to earnestly request information, knowledge, and answers
(present active imperative second person plural)) and (kai as a logical
connective conjunction relates the flow of thought from one thing to another
while expressing the logical relationship between them) it will be given (didomi
in the future this will reliably produce the desired result (future passive indicative
third person)) to you (umin two or more of you or you all).
You should seek (zeteo at the present time it is desirable for everyone act
on their own initiative to attempt to find information, searching for knowledge
and answers (present active imperative second person plural)) and (kai
expressing the logical relationship) you will actually receive the discovery
(heuriskomai you will receive an education, you will be the beneficiary of
finding reliable learning, facilitated and aided in the process attaining the
information (future passive indicative third person)).
You should knock (krouo at the present time it is desirable for everyone act
on their own initiative to physically demonstrate and announce their presence at
the door desiring acceptance and admittance (present active imperative second
person plural)) and (kai expressing a logical relationship) it will be opened
(anoigo entry into the midst will be provided (future passive indicative third
person)) to you (umin). (7:7)
For then (gar because and for this reason) universally the one asking (pas
o aiteo without exception, the individual actively engaging is transformed and
(present active participle nominative)) receives (lambano he is selected and is
grasped by the hand (present active indicative)), (kai) the one seeking (zeteo
earnestly trying to obtain information though personal interaction so as to learn
(present active participle nominative)) actually finds (heuriskomai genuinely
participates in the discovery and receives an education from the information
(present active indicative)), and (kai) the one knocking (krouo the one
demonstrating and announcing his presence at the door desiring acceptance will
be given and granted what he seeks so (present active participle dative)) it will be
opened (anoigo access to understanding and entry into the midst will be
provided (future passive indicative third person)). (7:8)
This is wholly consistent with Yahowahs Towrah guidance where God
constantly encourages us to observe, which is to closely examine and carefully
consider, His instructions, especially the provisions associated with the Covenant,
and to listen to His prescriptions for living, so that we can act upon what we
discover and thereby come to be invited into His Home. This, however, is the
antithesis of Pauls proposition which is salvation through faith. Gods method
requires us to learn and then engage. But with faith, both the process and response
would be unnecessary, even counterproductive.
 Gods next statement is also hostile to Christianity, because Yahowsha is
directing our attention not to Himself, but instead to Yahowah, to our Heavenly
Father, and to the Fathers gift, which is found in the Towrah. But beyond this, by
juxtaposing these thoughts, Yahowsha is also revealing where we should look to
find the door to seek acceptance. He is even contrasting the merits of Yahowahs
testimony, His offer and promises, and the statements and promises of a man. He
is saying this in hopes that we will accept Yahowahs salvation promises instead
of promises promoted by a man, and that man almost certainly being Paul.
Should you be considering an alternative (e by comparison (scribed as a
logical disjunctive, a conjunction which provides a logical contrast between
opposites)), what (tis) man (anthropos) currently exists (estin is now actively
becoming (present tense nominative singular masculine)) from among you (ek
umon) whom (hos) when his son (o huios autos) asks for (aiteo will request
sometime in the future (future active indicative)) a loaf of bread (artos aerated
and thus yeasted bread), (me forming a question) will he give him (epididomi
autos will he hand to him) a stone (lithos a rock used for sealing graves or
making millstones)? (7:9)
Or should you be considering an alternative (kai e by comparison
(scribed as a logical disjunctive, a conjunction which provides a logical contrast
between opposites)), when he asks for (aiteo he actually will request (future
active indicative)) a fish (ichthys), (me forming a question) will hand him
(epididomi autos will he give to him) a snake (ophis a serpent which is
symbolic of Satan)? (7:10)
If (ei introducing a condition which must occur or be met before the
resulting event can be manifest), therefore (oun), you all (umeis) presently and
actively being (ontes currently existing and in the process of being (present
active participle)) troublesome and morally corrupt (poneros seriously
flawed, evil and annoying, blind and diseased) have in the past been familiar
with and have actually known how (oida have perceived and have shown that
you are genuinely aware of, having recognized how (perfect (a completed action
in the past) active indicative)) to give (didomi to provide) good and beneficial
(agathos moral, generous, and useful) gifts (doma presents) to your children
(tois umon teknon to your descendants and offspring), how much more by
contrast will (posos mallon) your Father (o umon pater), the One in the
Heavens (o en tois ouranos), actually give (didomi personally respond to
reliably produce, grant, and bestow (future active indicative)) something good,
moral, generous, and beneficial (agathos that which is upright and worthy,
capable and substantial, valuable and kind) to those asking Him (tois aiteo auton
actively responding to Him making a request of Him (present active
participle))? (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:11)
 So if Paulos is offering the gift of faith, and Yahowah is offering the gift of
the Covenant, which offer do you suppose might be more beneficial and capable,
more generous and substantial? And since this follows a presentation on asking
and seeking, do you suspect that Yahowsha is indicating where we ought to look
to find something which is reliably good, valuable, and kind? And since the
answers to these questions are obvious, why do Christians, who claim that their
religion is based upon Yahowsha, ignore this and turn to Paul instead? In light of
this, how did Shauwl manage to convince them that the Towrah was anything but
good, generous, capable, or beneficial?
Anything (pas everything), therefore (oun then), to whatever to the
degree or extent (ean hosos whenever and as far as) you might want or may
enjoy (thelo you might decide or presently desire, you may propose or be of the
opinion or currently think something might be so, perhaps personally being fond
of or taking pleasure in your will, your intent and your purpose (present active
subjunctive)) as a result of (hina that) men being human (oi anthropos
individuals representing mankind and humankind (nominative plural)) doing to
you (poieo umin actively attempting to perpetrate this against you, fashioning
and assigning these things with regard to you, trying to make you do them
(present active subjunctive dative)), also (kai) in this way (houto likewise in
this manner, thusly) you (umeis) should choose to actively do to them (poieomai
autois you may elect to perform and behave unto them (present active
imperative)).
This (houtos) then (gar for this reason) actually and presently is (estin
exists as) the Torah (o nomos becomes the means to being nourished by that
which is bestowed to become heirs, existing as the precepts which were
apportioned, established, and received as a means to prosper and to be approved,
and prescriptions for an inheritance; from nemo that which is provided,
assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them (nominative)) and the Prophets
(kai oi prophetes). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:12)
The moral here is that since we dont want a millstone, a premature burial, a
poisonous snake, or a serpent representing Satan given to us by men or by their
institutions, and would be vastly better served with Yahowahs good, generous,
and beneficial gift, we ought to offer our fellow man access to Gods gift
providing them with the valuable and kind offer found in our Heavenly Fathers
Towrah and Prophets.
Since context is the mothers milk of understanding, remember that
Yahowsha has been encouraging us to knock at a certain door, seeking admission,
and He has spoken of our Heavenly Fathers gift being especially valuable. He
has deliberately and decisively associated this especially good and generous gift
with Yahowahs Towrah and Prophets.
 Cognizant of this context, and especially noting the realization that the last
statement is as appropriate used as a conclusion to the discussion regarding the
relative value of mans offers compared to Gods, as it is in introducing the
narrow doorway which leads to life, and therefore speaking of Passover, lets
repeat that conclusion now as an introduction...
This (houtos) then (gar for this reason) actually and presently is (estin
exists as) the Torah (o nomos becomes the means to being nourished by that
which is bestowed to become heirs, existing as the precepts which were
apportioned, established, and received as a means to prosper and to be approved,
and prescriptions for an inheritance; from nemo that which is provided,
assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them (nominative)) and the Prophets
(kai oi prophetes):
Under the auspices of freewill, you all should choose at some point in
time to enter, personally engaging by moving (eiserchomai at a moment in
time you ought to want to personally act by electing to go in, beginning the
journey by choosing to experience (aorist active imperative)) through (dia by
way of and on account of) the narrow, specific, seldom-tread, and exacting
door (tes stenos pule the doorway with strict requirements which is highly
restrictive, the passageway which is unpopular and seldom walked, an
infrequently-trodden gateway whereby a stand will be taken to enable others to
stand, to be firmly established, and to be upheld (note: stenos is based upon
histemi which provides the concluding insights)) because (hoti for the reason
that namely) broad, man-made, and crafted to be wide open (platys molded,
malleable, plastic, and easily crafted and plied, a wide and artificial thoroughfare;
from plasso formed and molded by man, serving as the basis of plastic) is the
door (pule is the gate) and spacious (eurychoros as encompassing as nations,
widely regional, and broadly societal; sharing a base with eusebeia especially
religious, speaking of belief systems and their devout and pious practices) is the
way (e hodos is the path and journey, the popular way through life, the well
traveled road and route, the common course of conduct) which misleads and
separates (e apago that takes away, leading through deception; from ago
directs, leads, and guides to apo separation) into (eis) utter destruction
(apoleia needlessly squandering and ruining the valuable resource of ones
existence, causing it to perish; from apollumi to be put entirely out of the way,
to be rendered useless and to be abolished, coming to an end and ceasing to exist),
and a great many (kai polys the vast preponderance, an enormous number, and
to a very great degree, serving as a superlative of great, many, much, and a large
number) are those (eisin are actually the ones (present active indicative)) who
are influenced into moving while suffering the consequences of entering (oi
eiserchomai who as a result of being acted upon are affected by taking the first
step toward and then going in, manipulated in the process of beginning a journey
while experiencing the effect of going out (present middle passive participle
nominative)) through it (dia autos by way of it). (7:13)
Certainly (tis it is certain that), the specific doorway has strict
requirements, it is narrow, seldom-tread, and it is an exacting passageway (e
stenos pule the doorway is highly restrictive, the passageway is unpopular and
infrequently walked whereby a stand is taken to enable others to stand, to be
firmly established, and to be upheld), and it completely goes against the crowd
to the point of persecution (kai thlibomai it is so totally unpopular the past act
influences the future to the point of hardship and harassment, even to oppression
and affliction (perfect passive participle nominative)), the one way (e e hodos
the specific journey through life, the singular route and the path) which leads,
separating those guided (apago) unto (eis) life (zoe vigorous and flourishing
living, the fullness of a restored and active existence), but (kai) very few (oligos
an extremely small quantity over a very short time) are those (eisin o exist the
ones) finding it (heuriskomai autos presently learning and actively discovering
the location of it, themselves experiencing it). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew
7:14)
This may be the single most devastating declaration ever made against
religion. The one thing religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism,
Islam, and Socialist Secular Humanism have in common is that they are very
popular. A great many people have placed their faith in them, ranging from tens of
millions to many billions. But Yahowsha, the diminished manifestation of God,
just said that the popular ways are not only artificial and manmade, they lead to
destruction, needlessly squandering countless souls. And while this statement is
only catastrophic to Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, and Socialist Secular
Humanism when Yahowshas divine credentials are established, there is no out for
Christianity. Based upon this declaration alone in the midst of the Sermon on the
Mount, the moment Constantine made the Christian religion the official faith of
the Roman Empire, there was no longer any hope that it could be the path to life.
It must, therefore, be one of the many ways which lead to destruction.
Now, dont misunderstand. Yahowsha did not say that Christianity was
destructive because its popular, but only that the path to life is unpopular.
Christianity is deadly because it is based upon Shauwls man-made and artificial
path.
I am not trying to rub salt into an open wound if you are still a Christian, but I
would be remiss if I didnt remind you that Yahowah specifically revealed that
there would be a broad path, a duplicitous and improper way, associated with
Shauwl. As a result, Christianity is the plague of death being predicted in these
words...
 Pay attention, he will be puffed up with false pride. His soul, it is not
right nor straightforward in him. So, through trust and reliance, by being
firmly established and upheld by that which is dependable and truthful,
those who are upright and vindicated live.
Moreover, because the intoxicating wine and inebriating spirit of the
man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal is a high-minded moral
failure, and his is arrogant and meritless presumption, he will not rest, find
peace, nor live, whoever is open to the broad path, the duplicitous and
improper way, associated with Shauwl.
He and his soul are like the plague of death. And so those who are
brought together by him, receiving him, will never be satisfied. All of the
Gentiles will gather together unto him, all of the people from different races
and nations in different places.
But they do not ask questions, any of them, about him. Terse references
to the word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, with implied associations that
mock, controlling through comparison and counterfeit, along with allusive
sayings with derisive words arrogantly conveyed.
There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him,
and double dealings to be known regarding him. So they should say, Woe to
the one who claims to be great so as to increase his offspring, acting like a
rabbi, when neither apply to him. For how long will they make pledges based
upon his significance, becoming burdened by his testimony? (Chabaquwq /
Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:4-6)
In context, Yahowsha has identified the Torah as Gods gift and as the lone
path to life. He said that all other paths lead to destruction, needlessly
squandering a persons existence. So there is no getting around the fact that this
means that popular pathsand there are none more popular than Christianity
lead to the death and destruction of those who follow their edicts. This is a
profoundly important truth few Christians consider. And yet it is the reason, the
only reason, we are examining Paul and his letter to the Galatians.
As an interesting aside, Yahowshas instructions regarding eternal life tell us
to begin by entering through a specific doorway. And that is because the first of
seven steps to our salvation begins by answering Yahowahs invitation to walk
through the doorway labeled Passover. This doorway, featuring the blood of the
Passover Lamb, initiated the exodus from the crucible of Egypt, and the liberation
of Gods Chosen People from their enslavement in oppressive human political and
religious schemes. It represents the doorway to Gods home. And Yahowsha, as
the Passover Lamb, is the living embodiment of this doorway, representing the
first of seven steps to the final result, which is living with God in His home.
 Also relevant, the reason that there are strict requirements associated with
this specific doorway is because it is only available to the Children of the
Covenant. And to participate in this family relationship with our Heavenly Father,
we engage by accepting five very specific conditions.
Yahowsha was not yet finished warning Christians about the consequence of
disregarding the Torah. With these words, He would tell everyone willing to listen
to Him not to trust Paul:
At the present time you all should be especially alert, being on guard by
closely examining and carefully considering, thereby turning away from
(prosechete apo you all should choose to beware, presently paying especially
close attention, actively and attentively watching out for and guarding yourself
against so as to separate yourself from (present active imperative)) the false
prophets (ton pseudoprophetes those pretending to be divinely inspired
spokesmen, from pseudo deliberately false, lying, deceitful, and deceptive and
prophetes one who speaks of hidden things, declaring what he claims to have
received from God) who (hostis) come to you, currently appearing before you
(erchomai pros umas who approach you, moving toward or up to you, making
public appearances or statements against you (the present tense reveals that the
false prophet is currently in their midst, the middle voice indicates that he is self-
motivated, that his statements are affecting him, and that the more assertive he
becomes the more he is influenced by his aggressiveness and claims (i.e., one lie
leads to another), while the indicative mood affirms that this is actually
occurring)) from within (esothen as an insider and thus from the same race,
place, or group) by (en) dressing up in sheeps clothing (endyma probaton
cloaked in the outer garments of sheep (note: the root of probaton is probaino to
go beyond, to go farther and forward, to go on and on, overstepping ones
bounds)), yet (de but) they actually are (eisin they correspond to, represent,
are similar to, and exist without contingency as (present active indicative))
exceptionally self-promoting, self-serving, and swindling (harpax vicious,
carnivorous, and thieving, robbing, extorting, and destructive, ferocious,
rapacious, and snatching; extracting and compelling under duress; from harpazo:
to violently, forcibly, and eagerly claim and then seize for oneself so as to pluck
and carry away; itself a derivative of haireomai to take for oneself, choosing to
be)) wolves (lykos fierce individuals under dangerous pretenses who are vicious,
cruel, greedy, destructive, overreaching, voracious, avaricious, acquisitive, and
insatiable men impersonating beasts of prey). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew
7:15)
The first word in this statement, prosechete, is a compound of pros to
ones advantage with respect to or towards someone or something and echo
that which is accepted, grasped unto, held, possessed, considered, or regarded,
often addressing groups, organizations, or institutions a person might join, attend,
participate in, or congregate amongst. Therefore, by juxtaposing prosechete a
cautionary and guarded examination and consideration of pseudoprophetes
false prophets and the prosechete institutions they would have you embrace
and join, with apo disassociation and separation, Yahowsha told us to walk
away from religious organizations like churches.
Further implicating Paulos, while he got his lone prediction wrong when he
misrepresented the Taruwah Harvest and claimed in his first letter to the
Thessalonians that the harpazo snatching away, or rapture would occur during
his lifetime (1 Thessalonians 4:17), thereby making him a false prophet by any
standard, pseudoprophetes is less about errantly predicting the future than it is
indicative of someone who deliberately deceives by falsely claiming to have
been inspired by God. Therefore, because Shauwls message is consistently
deceitful, it is overwhelmingly obvious that he lied about his inspiration.
Also, this admonition was recorded in the present tense, which is to say that
the pseudoprophetes was present, currently lurking in their midst. That is relevant
because according to Shauwl, he was in this very place at this very time, learning
to be religious at a school for rabbis. And since the only false prophet of any
significance during this time and in this place is also the most significant false
prophet of all time, there is no mistaking Shauwl as the wolf in sheeps clothing.
That is not to say that there werent other Jews who led people astray in the
name of religion. Rabbi Akiba shaped Judaism into the religion which is practiced
today, but he never claimed to be a prophet and he lived a full century later.
Maimonides, the man who codified Judaisms thirteen pillars, wasnt a prophet
either, and he wrote over one millennia later in Islamic Egypt, not Yisrael.
Constantine, the warring founder of Roman Catholicism in the early fourth
century, could never be mistaken for a lamb. He wasnt a prophet, and he was
neither a Christian nor a Jew, so he too would be disqualified for many reasons.
Therefore, who else other than Paulos and his associates meet this criterion?
But there is more. By Yahowahs definition, Shauwl, as a Benjamite,
qualified as a wolf. Paulos claimed to be from the tribe of Benjamin in Romans
11:1: For indeed, I am an Israelite, from the seed of Abraham, from the tribe
of Benjamin (Beniamin a transliteration of the Hebrew Benyamyn).
And then this heads up from God: Benjamin is a wolf viciously tearing
apart, continually mangling and actually killing, plucking the life out of his
victims, in the early part of the day, consistently devouring his prey, and
during the dark of night at the end of the day, he divides and destroys,
apportioning and distributing that which has been spoiled. (Baresyth / In
the Beginning / Genesis 49:27)
 While there were many Benjamites, there is only one man known to have
publicly proclaimed to have been from the tribe of Benjamin who was present in
Yaruwshalaim during the time Yahowsha delivered His Instruction on the Mount.
Beyond this, Shauwl, who was learning to be a rabbi at the time, also admitted to
faking his true identity, which is the very essence of a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Proof of Pauls willingness to change his outward appearance to take advantage of
an unsuspecting audience is found in this confession...
And (kai) I became (ginomai) to the (tois) Jews (Ioudaios a crude
transliteration of Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yahowah) like (hos) Jews
(Ioudaios) in order that (hina) I might make a profit by procuring an
advantage over (kerdaino) Jews (Ioudaios).
To those (tois) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), in such a way to show a
weak relationship (hos) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), not being himself (me
on autos) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), for the purpose that (hina) those
under (tous hypo) Towrah (nomon) I might make a profit by procuring an
advantage over (kerdaino). (1C9:20)
To those (tois) Towrahless and thus without the Towrah (anomois), in
such a way to show a weak relationship with (hos) Towrahless (anomois), not
being (me on) Towrahless (anomois) of God (theou), to the contrary and
making a contrast (alla), in the Torah (ennomos) of Christou (Christou
foolishly transliterated from the Greek as Christ and errantly used as if a name;
from chrio which speaks of the application of drugs and medicinal ointments) in
order that (hina) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage and
winning over (kerdaino) those without the Towrah (tous anomois). (1C9:21)
I came to exist (ginomai) to the (tois) unable and morally weak (asthenes),
incapacitated and inadequate (asthenes), in order that (hina) those (tous)
impotent and sick (asthenes) I might make a profit by procuring an
advantage over (kerdaino).
To everyone (tois pasin) I have become (ginomai) every kind of thing
(panta) in order that (hina) surely by all means (pantos) some (tinas) I might
save (sozo). (1 Corinthians 9:20-22)
Even Machiavelli, the man who postured the immoral notion that the end
justifies the means, wasnt this belligerent. And youll notice, Paulos is asserting
that he is the savior, able to save anyone and everyone. This, of course, would be
in direct conflict with God, in tactics, capability, and numbers.
While the combination of Gods warnings and Pauls admissions are
devastating, leaving Shauwl and his associates as the only viable and known
potential culprits, there was a subtlety in Yahowshas depiction of the wolf. He
described the predator using a derivative of the same term Paulos selected to
present his harpazo rapture. It was such an odd choice for Paul, especially
considering its negative connotations that by being translated using it in His
public declaration, God gave us yet another clue regarding the identity of this
wolf in sheeps clothing.
I dont suppose that Yahowsha could have made His message any clearer for
us. He told us we could rely upon the Towrah and then He told us whom we
should not trust, revealing that a self-serving insider would feign an alliance with
Him so that he could more easily snatch souls away from God. He, of course, was
speaking about Pauland those who have allied themselves with him.
This is especially poignant, because on another occasion Yahowsha spoke of
the comparative influence He would have versus Paulos. Gods statement is one
of the reasons that I consider Paul to be the most influential (albeit not in a
positive way) man who ever lived. Yahowsha revealed: I (ego), Myself, have
come (erchomai I have shown Myself, appearing and becoming manifest) in the
name (en to onoma with the one and only name belonging to the person and
reputation (dative singular)) of the Father (tou pater the masculine archetype
parent of the family) of Mine (mou), and yet (kai) you do not receive Me (ou
lambano me you do not actually accept Me nor grasp hold of Me, you do not
choose or prefer Me, and thus you do not take hold of My hand nor take
advantage of and experience Me). But when (ean on the condition whenever)
another (allos completely different individual and entity) comes (erchomai
might appear, showing himself, and coming forth, presenting himself) in his own
name (en to onoma to idio with his own individual, unique, and distinctive,
private, and personal name), that individual (ekeinos that lone and specific
man, him, then and there (the demonstrative singles out the individual, the
accusative associates this man and name, while the singular masculine limits this
to a single male individual)) you all will actually receive (lambano you will all
accept, choose, and prefer). (Yahowchanan / Yah is Merciful / John 5:43)
Considering how often the founder of the Christian religion wrote: but I
Paulos say..., its a wonder more people dont recognize him as the one who not
only came in his own name, one that he actually chose for himself, but also as the
one so many would receive. Paulos even said imitate me. He wrote: if
someone teaches in opposition to what I say let him be accursed. He was not
only fixated on himself, he claimed the entire world for himself. And today, the
vast preponderance of Christian bible studies, sermons, and quotations are based
upon Pauls letters rather than Yahowshas pronouncements and almost never
upon His Sermon on the Mount.
But for those looking for it, second only to Yahowahs Torah, Prophets, and
Psalms, Yahowshas testimony is true. He went on to say...
 From (apo) their (autos) fruit (karpos that which they produce), by
conducting a careful, thorough, and competent inquiry in the future, you all
will be able to use evidence and reason to genuinely comprehend (epiginosko
by closely examining and carefully considering, and by processing and
evaluating everything logically, every one of you will be able to actually learn,
completely understand, and without reservation recognize and acknowledge;
epiginosko is to know for certain and to understand to the point of being
completely convince as a result of diligent observation and thoughtful
comprehension (translated in the future tense revealing that while the wolf was
currently among them, he had not yet revealed his fruit, which is to say some time
would pass before Shauwl became Paulos and he and his followers wrote their
letters, then in the middle voice we learn that those who are observant and
circumspect will benefit from what they discover regarding these evil men, and
finally in the indicative mood, Yahowsha is telling us that while the example is
metaphorical, such deceivers are very real)) them (autos).
Is it even rationally possible (meti introducing a rhetorical question where
the answer is always no) to collect (syllego to pick) a bunch of grapes
(staphyle) from (apo) a thorn (akantha something sharp an pointed often found
on a thorny bramble or brier), or from (e apo) a thistle (tribolos a three-
pronged thorny and prickly invasive wild plant that is injurious to other plants),
figs (suka)? (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:16)
Just as we can delight in the subtlety of Yahowshas use of a harpazo
rapture derivative to direct our attention to Pauls false prophecy, akantha,
translated thorn in verse 16, is from akmen, which means point. God is
thereby directing our attention to two of Pauls most incriminating statements.
And of the superiority of the exaggerated, magnificent, and awe-inspiring
aspects of the overstated revelations, therefore, it should be self-evident, in
order to not become overly proud, exalting myself beyond what would be
justified, there was given to me a sharp goad (skolops a troubling thorn at the
end of a pointed stick used to control dumb animals) in the body, a messenger of
Satan, in order to strike and restrain me. (2 Corinthians 12:7)
And then...I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language,
Shauwl, Shauwl, Why are you actually pursuing me, following me, and
really striving with such intense effort to reach me? Its hard, demanding,
difficult, and intolerable for you to resist against the goad (kentron a pointed
sharp stick used to prick and prod and thus control animals, making resistance
vain or perilous). (Acts 26:14) Having come to know Yahowah, and thus
Yahowsha, I have come to recognize that while religious deception is something
God abhors, He has a sense of humor.
 The tribolos suka comparison is also delightful. Tribolos is from treis,
meaning three and belos, which speaks of darts being thrown. Interestingly,
belos is derived from ballo, to thrust aside and toss away, to scatter, giving over
to the care of another with an uncertain result.
That got me to thinking. What are Pauls most lethal three prongs? And I
thought, perhaps: 1) His claim that he was an apostle speaking for God beguiling
people into believing that his letters should be considered the Word of God. 2)
His claim that the Towrah was an incompetent curse and that it had been annulled
in favor of salvation through faith in the gospel of grace. And 3) His claim that his
new covenant replaced the enslaving old covenant, when there is only one
Covenant and it represents the lone means to engage in a relationship with God.
And then, of course, there is the even more infamous trio, the Christian Trinity,
the Babylonian myth which was incorporated into Christianity as a result of
Pauls moronic the fullness of the godhead resided upon him bodily.
But there is more. You see, a tribolos, as a thorny and prickly wild plant, is
injurious to other plants. And in this example, the plant the thorny, prickly,
invasive, and insidious Shauwl would injure was the fig tree, which like the
grape vine, is Yahowahs symbol for Yisrael. Largely as a result of Pauloss
rampant anti-Semitism first expressed in Galatians, and then elevated to a
reprehensible rant in Thessalonians, Jews would become the enemies of
Christians, who would ultimately claim what they renamed Palestine and the
Holy Land as their own. So for Gods Chosen People, it would be 1900 years
from exile to return, a prophecy Yahowsha pronounced by referencing the fig
tree. It was a parable designed to reveal that Yisrael would blossom again, with
Yahuwdym causing the Land to grow again after centuries of neglect. And their
return would occur less than a generation prior to His return. So then from the
fig tree (suke) be instructed and learn from this symbolic illustration. No
matter how long it takes, when a young and tender shoot is ready to sprout
and its leaves grow, producing foliage, you know that summer is near. And in
this way, whenever you may see all of this, you should understand that it is
near, at the door. Truly I say to you that there is no chance whatsoever that
this generation will perish before all of these things come to exist.
(Mattanyah / Yahowahs Gift / Matthew 24:30-34) The pervasive influence of
Pauls letters continue to be a thorn in Yisraels side.
Also interesting, in the accusative plural neuter, sukon fig is pronounced
suka, which is a transliteration of Sukah, the seventh and final Invitation to be
Called Out and Meet with God. So while this statement was not delivered in
Greek, the transliteration of the Hebrew term may be relevant because it is
symbolic of camping out with God in the Promised Land a place and time
devoid of thistles.
 If Yahowshas next statement is true, a comprehensive examination of Pauls
words should be sufficient to determine whether his message is kalos genuine,
approved, and commendable or sapros corrupt, rotten and harmful, even
poneros seriously flawed, annoying, and worthless.
In this way (houto thusly, it follows, in like manner), every (pas) good
and useful (agathos valuable, beneficial, and generous, appropriate, and
pleasant) fruit tree (dendron) produces (poieomai creates, makes, and
furnishes) exceptionally suitable and commendable (kalos genuine, approved,
magnificent, admirable, advantageous, superior, attractive, fitting, valuable,
highly beneficial, and proper) fruit (karpos production and results).
But (de) a tree (dendron) which is corrupt, rotten, and harmful (sapros
bad, decayed, putrefied, unfit, unprofitable, unsuitable, unusable, and destructive)
bears (poieomai produces, creates, makes and provides) diseased and
worthless (poneros seriously flawed and faulty, annoying and perilous,
malicious, troubling, and painful) fruit (karpos production and results).
(Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:17)
With the test so simple, with the evidence so plentiful, with the stakes so
high, why do you suppose so few people have deployed this criterion to evaluate
the fruit of Pauls pen? Equally troubling, with God being so definitive, expressly
saying that cherry picking snippets from a rotten source isnt acceptable, why are
so many Christians willing to exonerate Paul because they rather like some of
what he has to say?
It is not possible (ou dynamai it is never within its capability nor
capacity) for a good and useful (agathos for a valuable, beneficial, and
appropriate) fruit tree (dendron) to produce (poieomai to create, make,
provide, or furnish) seriously flawed or disadvantageous (poneros diseased,
faulty, annoying perilous, troubling, counterproductive, or evil) fruit (karpos
production and results), nor (oude) a tree (dendron) which is corrupt, rotten,
and harmful (sapros bad, decayed, putrefied, unfit, unprofitable, unsuitable,
unusable, and destructive) to make (poieomai to create, produce, or provide)
suitable or commendable (kalos genuine, approved, admirable, advantageous,
fitting, valuable, beneficial, or proper) fruit (karpos production and results).
(Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:18)
God is not talking about fruit trees. He is not trying to get you to show a
preference for apricots over apples or pears over plums. A bad tree can on
occasion produce something edible. But such is not the case with a rotten prophet.
So the moral of the story is that if a person is speaking for Yahowah, everything
they write and say is beneficial and reliable. With His prophets, because He is
directing them, there are no mistakes and no misleading statements. But if there is
a single error, one putrid statement, the smallest corruption, in someones
testimony who claims his words have been nurtured by God, we must reject that
source entirely. Therefore, any one of the statements we have considered thus far
from Paul individually are sufficient in themselves to reject the entire callosum of
his letters rejecting them as harmful. And that is because, according to God,
good never produces something which is inappropriate and the product of evil is
always poisonous. So even that which may appear appropriate in an inappropriate
source must be rejected, because that appearance only serves to make the venom
more enticing to ingest. It is all or nothing.
When it comes to providing the proper perspective, there are few insights
more important than recognizing that Satan and his messengers make their
nauseating fruit appear delectable by coloring it with strokes from Gods brush.
These resulting counterfeits fool the unsuspecting, the unobservant, and the
indiscriminate into believing that a message crafted by the Adversary will lead
them to paradise. But just as a counterfeit bill is completely worthless even when
ninety-nine percent of its strokes are genuine, the more a false prophet says which
is true, the more deadly he becomes. And that is because by making his words
appear godly, they become more seductive and beguiling. Credibility is
Yahowahs strong suit, which is why deceivers like Paul misappropriate it to make
their lies appear credible. Paul has fooled five billion souls deploying this
strategy. And Satan, with the assistance of Paul, Akiba, Muhammad, and
Wieshaupt, has deceived ten billion souls, beginning long ago with Adam and
Chawah.
Any and every (pas) tree (dendron) not (me) producing (poieomai
creating or providing) suitable, fitting, genuine, approved, commendable, and
advantageous (kalos valuable, beneficial, and proper) fruit (karpos
production and results) shall actually be cut off and done away with (ekkopto
shall find themselves reliably cut down, removed, and eliminated (present passive
indicative)) and toward (kai eis) the fire (pyr a metaphor for judgment), it is
thrown (ballo he shall find himself moved, propelled, and cast, being nudged
he will fall (present passive indicative)). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:19)
Fire is symbolic of divine judgment, where Yahs light and energy are used to
refine and separate good while devouring that which is bad. Fire is not, however,
found in Sheowl, because the Judge is never present in the place of separation.
Moreover, without Yahowah, Sheowl is a dark and lightless place, precluding the
existence of fire.
It is therefore instructive to know that sources which are not consistently and
entirely kalos valuable, beneficial, and proper, suitable, fitting, and genuine,
approved, commendable, and advantageous, are ekkopto cut off, which
means removed from Yahowah. Moreover, they are ekkopto done away with
and tossed aside following judgment.
Also, please note that judgment is something rotten sources of information
regarding God endure. Yahs Covenant children will witness trials for clerics and
kings in addition to spectacular trials for the likes of Paul, Akiba, Constantine,
Muhammad, Maimonides, and Wieshaupt. Gods children, however, as a result of
the Towrahs provisions, will not be judged. Therefore, the sole purpose of
judgment is to determine which souls will spend eternity separated from God, as
opposed to those souls which will simply cease to exist. The former is a penalty,
justly earned for leading others away from God. The latter is a consequence of
being misled.
So then indeed (ara ge as a result and in reality), by (apo) their (autos)
fruit (karpos production), you will be able through careful observation and
studious contemplation to actually know and understand them (epiginosko
autos by conducting a careful, thorough, and competent inquiry in the future
you all will be able to use evidence and reason to genuinely comprehend them, by
closely examining and carefully considering, and by processing and evaluating
everything logically, every one of you will be able to actually learn, completely
understand, and without reservation recognize and acknowledge them; (translated
in the future tense revealing that since the rotten fruit had not yet been produced,
diagnosing the disease would have to wait, and in the middle voice we learn that
those who are observant and circumspect will benefit from what they discover
regarding the illegitimate tree and its deadly fruit, and finally in the indicative
mood, Yahowsha is telling us that while trees and fruit serve as metaphors,
deceivers actually exist and the consequence is real)). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift /
Matthew 7:20)
Since epiginosko speaks of that which can be known for certain based upon a
close examination and careful evaluation of the available evidence, this concept is
being presented as the antithesis of, and thus as the alternative to, faith. Therefore,
to the degree that Yahowshas statement was accurately translated, this is
especially relevant. And that is because faith is Pauls lone alternative to
observing the Towrah.
It is surprising, but nonetheless true, that God and man differ dramatically on
the concept which has become synonymous with religion. God, rather than asking
us to blindly believe Him, wants us to read His testimony so that we come to
know Him. That is why the Towrah and Prophets were written and given to us.
And this voyage of discovery which leads to knowing Yahowah is vastly superior
to believing that He exists. Similarly, actually engaging in His Covenant is better
than believing that you have a relationship with God.
 The reason this particular instruction from God is being shared in the opening
chapter of this book, one devoted to examining and evaluating the merits of Pauls
letters, is because we are doing exactly what Yahowsha asked of us. So if you are
a Christian, you now have a trio of choices. You can continue reading Questioning
Paul, you can dedicate the time to do a similar study on your own, or you can
continue to live a lie, pretending to follow someone whose words you are prone to
ignore.
And speaking of ignoring, if you are an agnostic, youd be better served to set
this book aside temporarily and read An Introduction to God or Yada Yah. And
that is because you are fortunate. Unlike those whose religious beliefs are crafted
to repel everything that is adverse to their faith, and especially Gods own
testimony, being an agnostic your mind isnt a house of cards which must be
brought down before something sensible can be established in its place. For you,
there is no clutter to clear away, no religious mythology which has to be rejected
or defended. Nothing has to be exorcised prior to considering Yahowahs
testimony.
As an agnostic, your mind is already open. You are keenly aware of the
merits of evidence and reason. So you are prepared to consider Gods testimony
on its own merits. For you, it is just a matter of wielding evidence and applying
reason in a different venue, and perhaps for the first time observing the Creator
rather than His creation. But then once you have come to know Yahowah as He
revealed Himself, once you understand what He is offering, once you respond to
Him rationally and engage in His Covenant, you will want to return to this book.
And that is because once you have come to know Yah, you will want to share
what you have learned, especially with those who have been misled, especially
with Christians.
That is not to say, however, that this book wont appeal to agnostics. By
reading Questioning Paul, you will find comfort in the wisdom of rejecting the
Christian religion. By coming to understand where and how Christians were
misled, you will discover that your aversion to religion is something God shares.
This would also hold true for the many agnostic Yahuwdym. Three of the
earliest beneficiaries of the initial edition of Questioning Paul were Jews, a
computer engineer, a pulmonary surgeon, and a leader in the Messianic
movement. By seeing Yahowsha stripped of his Hellenistic and Pauline, thus
Christian, garb, and with the foolishness of religion no longer associated with
Him, the diminished corporeal manifestation of Yahowah suddenly became
credible.
Now returning to His Instruction on the Mount, from the beginning
Yahowsha has been resolute and precise. There has been no equivocation
whatsoever. For example, we were told that not so much as a single one of the
smallest of strokes of the individual letters comprising any of the words of the
Towrah would be negated or annulled. Equally uncompromising, He has said that
a rotten tree never produces good fruit and similarly that a sound tree is always
beneficial. So with this in mind, as we approach His next statement, to be
consistent, the negation provided by ou when applied to pas must be rendered
not any rather than not all. The former is absolute and the latter is equivocal.
Beyond this, with pas scribed in the singular rather than plural, any, is a far
better fit than all. Also, in the nominative form and negated, not any serves as
the subject of the verb, saying, written legon, the present, active, and singular
form of lego.
The reason this is important is because a criterion is being established which
is excluding either some or all who refer to God as Lord from heaven. Seeking
some wiggle room, bibles published by Christian organizations prefer not all,
but there is no reason to suspect that God is changing course and is being the least
bit uncertain here, making not any a far better fit in this presentation.
Since context is the lifes blood of understanding, and consistency is Gods
hallmark, one cannot responsibly translate Gods testimony by taking Him out of
character or context. Therefore, recognizing Yahowahs overt animosity toward
being called Lord, since it is the derogatory title He uses to describe Satan, and
since as our Heavenly Father He cannot be our Lord, and since knowing His
name is essential to our salvation, we have to either translate the singular pas as
any or anyone or change Gods nature, plan, and testimony.
In this light, you should know that Yahowsha delivered His Instruction on
the Mount in either Hebrew or in Aramaic, but not in Greek. There is no evidence
that He ever spoke Greek. Moreover, every report we have from this time
regarding Mattanyah affirms that the Disciple initially presented his eyewitness
testimony in Hebrew. So at the very least, the text we are evaluating was
translated out of Hebrew and into Greek one hundred years removed and one
thousand miles away from where this was spoken. Then adding yet another layer
of concern, not only were the scribes who copied these manuscripts in Egypt less
than meticulous, they were actually encouraged to harmonize texts so that the
result would better mesh with the proclivities of those paying the bills all too
typically a religious institution. This free hand explains why there are over three-
hundred thousand known discrepancies between ancient and modern manuscripts.
Therefore, when conveying the proper meaning of any word God, Himself, has
spoken or is translated as having conveyed, the best rendering is one which is
consistent with the words meaning, with the grammar of the sentence, with the
context of the discussion, and which does not require us to alter Gods nature or
message.
 That is what Ive done here, but since pas is more often rendered all than it
is any or anyone, the selection of other than a primary definition isnt one I
am comfortable making without full disclosure without you knowing why
especially since our salvation is riding upon presenting Gods words correctly.
Not (ou absolutely never under any circumstances shall) any (pas
anyone (scribed as an adjective in the nominative case in the singular masculine))
one saying (legon one speaking, calling, or implying (scribed in the present
tense active voice participle form in the singular nominative masculine)) to Me
(moi), Lord (kyrie master, owner, one who rules over, controls, or enslaves)
Lord (kyrie master, owner, one who rules over, controls, or enslaves), will
actually as a result enter into (eiserchomai eis will in the future, and based
upon how this influences the speaker, move inside or genuinely experience
(scribed in the future tense, middle voice which signifies that those calling
Yahowsha Lord are affected by this decision, and in the indicative mood which
means that this statement is describing reality, and in the third person singular))
the kingdom of the heavens (ten basileian ton ouranon the spiritual realm and
abode of God), but by contrast (alla rather certainly and emphatically) the one
presently acting upon (o poieomai the one currently and actively engaging in
(scribed in the present active participle singular nominative masculine)) the
purpose and desire (thelema the will and mindset, the design and
determination, the resolve and intent) of (tou) My (mou) Father (patros), the
One (tou) in the heavens (en tois ouranois in the spiritual realm). (Mattanyah
/ Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:21)
If you do not know Yahowshas name, you do not know Him nor do you
know the Father who sent Him. His name defines who He is, from whom and why
He came. When it is changed, the result is no longer God. And when the object of
ones belief ceases to be credible, their faith is in vain.
Similarly, if you do not know Yahowahs name, you do not know God. If you
do not know God, He does not know you. If He does not know you, you can
neither be in a relationship with Him nor be saved by Him. This is why those who
call Yahowah and Yahowsha Lord are excluded from heaven.
If you are still among those referring to God by Satans title, then you are
unaware of Yahowahs will which is to serve His Covenant children as their
Father. Lord and father are mutually exclusive concepts. God cannot be your
Father if he is your Lord.
Since all God wants, the only reason He created the universe, conceived life,
engaged in our lives, and provided His guidance was so that we would be able to
choose to engage in His family-oriented Covenant relationship, by
mischaracterizing Gods nature and purpose in this way, those who refer to God as
the Lord are negating our Heavenly Fathers terms and provisions. This then
bars entry into heaven. And that is because salvation is a byproduct or benefit of
the Covenant. It is yet another thing Christians have reversed. And few things are
as revealing in this regard as the misrepresentation of Yahowahs nature from
Father to Lord. It is why referring to God as Lord was used as a litmus test to
identify those who would be excluded from heaven. And it is why Yahowsha
spoke of the purpose and desire of My Father in heaven. The contrast is
between mans view where their god is a Lord, and Gods view where He is our
Father. This is the very essence of the Covenant and thus of the Towrah. It is
why Yahowah chose to rename the first child of the Covenant Abraham
Merciful and Enriching Father.
And should you be clinging to the myth that God is referred to as the Lord
throughout Scripture, the truth is just the opposite. God spoke or wrote His name,
Yahowah, exactly 7000 times in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. Religious rabbis
and Christians then copyedited God, substituting Lord for His name.
Equally instructive, if one must act upon the purpose and desire of our
Heavenly Father to enter heaven, then salvation does not come by way of faith as
Paul asserts. To respond to Gods will, His intent, we must first come to know
what He is offering and what He wants. And that brings us right back to the
Towrah, to the one place Yahowah introduces His purpose and plan.
Since this comes as a shock to those lost in religion, as believers almost
universally refer to their god as Lord, especially Christians, Yahowsha
completely destroyed their every illusion.
Many (polys a very great number and the preponderance of people) will
say (erousin will in the future actually and actively communicate (lego scribed
in the future active indicative third person plural)) to Me (moi) in that specific
day (en ekeinos te hemera in this relatively distant period of time), Lord (kyrie
master, owner, one who rules over, controls, or enslaves) Lord (kyrie master,
owner, one who rules over, controls, or enslaves), not (ou) in Your (to so) name
(onoma persona and reputation), we actively spoke genuinely inspired
utterances (propheteuo we prophesy, at some point in time actually making
your thoughts known beforehand (aorist active indicative first person plural)),
and (kai) in Your (to so) name (onoma persona and reputation), we drove out
(ekballo we sent and threw out, we expelled and sent forth (aorist active
indicative first person plural)) demons (daimonion evil spirits and devils, or
inferior gods, minor divinities, and pagan goddesses), and (kai) in Your (to so)
name (onoma persona and reputation), many mighty and miraculous things
(pollas dynamis with great supernatural power extensive political and religious
institutions), we made and did (poieomai we engaged in, performed, worked,
and profited from (aorist active indicative first person plural)). (Mattanyah /
Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:22)
While it requires a considerable reorganization of the Greek, thereby moving
the negation of ou past the dative article, the, past the possessive pronoun,
Your, and past the dative noun, name, since the third definition of ou depicts a
question in which the speaker expects a resounding yes to be the answer, one
might assume that Christians, having not listened to what Yahowsha just said,
might ask:
Lord, Lord, didnt we speak inspired utterances in Your name, cast out
demons in Your name, and establish mighty political and religious
institutions in Your name?
But the answer to that question is a resounding no! Not one Christian in a
million knows or uses Yahowshas name. In fact, once a person comes to know
His name and understand what it means, he or she can no longer be a Christian.
And that is because Yahowshas name means Yahowah Saves. And that means
that the means to salvation is found in the Towrah rather than in the New
Testament.
You will not find a church where the sermon is delivered in Yahowshas
name. Christians speak on behalf of Paul instead. They are inspired by Pauline
doctrine instead of Yahowahs Towrah. In all of their many books, in all of their
vast libraries, in all of their superficial bible studies, in all of their thoughtless
radio and television programs, and in all of their religious institutions, they never
speak or write in the name of God. Most dont even know it.
As for driving out demons, the moment you come to understand that
Christian clerics, like Paul, are inspired by Satan, it is easy to see why they would
be able to exorcise demons. The Adversary controls both. So casting out demonic
spirits becomes the perfect ruse.
Easily confused by this sleight of hand, it is reasonable to assume that
Christians will be making this claim to validate their godly credentials, but
Yahowsha is translated suggesting that they will have professed to throwing out
daimonion inferior gods and pagan deities. Whats funny about this possibility
is that Pauls strategy was to replace Yahowah with Iesou Christou, thereby,
demoting the inferior and impotent god of the obsolete and arcane Old
Testament with the all accepting, always nice, graceful god of his superior New
Testament. But in actuality, knowing the only real God was replaced by faith in
the Gospel of Grace the evil spells of pagan goddesses.
Equally stimulating is pollas dynamis, which while I translated many mighty
and miraculous things, could just as accurately have been rendered extensive
political and religious institutions. Satans minions do both, but are better at
establishing the latter. So it will come as a tremendous shock to the systems of
Christians when they learn that their institutions, their churches, nations, and
denominations, were not established in the name of God.
Further, mighty deeds and miracles are so often claimed by those inspired
by the Adversary that Yahowah tells us that when we see them we ought to be
especially wary. Yahowah isnt a showoff but Satan is. God does not have to
prove His status or power, but Satan does. Moreover, Christians almost
universally claim that their lives or those that they love have been miraculously
transformed, something they errantly attribute to God. So Yahowsha is telling
them that these things are neither proof nor valid, neither good nor appropriate.
In an informed and rational world, Yahowshas conclusion would have
scuttled Pauline Doctrine and destroyed the religion of Christianity with it. And so
it is ironic Christians believe that their religion was created by the individual who
cratered it before it was born.
And then (kai tote so at that time) I will profess to them (homologeo
autois I will admit, assert, and declare to them (future active indicative) that
because (oti) I never at any time knew you (oudepote ginosko umas at no time
was I acquainted with you, not even once or for a moment did I acknowledge you
or understand you), you all must depart from Me (apochoreo apo emou you
are now ordered to leave, going away and separating yourselves from Me (present
active imperative)) those (oi) of you involved in (ergazomai ten you all actively
engaging in (present middle participle plural)) Towrah-lessness (anomia who
are in opposition to and have attempted to negate the Towrah, thereby those of
you without the Towrah, who demonstrate a contempt for the Towrah and are
thereby in violation of the allotment which provides an inheritance). (Mattanyah
/ Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:23)
There are two reasons the multitudes were sent away, both of which are
related, either of which results in being rejected by God. Initially, Yahowsha said
that He never knew them, which means that the overwhelming preponderance
of people dont know Him either. If they are involved in a relationship with god,
their god is not real.
When God says at no time was I acquainted with you, it means that these
individuals have all failed to capitalize on the Covenant. No matter what they may
have felt or believed, they were not engaged in a relationship with God. Beyond
this, when God says that not even once for a moment did I acknowledge you or
understand you, it means that He never heard any of their prayers and that their
opinions, even conclusions, regarding Him and their religion were
incomprehensible. And this means that every argument Christians pose to justify
their opposition towards Yahowahs name, towards observing His Towrah, or
towards engaging in the Covenant, are moot. God isnt interested in them.
The point Yahowsha is making here is one that took me a very long time to
fully assimilate. But Gods position is both simple and reasonable, even necessary.
Salvation is only afforded to the children of the Covenant. And in fact, salvation,
which entails becoming immortal, becoming perfected, being adopted while being
enriched and empowered, collectively serve as the benefits of the Covenant. It
would be senseless, even irritating, for God to save those who do not know Him
those who hold contrarian views toward Him. After all, God has to live with those
who are saved for eternity.
As a result of this, Christians would be wrong believing that Gods intent is to
save everyone, or even that salvation is His priority. And also because a
relationship is worthless unless both parties participate and benefit, salvation
cannot be the byproduct of faith alone. A person has to engage with God in
accordance with the terms and conditions of His Covenant to be saved.
The second criterion for exclusion is being anomia Towrah-less. These
are related concepts because the only place where the terms and conditions of the
Covenant are presented is in the Towrah. If a person is without the Towrah, they
are estranged from the Covenant. And if they arent participants in the Covenant,
they cannot enter Gods home in heaven, because they are neither His children nor
saved.
Beyond this, Yahowsha has just delineated the issue which will define our
debate. According to Yahowsha, to reject the Towrah is to be rejected by God.
But according to Paul, the inverse is true. He writes that a person must reject the
Towrah to be accepted by God. So who do you suppose is right? Is salvation, as
Yahowsha just declared, a product of the Covenant relationship and His Towrah
Instructions or is it as Paul professes: that salvation is the result of faith?
But since Paul claims to speak on behalf of the individual his letters
contradict, how could he be right? Said another way, based upon Yahowshas
statement regarding admission into heaven, why would anyone in their right mind
believe that Paul was telling the truth?
Before you consider Yahowshas overall conclusion to His Instruction on the
Mount, take pause and reflect on everything He has said, especially relative to the
merits and enduring nature of the Towrah.
Everyone (pas), therefore then (oun) who (ostis) presently and actively
listens to (akouo who currently pays attention and really seeks to hear and
understand (present active indicative)) these (toutous) statements (logos
treatise, testimony, and words, discourse, teaching, and instruction) of Mine
(mou), and (kai) he or she genuinely acts upon them (poieomai autous he or
she actively and actually engages as a result of them (present active indicative
third person singular)), will be likened to (homoioo will become like, compared
to, and be considered similar to, resembling) a wise (phronimos an intelligent
and astute, a prudent and sensible, a thoughtful and judicious) individual (andros
a person) who (ostis) edifies and strengthens (oikodomeo builds and
constructs, restores and repairs, establishes and erects) his or her (autos) house
(oikia home, family, household, and relationship) upon the (epi ten) rock (petra
bedrock). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:24)
Second only to their disdain for Yahowahs testimony, as Gods Word is
written in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, the Christian aversion to Yahowshas
testimony is telling. They are somehow unaware that they spoke with the same
voice. And while Christians will acknowledge Yahowchanans assertion that
Yahowsha is the Word of God, there is a disconnect in their minds between that
statement and the realization that He was therefore the living embodiment of the
Torah and Prophets. So to listen to Him, you will have to read them. After all, that
is why He began this instruction affirming the validity, value, and enduring nature
of the Towrah and Prophets.
In this regard, Yahowshas statement mirrors Yahowahs constant
recommendation throughout His Towrah whereby God encourages us to shama
listen to His Guidance. But more than this, Yahowshas statement also reflects
Yahowahs consistent counsel, whereby God instructs us to asah act upon
His advice. Therefore, for us to participate in a relationship with God, we must
first come to know Him, understand what He is offering, and then respond by
choosing to engage in the Covenant in accordance with our Heavenly Fathers
terms and provisions.
Emphasizing the benefits of listening to and observing the Word of God,
Yahowsha likens such individuals with phronimos, being intelligent and astute,
prudent and sensible, thoughtful and judicious. And then speaking of what flows
from this understanding, Yahowsha makes a connection between the beryth
family-oriented Covenant relationship, which is from beyth family and
home, with oikia household and family. So youll note, a family and home
is being edified and established, not a church or religious institution. God is still
pointing thoughtful individuals toward His Covenant family and Heavenly home.
Also relevant, Yahowsha is translated using petra to convey bedrock. He is
speaking of the role the Towrah plays in the establishment of the Covenant. This
is illuminating because it undermines the foundation of Roman Catholicism and
thus Christianity. The Church claims that Peter, which is a transliteration of
petros, meaning stone, is the rock upon which their church was built. It is
why they claim that their pope sits on the seat of saint Peter. But it is obvious
when we read Yahowshas exchange with Shimown (He Listens) Kephas
(Aramaic for Rock), that the Rock upon which Gods Called Out are
established and edified is the Disciples realization that Yahowsha is Yahowah
Saving us, the Maaseyah the Work of Yahowah as predicted and promised by
God in His Towrah. With Yahowahs Towrah as bedrock, the foundation,
Yahowsha, as a part of Yahowah set apart from Him, becomes the Rock of our
Salvation.
And even when (kai) the rain (e broche a besprinkling (akin to a
baptism)) descends (katabaino falls down), (kai) the rivers (oi potamos a
torrent or floods; from pino libations) come (erchomai appear moving people
from one place to another), and the rapidly shifting winds (anemos violent,
agitated, and tempestuous (emotional, stormy, passionate, uncontrolled, and even
hysterical) changes in doctrine) blow (pneo), descending upon (prospipto
rushing upon and striking against, bowing and battering) this specific (te ekeine)
home and household (te oikia the family), then (kai) it shall not fail (ouk pipto
it will not fall, will not be bowed, it will not be destroyed, it will not become
inadequate) because (gar) the foundation was previously established and is
enduring (themelioo the foundation was firmly laid in the past and is now
providing ongoing benefits (pluperfect passive indicative)) upon (epi) bedrock
(petra solid rock). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:25)
While Christians will tell you that Paul won the argument over the viability
of the foundation God had laid with His Torah, Yahowsha begs to differ. He
recognizes that not only is it the primary source of guidance regarding the
Covenant and the Path to Salvation, it is also the most effective protection against
the torrents of rapidly shifting winds others would bring against us. Fortunately,
so long as we are grounded in the Towrah, our home is secure.
This knowledge is the reason Yahowsha provided this perspective on the
Towrah along with His conclusions regarding those who would seek to discount
its value in the midst of His initial public declaration. Gods guidance begins here.
This is where the journey begins.

Lets lay out some ground rules before we consider Pauls opening comments
in Galatians. Calling the Christian New Testament Scripture is a human edict,
not a Godly directive. Neither Yahowah, Yahowsha, nor any of the Disciples,
ever referred to anything in addition to the Hebrew Torah, Prophets, and Psalms
as such.
 According to Yahowah and Yahowsha, the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms
comprise the totality of Scripture. Therefore, the only aspects of the Greek
historical and eyewitness accounts which should be considered inspired by God
are the words and deeds of Yahowsha.
Shauwls epistles, on the other hand, contain only one citation from
Yahowsha (which he got wrong), and no accurate quotations from the Torah.
This realization serves as an admission that his letters contain his opinions.
Therefore, our mission will be to determine whether his opinions were accurate.
In this light, you may have noticed in the four Galatian arguments already
cited that Shauwls thoughts were inadequately and incompetently conveyed,
opening the door to invalid interpretations. But this is just the beginning. As we
shall see, Shauwls letter to the Galatians was so poorly compiled, it is insulting
to suggest that God inspired it word for word as it was written.
To understand any message, we must consider it in context. The practice of
citing isolated comments to make a point is often misleading and is usually
invalid. It is how the church justifies religious doctrines which are contrary to the
Torah. And they get by with their sleight of hand because most Christians are
unwilling to compare clerical pontifications to the statements from God which
oppose them. Most arent even willing to check to see if the context of the
discussion from which the snippets were removed altered their intended meaning.
And ironically, since Paul deployed this tactic with reckless abandon,
subconsciously Christians may now believe that this strategy is appropriate.
According to Yahowah and Yahowsha, there is nothing man can say or do
that has the authority to alter or negate, to replace or abolish, any aspect of the
Torah and most especially its provisions regarding Gods nature, His
relationship with us, or His plan salvation. So, any proposition to the contrary is
contrary to God. Therefore, the Christian myth that Grace has replaced the Torah
is invalid. Similarly, the Christian belief that that they live under a New
Testament based upon a New Covenant, both of which replaced the Old
Testament and its previously existing Covenant, is torn asunder by Yahowshas
Instructions on the Mount. Gods testimony and covenant were not replaced. They
cannot be altered or annulled. What was is. What is will be.
First among the many reasons behind the Christian confusion regarding the
relationship between the Torah and the Covenant is derived from Pauls letters,
and most especially his notion that there are two covenants with a new one
already established. This polarization was based upon an outright lie, with Paul
claiming that the Torahs Covenant was made with Hagar, not Sarah, and thus
was enslaving.
 While we have only reviewed four arguments from Galatians, it would not be
presumptuous to conclude that these citations intended to begin a debate between
observing the Torah and faith. Even from the most favorable vantage point,
the best that could be said of Paul is that his words infer that men and women
cannot work their way to God. But if that is what he wanted to infer, there would
have been no reason to misappropriate and misquote the Towrah or demean it.
To be saved, at least according to the Towrah, we must first come to know
Yahowah, to understand the terms and conditions of the Covenant, and then act
upon them. Its provisions then save us. And while that is simple enough, since we
are many chapters removed from knowing for certain if Shauwl intended to
convey something contrary to this, lets be patient as we turn over every card in
his hand one after another.
Second, the Christian perspective of God and His plan are backwards and
upside down. It is from the end, rather than from the beginning. It is salvation
before relationship. But to properly appreciate a set of plans, and the home built
by way of those plans, you have to start with a firm foundation, not with the roof.
The Torah is the beginning and the foundation, while Revelation is the cupola set
upon the roof of His Tabernacle.
Third, Christians confuse observing the Torah with Judaism, as if these
things were related. But they are not. Religious Jews manage their lives in
accordance with the Talmud, which is based upon their oral traditions. The
Talmud, in fact, is written very similarly to Pauls letters, in that the Talmud is
comprised of rabbinic arguments which seek to twist the Torah in order to elevate
mans opinions above Gods. The religion of Judaism, therefore, is in conflict
with the Torah which is why it was exposed and condemned by Yahowsha. Also,
rabbis, who have no Scriptural authority or legitimacy, dont understand that
observing the Torah doesnt mean to do it, but instead to closely examine
and carefully consider what it says so that those who are observant comprehend
its message.
Fourth, the essence of the Torah isnt a set of laws to be followed, but instead
the Towrah is a word picture of Yahowahs purpose, His teaching and guidance,
so that we come to know Him and understand what He is offering. It is a portrait
of Yahs Covenant. And it serves to convey His plan of salvation. The Torahs
every story and example represent facets on a marvelous jewel, providing a
perspective from which to observe, enjoy, and benefit from Yahowahs brilliant
Light. The Torah is overwhelmingly metaphorical and symbolic, painting word
pictures to help us know Yahowah, understand His plan of reconciliation, and rely
on His provision. In this light, it is better to understand the relevance of Passover
and Unleavened Bread, and to capitalize upon these gifts, than it is to simply do
what is delineated on the right date. Understanding leads to trust, trust leads to
reliance, and reliance leads to salvation. Our works, beliefs, and faith dont lead to
any of these places.
Fifth, the Torah and Yahowsha are inseparable. According to Yahowah, the
Torah is the Word of God and Yahowsha is the Word made fleshthe living
embodiment of the Torah. So the very notion that we must choose between the
Torah or Gods favor is an attempt to divide the indivisible.
Those familiar with one of the Towrahs great scenes may recall the moment
Moseh was inspired by Yahowah to depict Yahowshas mission: Yahowah,
your God, will raise up for you a prophet like me from your midst, from your
brothers. Listen to Him. This is according to all that you desired of
Yahowah, your God, in Horeb, in the day of the assembly, saying, Let us not
continuously hear the voice of Yahowah, our God, nor see this great fire, lest
we die. And Yahowah said to me, Well spoken. I will raise up for them a
prophet like you from among their brothers. I will put My words in His
mouth and He will speak as I direct Him. The one who will not listen
intelligently to My words which He shall speak in My Name, I shall
investigate. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:15-19)
Thereby, Yahowah encouraged us to listen to the words Yahowsha would
speak and now has spoken. He said that His words would serve as affirmations
and citations of the Torah, itself. And yet Christians chose to reject most of what
Yahowah said and ignore most of what Yahowsha proclaimed, while at the same
time listening to a man who never cited either accurately.
Sixth, the Torah exists to convey the benefits of the Covenant. It is the
foundation of life. It explains everything Yahowsha said and did. He was
resolutely Torah observant. He came to enable the promises associated with the
first four Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God by paying the toll so
that His Father would become our Father. By so doing, all five benefits associated
with the Covenant were realized.
As Yahowsha told the men on the road to Emmaus immediately after
fulfilling Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread, and FirstFruits, if you want to understand
Him, who He is, what He said, and what He did, you have to change your
perspective, your attitude, and your thinking to that of the Torah and Prophets.
According to Yahowsha, it isnt the Torah versus Mercy, but instead the Torah
providing Gods gift. The Torah is the source of the healing and beneficial
message that the human term Gospel corrupts.
Seventh, perhaps the biggest issue of all is reflected in a discussion
Yahowsha had with His disciples. When they failed to understand that the yeast
which was being removed from our souls on Unleavened Bread was none other
than religious and political pontifications, teachings, and doctrines, Yahowsha
said: How is it that you did not think so as to understand (noeo use your
mind to comprehend) that I was not speaking about a loaf of bread when I
said Be alerted to and turn away from (prosecho apo beware of, guard
against, and distance yourself from) the yeast (zyme leavening fungus) of the
Pharisees (the overtly religious leaders) and Sadducees (the worldly-minded,
liberal political leaders)? (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 16:11)
For the most part, religious people dont think. They are opposed to evidence
and reason when these things invalidate their faith. And the few who are open-
minded are usually handicapped by corrupted data in the form of horribly errant
translations. Beyond these issues, while believers will protest that the Old
Testament contains the inerrant Word of God, when Gods words are deployed
against their religion, they are summarily rejected.

Since we will be using Yahowahs testimony as the only completely

unassailable source of information regarding Gods nature and plan, lets
conclude this opening chapter by giving our God, our Father, our Creator, and our
Savior the last word...
This is what Yahowah revealed through the prophet, Yashayah: Woe
(howy), the people from different races and places (gowy) bear blame and are
guilty for having wandered away (hata). The peoples (am) distortions and
corruptions, their propensity to warp, alter, twist, and pervert (awon) are
numerous and significant, burdensome and troubling (kabed). They are
descendants (zera) of those who have done wrong, harming themselves
(raa). They are children (benym) of those who corrupt, pervert, and destroy
(shahat). They have rejected and abandoned (azab) Yahowah ( ). They
have spurned, belittled, maligned, disparaged, and defamed (naas) the Set-
Apart One (qadowsh eth) of Yisrael (Yisrael). They are strangers who have
gone astray (zuwr), having turned their backs (ahowr). (Yashayah /
Salvation is from Yahowah / Isaiah 1:4)
I am (any) Yahowah ( ). This is My name (huw shem). And (wa)
the manifestation of My power (kabowd) I will not give (lo natan) to (la)
another (acher), nor (wa) My renown and reputation (tahilah) to (la)
religious imagery (pacyl). (Yashayah 42:8)
Yahowah ( ) was willing, even desirous (chaphets), for the sake of
(maan) His sense of honesty and fairness, and His commitment to doing what
is right regarding your vindication (tsedeq), to reveal His nurturing,
empowering, enriching, and enabling (gadal) Towrah, His Teaching and
Instruction, His Guidance and Direction (Towrah), and to prove its worth (wa
adar). (Yashayah 42:21)
Listen, and pay attention to Me, so that you respond appropriately to
Me (qashap el) My family (am) and (wa) My people (leom). To Me (el)
listen, carefully considering, weighing, testing, evaluating, and thinking
about what you hear, and then respond (azan), because indeed (ky), the
Towrah, the Source of Teaching and Guidance (Towrah) from Me (min eth),
shall be brought forth and shall be disseminated (yatsa), and (wa) My means
to justifiably resolve disputes (mishpat) will accordingly (la) shine upon and
enlighten (owr) the family (am). (Yashayah 51:4)
Then (wa) He shall reveal (galah) the glorious presence and
manifestation of power (kabowd) of Yahowah (hwhy). And all (kol) living
creatures (basar), they will see (raah) Yahdow the Unity of Yah (Yahdow).
Indeed (ky), He is the Word (ha dabar), the verbal spokesman and mouth
(peh) of Yahowah (hwhy). (Yashayah 40:5)
Look and see, pay attention and behold (hineh), Yahowah ( ), our
Upright One and Foundation (edownay), arrives (bow) with the blast of a
trumpet (ba hazaq). He is the Sacrificial Lamb (zarowa). He is the Proverb
and the Parable, a picture of the Word which is vivid and easy to see (la
masal). Behold (hineh) Him, our recompense and fare for the passage, our
ransom (sakar) is associated with Him (ethow). He does the work to pay our
debt (paulah) to clear the way to appear before His presence (la paneh). As a
Shepherd (ka raah) shepherds, leads, protects, and feeds His flock (raah
eder), the Sacrificial Lamb (zarowa) will gather (qabas) His sheep (talaym).
And in His chest (ba cheyq), He will lift them up (nasa), nursing, nurturing
(uwl) and guiding them (nahal). (Yashayah 40:10-11)
This is what Yahowah revealed through Moseh in His Towrah: Pertaining
to (achar) these (el-leh) conversations (dabarym), the Word (dabar) of
Yahowah ( ) came to exist with (hayah el) Abram (abram) in the form
of (ba) a personal, visual, and illuminating manifestation which could be seen
and experienced (machazeh) to say (amar): Do not be awed or intimidated
(yare al) Abram. I am (anoky) your protector, defending you from harm
(magen la), your exceedingly (maod) great (rabah) reward (sakar).
(Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis 15:1)
And (wa) God (elohym) conveyed (dabar) all of (kol) these words
(dabar), providing perspective (eleh) in our presence (eth), saying (amar): I
am (anky) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), who beneficially (asher)
descended to serve, bringing you out of and delivering you (yasa) from the
realm (min erets) of the crucible of oppression and judgment (mitsraym), out
of the house (min beyth) of slavery and servitude (ebed). You will not exist
with (lo hayah la) other (aher) gods (elohym) in relation to (al) My
presence (paneh). (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 20:1-3)
You should observe, closely examining and carefully considering
(shamar) this word and its message (dabar) as a clearly communicated and
engraved prescription of what you should do to live (choq) and (wa) as a
enduring and restoring witness (ed) to your children (beny) forever
(owlam). (Shemowth 12:24)
You should not ever add to (lo yasap al) the Word (ha dabar), which as
a blessing (asher), I (anky) am instructing and guiding you all with (tsawah
eth). And you should never subtract (wa lo gara) from it (min) if you are to
properly observe (la shamar) the terms of the covenant (mitswah) of Yahowah
( ), your God (elohym), which as a favor (asher) I am (anky) guiding
you (tsawah eth). (Dabarym / Words / Dabarym 4:2)
Exclusively without exception (raq) be observant (shamar) as your goal.
And pay very close attention to (maod shamar) your soul (nepesh) lest you
forget or overlook (sakah) the words (dabarym) which you have seen with
your eyes. And lest they are removed from your heart. All of the days of your
life, you shall make them known (yada) to your children and to your
childrens children.
The day which you were present, standing (amad) before (paneh)
Yahowah, your God, in Horeb, in which Yahowah ( ) said to me to
summon and assemble (qahal) the family (am) so that I might have them
hear (shama) the words (dabar) which will cause them to learn (lamad) to
revere, to respect (yare), and to approach Me all of the days which as a
result of the relationship they shall live (chay) on the earth (adamah), and so
that they might teach (lamad) their children. (Dabarym 4:9-10)
And Yahowah ( ) spoke the word (dabar) as God to you (el) from
the midst of the fire (esh), words (dabarym) the sound of which (qowl) you
heard (shama). But a visual form (tamuwnah), you did not seebut only
(zuwlah) heard the sound. He told you all about (nagad la) His Family-
Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth) with you. Which, as a result of the
relationship, He instructed and directed (sawah) you to act upon (asah la)
the Ten Statements (dabar), writing them (katab) on two tablets of stone.
And Yahowah ( ) instructed and guided (sawah) me at this time
(eth) that She (the Set-Apart Spirit, our Spiritual Mother and Counselor)
(hy) would teach (lamad) you regarding the clearly communicated
prescriptions for living (choq) and the means used to achieve justice and
resolve disputes, even to exercise good judgment (mishpat), so that you might
act upon them, celebrating and profiting from them. (Dabarym 4:12-14)
During the time of adversity and emotional distress (tsar), all of these
words (ha dabar) will find you, especially those in the last (acharyth) of days,
and then you will return and you will be restored (suwb) forever and
eternally (owlam) to Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym). (Dabarym 4:30)
From the heavens He has individually and deliberately prepared you to
listen to (shama) His voice (qowl) for the explicit purpose of instructing you
(la yacar). And upon the Almightys earth, He enabled you to see and witness
(raah) His magnificent light (gadowl esh) and His words (dabar) which you
heard (shama) from the midst of the fire (esh). And truthfully, underlying
this is His love (ahab) for your fathers. And He has chosen to favor (bahar)
their descendants after them. He has descended to serve, leading you (yasa)
into His presence with His magnificent and enormous power (gadowl), away
from (min) the Crucible of human oppression (Mitsraym). (Dabarym 4:36-37)
So you should recognize and acknowledge (yada) this day, returning
your heart to God, because indeed (ky) Yahowah ( ), He is Almighty God
(huw ha elohym) in the heavens (ha shamaym) above and on the earth (ha
erets) below. There is no other. You should observe, closely examining and
carefully considering (shamar) His clearly communicated and inscribed
prescriptions of what we should do to live (choq), and the terms and
conditions of His binding contract (mitswah), which relationally I have
instructed and guided you (sawah) this day. Because, as a result of the
relationship, He is good to you and beneficial for you (yatab la), and also for
your children after you, for the express purpose of elongating your days.
(Dabarym 4:39-40)
This is (zeth) the Towrah, the Teaching (ha Towrah), which beneficially
He placed before Moseh (Moseh) and the Children of Yisrael those who
engage and endure with God (ben Yisrael). This is the Enduring Witness and
Restoring Testimony (ed), the clearly communicated prescriptions (choq),
the means used to achieve justice and resolve disputes (mishpat), which God
(elohym) spoke to (dabar) Moseh (Moseh) and to the Children of Yisrael (ben
Yisrael) when He led them (yasa) away from oppression and from judgment
(mitsraym). (Dabarym 4:44-45)
These are (wa zeth) the terms and the conditions of the binding
covenant contract (mitswah), the clearly communicated prescriptions of what
we should do in life to live (choq), and the means used to achieve justice and
resolve disputes (mishpat), which beneficially (asher) Yahowah ( ), your
God (elohym), instructed and guided (sawah) you to (la) learn and teach
(lamad) what should be done (la asah) in the realm into which (ba ha erets
asher) you all (atem) are going to pass over into (abar sam) as an
inheritance (la yaras), for the intent and purpose that (maan) you really
come to revere and respect (yare) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), by
observing (shamar) all of (kol) His clearly communicated prescriptions of
what we should do in life to live (chuwqah) and (wa) His terms and conditions
(mitswah), which (asher) I (anky) have instructed and directed (sawah) you
individually (atah), your children (wa ben), and your childrens children (wa
ben ben) all (kol) of the days (yowmym) of your lives (chayym), and for the
purpose of (maan) elongating (arak) your days (yowmym), and so that (wa)
you listen (shama), Yisrael, those of you who engage and endure with God
(Yisrael), and so that (wa) you are focused and observant (shamar), thereby
(la) acting upon (asah) that which relationally (asher) is good and beneficial
for you (yatab la), and which beneficially (wa asher) will cause you to
substantially increase, grow dramatically, and become exceedingly great and
powerful (rabah maod), consistent with (ka) that which (asher) Yahowah
( ), your God (elohym), promised and affirmed to (dabar) your fathers
(ab) on your behalf (la).
Yisrael (meaning individuals who engage and strive, persist and endure
with God) (Yisrael), listen to and hear (shama) Yahowah ( ), your God
(elohym). Yahowah ( ) is one (echad). You should choose to truly and
totally love (wa ahab eth) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), with (ba)
all (kol) your heart (leb), and with all (wa ba kol) your soul (nepesh), and with
all (wa ba kol) your capacity and capability (maod).
These (eleh) words (dabar) which (asher) I am (anky) guiding you with
(sawah) this day (ha yowm), they should come to exist and always be (wa
hayah) on (al) your heart (leb). Your goal should be to choose to teach them
by reciting them to (wa la sanan) your children (ben). And you should
consistently speak about them (wa dabar ba) during your life (ba yashab), and
inside your home and with your family (wa ba beyth), and as you walk,
traveling through life (ba halak), and along the Path (ba derek), and when you
lie down to rest (wa ba sakab), and when you stand up (wa quwm).
And you should choose to fasten them (wa qasar) as a sign (la owth)
upon your hand, influencing your actions (al yad), and they should come to
exist (wa hayah) between your eyes, influencing your perspective (bayn ayn).
And (wa) you should write them (katab) upon the doorframes (al mazuwzah)
of your home (beyth), and upon your gates (wa ba saar). (Dabarym 6:1-9)
Indeed (ky), you should listen to (shama ba) the voice and invitation
(qowl), of Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), for the purpose of
approaching by examining and considering (la shamar) the terms and
conditions of His binding contract (mitswah) and His clearly communicated
prescriptions and inscribed recommendations of what we should do in this
life to live (wa chuwqah), which are inscribed and permanently memorialized
(ha katab) in (ba) the written scroll (ha seper) of this (zeth), the Towrah (ha
Towrah). And that is because (ky) you will return and be restored (suwb) to
(el) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), with all (ba kol) your heart (leb)
and with all (wa ba kol) your soul (nepesh). (Dabarym 30:10)
For indeed (ky), the utterly powerful and exceedingly great (maod)
Word (dabar) of your God (el) facilitates your approach and brings you near
(qarowb)ingrained in your speech (ba peh) and in your heart (wa ba leb)
to engage with Him (la asah). (Dabarym 30:14)
And (wa) it came to be (hayah) just when (ka) Moseh completely
finished (kalah) writing (katab) the words (dabar) of the Towrah (ha Towrah)
upon this, the Almightys (ha zeth al) written scroll (sepher), successfully
completing (tamam) the Eternal Witness and Restoring Testimony (ed),
Moseh instructed (sawah) the Lowy (ha lowy) lifting up and carrying (nasa)
Yahowahs ( ) Ark (arown) of the Family-Oriented Covenant (beryth),
saying (amar), Accept and grasp hold of (laqah) the written scroll (sepher) of
the Towrah (ha Towrah) and place (sym) this (zeh) alongside (eth min sad)
Yahowahs ( ) Ark (meaning: His Source of Enlightened Freewill)
(arown) of the Covenant Relationship (beryth). Your God (elohym), He will
always exist (hayah) there (sham) for you (la) in (ba) the Enduring Witness
and Restoring Testimony (ed). (Dabarym 31:24-26)
In His next book, one scribed by Yahowsha, Yahowah introduced the living
embodiment of His Towrah by name: Later (achar), therefore (ken),
Yahowsha recited and proclaimed (qara) all of (kol) the words (dabar) of the
Towrah (ha Towrah), the blessings of peace and prosperity (ha barakah) and
also the slights and denunciations (ha qalalah), just as (ka) all of these things
(kol) were written (katab) in (ba) the written scroll (seper) of the Towrah (ha
Towrah).
There did not exist (lo hayah) a Word (dabar) from (min) all (kol) that
which (asher) Moseh (Moseh) had instructed and directed (sawah) which
(asher) Yahowsha ( ) did not (lo) read, recite, call out, or proclaim
(qara) in a straightforward manner in the presence of (neged) the entire (kol)
assembled community (qahal) of Yisrael those individuals who engage and
endure with God (Yisrael), including the women (ha isah) and the little
children (tap), as well as (wa) the foreigners from other races and places (ger)
who were walking (halak) among them (ba qereb). (Yahowsha / Yahowah
Saves / Joshua 8:34-35)
 And then Yahowsha ( ) wrote (katab) these (eleh) words (dabar)
in (ba) Gods (elohym) Towrah (Towrah). (Yahowsha 24:26)
Now that weve heard from Yahowah through His prophet Yashayah, His
co-worker Moseh, and His namesake Yahowsha, lets consider what God
inspired Dowd, the man errantly known as David, to reveal to us in song: On
behalf of (la) the eternal and glorious One (ha nasah / nesah), a song
(mizmowr) of (la) Dowd / Love (dowd): The heavens (shamaym) quantify the
unit of measure, exactly and accurately of (caphar) the manifestation of
power (kabowd) of God (el). Its spreading out and expanse (raqya) makes
conspicuous (nagad) His handiwork (yad maaseh). Day unto day (yowm la
yowm) pours out (naba) answers (emer), and night unto night reveals
(hawah) knowledge which leads to understanding (daat).
Nothing exists without (ayn) the Word (emer). Nothing exists when and
where (wa ayn) the spoken and written message (dabarym) of the voice which
calls out (qowl) is corrupted or is negated, ceasing (bely) to be heard, no
longer regarded or understood (shama). (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:1-3)
His (huw) going forth is (mowtsa) from (min) the uttermost part of
(qatseh) the heavens, or spiritual realm (samaym). His arrivals (taquwphah)
are unto the distant end of time (qatsah). And nothing (wa ayn) is hidden
(satar) from (min) His light (chamah).
Yahowahs ( ) Towrah (Towrah) is complete and entirely perfect
(tamym), returning, restoring, and transforming (suwb) the soul (nepesh).
Yahowahs ( ) enduring testimony and restoring witness (eduwth) is
trustworthy and reliable, verifiable and dependable (aman), making
understanding (hakam) simple for the open-minded (pethy).
Yahowahs ( ) directions (piquwdym) are right (yashar), causing the
heart to rejoice (leb samah). Yahowahs ( ) terms and conditions
(mitswah) are morally pure and are purifying (bar), shining a light toward
understanding (owr ayn).
Revering and respecting (yirah) Yahowah ( ) is cleansing and
restoring (tahowr), sustaining and establishing us (amad) forever (ad). The
means to exercise good judgment and to resolve disputes (mishpat) of
Yahowah ( ) are trustworthy and reliable, enduring and dependable
(emeth). They are wholly (yahdaw) vindicating and righteous (tsadaq).
(Mizmowr 19:5-9)
This which (asher) we have heard (shama) and we have known (yada),
our fathers (ab) communicated to us in writing (la chapar / cheper). These
things were not concealed (lo kachad) from (min) their children (ben) from
one generation to (dowr la) the next or to the last (acharown). They
recounted and recorded (chapar / cheper) Yahowahs ( ) glorious love
songs (tahillah), His power and influence (azuwz), and the wonderful and
astounding things (pala) which as a result of the relationship (asher) He has
done and will do (asah).
He took a stand to establish (quwm) an enduring witness to this restoring
testimony (eduwth) with (ba) Yaaqob (Yaaqob), bringing about (suwm) the
Towrah (Towrah) with (ba) Yisrael, with those who engage and endure with
God (Yisrael) which as a result of the relationship (asher) He instructed and
directed (sawah) our fathers (ab) to make it known (la yada) to their
children (la ben). He did so for the express purpose (maan) that the next, as
well as the last (acharown), generation (dowr) would come to know, to
become acquainted with, and to understand (yada). These children (benym)
will have children (yalad) who rise up, stand upright, and take a stand
(quwm), and they will relate and proclaim this (caphar) to (la) their children
(benym).
And they will place (wa sym) in them (ba) their trust and reliance upon
(kecel) God (elohym). And they will not forget or improperly respond to (wa
lo shakach) Gods (el) work (maalal). And so the terms and conditions of
His binding contract (mitswah) will save them (natsar).
And they will not be (wa lo hayah) like (ka) their fathers (ab), a
generation (dowr) too stubborn to change (sarar), and a generation (wa dowr)
who was defiantly rebellious and embittered (marah), whose hearts (leb) were
not prepared (lo kuwn), and who was not true to nor nurtured by (wa lo
aman eth) Gods (el) Spirit (ruwach).
The children (beny) of the Northern Kingdom (Ephraym) submitted, and
they yielded to (nasaq) those who betrayed them while wielding their
weapons (ramah). And they were overthrown and destroyed (hapak) in the
day (ba yowm) the battle was waged (qarab). They did not observe (lo
shamar) the Covenant Relationship (beryth) with God (elohym). And with
regard to His Towrah Teaching (wa ba Towrah), they resisted and refused
(maan) to (la) walk (halak). (Mizmowr 78:3-10)
Yahowah ( ), make known to me (yada) Your ways (derek). Teach
me (lamad) Your path (orah). Direct me to walk (darak) by (ba) trusting and
relying upon You (emeth). Teach me (lamad), because indeed (ky), You are
(atah) the God (elohym) of my salvation (yasha). With You (eth), I
confidently expect and anticipate deliverance (qawah) every day (kol yowm).
 Yahowah ( ), remember and invoke (zakar) Your mercy (racham)
and Your steadfast love and unfailing kindness (chesed). For indeed (ky) they
(hem) are from (min) time immemorial (olam).
The sins (chataah) of my youth (nauwrym) and rebellion (pesha) do not
remember (lo zakar) as (ka) Your love for me is remembered (chesed zakar la
atah) on account of (maan) Your goodness (towb), Yahowah ( ).
Yahowah ( ), the Almighty (al), is good, beneficial, and generous
(towb) and always right (yashar), therefore (ken), He is the Source of teaching
and instruction, and He guides and directs (yarah) sinners (hata) along the
Way (ba ha derek).
He enables the way of (derek) the unpretentious and sincere who respond
and answer His call (anaw) with His means to achieve justice and resolve
disputes (ba ha mishpat). He provides the information to teach (lamad) those
who appropriately respond to (anaw) His Way (derek).
All (kol) of the mannerisms and conduct (orah) of Yahowah ( ) are
merciful and beyond reproach (checed), and they are trustworthy and
reliable (emeth) for (la) those who are preserved by (natsar) His Family-
Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth) and by His enduring Witness
(edah).
As a result (maan) of Your name (shem), Yahowah ( ), You will
choose to genuinely and completely forgive (wa salah) my sin (la awon),
because indeed (ky), He (huw) is great (rab).
Hence (zeh), whatever (my) individual (ysh) respects and reveres (yare)
Yahowah ( ), He will teach him (yarah) in (ba) the way (derek) he should
choose (bahar).
His soul (nepesh) in (ba) the most favorable, pleasing, and festive
circumstances (towb) will dwell and endure (lyn), and his descendants (zera)
will inherit (yaras) the realm (erets). A very close and intimate fellowship
with (cowd) Yahowah ( ) is certain for (la) those who respect and revere
Him (yare), because His Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth),
He makes known to him (yada).
My eyes (ayn) will continually be (tamyd) upon (el) Yahowah ( ),
because indeed (ky), He (huw), Himself, will come (yatsa) removing the
restraints from (min resheth) my feet (regel), turning me around and
preparing me (panah) to have mercy on me (el chanan) as a unique child (ky
yahyd) and I am (wa any) humbled (any). (Mizmowr 25:4-16)
 As a result of (min) Yahowah ( ), the steps (mitsad) of each
individual (geber) are prepared and firmly established (kuwn). And (wa) His
Way (derek) is a pleasurable experience (chaphets). Indeed, though (ky) he
falls (napal), he is not cast down (lo tuwl). Indeed (ky), Yahowah ( ) is
sustaining and upholding him in His hand (samak yad).
Every day (kol yowm) He is merciful and compassionate (chanan),
accompanying (lawah) His children (zera), kneeling down in love to bless
them (la barakah). And so (wa) I encourage you to consider acting upon and
actively engaging with (asah) that which is good, beneficial, agreeable,
generous, and pleasing (towb) and as a result (wa) live (sakan) forever (la
owlam).
For indeed (ky), Yahowah ( ) loves (ahab) good judgment, the
process of evaluating evidence so as to render a just and fair verdict which
resolves disputes (mishpat). So (wa) He will not abandon (lo azab) those who
steadfastly seek His protection (chacyd). Throughout eternity (la owlam),
they shall be watched over and cared for (shamar), but (wa) the offspring
(zera) of the wicked (rasa) will be cut off (karat).
The upright, vindicated, and righteous (tsadyq) shall inherit (yaras) the
realm (erets), and they shall live (wa sakan) forever (la ad) within it (al).
The mouth (peh) of the upright and vindicated (tsadyq) passionately and
boldly proclaims (hagah) wisdom, providing the capacity to understand
(hakamah), and their tongue (lason) speaks the Word (dabar) of good
judgment and of justly resolving disputes (mishpat). The Towrah Teaching
(Towrah) of his God (elohym) is in his heart (ba leb), so his steps (ashur) will
never waver (maad). (Mizmowr 37:23-31)
And now returning to His Towrah, we discover: There is one (echad)
engraved prescription for living (chuqah) for all of you to approach (la), for
the assembled community (qahal) and for (wa la) those from different races
and places (ha ger). The clearly communicated and inscribed prescription
(chuqah) for living together (guwr) is everlasting and eternal (owlam) and for
(la) all of your generations (dowr). It is exactly the same for you as for (ka ka)
the foreigner and newcomer (ger). This was, this is, and this will always exist
(hayah) as the means to approach (la) the presence (paneh) of Yahowah
( ).
One (echad) Towrah (Towrah) and (wa) one (echad) means to resolve
disputes (mishpat) shall continually exist (hayah) for you to approach (la) and
for newcomers from different races and places to approach (wa la ha ger),
with you all (eth) living together (guwr). (Bamidbar / In the Wilderness /
Numbers 15:15-16)
 Since Yahowah resolved any and all questions regarding how to approach
Him, the only thing which remains is to question what Shauwl had to say
regarding his approach God. I dont suspect they are the same.

LE: 05-01-2013
 Questioning Paul
Volume 1: The Great Galatians Debate
Is Christianity Right or Wrong?

Euangelion Healing & Beneficial Message

Trust the Torah or Believe the Gospel?

The author of the letter to the Galatians began his landscape-altering treatise
by changing his name and then boldly announcing...
Paulos (Paulos of Latin origin, meaning lowly and little), an apostle
(apostolos a messenger who is set forth, a prepared delegate who is dispatched;
from stello, one who is set, placed, and prepared, and apo, to be separate), not
(ouk) from (apo separating) men (anthropon), not even (oude) by the means
of (dia through, by, or on behalf of) man (anthropou), but to the contrary (alla
certainly and emphatically) on behalf of (dia through, by, and by means of)
Iesou Christou ( Divine Placeholders for Yahowsha and Maaseyah,
albeit in the wrong order and devoid of the definite article) and (kai) God (
Divine Placeholder for elohym and thus Yahowah), Father ( Divine
Placeholder for ab father) of the (tou) one having roused and awakened
(egeiromai having caused to stand, raising; from agora to assemble people for
a public debate, to vote, or to conduct business with) Him (autos) out of (ek
from) a lifeless corpse (nekros death, a useless, futile, and vain carcass, an
ineffective, powerless, and deceased cadaver, a dead body having breathed its last
breath; from nekus a corpse, carcass, or cadaver). (Galatians 1:1)
It is interesting, indeed telling, that this man born Shauwl would choose to
rename himself, disgorging his Hebrew heritage in the process. The language of
Gods revelation was rejected to select a Latin nom de plume. Shauwl, now
Paulos, was thereby estranging himself from Yahowahs testimony while
reflecting his allegiance to Rome to mankinds most powerful kingdom. There
was no place on earth more overtly religious, more aggressively political, more
aggressively militaristic, or more wealth driven than Rome. At this moment, no
other nation was as morally corrupt or ruthlessly oppressive. This change in
identity alone should have been sufficient to motivate readers to shauwl
question him.
This opening line affirms that Paulos, as he now chose to be known, wanted
his audience to believe that he was an Apostle, and thus was on the same
footing with Yahowshas Disciples. He said that he had been apostolos
prepared and placed as a delegate and messenger of Iesou Christou.
It is interesting, of course, that the Maaseyah Yahowsha said no such thing.
The title of Apostle was not given to Shauwl / Paulos by Yahowah, either. In
fact, rather than speaking for God, God said that Shauwl / Paulos spoke
presumptuously and deceitfully.
Pauloss claim that his message was unrelated to any man or men is untrue.
He, by his own admission, was trained to be a rabbi. And this, like every letter
Pauloss wrote, reads like the Talmud, which is a collection of rabbinical
arguments regarding the Torah.
It should also be noted that even if he had correctly written the Maaseyah
Yahowsha, in reality the corporeal manifestation of God didnt speak for
Himself. He spoke for Yahowah. So not only does Paulos have His name and title
reversed, He has upended Yahowshas relationship with Yahowah. And this is no
paulos small mistake. Yahowsha did not convey His own message. His
words were not His own. According to Yahowah, Yahowsha is His mouth, the
living embodiment of His Word. Yahowsha came in Yahowahs name to
communicate and affirm Yahowahs message. So to invert Yahowshas
relationship with Yahowah in this way is to circumvent His purpose. But more on
all of this, including the Divine Placeholders, in a moment.
God did not die. God cannot die. Yahowsha did not fall asleep. And with
absolute certainty we know that Yahowshas corpse was not resurrected. So all of
this is a lie in that it is wholly inconsistent with Yahowahs teaching and prophecy
on the subject.
Let me explain. Yahowshas represented the perfect Passover Lamb.
Moments before His physical body was sacrificed on our behalf as the Pesach
lamb, Yahowahs Spirit left Him. That is one of the reasons He cried out My
God, My God, why have you forsaken Me? The other reason, of course, was to
direct our attention to the 22nd Psalm so that we might understand what was
occurring. Rather than dying, Yahowshas soul descended into Sheowl, the place
of separation from God, on the Miqra of Matsah, or Unleavened Bread, to
remove the fungus of sin from our souls. It was the most horrid experience
imaginable, and thus hardly a snooze.
At this time His corpse was incinerated, ceasing to exist in harmony with the
Towrahs instructions regarding the Passover lamb. Then on the Miqra of
Bikuwrym, known as FirstFruits, Yahowshas soul was reunited with Yahowahs
Spirit becoming the first-born of the Covenant, thereby fulfilling the Towrahs
promise to adopt us. Further, as evidence that His corpse was not awakened,
raised, reanimated, or resurrected, the only common denominator amongst the
three eyewitness accounts that same day was that no one recognized Him.
Moreover, if He arose from a corpse He would have been disqualified as the
Passover Lamb, because according to the Torah (Shemowth / Names / Exodus
12:10), the remainder of the lambs body had to be incinerated that evening.
So in his opening statement Paul got everything wrong: his name, his title, his
status, his sponsor, Yahowshas title and name, as well as the relationship
between Yahowah and Yahowsha, all while promoting the myth that God died,
fell asleep on the job, and was bodily resurrected from a corpse. It was not an
auspicious beginning.
Whether or not each of the acquisitions that Ive laid before you all prove to
be valid will be determined in due time, as that is the entire purpose of this book.
But it is especially telling to note that Shauwl didnt say, at least in his opening
line, that he was speaking for God, the Father. That subtlety is lost on most
Christians who have replaced Yahowah with their Lord Jesus Christ, in effect
focusing on the implement as opposed to the One wielding it.
This issue isnt insignificant. While Yahowsha came from Yahowah, they
are not equivalent. Yahowsha cannot equal Yahowah because Yahowsha, by His
own admission, and by necessity, is the diminished manifestation of Yahowah.
All of God cannot fit into a human form, and the undiminished presence of God
would consume our planet. This concept was affirmed by Yahowsha when He
acknowledged: The Father is greater than I am. (Yahowchanan / Yahowah is
Merciful / John 14:28)
This concept is also affirmed by Einsteins famous equation E=mc2. Since
Yahowah is Spirit and describes Himself as Light, He is energy. Yahowsha as a
man was corporeal, and thus matter. Einsteins formula reveals that energy and
matter are exactly the same thing, but they are not equivalent. He proved that
matter is a substantially diminished form of energy.
If the human manifestation of God was equal to God, whats known as the
Lords prayer would become nonsensical, as it would have Yahowsha saying:
Pray to Me who is in heaven, set apart is My name, My kingdom come, My will
be done So, now with the Son having returned to the Father, its curious that
Paul saw himself representing the representative.
The express purpose of this introduction from Shauwls perspective was
conveyed by the unification of the first two words, the amalgamation of his new
name and the title Apostle. It is a distinction he bequeathed upon himself
because Yahowshas Disciples refused to convey it to him. For Paulos, it was
essential that he be seen as Yahowshas Apostle, even though it was a title he did
not earn and was never given.
The Greek word that we transliterate Apostle, apostolos, when used
correctly is extraordinarily important. It means to be set apart, prepared, and
equipped. While Paulos was a misguided soul, even today far too many
individuals go off as witnesses without first studying the Torah and Prophets. As a
result, those who are inadequately and improperly enlightened all too often do
more harm than good.
By changing his name and then misappropriating the title, the opening line of
Shauwls first letter became inaccurate in multiple ways. Those who knew
Yahowah, and thus Yahowsha, recognized that Shauwl was not an Apostle, and
that there would never be a Roman in this role. Every one of Yahowahs prophets
was a direct descendent of Abraham who were introduced to us using their
Hebrew names. Further, Shauwl did not walk in Yahowshas footsteps, nor
personally witness His fulfillment of Passover, Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits, or
Seven Sabbaths. He was not there in person in the upper room when the Set-Apart
Spirit descended upon those Yahowsha had Called Out on the Miqra of
Shabuwa.
There were twelve Apostles by this definition, all chosen by Yahowsha. All
twelve lived with Him and witnessed His every word and deed. And that is why
He referred to them as disciples, meaning those who learn. But from this
introduction, as well as from the introductions Paulos wrote to the Corinthians,
Romans, Colossians, and Ephesians, we know that Shauwl coveted the title the
actual Apostles were unwilling to give him. And yet so all-consuming was his
craving to be seen as important and credible, he arrogantly and presumptuously
overstepped his bounds. He knew that every word of this was a lie one he would
repeat many times.
Additionally, one of the reasons we know that Paulos intended to convey
Apostle as a title, rather than use apostolos as a descriptive term, is that in his
letters to Rome and Corinth, he writes Paulos, called an Apostle. The men and
women he fooled called him by the title he craved.
In that Paul claimed to speak in the title and name of the Maaseyah
Yahowsha, even though he reversed them, making it seem like Iesous last name
was Christou, we are compelled to consider his statements in light of the
Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 13 and 18 tests established by God to evaluate
the consequence of such assertions. So while we will delve into both in the third
and twelfth chapters of this book, suffice it to say for now, in the first of these
criterion Yahowah reveals that the best way to know who isnt speaking for Him
is to know what He has said. Yahowah wants us to closely examine and carefully
consider every word of His Towrah. He says that knowing and understanding that
His Towrah is a source of instruction comes first. Acting upon His guidance and
engaging in His Covenant Relationship is next. Then He says that no one has been
or will be authorized to add to or subtract from His Towrah. So if we witness the
Towrahs role in our lives being diminished by someone or if we find a writer
adding something new, like a new covenant, we should be careful because such a
person isnt speaking for God.
In Dabarym 13, Yahowah reveals that if the prophet stands up and establishes
himself, as Paulos has done, he is a false prophet. If he claims to have performed
miracles, as Paulos will do, he is a false prophet. If he encourages his audience to
go after other gods by other names, like the Roman Gratia or Greek Charis, whom
Paulos sponsored, he is a false prophet. If he promotes religious worship, which
has become the result of Pauloss letters, he is a false prophet. If his writings
dont affirm our love of Yahowah, recognizing that Paulos calls Yahowah
incompetent, impotent, and worse, he is a false prophet. If he directs us to
disregard the terms and conditions of the Covenant or the Path Yahowah has
provided for our salvation, he is a false prophet. And of such prophets, God says
that they are in opposition to Him, both ruinous and deadly, so we should
completely remove their disagreeable, displeasing, and evil corruptions from our
midst.
Then in Dabarym 18, Yahowah delineated the six signs of a false prophet:
they speak in His name, they are arrogant, overstepping their bounds, their words
are inconsistent with the Torahs instructions, they recite the names of foreign
gods, their historical presentations are inaccurate, and their prophetic promises
fail to materialize. All of these concerns scream Paulos as well.
In his opening salvo, Shauwl says that he did not represent any man or any
human institution, and that would of course include the ekklesia, the Greek term
most similar to the Hebrew Miqraey Called-out Assembly. And thats a bit of a
problem because the Miqraey provide the lone path to Yahowah, and Yahowsha
established the ekklesia. And that would make Shauwl a freelance operator and
an independent contractor. Moreover, Paulos will contradict himself and refer to
the ekklesia as his own.
The flip side of this admission is problematic. If Shauwl didnt write on
behalf of what he learned from men in Rabbinical school, then his ubiquitous
references to the nomos must denote the Torah as opposed to Rabbinical Law.
This being the case, the principle methodology used by those who are Torah
observant to reconcile Pauls epistles with Yahowahs Word was torn asunder by
the wannabe Apostles opening statement. The facts are evident and undeniable.
There is no getting around the realization that the nomos is an object of scorn
and ridicule in this epistle. And at no time does Shauwl associate the nomos
with Rabbinical Law, by citing Talmudic sources. Not once ever. To the
contrary, his examples and citations are all from the Torah, clearly identifying the
document he is assailing.
Also convicting, if Paulos was speaking for Yahowsha, why didnt he quote
Him? If he was Yahowahs messenger, why is Yahowahs Word discounted and
never cited accurately? Why, if Paulos was speaking for God, is his most repeated
line, But I Paulos say.... If Shauwl was Yahowshas or Yahowahs apostle,
why do his letters contradict God?
Shauwl / Paulos / Paul proved that he was out of touch with the truth, and
therefore with Yahowah and Yahowsha, by his insistence that the Torah is a set
of binding laws and strict rules. This was the position held by the religious rulers
of the daythe Phariseeswhom Yahowsha spent a good deal of His time
refuting and rebuking. So whether he was referring to the Oral Laws of the rabbis
or to the Torah, itself, his conclusions were all wrong especially since he has
told us that he isnt speaking based upon what he learned while training to be a
rabbi.
Based upon his opening stanza, Paul has positioned himself as an authority
on God, as someone who spoke for God, but not ostensibly as the founder of a
religionalbeit that is what he has become. His greeting displays neither
religious qualifications nor an overt religious agenda. In fact, Shauwl only used
the word religion twice, and both times it was to condemn the institution. That is a
sobering thought if you are a Christian.
Paul would, however, contradict himself and establish all of the trappings for
a new religion, replete with a paid and empowered clergy and a plethora of
personal edicts all of which he said had to be obeyed. And he perverted
Scripture to make his assertions appear both reasonable and divine. (Read 1
Timothy 5:17-18, 1 Corinthians 9:1-11, and then 16:1-3 for evidence of this.)
I am aware that Christians have been led to believe that Jesus Christ was the
founder of the religion of Christianity, and that Paul spoke for Him, but those
conclusions arent supportable. The institution of Christianity is founded on
Pauls writings, not Yahowshas words or deeds. After all, Yahowsha was Torah
observant. Every minute aspect of His life and His teachings were derived from
and inspired by the Torah. Therefore, to follow Him, the devotee would have to
become Torah observant. And in so doing, he or she would cease to be a
Christian.
To his credit, or shame, Shauwl was telling the truth up to a point. He wasnt
inspired by men. In his second letter to the Corinthians, as we have already read,
he claimed to be demon-possessed, guided and controlled by one of Satans
messengers.
But that is not to say that everything Paulos wrote was inaccurate. He
correctly referred to God as the Father. But this statement of fact in a sea of lies
only serves to make his deceptions appear credible. Far too many people have
been beguiled into believing that everything Satan says is a lie. They even believe
that in a satanic religion, Satan is worshiped as himself. But this is not how he or
his associates deceive and this is not what he wants. Satan usurps Yahowahs
credibility to fool the unsuspecting to worship him, not as the Adversary, but as if
he was God. Satan wants to be known by the title Yahowah gave him: Lord. It
illicits bowing, control, servitude, ownership, and worship.
Our Heavenly Father is the one who enabled Yahowsha to fulfill Bikuwrym
by reuniting Yahowshas soul with His Spirit. And while it may not mean much
to many, since nekros is based upon nekus, meaning corpse, the end of the verse
actually reads as I have rendered it: and God, Father of the one having roused
and awakened, having caused to stand, raising Him out of being a lifeless
corpse (nekros death, a useless, futile, and vain carcass, an ineffective,
powerless, and deceased cadaver, a dead body having breathed its last breath).
So while raising Him from the dead sounds familiar to Christian ears, only
Yahowshas physical body suffered the indignity of death, not His soul, nor His
Spirit. Further, He was not asleep and His corpse did not rise.
This isnt a small technical point. Passover is the lone means to eternal life.
Unleavened Bread alone perfects us. FirstFruits is the only way to be adopted into
our Heavenly Fathers Covenant family. If Yahowsha didnt enable these
promises perfectly, if He slept on the job, if He was ineffective, then we all die
estranged from God.
And while Passover is essential, Unleavened Bread is vastly more important.
That is why suggesting that nothing happened on Matsah, and that Yahowsha
slept though the Shabat, completely negates Yahowahs plan of salvation.
Moreover, FirstFruits is symbolic of our souls being reborn Spiritually into
our Heavenly Fathers Family. And as Ive previously mentioned, the Torah says
the following regarding the body of the Passover Lamb: And do not leave it
until morning, and what remains of it before morning, you are to burn with
fire. (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 12:10)
 Moving on to the deployment of the Divine Placeholders, they are often
overlooked. Not one Christian in a million knows of their existence. And yet four
of the most common names and titles for God were used in this greeting. The
, , , and represent: Yahowsha meaning Yahowah Saves,
Maaseyah conveying the Work of Yahowah, elohym the Almighty, and
Yahowahs favorite title, ab which means Father, based upon the first word
comprised of the first two letters in the Hebrew lexicon and alphabet.
Examples of placeholders not used in this particular statement, but ubiquitous
throughout the rest of the Greek texts, and universally found in every first-,
second-, third-, and early fourth-century manuscript, describe the Ruwach
Spirit, the Edon Upright One, who is the Upright Pillar, as well as
Mother and Son, when used in reference to God.
While codices dating to the first three centuries differ considerably among
themselves, and differ substantially from those composed after the influence of
General Constantine, the use of Divine Placeholders is the lone exception to
scribal variation among the early manuscripts. These symbols for Gods name and
titles are universally found on every page of every extant codex written within
300 years of Yahowshas mission, and without exception. But, nonetheless, they
are universally ignored by Christian translators, writers, and preachers. By
including them here in the text, as all of the Disciples themselves did, it is
incumbent upon us to expose and condemn 1,700 years of religious tampering and
corruption.
The very fact that these placeholders are found on all of the more than one-
hundred manuscripts unearthed prior to the mid fourth-century tells us that it
wasnt a regional or scribal choice. Instead, they convey something so profoundly
important that they were purposefully inscribed throughout the original
autographsin the texts penned by the authors of these Greek texts. The same
technique was used in the Septuagint, first penned hundreds of years before any of
these documents were written.
And so while these manuscripts all differ from one another with regard to
their wording, the only constant is the one thing every translator has ignored.
There isnt even a footnote in any of our English translations indicating that these
Divine Placeholders were universally depicted in all of the oldest manuscripts,
including the codices, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. As a result, Christians do not
know that these symbols existed, much less that they were later replaced by
translators substituting the very names and titles which would have been written
out by the original authors had they been intended. (For those interested in a
comprehensive presentation and analysis of the use and significance of the Divine
Placeholders, study the His Name Volume of An Introduction to God
(www.IntroToGod.org).)
 Kappa Sigma and Kappa Upsilon, in capital letters with a line over them,
were used to convey Yahowahs name and Yahowshas Upright One title, even
though every English bible replaces these symbols with the Lord, which
according to God, is Satans title. The fact Kappa Sigma conveys Yahowah, the
preponderance of the time it is used, is something I discovered when translating
Greek quotations of Hebrew passages cited by Yahowsha and His Disciples.
This obvious conclusion has been reaffirmed recently by the publication of
early Septuagint manuscripts. In them we find a transition from writing
Yahowahs name in paleo-Hebrew in the midst of the Greek text throughout the
first and second centuries, to using the symbolism of Kappa Sigma to represent
Yahowahs name beginning in the third-century. So, we now know for certain,
what seemed perfectly obvious before: the Divine Placeholders and were
used to designate Yahowahs name in a language whose alphabet could not
replicate its pronunciation.
Also, by finding Yahowah written in paleo-Hebrew in the oldest Greek
translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, especially in those dating to the first and
second centuries BCE and into the first two centuries CE, we have an interesting
affirmation that my initial rationale regarding the Divine Placeholders was
accurate. Yahowahs name cant be accurately transliterated using the Greek
alphabet, so to avoid a mispronunciation, the Hebrew alphabet was used. Then
after Hebrew became less familiar, due in large part to the Romans murdering,
enslaving, and exiling most Jews, Greek symbolism was substituted.
Moving on, the placeholders Iota Epsilon ( ), Iota Epsilon Nu ( ), Iota
Sigma ( ), Iota Epsilon Sigma ( ), Iota Upsilon ( ), and Iota Nu ( ) were
used to convey Yahowshas name every time it is found in the Greek manuscripts.
And that means that there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for the 17th-century
corruption written as Jesus. Beyond the fact that there was no J sound or
letter in English prior to the 17th century, and never in the Hebrew, Greek,
Aramaic, or Latin languages, Jesus isnt an accurate transliteration of Iesou,
Iesous, or Iesounwhich were conceived as a result of Greek gender and
grammar rules. But most importantly, none of these names was ever written in the
original Greek textsnot once, not ever. It is therefore inappropriate to
transliterate something (to reproduce the pronunciation in the alphabet of a
different language) which isnt actually present. So the name Jesus is a colossal
fraud purposely promoted by religious leaders desirous of separating Yahowsha
from Yahowah.
The title Maaseyah was represented by Chi Rho (), Chi Rho Sigma
(), Chi Sigma (), Chi Upsilon (), Chi Rho Upsilon (), Chi Omega
(), Chi Rho Omega (), and Chi Nu (). More on these Divine
Placeholders in a moment.
 The Hebrew el and elohym, meaning Almighty, but most often translated
God, were conveyed using the placeholders Theta Sigma (), Theta Upsilon
(), Theta Omega (), and Theta Nu (). And while Gods name and title
are not interchangeable, there are times when these placeholders represent
Yahowah instead of His title, God.
Ruwach is the feminine Hebrew noun for Spirit. Without exception, the
Set-Apart Spirits title throughout the Greek historical and eyewitness writings
was conveyed using the placeholders Pi Nu Alpha (), Pi Nu Sigma (),
and Pi Nu Iota ( ). Just as Yahowah is our Heavenly Father, the Ruwach
Qodesh is our Spiritual Mother.
In addition to these two names and three titles, the noun and verb forms of
upright pole, and to affix to an upright pillar, were rendered Sigma Rho
Omega Sigma and Sigma Rho Omega followed by Mu Alpha Iota to indicate the
verbboth with a line over them to signify divinity. Making sure that we
wouldnt miss the Divine connection between the upright pole and the Upright
One (the edon of the Torah), stauros was never written out in the Greek text.
But this connection between God and the Doorway to salvation was lost when the
Roman Catholic Church ignored the placeholder and then changed the reference
to suggest that it signified a pagan cross. And this is indicting, because it means
that the Church ignored what was actually written and then deliberately and
knowingly changed the meaning of what had been conveyed.
The cross was a common religious symbol used throughout antiquity in
Babylon, Egypt, Greece, and Rome to signify the intersection of the constellation
Taurus (the Bull which represented their god) with the sun during the Vernal
Equinox. The closest Sun-day to this event was called Easter by these pagans
who believed that the Sun impregnated Mother Earth on this day, giving birth
nine months later on the Winter Solstice (then December 25th) to the Son of the
Sun. Solar worship, known as Sol Ivictus (the Unconquerable Son) was thereby
incorporated into Constantines new religion where it remains to this day. This
process began with his vision of a flaming cross superimposed on the sun, which
was his god, along with the edict: Under this sign conquer.
Beyond these seven universal placeholders, we find Father, when used in
reference to our Heavenly Father, Mother, when used in reference to our Spiritual
Mother, and Son, when designating Yahowsha, rendered in the same format in
most of the earliest manuscripts. And what I find especially affirming about this is
that the title Mother was designated by a Divine Placeholder in the Codex
Sinaiticus when Yahowsha discussed the real meaning of the Second of Seven
Instructions He etched on the Second of Two Tablets.
 Now, returning to Christ, and the improper titles appearance in English
translations of the Galatians 1:1 passage, it turns out that the over-scored Greek
symbols Chi Rho (), Chi Rho Sigma (), Chi Sigma (), Chi Upsilon
(), Chi Rho Upsilon (), Chi Omega (), Chi Rho Omega (), and
Chi Nu (), werent based upon Christos, Christou, Christo, or Christon, but
instead upon Chrestusan entirely different word.
Christos means drugged. As proof, the one time it was actually written out
in the Greek text, it was used to say that the Laodicean assembly applied a man-
made drug, an ointment in this case, to their eyes. Chrestus on the other hand
means useful implement, and upright servant, as well as merciful one, and
it was used to depict the good and beneficial work of a moral servant. This is
quite similar to the implications of Maaseyah, which is the Implement Doing the
Work of Yahowah. As such, it is useful for you to know that ha mashyach the
Mashiach was never written as a title. Daniel used mashyach as an adjective to
convey the realization that Yahowahs messenger would be prepared and set
apart to serve as a messenger. Further, as a name, Maaseyah, was written over
twenty times in the Hebrew Scriptures, telling us that Yahowsha would be the
Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah.
In this regard, it is not likely that Yahowah would miss this opportunity to
associate His Work with His name. Likewise, it is unlikely that Rabbis, who are
adverse to Yahowahs name and authority, would miss an opportunity to
substitute an errant title, especially one without Yahowahs name, thereby
disassociating their Mashyach from Yahowahs Maaseyah. Therefore, as a result
of this evidence Im not advocating the use of Chrestus, but instead
MaaseyahImplement Doing the Work of Yahowah. Chrestus is nothing
more than an affirmation of this important symbolism.
The realization that Yahowshas Disciples selected Chrestus, not Christos, as
the closest Greek allegory to Maaseyah, cant be distinguished from the first,
second, third, or early fourth-century Greek placeholders for Maaseyah, because
Chi Rho, Chi Rho Sigma, and Chi Sigma, represent both words equally well. But,
that isnt to say that there isnt a textual affirmation for Chrestus; there is. In all
three depictions of the epithet used to depict the first followers of The Way, in
Acts 11:26, 26:28, and in 1 Shimown (Peter) 4:16, the Codex Sinaiticus reveals
that Crestuaneos was penned initially, not Christianous. The same is true with the
Codex Vaticanus. Then, after Constantine in the 4th century, Crestuaneos,
meaning useful tools and upright servants, was replaced by Christianous,
transliterated as Christian today, but literally meaning those who are drugged.
If you are a Christian reading this, please take the time to not only verify the
accuracy of this realization, but also to consider its implications.
 But there is more. The Nestle-Aland 27th Edition Greek New Testament
reveals that Chrestus () was scribed in 1 Shimown (Peter) 2:3, not
Christos. Their references for this include Papyrus 72 and the Codex Sinaiticus,
the oldest extant witnesses of Peters (actually of Shimown Kephas) letter.
In 1 Shimown, which was attested by both ancient manuscripts, Yahowshas
Disciple tells us: As a newborn child, true to our real nature (logikos be
genuine, reasonable, rational, and sensible), earnestly desire and lovingly
pursue (epipotheo long for and crave, showing great affection while yearning
for) the pure and unadulterated (adolos that which is completely devoid of
dishonest intent, deceit, or deception) milk in order to grow in respect to
salvation, since we have experienced (geuomai partaken and tasted, have been
nourished by and perceived) Yahowah ( ) as the Useful Implement and
Upright Servant (Chrestus the Upright One who is a superior, merciful,
gracious, kind, and good tool). (1 Shimown / He Listens / Peter 2:2-3)
With the realization that we find Chrestus written in the Codex Sinaiticus,
and the placeholder written in P72 in the same place in this passage, we have
an early and irrefutable affirmation that the Divine Placeholder representing the
title Maaseyah was based upon the Greek Chrestus.
The related Greek term, chrestos, means: kind, good, useful,
benevolent, virtuous, and moral, as in the sense of being upright. Words
directly related to chrestos and chrestus speak of integrity in the sense of being
trustworthy and reliable, receiving the benefit of a payment, as in providing
recompense and restitution, of fulfilling ones duty, as in being a loyal servant,
doing what is beneficial in the sense of healing us, transacting business, as in
fulfilling ones mission, providing a Divine message and response, in the sense
of being the Word made flesh and Savior, being fit for use, as in being
Yahowahs Implement, and conveying a beneficial and trustworthy message
which produces a good result, which is synonymous with euangelizowhich is
to convey the healing and beneficial message of Yahowah.
Writing about the great fire of Rome circa 64 CE, the revered Roman
historian Tacitus (the classical worlds most authoritative voice regarding this
time and place) in Annals 15.44.2-8, wrote: All human effortsand propitiations
of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the fire was the result of an order
[from Nero]. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and
inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called
Chrestuaneos by the populous. Chrestus, from whom the name had its origin,
suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of
our procurators, Pontius Pilate.
 Also, the Roman historian Suetonius (69 to 122 CE) makes reference to
Chrestus in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars. A statement in Divus Claudius 25
reads: He expelled from Rome the Iudaeos / Yahuwdym constantly making
disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus. And then in summary, he wrote:
Since the Iudaeos constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he
expelled them from Rome. This event is dated by Suetonius to 49 CE. The
historian also wrote in Nero 16: Nero issued a public order calling for the
punishment of Chrestuaneos in the year of the Great Fire of Rome due to the
superstition associated with Chrestus.
These two highly credible secular sources, in addition to Pliny, who used the
same spelling, provide additional and convincing evidence in favor of Chrestus
over Christos, of the Useful and Merciful Servant, over the Drugged One,
and Chrestuaneos over Christianios, those who are useful and merciful
servants, over those who are drugged.
The placeholders are errantly called nomina sacra by theologians, which is
Latin for sacred names. This moniker is wrong on three accounts. First, only
two of the ten placeholders designate a name, while seven convey titles. One
represents a thing, in this case the Upright Pole, and the other speaks of how the
Upright Pillar became the Doorway to Haven.
Second, there is nothing sacred in Scripture, only individuals and things
which are set apart. The human term sacred is religious (meaning devoted to
the worship of a deity in a religious service and worthy of religious veneration),
while the divine designation set apart is relational. It explains the association
between Yahowah and the Set-Apart Spirit, for example.
Third, the Greek text is already a translation of Aramaic and Hebrew
conversations, as well as Hebrew Scriptural citations. Therefore, adding the Latin
nomina sacra designation is another step in the wrong direction.
Christian scholars use the same hypocritical sleight of hand to explain the
universal presence of the placeholders in the Greek texts that Rabbis have
deployed to justify their removal of Yahowahs and Yahowshas name from the
Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. They suggest that the names were considered too
sacred to write. But if that were true, if the Disciples thought that these ten
names and titles were too sacred to write, then why are they written today? If it
was wrong then, it cannot be right now.
Anyone who has spent fifteen minutes reading any portion of the Torah and
Prophets from any one of the hundreds of Qumran manuscripts recognizes that the
too sacred to write notion is in complete discord with Yahowahs approach to
every name and title in Scripture including His own. Moreover, God, in the midst
of criticizing and rebuking religious clerics, said: Their plan is for (ha hasab
considering everything, their thinking, calculation, decision, devise, and account
reveals that they are determined for) My people (am My family) to overlook,
to forget, and to cease to properly value (sakah to ignore, to be unmindful of,
to lose sight of the significance of, and to no longer respond to) My personal and
proper name (shem) by way of (ba) the revelations and communications (ha
halowm the claims to inspired insights) which (asher) they recount to (saphar
they proclaim, record, and write to) mankind (iysh), to their fellow
countrymen and associates (la rea to others in their race and company), just
as when in a relationship with (ka asher eth ba similarly as when engaged in
the same relationship with) the Lord (ha Baal), their fathers (ab their
forefathers and ancestors) overlooked, ignored, and forgot (sakah were not
mindful of and ceased to appreciate the significance of) My personal and proper
name (shem). (Yirmayahuw / Yah Lifts Up / Jeremiah 23:27)
We know that this clerical sleight of hand began much earlier because
Yahowah is recorded in His Torah warning that the crime of diminishing the use
of His name was punishable by death and separation (in Qara / Called Out /
Leviticus 24:9-16). The Rabbis, however, took the opposite approach and said
that the use of Yahowahs name was a crime punishable by death. It is why
Rabbis replaced Yahowahs name with Lord, under the guise that it was too
sacred to say. Affirming this, the publishers in the preface of most every popular
English bible translation openly admit that they replaced Gods name with the
LORD because of religious traditions, as if rabbinical authorization was a license
to deceive.
So if this same Rabbinical mindset was shared by the Disciples, we would
have absolute proof that their writing style was influenced by religion, and was
not inspired by the same God who conveyed the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms.
And that would mean that nothing in the Christian New Testament could be
considered inspired, and thus to be Scripture.
It is curious, of course, that not one in a thousand pastors, priests, religious
teachers, or scholars even mentions the universal application of the ten
placeholders on every page of every manuscript written within three centuries of
Yahowshas earthly life. And yet, if any portion of the Greek text was inspired by
God, then these ten placeholders were designated by God. It is as simple as that.
Ignoring them would then be in direct opposition to Gods will.
I am convinced that there are only two rational reasons for Yahowah to write
out His name 7,000 times in the Hebrew Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, and
reference His titles countless times more, only to never have any of them written
in the Greek manuscriptseven when Hebrew verses are being quoted by
Yahowsha.
 First, Yahowahs name, Yahowshas name, and all of Gods titles convey
essential truths in Hebrew which are lost in translation. Rather than replace those
meanings with Greek pseudo-equivalents, Yahowah wants us to turn to the Torah
and Prophets for complete explanations and accurate answers. The Torah is the
foundation upon which Yahowahs plan is based, so to understand His plan, we
have to view it from this perspective.
The second reason is that the sounds produced by the 22 Hebrew letters differ
from the sounds represented by the 24 letters in the Greek alphabet. Of particular
interest, there is no Y, W, soft H, or SH in Greek, the letters which comprise
Yahowahs and Yahowshas name. And since names dont change from one
language to another, and always sound the same, there was simply no way to
transliterate Yahowah or Yahowsha using the Greek alphabet. So rather than
change His name, or misrepresent it, Yahowsha taught His Disciples to use
placeholders.
Im not the first to recognize this predicament, or the first to deal with it. As I
mentioned a moment ago, every extant first- and second-century BCE and first-
and second-century CE copy of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the
Hebrew Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, inserts Yahowahs and Yahowshas name
into the Greek text using paleo- or Babylonian Hebrew letters. It was only after
the scribes were no longer conversant in Hebrew that the Greek placeholders were
used to convey Gods name.
A prominent early manuscript scholar offered a different, albeit uninformed,
comparison between the Greek placeholders and the presentation of Gods name
found in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, of which you should be aware. He
claimed that the Hebrew letters YHWH represented a contraction similar to what
is found in the early Greek texts. But if that was true, every single word in the
Hebrew text would be a contraction. Said another way, Yahowahs name isnt
written any different from any other Hebrew word or name used in Scripture or
throughout Yisrael. And the reason that this isnt a problem is that the letters
which comprise Yahowahs name represent three of the five Hebrew vowels
with the Aleph and Ayin representing the other two. Using these vowels, every
Hebrew name, title, and word is pronounceable.
Since there are very few things more important than understanding why the
ten placeholders were used, and knowing what they represent, there is one more
thing you should know. Technically speaking, there are actually eleven
placeholders because the verb and noun form of Upright Pole and to affix to an
Upright Pillar are both represented by Godly symbols.
Also worth noting, while the seven placeholders representing Yahowahs and
Yahowshas names and titles, in addition to Upright Pillar in both its verb and
noun forms, are represented by Divine Placeholders 100% of the time on 100% of
the Greek manuscripts dated to within 300 years of Yahowshas life here on earth,
the remaining symbols, specifically Father, Mother, and Son, when applied to
God, are commonly used, but not exclusively. And the reason for this is that the
Greek words for father, mother, and son are too closely associated with their
Hebrew equivalents to justify the ubiquitous application of a unique distinction.
The entire purpose of these Divine Placeholders was completely undermined,
however, when Greek words, titles, and errant transliterations were substituted for
them. If you were to read the Textus Receptus or more modern Nestle Aland, you
wouldnt even know that these symbols ever existed. The same is true with every
popular English translation. A stunning amount of crucial information pertinent to
our salvation was discarded in the process.
Therefore, to the Christian, Yahowahs name became Lord, Yahowshas
name became Jesus, the Maaseyah was changed to Christ, and the feminine
Ruwach, became the gender-neutral pneuma, which was rendered Spirit. It is
also how Upright Pillar migrated over time to cross. Yet if any of these words,
titles, names, or symbols were appropriate, the Disciples would have simply
written them in their Greek manuscriptsbut they didnt, ever.
The truth is: Lord is Satans title. That is because the concept of lord
represents the Adversarys agenda and ambition. At best, Jesus is meaningless,
and at worst, it is the name of the savior of the Druid religion (Gesus), where the
Horned One is God. Recognizing that Constantines initial share of the Empire
consisted of Britain, Gaul, and Spain, where the Druid religion flourished, the
selection of Gesus could well have been politically expedient, as was
incorporating most every pagan holiday into the new religion.
Worse still, as Ive previously mentioned, christos means drugged in
Greek. In fact, it is from the rubbing on of medicinal ointments that the anointed
connotation of christos was actually derived. The Rx or Rho Chi symbolism
associated with todays drug stores is a legacy of the first two letters in christos.
And most intriguing of all is that the placeholder for Maaseyah, , was
actually based upon Chrestus, not Christosan entirely different word. And that
is why all of the earliest manuscripts say that the first followers of The Way
were called Crestuaneos, not Christians. They, like the one who had led the
way to their salvation, were useful tools and upright servants.
All of this known, and it is important, after dedicating more than a year of my
life to Shauwls letters, I dont think he deployed the placeholders that are now
found even in the oldest manuscripts. And if he did use them, it would have been
because these same placeholders are used throughout the Septuagint. He would
have wanted his epistles to look like Scripture. But the thing he did not want was
for Yahowsha to be Yahowah Saving Us. Yahowsha could not be the
Maaseyah, the Work of Yahowah, without completely undermining the entirety
of Shauwls thesis. So just as Shauwl changed his own name, jettisoning its
Hebrew meaning, he most assuredly discarded the message conveyed by the most
important Hebrew title and name.
Therefore, while it is essential that you know that Yahowah, Himself, saved
us by working on our behalf, which is what the Maaseyah Yahowsha means,
Shauwl, now Paulos, did not want anyone to realize this. As proof, he never once
explains the meaning behind Gods title or name to his Greek and Roman
audiences. So therefore as a result, in every translation of Galatians Im going to
make the most reasonable and informed assumption: that a scribe in Egypt
harmonized Paulos epistles with copies of the Disciples eyewitness accounts and
with the Septuagint, thereby adding the placeholders which were never intended
by Paulos to accurately convey: the Maaseyah Yahowsha. Moreover, as a
former rabbi, he would have been duty bound to avoid all things Yah.
Speaking of religious malfeasance, since Galatians is the principle text used
to undermine Scriptures foundation, and since it is cited to undermine
Yahowshas repeated affirmations that He did not come to annul the Torah, but
instead to fulfill it, its important that we consider the troubadour of the Christian
justification: the King James Bible, as well as the Latin Vulgate upon which this
revision was ultimately based. Therefore, recognizing that the Greek text reads,
Paulos, an apostle or delegate, not separating men, not even by the means of
man, but to the contrary and emphatically on behalf of Iesou Christou and
God, Father of the one having roused and awakened Him for public debate,
raising Him out of a dead corpse..., here is the KJV rendition of Galatians 1:1:
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the
Father, who raised him from the dead;) It reflects its source, the Latin Vulgate:
Paulus, Apostolus, not from men and not through man, but through Iesum
Christum, and Deum the Father, who raised him from the dead.
In that credibility has merit, here is how the most highly respected text, that
of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds
English Interlinear, reads: Paul delegate not from men but not through man but
through Jesus Christ and God father of the one having raised him from the
dead...
Sadly, the most recent rendition of Pauloss letter simply reiterated all of the
same mistakes. Consider the New Living Translations regurgitation of prior
prose: This letter is from Paul, an apostle. I was not appointed by any group of
people or any human authority, but by Jesus Christ himself and by God the
Father, who raised Jesus from the dead.
 Whats particularly regrettable regarding the New Living Translation is that
the New Testaments coordinator was none other than Philip Comfort. And yet
every book Professor Comfort has published on the extant early Greek
manuscripts acknowledges the consistent presence of the Divine Placeholders. He
isnt ignorant of them, and therefore, he is without excuse.
Before we move on, please notice that all three translations transliterated
apostolos, rather than translate its meaning. They all ignored the four placeholders
found in the Greek manuscripts, and then improperly conveyed Yahowshas
name, Yahowshas title, and Yahowahs title. Further, egeiromai, meaning to
rouse from sleep, was translated based upon a tertiary definition in all three
cases, as was nekros.

It is a natural, albeit annoying, tendency in spoken communication to use

dependent clauses. But in the written word there is no excuse for run-on
sentences, some of which comprise a paragraph or more.
Pauloss first sentence of his first letter began, Paulos, an apostle or
delegate, not separating men, not even by the means of man, but to the
contrary and emphatically on behalf of Iesou Christou and God, Father of
the one having roused and awakened Him for public debate, raising Him out
of a dead corpse, and then continued:and (kai) all (pas) the (oi) brothers
(adelphos) with (sym) me (emoi) to the (tais) called out (ekklesia out called;
from ek out of or from and kaleo to call) of the (tes) Galatias (Galatias the
Roman province of Galatia in Asia Minor, bounded on the north by Bithynia and
Paphlagonia, on the east by Pontus, on the south by Cappadocia and Lycaonia,
and on the west by Phrygia) (Galatians 1:2)
First, Paul had a posse. Like all religious founders, he sought followers.
Second, there is no basis for anything remotely related to a church in the
Greek texts. Ekklesia is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Miqraey because
those who are Called Out are able to separate themselves from human institutions
and join Yahowahs Covenant family by responding to the Torahs Invitations to
be Called Out and Meet with God. Second only to the religious corruption of
Yahowahs and Yahowshas names through the avoidance of the Divine
Placeholders, the replacement of ekklesia with church is the most lethal
copyedit found in the so-called Christian New Testament.
 Third, the book of Galatians is actually an open letter, or epistle. Paulos
was responding to a myriad of opponents who had criticized his preaching in
Galatia. We are witnesses, however, to only one side of this debate in similar
fashion to the never-ending argument which permeates Muhammads Quran.
And in our quest for accuracy, the proper pronunciation of the name ascribed to
this audience is Galateeah.
Unlike what we find in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, where God is seen
dictating His message to a prophet or scribe who then writes down what he has
heard in his native Hebrew tongue, Shauwls letters are the result of dictating a
stream of consciousness to one of his devotees, to someone who was not a
professional scribe, in Greek, a language foreign to him, rather than his native
Hebrew, Aramaic, or Latin. Further, Pauloss continued focus upon himself and
his repetitive use of but I say, where I represents Paul, not Yahowah,
differentiates this self-proclaimed Apostles epistles from Gods Word. It also
positions Paulos as the lead candidate for the wolf in sheeps clothing who would
come in his own name and still be popularly received.
As a result of this stylistic choice, Shauwls letters contain some of the most
difficult passages to translate. There are many missing words, and Pauls epistles
are famous for their run-on sentences. Moreover, in Galatians, Shauwl is being
attacked, and he is clearly on the defensive, trying to justify his persona,
authority, and teachings, especially those in conflict with the Torah of the God he
is supposedly representing. His claim of being an Apostle was being
questioned, because he was not a witness to Yahowshas words or deeds.
Galatia, itself, was a Roman province in Asia Minor which extended to the
Black Sea. The Galatians were originally Gauls who moved down the Rhine to
mingle with Greeks and Jews. They were known for their quick temper, prompt
action, inconsistency, and malleability. Shauwl knew them well, as he had
traveled throughout their land in the pursuit of his mission.
Now as we will do throughout this review of Galatians, here are the Nestle-
Aland, the Latin Vulgate, and the King James renditions of the second verse. The
NA reveals: and the with me all brothers to the assemblies of the Galatia. Next,
the LV conveys: and all the brothers who are with me: to the ecclesiis Galati.
Of which, the KJV published: And all the brethren which are with me, unto the
churches of Galatia: In this case, its most egregious error cannot be blamed on
the Latin Vulgate.
It is worth restating that few things in Christendom have been as harmful as
changing the ekklesia, which means called out, to church. It created the
impression that Jesus Christ had conceived a new, Christian institution to
replace the Chosen People, and that this religious construct was somehow
unrelated to Yahowahs seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with Him, or
even the Sabbath. And that led to the notion that the Feasts were nothing more
than quaint Jewish holidays. But now, at least you know who to blame for this
devastating corruption of the text. The Rosicrucian Francis Bacon, serving the
political interests of King Iames, was the first to perpetrate this grievous and
damning corruption. His predecessors, such as John Wycliffe, either transliterated
ekklesia or wrote assembly.
In their desire to be politically correct, the revisionary paraphrase known as
the NLT suggested: All the brothers and sisters here join me in sending this letter
to the churches of Galatia. There is no Greek textual basis for and sisters,
here, join me, in sending, or this letter. And ekklesia means called out,
not churches. Equally misleading, the NLT created a new sentence, replete with
a verb, to make it appear as if Paulos wasnt actually engaged in a long-winded
diatribe.
Also worth noting, only Galatians among Shauwls first five letters went out
under his name alone. First and Second Thessalonians were sent from Paul,
Silvanus, and Timothy. First Corinthians was from Paul and Sosthenes, while the
immensely troublesome, indeed demonic, epistle of Second Corinthians bears
Timothys name in addition to Pauls. In todays vernacular, Shauwl wrote
Galatians before his posse was popular.
The evidence suggests that this letter was dictated in haste immediately after
the Yaruwshalaim Summit, immediately before Paul fell in love with Timothy.
Equally telling is that while Shauwl will acknowledge Barnabas in this epistle,
since the two severed their relationship in the immediate aftermath of the
Yaruwshalaym Summit, he was excluded from the greeting and demeaned in the
midst of a rather mean-spirited rant.
This next dependent clause is a great example of why it is so difficult to
determine what Paulos was trying to say, and for us to ascertain why he chose to
be so provocative. At issue here: there is no verb, and Charis (Greek) and Gratia
(Latin) is the collective name of a very popular pagan trio of goddesses.
Grace (charis the name of the lovely and lascivious Greek goddesses of
merriment, known to the Romans as the Gratia, from which Grace is derived)
to you (humeis) and (kai) peace (eirene harmony and tranquility, freedom from
worry) from (apo) God ( a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and
in the Septuagint to convey elohym, the Almighty), Father (pater) of us (emon)
and (kai) Lord ( a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the
Septuagint to convey edon, the Upright One, or Yahowahs name), Iesou (
a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey
Yahowsha, meaning Yahowah Saves) Christou ( a placeholder used by
Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey Maaseyah) (Galatians
1:3)
Thankfully, charis is not found in the earliest and foundational books:
Disciple Matthew or Mark (which was penned under the influence of the Disciple
Shimown Kephas / Peter). The Christian fixation on Charis, and its Roman
manifestation, Gratia, is therefore a direct result of Paulos. Charis appears 107
times in the self-proclaimed Apostles letters, and another 14 times in Acts, a
book written mostly about Paul and for Paul.
The only other mentions of charis in the Greek texts appear after the
publication of Pauls epistles. We find charis used in just one conversation in
Yahowchanan / John (1:14-17). It is found four times in Luke, a book written
from Pauls perspective (of which there is no first-, second-, or third-century
manuscript to verify these inclusions). Of the remaining 16 occurrences, we find
all but two sprinkled in the poorest attested books: ten in Shimowns (Peters)
letters (of which there are no reliable first-, second-, or third-century manuscripts
(the late 3rd-century Papyrus 72 is extremely free (meaning imprecise and subject
to substantial alterations), which suggests that it was heavily influenced by
Marcion)), twice in Yaaqob / James (of which there is no pre-Constantine
manuscript of the 4:6 passage in which it appears), once in Second Yahowchanan
/ John (of which there is no pre-Constantine manuscript), and once in Jude (but
P78 doesnt include charis in the 4th verse indicating that it was later added by a
scribe whose agenda was other than accuracy).
The first use of charis in Revelation (1:4) is attested only by a fragment too
small to validate which appears to be written by an untrained and unprofessional
scribe (as determined by his penmanship) and in the early fourth-century on
Papyrus 18, and is thus unreliable. The second purported inclusion of charis is
found in Revelation 22:21, but no pre-Constantine manuscript covers anything
past the beginning of the 17th chapter, so it cannot be validated. Therefore, apart
from the one poorly attested inclusion, there is no verification that charis was
used by anyone other than Paul prior to the early fourth-century.
The reason that this is an issue is because Charis is the name of the three
Greek Graces, known as the Charities (Charites). The English word charity is a
transliteration of their name. These pagan goddesses of charm, splendor, and
beauty, were often depicted in mythology celebrating nature and rejoicing over
fertility. They were overtly erotic. Collectively they make four appearances in
Homers Iliad and three in The Odyssey. In the order of their appearances, they
are depicted offering bedroom attire to Aphrodite, participating in a ruse to trick
Zeus, serving to lure Hypnos via promises of sex to mislead the father of the gods,
as objects of beauty when splattered with blood, as the source of feminine
attractiveness for handmaidens, as those who pampered Aphrodite after she was
caught being unfaithful to her husband, and finally as a means to enchant through
erotic dancing. And in the case of Aphrodite, the Graces bathed her, anointed her
with ambrosial oil, and dressed her in delightful apparel so that she might resume
her loving duties after having been caught in the embrace of love with Ares,
the God of War. Homer used the enchanting lure of the Graces to depict the
beauty of war.
Some accounts attest that the Graces were the daughters of Zeus. Others
claim that Charis were the daughters of Dionysus and Aphrodite. And that is
particularly troubling because Paul claims to hear one of Dionysus most famous
quotes during his conversion experience on the road to Damascus. And as it
would transpire, Pauls faith came to mirror the Dionysus cult (Bacchus in Roman
mythology), which is one of the reasons why so many aspects of Pauline
Christianity are pagan. (These troubling associations are detailed for your
consideration in the Kataginosko Convicted chapter.)
The Graces were associated with the underworld and with the Eleusinian
Mysteries. Their naked form stands at the entrance of the Acropolis in Athens.
Naked frescoes of the Charites adorn homes in Pompeii, Italy which means that
they transcended the Greek religion and influenced Rome where they became
known as the Gratia. Their appeal, beyond their beauty, gaiety, and sensual form,
is that they held mysteries known only to religious initiates. Francis Bacon, as the
founder of the Rosicrucians, would have loved them.
At issue here, and the reason that I bring this to your attention, is that
Yahowah tells us in the Torah that the names of pagan gods and goddesses should
not be memorialized in this way. Do not bring to mind (zakar remember or
recall, mention or memorialize) the name of other (acher or different) gods
(elohym); neither let them be heard coming out of your mouth. (Shemowth /
Names / Exodus 23:13)
And: I will remove and reject the names of the Lords and false gods
(baalim) out of your mouth, and they shall be brought to mind and
memorialized (zakar remembered, recalled, and mentioned) by their name no
more. (Howsha / Salvation / Hosea 2:16-17)
And yet the name of the Greek goddesses, Charis, is the operative term of
Galatiansone which puts Paulos in opposition to the very Towrah Teaching
and God which condemns the use of their names. Simply stated: the Gospel of
Grace is pagan. It is literally Gotts spell of Gratia.
In ancient languages, its often difficult to determine if the name of a god or
goddess became a word, or if an existing descriptive term later became a name.
But we know that Greek goddesses, like those in Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, and
Rome, bore names which described their mythological natures and ambitions.
Such is the case with the Charites. They came to embody many of the things the
word, charis, has come to represent: joy, favor, mercy, acceptance, loving
kindness, and the gift of goodwill, in addition to licentiousness, sensuality,
hedonism, merriment, and eroticism. So while we cant be certain if the name
Charis was based on the verb, chairo, or whether the verb was based upon the
name, we know that it conveys all of these things, both good and bad.
There is a Hebrew equivalent to positive aspects of this termone used in its
collective forms 193 times in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. It is chen, from the
verb, chanan. As a noun, it means favor and acceptance by way of an unearned
gift, which is why it is often mistranslated grace in English Bibles. To be
chanan is to be merciful, demonstrating unmerited favor, and as such chanan is
errantly rendered to be gracious. The author of the eyewitness account of
Yahowshas life, whom we know as John, was actually Yahowchanan, meaning
Yahowah is Merciful.
Before we move on, I want to bring your attention to another problem with
our English translations. In this passage, the purpose of the placeholders for
Yahowshas name and title, for Yahowsha and for Maaseyah,
and were ignored as usual. And in both cases, the placeholders were replaced by
the Greek name and title which does not actually appear in the oldest manuscripts.
In this way, the placeholders became Iesou Christou and then Jesus Christ.
For the second time in a row, Paulos has reversed the proper order of title and
name, and I suspect to infer that Iesous last name was Christou, a ruse
Christians have swallowed as if the poison was laced with Kool-Aid. But this is
like writing Francis Pope rather than Pope Francis. It is akin to writing
George King instead of King George. So even if the title Christou was
accurate, and it is not, even if the Maaseyah was Greek, and He was not, writing
Iesou Christou is wrong on every account.
Worse, now that Satans title, Lord, has been associated with Iesou
Christou, those who are cognizant of the Adversarys agenda see his demonic
influence on this letter. Satan could not corrupt Yahowsha while He was here, so
now that Hes gone, he has inspired Shauwl to corrupt His nature.
Beyond this, absolutely no attempt was made in any English bible to translate
or transliterate the Hebrew basis of Yahowshas title or name. And yet, the Greek
charis, which is used as if it were a title in the phrase Gospel of Grace
throughout Pauls letters, was neither translated nor transliterated from the Greek,
but instead was conveyed by replicating the name of the Roman version of the
Greek goddesses, and therefore as Grace. Inconsistencies like this are troubling,
because they prove that the translators cannot be trusted.
 While it is a smaller distinction, Yahowah and Yahowsha convey
shalowm, which speaks of reconciliation. It is focused upon restoring a
relationship. Paulos, on the other hand, speaks of eirene peace, which is the
absence of war. They arent the same.
Continuing our review of the sources of Christian corruption, the NA reads:
favor to you and peace from God father of us and Master Jesus Christ. Next, the
KJV begins verse 1:3 by offering the pagan Goddesses to the Galatians: Grace
be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, This
time, their inspiration was the Latin Vulgate, which reads: Gratia and peace to
you from the Father, our Domino, Iesu Christo.
I am always interested in knowing how pagan terms enter into the religious
vernacular. In this case, we just learned that Grace comes to us by way of the
Roman Catholic Vulgate. Gratia was the Latin name for the Greek Charis. And
that is why they are known as the Graces in English.
In Pagan Rome, the three Gratia, or Graces, served as clever counterfeits for
euangelionYahowshas healing and beneficial message. So all Christendom has
done is transliterate the Roman name into English, and then base a religious
mantra, the Gospel of Grace, upon the name of these pagan deities.
This is deeply troubling. It is a scar upon the credibility of the texts. It is a
mortal wound to Pauls epistles, and it is an irresolvable death blow to
Christendom.
In the NLT, rather than Paulos offering the Galatians Grace, the Father and
Son are depicted doing so. May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give
you grace and peace.
All three translations got one name right, that of the pagan goddesses,
Grace. The other name and titles, they got wrongand those belonged to God.
In fact, throughout this review, you will find that all of the most important names
and titles Yahowah, Maaseyah, Yahowsha, Upright One, Ekklesia, and
Healing Message are always rendered errantly while all of the made up or less
meaningful names and titles are transliterated accurately in most every English
bible translation. And that is incriminating.
Shauwls rambling introductory sentence continues with: the one (tou)
having given (didomi having produced and allowed) Himself (heautou) on
account of (peri concerning and regarding) the (ton) sins (hamartia wrong
doings, wanderings away, and errors) of us (emon), so that (hopos somehow, as
a marker of indefinite means) He might possibly gouge or tear out (exaireo
He might choose to pick, pluck, root, or take out (in the aorist tense this depicts a
moment in time, in the middle voice, He, not we, is affected by his actions, and in
the subjunctive mood, this is a mere possibility)) us (emas) from (ek) the (tou)
past inflexible and unrelenting circumstances of the old system (aionos the
previous era, the long period of time in history operating as a universal or worldly
system, something that was existence in the earliest or prior times that continued
over a long period of time; from aei circumstances which are incessant,
unremitting, relentless, invariable, and inflexible) which (tou) had been in place
(enistamai had occurred in the past but was influencing the present
circumstances in which we had been placed, depicting were we had come from,
and now found ourselves, presently threatened by a previous edit (in the perfect
tense this is being used to describe a completed action in the past which still
influences the present state of affairs, in the active voice the subject is performing
the action, and as a participle in the genitive, the circumstance into which we have
been placed is being presented as a verbal adjective which is being described by
the following)) which is disadvantageous and harmful (poneros which is
wicked and worthless, evil and faulty, immoral and corrupt, annoying and
mischievous, laborious and criminal, unprofitable and useless, unserviceable and
malicious, malevolent and malignant (in the genitive, this adjective is modifying
the previous genitive participle)) down from and in opposition to (kata
extending downward from, with regard to, and against) the desire and will (to
thelema the wish, inclination, intent, choice, pleasure, and decision) of the (tou)
God ( a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to
convey elohym, the Almighty, or Yahowahs name) and (kai) Father () of
us (ego) (Galatians 1:4)
While its a fairly small copyedit, modern Greek texts use hyper between
giving Himself, and us missing the mark, but on Papyrus 46, we find peri,
instead. While these words convey similar thoughts, hyper, meaning for the sake
of and in place of, makes a stronger case, which is why scribes may have
replaced peri with it.
This known, there are some insights to be gleaned from this passage all of
which are horrendous. First, once we come to understand that Maaseyah and
Yahowsha mean the Work of Yahowah and Yahowah Saves, we realize that
Yahowah is the one who personally gave of Himself to save us. However, when
these clauses are joined, we find Paulos claiming that the Lord Iesou Christou,
was the one having given Himself. This is not a small distinction. It defies the
very purpose and nature of God. This error in perception is akin to calling our
Father Lord.
While Paul expressly denounces this connection with hopos, which is a
marker of indefinite means. By including it, this introductory statement infers
that the methods deployed by God to save us were not planned, they did not
unfold on a fixed or appointed schedule, and that His means were unclear,
vague, and imprecise. Since this is all untrue, its instructive for you to know that
Yahowah set apart from Himself a diminished corporeal manifestation to cure us
of our sins. In this way, Yahowshas body served as the Passover Lamb and His
soul, once associated with our mistakes, was placed in Sheowl on the Sabbath to
honor the promise to perfect us on Unleavened Bread.
But none of this occurred according to Paul. His Lord slept through it all.
And he must have awakened in a horrible mood, at least based upon the angry and
violent verb his apostle ascribed to him exaireo: He might gouge, tear, and
pluck out.
Or perhaps, the transformation from Shauwl, the murderous rabbi, to Paulos,
the Lords Apostle, was a bit overstated. By any standard, and most especially in
this context, exaireo was a poor choice of words. It literally speaks of gouging
and tearing out, in addition to plucking and rooting out. Yes, exaireo can also
convey to rescue, to remove, and to take out, but when these softer approaches
are connected with what the Lord Iesou Christou is allegedly delivering us
from, it only gets worse.
In the Complete Word Study Dictionary, the primary definition of exaireo is
to take or pluck out an eye. They provided this example because both times
Yahowsha is translated using the verb it is to depict the plucking out of an eye.
The only other time exaireo is used by other than Paul, Stephen is translated in
Acts telling the High Priest that Yowseph was exaireo delivered from all of
his afflictions. Reflecting this usage, the secondary definition in the Complete
Word Study Dictionary is to take out of affliction. So in a moment well
consider the source of affliction from which this Lord is supposedly rescuing
us.
The Dictionary of Biblical Languages concurs with its peers, reporting that
exaireo principally means: take out, gouge out, and tear out. Secondarily, they
attest that it can convey to rescue and set free. Then they point us to its root,
haireomai, and reveal that exaireo also means to choose. But this too is a
problem. While Yahowah has every right to choose whomever He wants, for the
most part, the option is ours. We were given freewill so that we might choose to
engage in a relationship with God.
Moving on, the Exegetical Dictionary lists pluck it out as its favored
definition. This is supported by Strongs Lexicon which presents to pluck out as
the most accurate depiction of exaireo. This is not a loving embrace.
Nonetheless, Paulos deployed exaireo in the aorist tense, which depicts an
isolated moment in time without any respect to a process. As such, the sacrifices
made by Pauls Lord were random events, neither promised nor part of a plan.
They didnt even occur on a prescribed schedule all of which is untrue. In the
middle voice, his Lord is being affected by his own actions, which could only be
valid if the Lord is Satan, not Yahowsha. With regard to Yahowshas sacrifices,
it is Yahowahs Covenant children who benefited from them. But if Pauls Lord is
Satan, then it is the Adversary who is most favorably affected by this inversion of
the truth. And last but not least, by using the subjunctive mood, faith becomes
operative, because it presents a mere possibility.
This has been a horrendous beginning, with the rejection of his Hebrew
name, the selection of a Roman moniker, the unfounded boast of being named an
apostle, denying his rabbinical training and its influence, inverting the order of
Yahowshas title and name not once but twice, inferring that God slept through
the most vital aspect of His mission and that His corpse was reanimated,
suggesting that he had followers, specifically noting that the pagan Graces were
now operative, revealing that his god was the Lord, inferring that there had been
no plan, that Gods schedule and timing were irrelevant, only to write that his
Lord was now plucking us away from something. But from what do you suppose
was Pauloss Lord tearing us away from?
To answer that question we have to isolate the specific aionos prolonged
circumstance, old or new system, or era, past, present, or future Paul is labeling
corrupt and worthless with the adjective poneros. And fortunately, our first hint
comes from enistamai the system in which we had been placed by the
inclination of God. With the verb scribed in the completed variation of the past
tense where there is a lingering effect, we can be fairly sure that subject this verb
and adjective are addressing with aionos is a previous or old system under
which people, at least according to Paul, are still being adversely influenced. So
while the identity of this entity should be obvious, since knowing for certain is
vital to our understanding of Shauwls intent, please bear with me a while longer
as we uncover something which is, well, disturbing.
In a general sense, aionos can be used to address any era or age, past, present,
or future. It speaks of prolonged periods of time, even of so many lifetimes these
periods might seem as forever. It reflects eons and ages, which is why it is often
translated forever or into perpetuity. Aionos is used to describe worldly
systems and universal circumstances. But not every condition can be conveyed
using aionos, because it is based upon aei circumstances which are incessant,
unremitting, relentless, invariable, and inflexible. This is telling because this is
similar to how Shauwl describes Yahowahs Torah.
Paul uses aionos as if it was synonymous with the world as it presently
exists in 1 Corinthians 8:13. It is used to mislead people into believing that there
is an order of Melchisedec in Hebrews 5:6. Then in Ephesians 3:9, Paulos again
deploys aionos to speak of a mystery which has been hidden by God from the
beginning of the world.
 But it is his selection of aionos in Colossians 1:26 which is especially telling.
There, and once again in association with mysterion something which is a
mystery, both secret and mysterious, something unspoken and also apokrypto
deliberately hidden and concealed, we find aionos depicting past ages,
especially with regard to previous generations.
So lets turn to that letter and examine what Paulos had to say about the
mysterious and hidden aionos. This discussion begins with the self-proclaimed
apostle arrogantly and erroneously presenting himself as the co-savior and co-
author of his new religion in Colossians 1:24-25: Now (nyn at the same time),
I rejoice (chairo I embrace and hail, I thrive and benefit (present tense, active
voice, indicative mood)) in (en by and in association with) the sufferings and
misfortunate afflictions (tois pathema the evil calamities and adverse
emotional passions) for your sake (hyper sy for the benefit of you, beyond you
and over you), and (kai also) I actually complete (antanapleroo I fill up and
fulfill, I make up for that which would otherwise be deficient (in the present tense
the writer is portraying his contribution as being in process, in the active voice, he
is signifying that subject, which would be either Shauwl or the afflictions is
performing this, and with the indicative mood, the writer is portraying his
fulfillment of the sufferings as being actual, and thus real, even though he may not
believe it himself)) that which is deficient and lacking (hysterema that which
is needed, missing, wanted, and absent from, addressing the deficiencies
associated with that which is left to be done due to prior failures and inferior
performances) of the (ton) afflictions (thlipsis pressing troubles, anguishing
distresses, burdensome tribulations, oppressive pressures, straits, and
persecutions) of the (tou) Christou (XPU) in (en) the (te) flesh (sarx
corporeally) of me (mou) for the benefit of (hyper for the sake of, on behalf of,
beyond and over) the (tou) body of (soma the human and animal nature of)
Him (autou) who (os) is (eimi He presently, and by His own accord, exist as
(present active indicative)) the (e) called out (ekklesia called-out assembly,
congregation, meeting), of which (hos that means), I (ego), myself, exist as
(ginomai myself conceive and bring into existence, become, cause, belong to,
appear as, and possess similar characteristics to) a servant (diakonos one who
serves without necessarily having the office) extended down from (kata in
accordance with or against, with regard to or in opposition to) the administration
and arrangement (oikonomia the management, task, job, oversight,
dispensation, or plan) of this (tou the) god (), the (ten) appointment having
been produced and granted (didomi one caused, assigned, entrusted,
committed, and given for his advantage (in the aorist participle this one time
appointment was in antecedent time, in the passive this god was influenced and
acted upon, and in the accusative singular this appointment was solely granted) to
me (moi to and for myself (in the dative, Shauwl is saying that this belongs to
him)) to (eis for and into) you all (umas) to complete and fulfill (pleroo to
fully provide, completely enable, and finish, bringing an end to) the (ton) word
(logon statement, speech, and account) of the (tou) god (). (Colossians
1:24-25)
Like I said, in addition to calling himself the co-savior, Paulos would have
us believe that he is the co-author of Gods Word. If we are to believe him, God
personally granted Paulos the authority to complete Scripture and the Plan of
Salvation. It all sounds a bit Muhammadan, doesnt it? On a one to ten scale of
presumptuousness and ego, of intoxicating and deadly deceit, this would be off
the planet.
So now after revealing that he is both co-savior and co-author, Gods
means to make up for His own deficiencies, Paulos turns to mythology to say that
his enormous contribution and this marvelous accommodation had been unknown
to the Jews, which is to the descendants of Abraham and the Covenant, to those
blinded by the old system. He writes:
The mystery and mythology (to mysterion the sacred secrets, used as a
technical religious term in the pagan cults of Greece and Rome to depict a secret
rite or esoteric knowledge confided only to the initiated and not spoken to mere
mortals) of the one having been hidden and concealed (to apokrypto the one
kept a secret) from those of (apo) the past age (ton aionos the old system), and
from (kia apo) their generations (genea the descendants who were related,
thus speaking of the offspring of the old system who were Abrahams
descendents, a.k.a., Yahuwdym), but right now at this exact moment (de nyn
however presently at this time as part of this current discourse) it is being
revealed (phaneroo it is being disclosed and displayed) to (tois) his (autou)
holy and pure ones (hagios dedicated, consecrated, sacred, and set-apart
saints). (Colossians 1:26)
Since this has been all about Pauls contributions, it would be reasonable to
assume that he was inferring that God wanted him to become known to the world
in this way by Pauls own hand. But that is not why we turned to the Colossians
letter. We were seeking to define aionos which, now having been linked to the
genea descendants, can be none other than the Towrah and its Covenant. In
Pauls mind, that was the old system.
Returning to Galatians 1:4, as I mentioned before, with enistamai had
been placed in scribed in the perfect tense, thereby describing something that had
been completed in the past but with a legacy influence, we have yet another
affirmation that aionos was being deployed to depict an old, or previously
existing, system. And then when these circumstances are presented in context to
to thelema the intent and decision of God, the aionos is most assuredly the
Torah.
That is a problem for a number of reasons. First, Paulos is describing Gods
old system, His Towrah, saying that it is: poneros disadvantageous and
harmful, when Yahowahs perspective on His Towrah is the opposite. Just
imagine having the gall to call Gods teaching and guidance wicked and
worthless, evil and faulty, immoral and corrupt, annoying and mischievous,
laborious and criminal, unprofitable and useless, unserviceable and malicious,
malevolent and malignant. No. Sorry. Not even remotely. Just the opposite.
Second, Paulos is introducing the myth which would forever haunt
Christendom: that of an Old Testament being replaced by a New Testament.
And yet God only has one testimony. His message has not changed. Likewise,
Yahowah only has one Covenant, and it has yet to be renewed. Yahowah and
Yahowsha emphatically affirm that the Towrah is forever. Nothing can be added
to it or taken away from it. And yet here, it is being discarded as trash, as porn.
Third, why would anyone in their right mind believe that God authorized
someone to be His Apostle so that he could malign and discredit Him?
Associating poneros with His system, with His Way, is about as slanderous as
words allow.
And fourth, if Gods original system was so worthless and immoral, why
would anyone suspect that His revision would somehow be worthy? How is it that
the Author of such a disadvantageous and harmful scheme could ever be credible?
Moreover, if this is Gods history, if what He has revealed and promised through
His previous prophets is so awful, so counterproductive, why believe this apostle?
And as mind-bendingly atrocious as all of this is, and it is as bad as bad ever
gets, there is yet another implication so rotten, so insidious, once I saw it, I had to
put my response off for a day just to cool down. Paul is saying that his Lord
Iesou Christou is tearing us away from the Torah. It is the unspoken secret of
Christianity.
While Yahowsha bluntly and boldly declared to all who would listen that He
came to fulfill and affirm the Towrah, and that no one should think that He came
to discredit or discard it, Paulos is refuting all of this. He is literally turning
everything Yahowsha represents upside down. After demeaning the Word of
God, he is tossing it away.
Yahowahs entire plan has been torn asunder. Yahowshas mission is now for
naught. The Covenant is meaningless. The Invitations to Meet with God will go
unanswered. The Torah is public enemy number one. And yet by writing in Gods
name, by claiming Gods authorization and sponsorship, Paulos with the stroke of
a pen has handed billions of unsuspecting souls over to Satan.
We are witnessing the creation of Christianity. Pauls religion would be
based upon the lie that the Lord Jesus Christ came to save us from the evils of
the Torah and from its mean and incompetent God. In Christendom, rather than
the Maaseyah Yahowsha being the corporeal manifestation of Yahowah saving
us by affirming and fulfilling the Torahs promises, the Lord Jesus Christ would
be kata in opposition to the thelema will and intent of God, exaireo
ripping us away from His poneros disadvantageous and harmful aionos
Old System.
I am reminded of what Yahowah said of this man some 2,500 years ago: Pay
attention, he will be puffed up with false pride. His soul, it is not right nor
straightforward in him. So, through trust and reliance, by being firmly
established and upheld by that which is dependable and truthful, those who
are upright and vindicated live. (2:4)
Moreover, because the intoxicating wine and inebriating spirit of the
man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal is a high-minded moral
failure, and his is arrogant and meritless presumption, he will not rest, find
peace, nor live, whoever is open to the broad path, the duplicitous and
improper way, associated with Shauwl.
He and his soul are like the plague of death. And so those who are
brought together by him, receiving him, will never be satisfied. All of the
Gentiles will gather together unto him, all of the people from different races
and nations in different places. (2:5)
But they do not ask questions, any of them, about him. Terse references
to the word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, with implied associations that
mock, controlling through comparison and counterfeit, along with allusive
sayings with derisive words arrogantly conveyed.
There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him,
and double dealings to be known regarding him. So they should say, Woe to
the one who claims to be great so as to increase his offspring, acting like a
rabbi, when neither apply to him. For how long will they make pledges based
upon his significance, becoming burdened by his testimony? (Chabaquwq /
Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:6)
While it is a painful reminder, in his opening line, Paulos actually wrote:
the one having produced and given Himself on account of the sins and
errors of us, so that somehow, through indefinite means, He might possibly
gouge or tear out, pluck or uproot us from the past circumstances and old
system which had been in place which is disadvantageous and harmful,
corrupt and worthless, malicious and malignant extended downward from
and in opposition to the desire and will, the inclination and intent of God and
Father of us (Galatians 1:4)
Reflecting some, but not all of this, the McReynolds translators, who
provided the Nestle-Aland Interlinear, opted to ignore the caustic and
confrontational nature of Pauloss greeting when they offered: the one having
given himself on behalf of the sins of us so that he might pick out us from the age
the present evil by the want of the God and father of us. And not surprisingly, the
dark side of the message laden within the Greek text was also ignored in the
version of Galatians 1:4 found in the KJV: Who gave himself for our sins, that
he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and
our Father, Other than present wicked age, the Vulgate is identical.
The NLT, however, decided to be more creative: Jesus gave his life for our
sins, just as God our Father planned, in order to rescue us from this evil world in
which we live. While the inclusion of a subject is required, Jesus name isnt
part of this clause. Further, arbitrarily adding a subject to the clause artificially
elevates the writing quality, giving the false impression that this could have been
inspired by a rational being. Furthermore, there is no basis for his life in the
Greek text.

Although the words Paulos selected, taken on their own merits, provide
convincing proof that what he was proposing was nefarious, since the accusation
that Ive leveled against him, if true, would make him the most evil man in human
history, Id like to share something germane from this same mans sixth letter, the
one he wrote to the Romans.
This particular discussion begins in clever fashion, albeit in an arrogant and
condescending manner, and by using an ill-suited straw man. Before I share it, it
is important that you know that the Towrah provides very few instructions
regarding marriage. It reveals that men and women become one in marriage and
that adultery is highly inadvisable. It speaks against incest, homosexuality, and
bestiality. There is some guidance regarding a womans menstrual period and on
showing compassion to enslaved women. And as for divorce, it is as simple as
having the man hand his estranged wife a certificate. The lone rule regarding
divorce says that if the woman remarries and divorces again, the first husband
cant have her back. Beyond this, there is a non-binding recommendation on how
a man can assist his brothers widow in the case of a childless marriage.
Or alternatively (e), are you presently ignorant (agnoeo) brothers
(adelphos)? Knowing and understanding (ginosko) then (gar) the Torah
(nomon), I say (laleo) that (hoti) the Torah (nomos) is lord and master, ruling
over (kyrieuo) the man (anthropos) for (epi) however long and to whatever
degree that (hosos chronos) he lives (zao). (7:1)
The Romans were not ignorant, but since they knew very little about the
Torah, they were susceptible to what may be one of the most twisted and
disingenuous arguments Ive ever witnessed. Here, Paul is claiming that he is an
expert on the Torah, telling the Romans that he knows and understands it. But
rather than revealing what it actually says, Paul speaks of the Torah being akin to
a Lord and Master. And yet in actuality, there is no correlation between the
Yahowahs Towrah and the mannerisms of Satan, who is the Lord. The Towrah
emancipates the Children of the Covenant from slavery, from being oppressed by
human religious and political institutions. And as a liberating document from our
Heavenly Father, it does not function as a lord.
To explain (gar), under the male (huphadros subject to a mans
authority), a woman (gyne) to (to) a living (zao) man (andri) is bound,
restricted and imprisoned (deo tied, compelled, and forced, under his
authority) in the Torah (nomo). But (de) if (ean) the man (o aner) should die
(apothnesko), it provides release (katageomai it makes inoperative, it abolishes
and invalidates this, discharging her) from (apo) the Torah (tou nomou) of the
(tou) man (andros). (7:2)
It is Pauls letters which subject women to men. The Torah says no such
thing. So this, the premise of Pauls argument, is not only a lie, he knows that it is
invalid. Therefore, Paul was lying through his teeth when he set up this argument
to explain how he claims we have been released from the old written system of
the Torah. But by considering his preamble, we are witnessing just how devious
and convoluted a misguided mans arguments can be.
As a result then (ara), accordingly (oun) with the man living (zao tou
andros), an adulteress (moichalis) she will be considered (chrematizo based
upon what God makes known and instructed) if (ean) she may come to be
(ginomai) with another man (heteros andri). But (de) if (ean) the man (o aner)
might die (apothnesko), she is (estin) free (eleutheros no longer a slave) from
(apo) the Torah (tou nomou), her (auten) not being (me einai) an adulteress
(moichalis) by being with (ginomai) another (etero) man (andri). (7:3)
Here again, after inverting the evidence by mischaracterizing the Torah, Paul
is negating reason. The womans relationship to the Torah is unchanged by her
husbands death. If I were to die, for example, while my wife would be free of
me, she would not be released from the American judicial system. The
Constitution of the United States is unaltered by my demise, as would be my
widows rights under it.
The only reason that the widow wouldnt be considered an adulteress for
being with another man is that she is no longer married. Her changed status is
irrespective of the Torah.
So as a result (hoste), brothers (adelphos) of mine (mou), also (kai) you
all (umeis) were put to death (thanatoo you were all executed, made to die and
deprived of life, even exterminated, ceasing to exist) in the (to) Torah (nomo) by
way of (dia through) the body (tou soma the physical being) of the (tou)
Christou ( a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples to convey
Maaseyah) into (eis) you all (umas) become (ginomai) of another (etero), to
the (to) dead (nekros) having been awakened and arising (egeiromai being
aroused and raised to life) in order to (hina) bear fruit (karpophoreo) of the (to)
God ( a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to
convey elohym, the Almighty). (7:4)
This is a leap out of irrational ignorance into mind-numbing stupidity. There
is no correlation between the widows husband dying and the Romans being put
to death. And while Romans murdered hundreds of thousands of Torah observant
Jews, very few Romans were killed because of the Torah and none in Pauls
audience. Yahowshas body, serving as the Passover Lamb, upheld and affirmed
the Torah, so that we might live. Therefore, to suggest that the fulfillment of
Passover equates to the death of the Torah is a non sequitur.
For (gar) when (ote) we were (emen) in (en) the (te) flesh (sarx), the
suffering and misfortune (pathema the evil afflictions and uncontrollable
impulses and sexual desires) of being evil, offensive, and errant (hamartia of
being misled and of being sinful, doing wrong) was a result of (dia by, through,
and on account of) the (tou) Torah (nomou) operating and functioning (energeo
bringing about and producing) in (en) our (emon) bodies (melos members) to
(eis) bear the fruit (karpophoreo) of (to) death (thanatos the plague,
pestilence, and pandemic disease associated with dying and punishment). (7:5)
Paul equates Yahowahs Torah to the flesh because he was overtly opposed
to the sign of the Covenant which is circumcision. And by the flesh, he means
evil something he admits by calling the Torah a source of pathema
suffering, misfortune, and evil afflictions. He even goes so far as to say that as a
result of the Torah, hamartia that which is evil, offensive, and errant, is
brought about in us. In other words, according to Paul: the Torah is the source of
all evil.
 Forgetting for a moment that the opposite is true, where is the logic which
connects the death of a womans husband to this absurd mischaracterization of
Yahowahs Torah? And how is it that Gods teaching regarding what is good and
bad, suddenly becomes the source for bringing about that which is bad? That is
like saying that a documentary film on the hazards of using illicit drugs is
responsible for drug abuse.
Lastly, since Yahowshas body, representing the Passover Lamb, opened the
doorway to life, something which was affirmed and celebrated during FirstFruits,
it ought not be equated with death.
But (de) now at the present time (nyni at this very moment), we have
been released and removed from (katageomai apo we have made inoperative,
abolished, and invalidated, having been discharged from the uselessness of) the
Torah (tou nomou), having died (apothnesko) in (en) that which (o)
inappropriately hindered and restrained us, holding us down (katecho
possessed and controlled us, holding us back) in order to (hoste for the purpose
and so as to) enslave us (douleuo emas subjecting us to servitude, slavery, and
forced obedience), to (en in or with) different and completely new (kainotes
extraordinarily recent, unused, unprecedented, uncommon, and unheard) of spirit
(pneuma) and not (kai ou) the old, inferior, obsolete, and former age and way
of (palaiotes the antiquated and arcane system, the ancient and worn out state of
affairs of) that which was written (gramma the written document). (7:6)
This is so incongruous, it staggers the mind to realize that billions of souls
have been beguiled by Pauls rubbish. There is absolutely no connection between
the death of a womans husband and her being released from the Torah. And there
is no correlation between that hypothetical death, and either the Torah dying or us
being released from it.
Id be surprised if there was a single individual in Pauls audience who had
chosen to be bound to the Torah, which means they could not be released from it
nor would they want to be. The choice to accept or reject the Torah, and its
promises and provisions, is ours alone. Yahowah does not impose it, or its
benefits, on us.
According to God, His Torah liberates us, freeing us from slavery, from
death, and from judgment. But not according to Paul. His garbled and concocted
version of the Torah hinders and enslaves.
Pauls answer is to reject the palaiotes gramma the old and obsolete way
which was written with a kainotes pneuma a completely different and recent
spirit. But at least now we have come face to face with Paul admitting that my
interpretation of his opening statement in Galatians was correct. The Old
System that he was calling poneros corrupt and harmful was none other than
the Torah. Based upon his incessant use of Torah in this argument, we are left
with no other viable alternative. Moreover, for those who would claim that Paul
was assailing the Oral Law of the rabbis, think again. Pauls enemy was the
gramma written nomos Torah. And lets never lose site of the fact that in
Galatians 3:10, a statement we considered in the previous chapter, Paul, himself,
translates the Hebrew word towrah using the Greek term nomou.
Of course, by calling the Torah a palaiotes an old, inferior, obsolete,
antiquated, and arcane system of a previous age, Paul is once again projecting a
message which is in complete and irreconcilable conflict with Yahowshas
testimony regarding His Torah. One is not speaking for the other. Shauwl is
contradicting Yahowsha on behalf of a kainotes pneuma a completely
different and recent, unprecedented and unheard of spirit. And that means that
the spirit Paul is advocating cannot be Yahowahs Spirit, the Ruwach Qodesh
Set-Apart Spirit of the Towrah.
So what spirit do you suppose Paul is advocating? Do you know of a spirit
adversarial to Yahowah who is also opposed to His Towrah? I know him and I
suspect you do as well. So all I can say is that Im glad to have this wicked man
and his demonic spirit out of my life. Christians, you can have him.
As ignorant and irrational as this argument has been thus far, it is about to get
ludicrous ridiculous to the point of comical.
What (ti), therefore (oun), shall we say (eroumen)? The Torah (o nomos)
is misleading, errant, and offensive (hamartia is evil, sinful, and wrong)? If
only it were not so (me ginomai may it not be or I wish it was not true (in the
aorist, this state exists without regard to any process or plan, in the middle voice
the subject, which would be Paul as the speaker, is acting on his own initiative,
and with the optative mood, the implied subject is conveying his personal wishes
and desires regarding a mere possibility)).
Nevertheless (alla but however, making an emphatic and certain contrast),
I would not have actually known (ouk ginosko I would not be familiar with or
recognize (aorist active indicative)) that which is evil, sinful, and wrong
(hamartia that which is misleading, errant, and offensive) if not (ei me)
through (dia by) the Torah (nomou).
For (gar because) also (te in addition to this), lust and craving
(epithymia strong impulses and desires), I would not have been aware of (ouk
oida I would not have been able to recognize (pluperfect active indicative)) if
not (ei me) for the (o) Torah (nomou) saying (lego), You will not have strong
desires (ouk epithymeo you will not long, lust, or crave, you will not be sexually
perverted or licentious (future active indicative)). (7:7)
 How is it that a notion so absurd became the foundation of a religion that
influences billions of souls? Since Yahowah is the author of the Torah, Paul is
saying that God and His testimony are hamartia misleading, errant, and
offensive. And yet at the same time, he wants you to believe that this same God
is not only speaking through him, but has authorized him to vilify Him. Beyond
this, he wants us to believe the God who has deliberately misled everyone thus
far. It is little wonder faith and religion are synonymous.
The God Paul claims enslaved and killed everyone, now under Pauls
stewardship is suddenly transformed as a new and different spirit providing
freedom and life. And the means of our salvation is through disassociating
everyone from His foundational thesis. Moreover, the book which discourages us
from going astray and being evil is actually the source of evil and of being misled.
The basis of his argument is as follows: 1) you are ignorant, 2) Paul is
brilliant, 3) he says the Torah acts like a Lord, 3) women are under men, 4) the
Torah binds, restricts, and imprisons women to men, 5) when a man dies a woman
is released from the inoperative Torah, 6) as a result, the woman is no longer an
adulteress, 7) when the widow goes to be with another man she is no longer a
slave to the Torah, 8) as a result, you were put to death by the Torah, 9) the body
of Christou caused you and the Torah to die, 10) you came to another by dying,
11) by being awakened and arising you bear the fruit of God, 12) for then in the
flesh you suffer evil afflictions and uncontrollable urges, 13) you are evil,
offensive and wrong because the Torah is operating within you producing the fruit
of death, 14) but now, you have been released from the invalidated Torah, 15) you
have died, 16) you were inappropriately hindered and held down by the Torah,
17) the Torahs purpose was to enslave you, 18) you have been released into the
care of a different and completely new spirit, 19) you have been freed from the
old, obsolete, and inferior way which was written in the Torah, 20) we should say
that the Torah is misleading, evil, and wrong, 21) we dont want to say this, 22)
nonetheless, Paul would not have known that he was evil if it had not been for the
Torah, 23) so therefore, the Torah is responsible for Pauls lustful cravings,
coveting, and sexual perversions, 24) it also killed him, but he is not dead.
On what planet does any of this make sense? I dont suppose that with such
sublime rhetoric anyone is going to confuse Paul with Plato anytime soon.
But now (de) the opportunity, excuse, and pretext (aphorme the basis
and starting point of the favorable environment and the opportune circumstance)
to grasp hold of and experience (lambano to select and be exploited by) that
which is evil, sinful, and wrong (hamartia that which is misleading, errant, and
offensive) through (dia) the commandment (entole the regulation) it was
brought about thoroughly (katergazomai it was performed, effected,
committed, accomplished, and worked) in (en) me (emoi), including every and
all (pasan) deep desire and longing (epithymia lust and craving, uncontrollable
urges, sexual perversion, and licentiousness).
For indeed (gar because certainly), without (choris apart from, by itself,
or separately from) the Torah (nomou), that which is misleading, errant, and
offensive (hamartia that which is evil, sinful, and wrong, even guilt and the
consequence of sin) is dead and no longer an issue (nekros is lifeless and has
departed, and thus is useless, futile, ineffective, and powerless). (7:8)
Beyond the fact that there are no Commandments, but instead Three
Statements and Seven Instructions, not one of them says: You will not lust,
crave, desire, long, or have uncontrollable urges. There is none which speaks of
restraining a persons capacity to engage in sexual perversions or
licentiousness, either. Not only isnt passion or promiscuity addressed, not one of
the Ten Statements was written in the future tense. Most, if not all, were scribed
in the imperfect, which speaks of ongoing and habitual behavior without reference
to time. Additionally, reasonable people realize that a document which
discourages harmful behaviors, does not facilitate sin.
Also relevant, adultery, murder, lying, and stealing dont go away by
discarding the book which opposes these things. If anything, if everyone ignored
the Torah, there would be more adverse behavior, not less. Moral individuals the
world over have always known that adultery, murder, lying, and stealing are
wrong.
However, since Paul has been fixated on his lustful urges, since he never
married, and since the only person he admits to actually loving was a young man
named Timothy, its hard to ignore the possibility that he was a homosexual,
especially now that he has said that his sexual urges were not only uncontrollable,
but that he was motivated to do what the Torah disapproves. So I suspect that we
are witnessing yet another confession. And as usual, rather than blaming himself
for his licentiousness, Paul is blaming God. He is inferring that God made him a
pervert.
And speaking of God, in the next chapter, you will discover that in His
prophetic warning against Shauwl, Yahowah exposed Pauls fascination with
male genitalia. It is almost as if God read Pauls letters before commenting upon
them and that He came to the same conclusion.
Mind you, so long as he wasnt a rapist, incestuous, or a pedophile, as was
the case with Muhammad, Shauwls sexual orientation is irrelevant up to a point.
It becomes fair game, however, when he denounces what he, himself, practices,
whether that be homosexuality or promiscuity. Beyond this, since Paul is fast
becoming a model for the man known as the Antichrist, it is relevant to note
that he, too, will be gay.
 And on the subject of gaiety, what are we to make of the connection between
Pauls uncontrollable lusts and Charities, known as the Gratia or Graces in Rome?
After all, these naked beauties were the pagan embodiment of lasciviousness.
The indulgent and unrestrained ones fixation on death continues, along with
his animosity towards Gods Torah...
So then (de therefore) I (ego) was living (zao was alive) apart from
and without (choris disassociated from and independent of, separated from and
devoid of any relationship with) the Torah (nomou). But (de) once (pote at the
point that) having happened upon (erchomai come to) the commandment (tes
entole the regulation, injunction, and prescribed precept), the evil sin (hamartia
errant wrongdoing, being misleading and offensive) sprung to life again
(anazao became alive again, was revived, started anew, functioning and
operating once more). (7:9)
They say that confession is good for the soul. But methinks this isnt helping.
Paul has again admitted that evil and sin are all thriving within him, having
sprung to life. He is operationally offensive and functionally errant.
Now if we are to believe Paul, a mythical commandment saying, Thou wilt
not be passionate, indulgent, lustful, or sexually perverted killed him.
So then (de therefore), I (ego) died (apothnesko ceased to exist) when
(kai) was found (heuriskomai was discovered and experienced) in me (moi) the
commandment (e entole the regulation, injunction, and prescribed precept)
with reference to (e eis) living (zoe how to live life), this (aute) brought (eis)
death (thanatos). (7:10)
If only.
For indeed (gar), this evil sin (e hamartia this means to be mistaken and
to mislead, this offensive wrong-doing, this moral consequence, and the guilt)
took hold of this opportunity (aphorme lambano ceased this pretext to grab
hold of and exploit) through (dia on account of) the commandment (e entole
the regulation, injunction, and prescribed precept) to thoroughly deceive and
completely beguile me (exapatao me to systematically entice and utterly delude
me, unscrupulously and methodically cheating me), and so (kai) through it (dia
autes), it killed (apoktenno depriving me of life). (7:11)
Then proving that he was wholly beguiled and completely deceived,
unscrupulous and delusional, after systematically attacking the restrictive,
enslaving, and murderous Torah and its evil and deadly commandment, the
duplicitous one wrote...
 So as a result (hoste) this (o) affirms (men shows and reveals) the Torah
(nomos) is holy (hagios sacred, dedicated, and consecrated) and also (kai) the
commandment (e entole the regulation, injunction, and prescribed precept) is
worthy of veneration (hagion sacred, holy, and sincere), also (kai) good
(agathos valuable and generous). (Romans 7:1-12)
That is pretty good I suppose for an old, dead, and obsolete, book. But it is
enough to make your head spin and stomach queasy. Paul is not only
contradicting God, he is now contradicting himself.
Sadly, this all reminds me of the Quran, where after Allah tells us that there
should be no compulsion in religion, he orders Muslims to kill all non-Muslims in
addition to any Muslim who rejects his or her religion.
But perhaps even in the swirling tornadic winds of circular reasoning, there is
an explanation for Pauls conclusion, whereby he negated his own long and drawn
out premise. Maybe it was good from his perspective that the Torah killed him.
That way he could present himself rising from the dead to serve as mankinds
savior, especially now that the Torah had schooled him in all manner of
unscrupulous methods and beguiling deceit. And of the latter, he was lord and
master.
There has always been an unspoken and ignoble aspect of Christianity that
Romans 7 seems to foster. The old god, the god of the old system, died, which is
why his witness was relegated to an Old Testament and why his words are no
longer considered relevant. Laying the foundation for this myth, Paul has the
husband, which is the metaphor Yahowah applies to Himself in relation to both
Yisrael and the Covenant, dying. This thereby frees believers from the deceased
deity and his arcane methods. Christians, will of course deny that their religion
killed God, but there is no denying that they treat Him as if He were dead. From
the Christian perspective, Yahowah was replaced by Grace. And in the process a
real and rewarding monotheistic relationship became a pagan religion.

Shauwls long and deeply troubling initial announcement concludes with the
following clause: to whom (o) the assessment of the brilliant splendor (e
doxa the opinion regarding the glorious radiance, the view or perspective on the
appearance of the shining light, the estimation of amazing greatness, and as a
characterization of a manifestation of Gods reputation) by means of (eis to, on
behalf of, and with reference to) the old and the new systems (tous aionas ton
aionon the past and present circumstances), Amen, let it be so (amane verily
and surely, this is indeed as it ought to be, also Amen, the name of the Egyptian
sun god). (Galatians 1:5) This time with aionos, without a verb in sight, and now
in the plural form, tous aionas ton aionon becomes the old and the new
systems.
It should be noted that Paul, in his second of three conflicting accounts on
what he saw and heard on the road to Damascus, in Acts 22:11, used doxa, which
was translated here as an assessment of the brilliant splendor. But since by
comparing Acts 26:14 with 2 Corinthians 12:7 in the first chapter, now that we
know that the encounter was with Satan, we are compelled to consider doxas
association with the Adversary. And from Strongs Lexicon, we learn that its
primary connotation is to express an opinion, to present ones own view or
estimate regarding someone or something. It is from dokeo, meaning to be of
the opinion and to repute, thereby saying: it seems and is pleasing to me to
question and to suppose. The Complete Word Study Dictionary concurs, writing
that doxa is to think or suppose, to be of the opinion that something is so.
It is Pauloss assessment that Satan is Lord. He sees him as brilliant, radiant,
and beautiful. It is how the Adversary sees himself. It is their opinion mind you,
and they would be wrong, but it is instructive for us to be aware of it.
They were now a team, with one goading the other. The Master had his
apostle put him on the pedestal he craved. The Lord, in Pauloss opinion and
estimation, was a manifestation of God. He was glorious. And it would be by
transitioning from the Old System to the New System that Shauwls Lord would
be empowered. He even concluded his opening statement with the name of the
god of Egypt, Amen, saying: Let it be so....
Shauwl has undermined Yahowsha while equating His Lord, Satan, to a
messenger of light. He would say the same thing of Satan, in 2 Corinthians
11:14. And his depictions of the flashing light he experienced on the road to
Damascus, as chronicled in Acts 9, 22, and 26, is identical to Yahowshas
depiction of Satans fall from heaven as recorded in Luke 10:18-19 passages
which we will analyze and compare in due time.
The Greek word amane is a transliteration of the Hebrew amein, meaning
trustworthy and reliable. Capitalized as Amen, it becomes a transliteration of
the name of the Egyptian sun-god: Amen Ra. And as such, Amen is the name of
the god to whom Christians pray when they say, in gods name we pray, Amen.
So, based upon its position at the end of this clause, and its reemergence in
Shauwls signoff at the end of this letter, there would be no justification for
translating the meaning of the word, strongly suggesting that the inappropriate
transliteration was intended.
 It is interesting in this regard to note that among many of the obelisks around
Rome, including one now at the center of the Vatican, their bases are inscribed
with testimonials to the sun. In fact, one in front of St. Johns Basilica still has the
inscription The Name of our God is Amen. Such obelisks were then sanctified
by Christian clerics and became church steeples replete with crosses.
Bringing this to a conclusion, the opening sentence of Pauloss first letter
concludes as follows according to the Nestle-Aland Interlinear: to whom the
splendor into the ages of the ages amen. And so as we probe the King James and
Vulgate, it appears obvious that they wanted us to believe that the Egyptian sun-
god, Amen Ra, was eternal and glorious. The KJV reads: To whom be glory for
ever and ever. Amen. The LV says: To him is glory forever and ever. Amen.
But they were not alone. The NLT conveys the same message: All glory to
God forever and ever! Amen. The only difference between them is that the NLT
arbitrarily added God, and thereby associated this title with Amen.
There is an advantage to dissecting every statement, one word at a time, but
there is also a benefit to seeing a writers thoughts presented as a collective whole
no matter how longwinded or misguided. So here again is Pauloss opening
statement in its entirety:
Paulos, an apostle or delegate, not separating men, not even by the
means of man, but to the contrary and emphatically on behalf of Iesou
Christou and God, Father of the one having roused and awakened Him for
public debate, raising Him out of a dead corpse, (1:1) and all the brothers
with me to the called out of the Galatias, (1:2) Grace to you and peace from
God, Father of us and Lord Iesou Christou, (1:3) the one having produced
and given Himself on account of the sins and errors of us, so that somehow,
through indefinite means, He might possibly gouge or tear out, pluck or
uproot us from the past circumstances and old system which had been in
place which is disadvantageous and harmful, corrupt and worthless,
malicious and malignant extended downward from and in opposition to the
desire and will, the inclination and intent of God and Father of us, (1:4) to
whom the assessment of the brilliant splendor, the opinion regarding the
glorious radiance and appearance of the shining light, the characterization of
a manifestation of Gods reputation, by means of the old and the new
systems, Amen, let it be so. (Galatians 1:5)
It didnt take Paulos very long to reveal whose side he was on. This was not
an auspicious beginning.
 What follows affirms that Pauls preaching had failed. The moment he had
left town, the Galatians ignored what he had told them. Accentuating the problem,
this is just the second sentence of his first letter.
I marvel (thaumazo I am amazed and astonished, wondering and
surprised) that (hoti namely) in this way (houto in this manner) quickly
(tacheos suddenly in haste) you change, desert, and depart, becoming
disloyal apostates (metatithemai you are waylaid, abandoning your loyalty, you
are transposed, transferred to another, becoming traitors (in the present tense this
is the current condition, in the middle voice they have done this to themselves
under their own volition, and in the indicative mood the writer is revealing that
this was actually occurring)) away from (apo) your (sou) calling in the name of
(kaleo en summons in reference to the name) Grace (Charis the name of the
lovely and lascivious Greek goddesses of merriment, known to the Romans as the
Gratia, from which Grace is derived) to (eis) a different (heteros another)
healing message and beneficial messenger (euangelion a compound of eu
meaning beneficial, healing, and prosperous and aggelos, which is messenger and
sometimes message), (Galatians 1:6)
It is hard to imagine this getting worse, but that may be the case. There are
five serious problems associated with the opening portion of Pauloss second
sentence.
First, Gods spokesmen know, they do not wonder. Gods prophets are
aware of what is going to happen, they are not surprised.
Second, the benefits of Yahowahs teaching and guidance endure. Those
exposed to His Towrah, those who understand the benefits of His Covenant, those
who act upon Yahowahs guidance dont go astray. They are transformed by His
Instructions, and not for a moment, forever.
Third, by selecting metatithemai, Paulos is speaking of a mutiny. He is
criticizing the Galatians because they have turned on him. This has become
personal. The Galatians disloyalty was being directed at Paulos, himself. And
because he saw himself as the founder of a new religion, he considered these
traitors to be apostates.
Fourth, following kaleo, Paulos has now affirmed that he was using Charis as
a name. And while these girls were alluring, they were mythological. God does
not call us to false gods, even when they are cute.
And fifth, by saying that the Galatians had embraced a different healing
message and messenger, what are we to make of Paul and his competition? Was
he fighting against Yahowsha, and was his foe the Torah?
 Having studied Shauwls initial letters, Ive come to the conclusion that he
never provided his audience with a sufficient number of appropriate Scripture
references for them to understand Gods plan of salvation. His style was to issue a
wide range of unsupported opinions under the banner: But I say. So rather
than deliver the information they would need to know Yahowah, and the reasons
to trust Him, Shauwl asked the faithful to believe him. He even encouraged
them to imitate him.
The other reason that Paul had so much trouble with his first three
assemblies, the Galatians, Thessalonians, and Corinthians, is that his message was
so radically different than Yahowahs, Yahowshas, and the Disciples. And since
the overwhelming preponderance of the first to capitalize upon Gods teaching
were Yahuwdym (more commonly known as Jews), they not only knew the
Torah, they had come to recognize Yahowsha through the Torah. And they
realized that Shauwl lacked the authorization to annul any part of it.
So it became a credibility issue. They could trust Yahowah or believe Paul.
And initially, based upon the evidence contained in the five epistles to the
Galatians, Thessalonians, and Corinthians, the people who actually met with Paul,
who listened to his preaching, overwhelmingly chose God over Paulos. In fact,
considering Pauls desperate admission to Timothy, for a while all of Asia
rejected Paul: You know this, that all those in Asia have turned away from
me.... (2 Timothy 1:15). What did they recognize that Christians are ignoring
today?
Galatians 1:6 is enlightening in this regard. It states that there were two
competing euangelion healing messengers and beneficial messages.
Obviously, one of the messengers and messages was Paul, and as we make our
way through his initial letter, we will know him and it all too well. But then who
was or were his competitors? Our options are Yahowah and His Towrah,
Yahowsha (who is a diminished manifestation of Yahowah) and that same
Towrah, or one or more of the Disciples, namely Shimown Kephas,
Yahowchanan, or Yaaqob, but their message was the same as Yahowahs. And
that leaves only one potential competitor: God. And perhaps that is why Paulos
spoke of their calling in the name of Grace, and not in Gods name. They were
more attractive, at least, from Pauls perspective.
One of the reasons our options are so constrained is because the challenger
was said to be wielding a different euangelion healing messenger and
beneficial message. Therefore, Pauloss foe can neither be Judaism nor Rome. At
this place and time, they were the antithesis of healing and beneficial.
Furthermore, in his subsequent letters and in Acts, Paul will speak glowingly
about both Judaism and Rome, eliminating them as adversarial candidates.
Reinforcing this conclusion, Yahowsha denounced Judaism and was convicted
by Rome, so they cannot be considered beneficial or healing.
Even though the answer is obvious, the reason that it isnt seen as such is
because of Pauls approach. By claiming to speak on behalf of the individual and
message he is opposing and against the spirit he is promoting, to discover the
truth, a person has to compare Gods testimony to Pauls. But by disparaging
Yahowahs revelation and by ignoring Yahowshas testimony, those who are
swayed by Paul are predisposed to discard this evidence against him. So long as
the audience remains religious, operating in the realm of faith, Pauls scheme
prevails. To understand who is opposing whom, we have to be willing to examine
the evidence and process it judgmentally.
In reality, Paul defined his foe in the first sentence of his first letter. He wrote
that we were being plucked away from the counterproductive and laborious Old
System, more accurately known as the Towrah. If it wasnt his enemy, poneros
would not have been used to demean it. So now in the second sentence, Paulos is
distinguishing his approach from Gods. And he is showing his bewilderment and
frustration that those he spoke to in Galatia prefer that old God to his new plan.
Had it not been for two clever tricks, the obvious answer would have become
apparent to most everyone centuries ago. The first of these is that by pretending to
speak for God, by pretending to be a brother, Shauwl became the wolf in sheeps
clothing. He was seen for other than what he was. He was accepted and viewed as
being one with them, even while he was devouring them.
It is why Yahowah admonishes us for not questioning Shauwl. It is why
Shauwl changed his name. It is why Yahowsha warned us, telling us that a wolf
in sheeps clothing, a man now named Paulos Lowly and Little, would seek to
discredit and discard the Towrah.
The second ploy is found in the writing style, which blends circular reasoning
and all manner of logical flaws with a myriad of inappropriate word choices. The
opening sentence is a prime example. Due diligence is required as is thoughtful
consideration to understand why a violent verb was deployed against a
pornographic and arcane system. But those who have been conditioned by their
political, religious, academic, and media institutions to avoid being judgmental,
even critical, read right through Pauls confession and are left wondering.
Before we move on, and with regard to Galatians 1:6, please note that
Shauwl did not write Gospel at the end of his sentence. Euangelion,
pronounced yooanggheleeon, is a compound of two common Greek words.
It is not a name or a title. And if it were a name or title, it should have been
transliterated, Euangelion, which was done in Jeromes Latin Vulgate, but not
in any modern English translation. For example, in the King James, euangelion
was neither translated nor transliterated, but instead, the Greek word was replaced
by the religious term Gospel.
The King James conveys: I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him
that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel. But here, now for the
second time, we cannot blame Jerome for the mistake found in the KJV. There is
no Gospel in the Latin Vulgate: I wonder that you have been so quickly
transferred, from him who called you into the grace of Christi, over to another
evangelium. We can, however, blame Jerome for the inclusion of Christi,
which is errant on three accounts. If it is a word, it should have been translated
Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah. If it is a title, the Divine Placeholder
should have been transliterated the Maaseyah. But, according to P46, the oldest
witness to this letter, Paul did not actually include the Divine title in this sentence,
neither by placeholder nor by actually writing it out.
This affirms two things. First, the King James is a translation of the Latin
Vulgate, not the Greek textas are most subsequent translations as we shall see
with the NLT. And second, Paul called his faithful to Charis / Gratia / Grace,
not to the teaching and guidance of Yahowahs Towrah, which was different in
every imaginable way.
I do not know if the term gospel was first deployed in the King James
Version in the early 17th century. But I do know that it cannot be found in John
Wycliffes translation, the first made in the English language. Wycliffe used
euangelie, not Gospel, in the late 14th century.
Lets juxtapose the New Living Translation against Shauwls actual words
so that you might fully appreciate the liberties they have taken: I am shocked that
you are turning away so soon from God, who called you to himself through the
loving mercy of Christ. You are following a different way that pretends to be the
Good News Compared to the NA: I marvel that thusly quickly you change
from the one having called you in favor of Christ into other good message. And
as a reference, more complete and correct, this is what Paulos conveyed: I
marvel, am amazed and astonished, wondering and surprised that namely in
this way quickly and in haste you change, desert, and depart, becoming
disloyal apostates and traitors away from your calling in the name of Grace
to a different healing message and beneficial messenger, (1:6)
As a result of some religious tampering, whereby euangelion was replaced
with Gospel, Christians now believe that Pauls preaching was in harmony with
the eyewitness and hearsay accounts contained in what have become errantly
known as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But there are many
problems with that theory. First, Shauwl never quoted a single line from any of
them. He didnt even reference them. And second, these biographical accounts
were not called Gospels.
At the time this letter was written in 50 CE, all of the contemporaneous and
credible historical evidence affirms that Mattanyahs eyewitness account was still
in its original Hebrew. And while it was cherished in Yaruwshalaym, it wasnt
widely distributed beyond Yahuwdah / Judea at that time. It would have been
irrelevant to Shauwl.
Moving on to Mark, Eusebius wrote: Markus, who had been Peters
interpreter, wrote down carefullyall that he remembered of Yahowshas sayings
and doings. For he had not heard Yahowsha or been one of his followers, but
later, he was one of Peters followers. Origen, Tertullian, and Clement
concurred, writing at the end of the 2nd century that Mark compiled his account
from Peters speeches in Rome. As such, Galatians predates Mark by a decade.
Therefore, a connection between Marks hearsay account based upon Shimown
Kephass witness and testimony cannot be made. Also, we must be careful. While
the historical evidence suggests that Markus compiled the book attributed to him
in Rome, there is no credible evidence that suggests that his primary source,
Shimown, was ever in Rome.
Lukas was unknown to Paulos and to Yahowshas Disciples at the time
Galatians was scribed. Therefore, his historical, albeit hearsay, portrayal had not
been written, making any association between it and Pauloss use of euangelion in
Galatians 1:6 ill-advised.
Based upon the enormous popularity of Yahowchanans eyewitness account,
as evidenced by the sheer quantity of extant pre-Constantine manuscripts, had his
portrayal of Yahowshas life been circulated by this time, Paul would have been
compelled to reference it. But he didnt. Not in this letter, and not in any of his
subsequent letters.
So we know for certain that Paulos was not writing on behalf of nor
promoting the historical portrayals of Yahowshas life found in Mattanyah,
Marcus, Lucas, or Yahowchanan. At the time the Galatians letter was written,
Scripture was comprised solely of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. It still is.
Every statement Yahowsha made affirms this reality, as do the Disciples in their
portrayals of His life.
Should you be wondering why in his subsequent letters Paulos never so much
as even refers to the existence of the historical presentations of Yahowshas life
found in Mattanyah, Marcus, Lucas, or Yahowchanan, the answer is two-fold.
First, his message was the antithesis of that which can be derived from
Yahowshas words and deeds. The caricature of the Lord Iesou Christou
painted by Paulos differs so substantially in identity, nature, style, and substance
from the actual Maaseyah Yahowsha that they have precious little in common.
And second, Pauls ego got in the way. He was in competition with Him and
them. After all, he wanted us to believe that he was both co-savior and co-
author, the chosen one completing what God, Himself, could not accomplish
without his assistance. Someone of his status would never cite a lesser individual.
The Old English moniker, Gospel, like the use of the Greek goddesses
name, Charis, known by the Latinized Gratia Grace, has caused millions to
believe that the Gospel of Grace replaced the Torah, when instead the Torah is
the source of mercy. To know the Towrah is to know chanan unearned
favor and the liberty it provides.
So this bears repeating: there never was such a thing as a Gospel. There
still isnt.
No matter where you look, Christian apologists say that Gospel means
good news. But if that is true, why not simply write good news. Or more to
the point, since euangelion actually means healing messenger and beneficial
message, why not translate the Greek term accurately?
Christian dictionaries go so far as to say that gospel is from go(d) meaning
good, and spell meaning news. But god was never an Old English word for
good. Instead, god is a transliteration of the Germanic Gott, an epithet for
Odin. The Old English word for good was gud. And the Middle English
spell is from the Old English spellian, which means to foretell, to portend, or
to relate. As such, gospel does not mean good news, and is therefore not a
translation of euangelion as Christians protest.
Other dictionaries, suggest that gospel is derived from an Anglo-Saxon word
which meant the story concerning God, even though there is no etymological
history of such a term in the annals of the Anglo-Saxons.
While we are on this subject, it is insightful to know that, according to
Merriam Websters Collegiate Dictionary, the English word, spell, came to us
from Old English by way of Middle English. And circa 1623 (which would be
around the time the KJV was being popularized) a spell 1) was a spoken word or
form of words which were held to have magic power, 2) was a state of
enchantment, or 3) was used in the context of casting a spell.
Websters Twentieth Century Dictionary says: The word god is common to
the Teutonic tongues. It was applied to heathen deities and later, when the
Teutonic peoples were converted to Christianity, the word was elevated to the
Christian sense.
 Further affirming that Gospel conveyed being under Gotts spell,
Merriam Webster explains: god is from Old English by way of Middle English
and is akin to the Old High German got, which was derived before the 12th
century CE. Along these lines we learn that gottin is the Old High German word
for goddess.
Digging a little deeper in our quest to understand the religious origins of
gospel, circa 17th-century Europe, when the religious connotation was
conceived and initially promoted, the Encyclopedia Britannica says that God is
the common Teutonic word for a personal object of religious worshipapplied to
all superhuman beings of the heathen mythologies. The word god upon the
conversion of the Teutonic races to Christianity was adopted as the name of the
one Supreme Being. Therefore, in the manner common to most every Christian
corruption of Yahowahs Word, the religious term is drenched in paganism.
By comparison, there is nothing particularly special about the Greek word,
euangelion. The first recorded use was in the feminine, as euanggelia, as opposed
to the neuter form most common to the Greek eyewitness and historical accounts.
It was attributed to Augustus in 9 BCE in Priene where the Roman Caesar was
hailed as the Savior of the world for the beneficial proclamation of the Julian
calendar.
As I have mentioned, euangelion is a compound of two common Greek
words. Eu means beneficial, healing, and prosperous, and aggelos is the Greek
word for messenger and thereby message. So while Christians will protest
that something which heals and is beneficial is by definition good, and that a
message can be news, there is no reason to extrapolate when the primary
meaning is readily apparent. Therefore, those who seek to know and share the
truth are compelled to translate euangelion accurately so that others will
understand its intended meaning.
Along these lines, if aggelos meant news, as opposed to message, the
aggelos, or spiritual messengers, would be newscasters, instead of Yahs
spiritual envoys, representatives, and messengers. This odd connotation would
also apply to Yahowsha, who is often described using the Hebrew equivalent of
spiritual messengermalak.
Moreover, while eu can be translated good, beneficial and healing are
both more accurate as definitions and more descriptive of Yahowahs plan and of
Yahowshas mission. After all, if the intent was to communicate good, as in
Good News, the preferred Greek words for good are kalos and agathos.
Yahowsha is translated using the former in Mattanyah 5:16, saying: Thusly, let
your light shine before men so that they might see within you the responses
and endeavors which are good (kalos), thereby wonderfully attributing them
to your Heavenly Father. And with the latter, Yahowsha says I am good
(agathos), in Mattanyah 20:15.
However, since this statement was originally presented and then recorded in
Hebrew, the word Yahowsha actually used to convey good would have been
towb. This then becomes a serious problem for Pauline advocates because
Yahowah says that both He and His Towrah are towb good.
But before I present Yahowahs perspective on what is actually towb
good, Id be remiss if I didnt share the fact that the same light and endeavors
Yahowsha spoke about in His Instruction on the Mount are equated to Yahowah
and His Towrah in the 105th Psalm, which proclaims: Because they focus upon
and observe, closely examining and carefully considering, His clearly
communicated prescriptions of what we should do in life to live, and His
Torah, His Source of Teaching and Instruction, they are saved, radiating
Yahs light. (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 105:45)
With this connection established, and especially now that Yahowah and His
Towrah have become Shauwls enemy, lets take a moment more and consider
the position articulated by the other side in this debate.
While I cited much more of what Dowd / David was inspired to write in the
19th Psalm concerning Yahowahs message, His Guidance and His Towrah in the
previous chapter, please consider this reminder...
Yahowahs Towrah (Towrah) is complete and entirely perfect, lacking
nothing, helpful, healing, beneficial, and true (tamym), returning, restoring,
and transforming (suwb) the soul (nepesh). Yahowahs testimony (eduwth) is
trustworthy and reliable (aman), making understanding and obtaining
wisdom (hakam) simple for the open-minded (pethy). (Mizmowr / Song /
Psalm 19:7)
In this Proverb, this same Towrah is called towb good. This means,
according to God, the good news and His Towrah are synonymous, making
Pauls claims ridiculous.
Consistently listen (shama) children (ben) to the correct and disciplined
instruction (muwsar) of the Father (ab) and (wa) pay attention (qasab) so as
(la) to know and discover (yada) understanding and discernment (bynah).
For indeed, such teaching and learning, instruction and direction (laqah) is
good, beneficial, and helpful (towb is proper, prosperous, favorable, pleasing,
enjoyable, valuable, and healing). For this reason, I have given you (la natan)
My Towrah (Towrah). You should not forsake, neglect, or reject it (al
azab). (Masal / Word Picture / Proverbs 4:1-2)
 The 119th Psalm is comprised of the most inspiring and beautiful lyrics in
Scripture. Lets turn to it next.
You have actively engaged and accomplished (asah) good, beneficial,
and generous things (towb) with and through (im) Your associate and
coworker (ebed), Yahowah (Yahowah), in accordance with (ka) Your Word
(dabar). The good and positive aspects associated with (tuwb) exercising good
judgment, the whole process of informed, rational, decision making (taam),
leading to (wa) understanding based upon knowledge (daath) teaches me so
that I might benefit by choosing to respond appropriately (lamad). So indeed
(ky), in (ba) the terms and conditions of Your binding covenant agreement
(mitswah), I completely trust and totally rely because they are verifiable and
enduring (aman). (119:65)
Prior to the time that I responded and answered this invitation, before I
was thoughtful, spoke truthfully, and composed these songs, I was
preoccupied and (terem anah) I (any) unintentionally erred, I inadvertently
wandered aimlessly without deliberation and sinned without meaning to do
so because I was unwittingly deceived and therefore placed my faith in
mistaken opinions (shagag). But (wa) now, at this point in time (atah), I
literally keep my eyes totally focused upon, carefully and completely
observing, closely examining, diligently exploring, and genuinely evaluating,
the complete totality of (shamar) Your Word, Your Instruction, and Your
Promise (imrah). (119:66)
You (atah) are good (towb - generous and pleasing, enjoyable and festive,
beautiful and pleasant to be around), Yahowah (Yahowah), and (wa) are doing
what is good and beneficial by (yatab) helping me learn, becoming better
acquainted, while teaching me how to properly respond to (lamad) Your
clearly communicated prescriptions of what I should do to share life with
You (choq). (119:67)
The self-important, self-motivated, and presumptuous (zed) lie, they
mislead and deceive with their speeches promoting worthless beliefs (sheqer).
Smearing and slandering with misinformation, their scribes conceal what I
have said on behalf of God by plastering over it with their official message
(al taphal). (119:68)
I will (any), with all my heart, with all my energy, personal commitment,
and sense of purpose (ba kol leb), engage my Savior by keeping close to and
by observing (natsar) Your precepts, those instructions which You have
entrusted to us, encouraging us to pay close attention to and examine for
guidance so that we respond appropriately to You (piquwdym). (119:69)
 Your Towrah (Towrah) is actively engaged in my life because I delight in
it, something I find totally enjoyable (shaa). (119:70) It is good and beneficial
for me (towb la) that indeed (ky) You responded, providing Your testimony
(anah) for the purpose of (maan) teaching me how to properly respond to
(lamad) Your engraved and clearly communicated prescriptions of what I
should do to be cut into this relationship (choq). (119:71)
The Towrah teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance (towrah) of
Your mouth (peh) is better and more prosperous for me (towb la) than (min)
thousands of (eleph) gold and silver coins (zahab wa keceph). (Mizmowr
119:65-72)
In that Dowd / David is speaking to and on behalf of Yahowah and His
Towrah, his insights and perspective regarding both are relevant to this
discussion. In the 25th Psalm, we find him saying...
The sins (chataah) of my youth (nauwrym) and rebellion (pesha) do
not remember (lo zakar) as (ka) Your love and mercy for me is remembered
(chesed zakar la atah) on account of (maan) Your goodness (towb Your
perfect nature), Yahowah ( ). (25:7)
Yahowah ( ), the Most High (al), is good (towb moral, perfect,
beautiful, pleasing, joyful, cheerful, happy, favorable, beneficial, generous) and
always right, completely correct and consistently straightforward (yashar),
therefore (ken), He is the Source of teaching and instruction, and He guides
and directs (yarah) sinners (hata) along the Way (ba ha derek). (25:8)
He enables the way of (darak) the unpretentious and sincere who respond
and actively engage (anaw) with this means to exercise good judgment and to
achieve justice by resolving disputes (ba ha mishpat). He provides the
information to teach (lamad) those who respond to His call and act upon
(anaw) His Way (derek). (25:9)
All (kol) the mannerisms and conduct (orah) of Yahowah ( ) are
merciful and beyond reproach (checed) and they are trustworthy and reliable
(emeth) for (la) those who are preserved by (natsar) His Family-Oriented
Covenant Relationship (beryth) and His enduring Witness and restoring
Testimony (edah). (25:10)
As a result (maan) of Your name (shem), Yahowah ( ), You will
choose to genuinely and completely forgive (wa salah) my sin (la awon),
which (ky huw) is great (rab). (25:11)
Hence (zeh), whatever (my) individual (ysh) respects and reveres (yare)
Yahowah ( ), He will teach and guide him (yarah) in (ba) the Way (derek)
He should choose (bahar). (25:12)
 His soul (nepesh), in (ba) the most favorable, pleasing, and festive
circumstances (towb goodness, beauty, prosperity, and enjoyment), will dwell
and endure (lyn), and his descendants (zera) will inherit (yaras) the realm
(erets). (25:13)
A very close and intimate fellowship with (cowd) Yahowah ( ) is
certain for (la) those who respect and revere Him (yare). And His Family-
Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth), He makes known to him (yada).
(Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 25:7-14)
Speaking of towb good, here is another insight...
And then (wa) I encourage you to consider acting upon and actively
engaging in (asah) that which is good, beneficial, moral, agreeable, generous,
and pleasing (towb that which is in accord with the standard, is valuable,
prosperous, ethical, just, worthy, and worthwhile) and as a result (wa) live
(sakan) forever (la owlam). (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 37:27)
A bit more comprehensive illustration regarding the enduring merits of
Yahowahs Towrah is advanced in the 40th Psalm. And once again, these lyrics
were scribed by a man whose name means Beloved. If you want God to view
you similarly, this is good advice...
At that time (az) I shared (amar), Behold (hineh), I am coming (bow)
with (ba) the scroll (magilah) of the written document (cepher) which was
dictated and scribed (katab) on my behalf (aly) regarding (la) the work You
have done and will do to accept me, God (asah rasown elohy). I genuinely
want and willingly accept this (chaphets). (40:8)
Your Towrah Your Instruction and Teaching, Your Guidance and
Direction is within the midst (tawek) of my inner nature (meah). I have
proclaimed the good news of (basar) vindication fairly and accurately,
responsively, honestly, and correctly (tsadaq) in (ba) the great assembly and
esteemed community (rab qahal). Behold (hineh), my lips (saphah) have not
been restrained (lo kala), Yahowah ( ). (40:9)
You (atah), Yourself, know, You respect and acknowledge (yada) that I
have not hidden nor concealed (lo kacah) Your means to achieve
righteousness through vindication (tsadaqah) in the midst of my heart (ba
tawek leb). (40:10)
I have spoken about (amar) Your trustworthiness and reliable nature
(emuwnah) and (wa) Your salvation (yashuwah). I have not hidden nor
concealed (lo kachad) Your mercy (chesed) or (wa) Your integrity, honesty,
and steadfast reliability (emeth) on behalf of (la) the esteemed community
and great assembly (qahal rab). (40:11)
 Yahowah ( ), You (atah) will not withhold (lo kala) Your love and
mercy (rachamym) from me (min). Your unfailing devotion, love, and
unearned favor (chesed). Moreover (wa), Your integrity, honesty, and
trustworthiness (emeth) continually (tamyd) protect me from harm and they
spare my life (nasar). For indeed (ky), You are surrounding me, providing a
covering for me, God (aphaph al). (40:12)
For the entire duration of time (ad), evil and wrongdoing will not be
counted against me (raah lo ayn aown). And (wa) I will not be able (lo
yakol) accordingly to see (la raah) them though they be more numerous
(atsam) than (min) the hairs on my head (saarah rosh). (40:13)
So (wa) my heart (leb) is restored (azab), accepting and delighted with
(rasah) Yahowah ( ) saving me (nasal). Yahowah ( ) is prepared and
ready, even excited about (chuwsh), helping and supporting me, influencing
and assisting me (ezrah). (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 40:8-14)
Lets consider one last word of advice, some of which also appeared at the
end of the previous chapter. This next bit of guidance comes from the Towrah,
itself. Moseh is summarizing what he has learned for our benefit.
The covered and concealed (satar) belong to Yahowah (la ), our
God (elohym), and those things which are revealed and made known (galah)
belong to us (la), and are for (la) our children (ben) eternally and forever (ad
olam), to act upon and conduct ourselves in accordance with (asah eth) all
(kol) the words (dabar) of this (zeth), the Towrah (ha Towrah the signed,
written, and enduring way of treating people, giving us the means to explore, to
seek, to find, and to choose the source from which instruction, teaching, guidance,
and direction flow, that provides answers which facilitate our restoration and
return, even our response and reply to that which is good, pleasing, beneficial,
favorable, healing, and right, and that which causes us to be loved, to become
acceptable, and to endure, purifying and cleansing us so as to provide an
opportunity to change our thinking, attitude, and direction). (29:29)
Indeed, truly and surely (ky), you should actually listen to (shama ba) the
voice and the call, the invitation and summons (qowl), of Yahowah ( ),
your God (elohym), for the purpose of observing, closely examining, and
carefully considering (la shamar) the terms and conditions of His binding
covenant contract (mitswah) and His clearly communicated prescriptions
regarding life (wa chuwqah), which are inscribed (ha katab) in (ba) the written
scroll (ha seper) of this (zeth), the Towrah the Instruction and Teaching,
the Guidance and Direction (ha Towrah). That is because (ky) you will
actually be transformed, be changed, be restored, and return (suwb) to (el)
Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), with all (ba kol) your heart and
emotions (leb), and with all (wa ba kol) your soul and inner nature (nepesh).
(30:10)
For (ky) these (zeth) terms and conditions of the agreement (mitswah)
which beneficially (asher), I am (anky) instructing and guiding you (sawah)
this day (ha yowm), they are not too difficult for you, they are not a hardship
(huw lo pala) for you (min), nor are they beyond your reach (wa lo huw
rahowq). (30:11)
For indeed (ky), the exceedingly powerful and great (maod) Word (ha
dabar) of your God (el) facilitates your approach and brings you near,
enabling you to engage in a close and personal relationship (qarowb)as part
of your speech (ba peh), and in your heart, influencing your feelings and
attitude (wa ba leb)to engage with, capitalize upon, and celebrate Him (la
asah). (30:14)
Open your eyes, establish this perspective, and become aware (raah): I
am offering (natan) on your behalf and in your presence (la paneh) this day
(ha yowm) an association with (eth) the Life (ha chay) and (wa) an association
with (eth) that which is Good (ha towb). But also (wa) that which is
associated with (eth) death (ha mawet) and (wa) an association with (eth)
that which is bad, evil, wicked, harmful, and destructive (ra). (30:15)
Because, that which (asher) I am (anky) instructing and guiding you
(sawah) this day (ha yowm) is for the purpose of (la) you really wanting to
genuinely love, and you choosing to actually demonstrate your affection in a
personal and familial relationship (ahab) so as to be closely associated with
(eth) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), and achieving this result by (la)
actually walking (halak) in His Ways (ba derek),
and (wa) for the purpose of (la) actually observing, closely examining,
and carefully considering (shamar) His terms and conditions as they pertain
to His binding relationship agreement (mitswah), His clearly communicated
and engraved prescriptions of what we should do in life to live (chuwqah),
and (wa) His means used to exercise good judgment and justly resolve
disputes (mishpat), and also (wa) to restore your life and keep you alive,
renewing and preserving your life (chayah), and (wa) to make you great,
increasing you exponentially so that you grow in every possible way (rabah),
and so (wa) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), will kneel down,
diminishing Himself in love to greet, welcome, and bless you, invoking loving
favors upon you (barak) in the realm (ba ha erets) where relationally (asher)
you (atah) are going to, and will be included within (bow la), this named
place of renown (sham / shem), receiving it as an inheritance (la yaras).
(30:16)
 But if (wa im) you turn your heart away from Him (panah / paneh leb),
and if you do not listen (wa lo shama), and you are lured away (wa nadah),
and you bow down in worship (hawah) to other gods (la aher elohym), and
you actively engage with and serve them (wa abad), (30:17) I am reporting
the following message, warning, and verdict (nagad la) this day (ha yowm)
that indeed (ky) you will be utterly destroyed and completely annihilated,
ceasing to exist, and thus (abad abad) not elongating your days (lo arak
yowmym) upon (al) the earth (adamah). (30:18)
I have testified repeatedly to restore and warn (uwd) you in (ba) this day
(ha yowm) with regard to (eth) the spiritual realm (ha shamaym) and with
regard to (eth) the material world (ha erets), and about life (wa ha chay) and
death (wa ha mawet). I have freely offered (natan) on your behalf and in your
presence (la paneh) the blessing which restores the relationship (barakah) and
also (wa) the curse of being abated and seen as worthless (qalalah). So (wa)
you should actually choose in favor of (bahar ba) continued life and renewal,
of nourishment and growth (chay), so that (maam) you (atah) and your
offspring (zera) are restored to life, renewed, and are spared (chayah). (19)
This is accomplished by (la) choosing to genuinely love and closely
associate with (ahab eth) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), by (la)
really listening to (shama) His voice and His call (qowl), and by (wa la)
choosing to stay especially close to Him (dabaq). For indeed (ky), He (huw) is
the source of your life, and of renewal (chay), and of lengthening (wa orek)
your days (yowm), enabling you to dwell (la yasab) in the realm (al adamah)
which (asher) Yahowah ( ) promised (saba) to your fathers (la ab), to
Abraham (la Abraham), to Yitschaq (la Yitschaq), and to Yaaqob (wa la
Yaaqob), to give it as a gift (natan) to them (la). (30:20)
Yahowahs perspective, His guidance, is sufficiently clear to guide those who
are seeking to know Him, who are seeking to understand what He is offering, and
who are seeking to learn how to respond.

Now we are in a better position to ascertain the differences between Paulos

Graced-based euangelion healing messenger and beneficial message and the
alternative, Yahowah and His Towrah. And in this light, if we are going to
seriously consider the so-called Christian New Testament, it is incumbent upon
us to accurately relate the words contained therein so that they can be understood
correctly. If it is to be considered a Godly document, we are not at liberty to
change it, at least without consequence. And if it is not Godly, by changing it, we
obfuscate the evidence thoughtful people require to evaluate its veracity. So lets
not change euangelion to Gospel.
Having introduced his second thought with, I marvel, am amazed and
astonished, wondering and surprised that namely in this way quickly and in
haste you change, desert, and depart, becoming disloyal apostates and
traitors away from your calling in the name of Grace to a different healing
message and beneficial messenger, (1:6) Paulos continued with:
which (hos) does not exist (ou eimi) differently (allos as another,
other, different, or contrasting), if not (ei me conditionally or hypothetically
negated because) perhaps some (tis or things) are (eimi) the ones (oi) stirring
you up, confusing you (tarasso sou causing you to be troubled and distressed,
causing commotion and agitating you), and also (kai) wanting and proposing
(thelo desiring and deciding, taking pleasure in and aiming, resolving and being
of the opinion) to change and pervert (metastrepho to turn one thing into
another, overturn and reverse) the beneficial messenger and healing message
(to euangelion) of the (tou) Christou ( a placeholder used by Yahowshas
Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey Maaseyah) (Galatians 1:7)
So that you know, this same clause was translated in the Nestle-Aland 27th
Edition McReynolds English Interlinear as: what not is other except [not
applicable] some are the ones troubling you and wanting to turn across the good
message of the Christ.
So since the writing quality is poor, since Paul infrequently defines his terms,
since it required a considerable effort to ascertain the distinction between Pauls
position and Gods, I suspect that the Galatians were scratching their heads,
wondering what Paulos was trying to say. Half a breath ago, he bemoaned that
there were two distinctly different approaches. He was angry because so many
had abandoned his mantra for the other proposition. Now he appears to be saying
that these two messages arent different at all, but that they are only being made to
appear to be in discord by some unknown agitators. But how can that be so when,
in his previous sentence, he had his Lord snatching us away from the Old System.
And in spite of this, our maestro of confusion is calling his rivals tarasso
confusing. The man responsible for the greatest upheaval in human history said
that those who had challenged his upending of Gods message were guilty of
perversion. It is the tactic politicians deploy to demean their rivals, projecting
their faults upon their opponents. So when the party who is not actually guilty of
the crime responds, the audience becomes sufficiently confused to question those
inappropriately slandered, leaving the actual perpetrator of the crime unscathed,
their biggest fault no longer considered. That is precisely what is occurring here.
Paul could not have been more disingenuous if he tried.
In these words, we are also witnessing the insecurity of the man, the very trait
which made him susceptible to Satan. Paul has thin skin. He cannot tolerate a
rival. He pounces on every opponent, every threat to his authority, real or
imagined. The liar calls others, perceived more worthy, liars, in an attempt to cut
them down so that he can rise above them. And like most all insecure men, he is
drawn to those who are confident, in this case Yahowsha and His Disciples, in
hopes of filling the enormous void in his own life, only to turn against them as a
result of his own flawed and corrupt character. It is a dance which has been
played a thousand times, and in every walk of life, but never with the stakes this
high.
If you have never witnessed the destructive capacity of an insecure
individual, you are fortunate. And if, as a result, you dont see this character flaw
driving Pauls inappropriate and angry rant against the Galatians for not believing
him, then at the very least I hope that you see his words as mean-spirited and
disingenuous. This is a million miles from Scripture.
When this introductory statement is set into the context of Pauls life and
writings as we know them, it becomes obvious that Pauls message was the only
one which was completely different than everyone elses, including Yahowahs,
Yahowshas, and the Disciples. And considering the qualifications of the others,
Shauwls was hard to believe. So the purpose of this epistle was to launch a
defensive of his authority through a series of offensive attacks.
Consistent with the preview presented in the opening chapter, Paul will
continue to undermine, belittle, and besmirch the Torah, separating Yahowsha
from it so as to nullify His sacrifice. And before long, we will witness him
discrediting Yahowshas Disciples, effectively nullifying the Maaseyahs
message. These things done, he substituted his own doctrine while claiming to
have Gods authorization.
You may be wondering why I am now so judgmental, tearing Paul to ribbons
for mistakes big and small, especially since I admitted to being fooled by him for
many years? The reasons are varied. As Ive shared, my intent wasnt to expose
and condemn the differences between Pauline Doctrine and the Torah, but instead
to resolve them. I began doing what many have done before me. In fact, some
have made a religion of it. By blending rabbinical Judaism with Pauline Doctrine,
they call themselves Messianic. But then I reached a point where I just couldnt
do it anymore. I could no longer find common ground. The chasm grew too large
as the conflicts grew insurmountable. And the more I looked to Yahowah and
Yahowsha for help, the more I found them at odds with Paul. Ultimately I had to
take sides. I could either be with God or be with Paul. And while that was an easy
choice, neither Yahowah nor Yahowsha are ever easy on those who corrupt their
message. Their approach is now mirrored in this book. It is informed, rational,
relentless, uncompromising, and especially judgmental. Too much is at stake to
take any other approach.
Also I suppose that Im sympathetic to those who believe, as I once did, that
Paul spoke for God. I fully appreciate how enormously difficult it will be for
many of you to process and accept the evidence which is being laid before you.
So while I make no apologies for being judgmental, I nonetheless appreciate the
fact that this approach, along with the unpopular nature of this message, will turn
many people away who might otherwise have been helped if this review wasnt so
one sided. And yet ultimately, every one of us will eventually take sides on this
argument. Ive made my choice.
Surprisingly, it wasnt especially hard for me to admit that I was wrong
even that I had been played for a fool. In fact it was a relief, as I hope it is for you
one day. There is something wonderfully liberating and reassuring when you
come to a place that everything falls into place, where there is no longer a
collection of odd-shaped pegs which have to be wiggled and whittled to fit.
But the bottom line with all of this is that you shouldnt trust me any more
than you trust Paul. Yahowah alone is trustworthy. Do your own research.
Compare their testimony. Then decide.
Speaking of perverting, as we have been, the King James Version changed if
not to but. They added there, and that without justification. They ignored
thelo, and its meaning entirely, as if the verb was not in the text. Turned around
and changed was rendered pervert and euangelion was replaced with gospel.
Then to add insult to injury, the KJV replaced XPY (Chi Rho Upsilon), the
Divine Placeholder for Maaseyah, with a transliteration of a derogatory Greek
word which was not actually written in the text, and they wrote Christ. Besides
all that, they did a pretty good job with: but there be some that trouble you, and
would pervert the gospel of Christ. The Latin Vulgate reads: except that there
are some persons who disturb you and who want to overturn the evangelium
Christi. To Jeromes credit, overturn is a literal translation of metastrepho and
evangelium is an accurate transliteration of euangelion.
To help all of us retain our footing, the text actually reads: ...which does not
exist differently, if not conditionally or hypothetically negated because
perhaps some are the ones stirring you up, confusing you, and also wanting
and proposing to change and pervert the beneficial messenger and healing
message of the Christou, (1:7)
 But evidently feeling at liberty to write whatever they wanted, the New
Living Translation completely ignored the presence of euangelion in their
rendering: You are being fooled by those who deliberately twist the truth
concerning Christ. Yet that wasnt their only liberty. Tarasso doesnt mean you
are being fooled. There is no basis whatsoever for by those who deliberately or
the truth concerning. And the XPY placeholder is based upon Chrestus, not
Christos, and it represents the Maaseyah, not Christ.
But by stating that the Galatians were being fooled by those who were
deliberately twisting the truth concerning Christ, the NLT exonerates Shauwl
while condemning Yahowahs witnesses. Truth had been upended.
As you consider the third clause of the second sentence, keep in mind that
there were two messengers who came out of heaven, one trustworthy, the other
deceitful. Also note the switch from Paulos, as the ultimate individual, to we. I
suspect that this is because he wanted his audience to believe that he was now
speaking in conjunction with his god. This is something Im particularly attuned
to because Ive seen it in Muhammad, who also admitted being demon-possessed.
He not only used we similarly throughout the Quran, he positioned himself as
errantly and egotistically. So at the very least, even if you arent yet ready to
acknowledge the satanic influence, Paul is elevating himself to the place where he
and his god are now speaking with the same voice. Furthermore, he is inferring
that he is a messenger from heaven, while stating unequivocally that a person will
be cursed if they challenge Paulos.
...but (kai) to the contrary (alla), if (ean) we (emeis first person
nominative plural) or (e another comparable) a messenger (aggelos a
heavenly envoy and spiritual servant) out of (ek from) heaven (ouranos the
abode of God (this was written in the singular even thought Yahowah and
Yahowshas consistently use the plural form)) might convey a healing
messenger or beneficial message (euangelizo may announce a helpful and
prosperous communication or communicator) to you (sou) which is approximate
or contrary to what (hos para which is near, beyond, greater than, associated
with, less than, positioned alongside, or is in the opinion of some in opposition to
that which), we delivered as a beneficial messenger (euangelizo we announced
and told as a healing claim) to you (sou) then a curse (anathema a dreadful
consequence has been set up and) exists (eimi). (Galatians 1:8)
This not only screams insecurity, which incidentally manifests itself as
paranoia, with everyone else seen as a lesser form of life and as a potential foe,
but also as delusional, with an insatiable need to be viewed as essential and right
no matter how useless or wrong. And this time Paul has gone so far as to say that
he and his Lord are going to curse the opposition even if the competitor is a
heavenly messenger.
 From this point forward, and we are a mere two sentences into Pauls first
letter, Christians would invoke a curse on any and all who would question their
faith. Any opposition to Pauline Doctrine would be demeaned as Satanic. And yet
it was Satan, speaking through his Apostle, who was cursing humankind with
these words.
In reality, Yahowah, Himself, sent a Messenger out of heaven to convey His
healing and beneficial message. His name explained His purpose: Yahowsha,
meaning Yahowah Saves. His message was in perfect harmony with His Towrah,
making it the opposite of that being conveyed by Shauwl. Therefore, a dreadful
consequence exists.
Satan was also a messenger out of heaven, as are all of Yahowahs malak
to cite the Hebrew term for heavenly messenger. His message even
approximates Yahowahs witness, making it an effective counterfeit, something
which appears genuine and yet is contrary to our interests.
Using Shauwl in this way, the Adversary has brought a curse upon himself
and upon all who are in league with him. Yahowah announced this sentence in the
Garden of Eden nearly six-thousand years ago, telling us that the serpent would be
cursed for having beguiled Chawah by corrupting His testimony. So the curse that
the Adversary brought upon himself has now found its way into Paulos
preamble.
By writing this, Pauls intent was to render any competitive message moot
especially Yahowahs, Yahowshas, and the Disciples. He wanted his audience to
join him in condemning his foes, God and His spokesmen. This is akin to Islam
where Allah warns Muslims to be ever ready to attack, even slander and kill, all
who would besmirch the Islamic gods reputation by telling the truth. So while
Allah is Satan, the wannabe god prevails by labeling his opponents satanic, and
thereby confusing the feeble-minded.
This duplicity confuses people because most cannot fathom why Satan would
oppose Satan, as he appears to do in both Christianity and Islam. But the moment
a person considers who Satan is and contemplates what he wants, the answer
becomes obvious. Satan does not want to be known as the Devil nor as the
Adversary, but instead as the Lord. He wants to be worshipped as if he were God.
Therefore, it is perfectly rational, even clever, for Satan to oppose his Adversarial
title in texts which not only present the Lord as god, but which at the same time
undermine the credibility of the real God, His nature and His Covenant.
When the verb euangelizo is changed to a proper noun and becomes
gospel, as is the case with the KJV, we are left with nothing but the curse: But
though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that
which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
 In this verse, the authors of the King James changed alla to but, as if
Shauwl selected de to begin the sentence. They ignored kai, which means and,
and then mistranslated ean as though, as opposed to the preposition, if. They
transliterated (replicated the pronunciation of) aggelos as angel, instead of
translating (replicating the meaning of) it as messenger. They added preach
when there is no basis for it in the Greek. They then included the words any
other without a textual justification, and replaced the first euangelizo, a verb,
with the noun gospel. Then the KJV arbitrarily added unto, than, and
that, all without textual support. They included a second we, rendered the
second euangelizo, not as gospel this time, but as have preached,
inadequately representing the word rather than replacing it. They added another
unto, without textual support, and then included the pronoun him as if
Shauwl had written it. Since there is very little association between what Shauwl
said and what the King James Version published, its easy to see how people have
been misled by their product.
So it is fresh in your mind, Paul actually wrote: ...but to the contrary, if we
or a messenger out of heaven might convey a healing messenger or beneficial
message to you which is approximate or contrary to, beyond, or positioned
alongside what we delivered as a beneficial messenger and announced as a
healing message to you, then a curse with a dreadful consequence exists.
If you have disposed of your King James for a New American Standard
Bible, the version which claims to present a literal rendering of the oldest Greek
and Hebrew manuscripts, Im sorry to say that it isnt much better. It is as
incongruent as the KJV, and obviously little more than a revision of its more
popular predecessor. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to
you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
Again, it was inappropriate to transliterate aggelos, angel. But the crux of
the issue here is that the verb euangelizo was rendered preach to you a Gospel
the first time it appears (which is wrong linguistically), and then the second time
the exact same verb appears, it was simply rendered preach, as if euangelizo
was one of many Greek words for speak.
Recognizing that the vaulted and acclaimed Nestle-Aland Interlinear reads:
But even if we or messenger from heaven might tell good message to you from
what good message we ourselves told to you, curse let there be, the New
International Version is equally distant from the Greek: But even if we or an
angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you,
let him be eternally condemned. The common dissimilarity from the words Paul
actually penned, combined with their similarity to one another, affirms that these
translations were actually revisions of one another.
 The NLT, which we have learned is nothing more than a loose paraphrase
under the slogan The Truth Made Clear, reads: Let Gods curse fall on anyone,
including us or even an angel from heaven, who preaches a different kind of Good
News than the one we preached to you. While preachesGood News would
have been a slightly more accurate translation of the first occurrence of
euangelizo, demonstrating that the words, themselves, are irrelevant to their
presentation, they translated the second euangelizo differently, this time without
any reference to different kind or Good News, even though the same exact
word appeared twice.
Further, the sentence order in the NLT was reversed, and Gods title was
added without textual support. In so doing, the passage now infers that God is the
one cursing a specific individual, as opposed to the contrarian message existing as
a curse.
Christian theologians are deliberately being inconsistent, because Gospel
and Good News are central to their theology. Christendom is based upon these
concepts. It is as critical and errant as the doctrine of the Trinity in this regard.
We find the following in Jeromes blend of the Old Latin manuscripts: But
if anyone, even we ourselves or an angelus from Heaven, were to evangelizet
other than the one that we evangelizavimus to you, let him be anathema. Once
again, we find evidence that Jerome wasnt to blame for the corruption of
euangelizo, but he was to blame for the subsequent treatment of Catholic heretics,
due to his personalizing of the curse.
These translations all affirm that Paul wanted his rivals cursed. And by his
definition, his opponents were those whose message was contrary to his own. So
as we will discover as we make our way through this letter, Shauwls rivals will
come to include: Yahowah and His prophets and Yahowsha and His Disciples.
While they all spoke with one voice, their message was contrary to Shauwls.
And that is the bottom line.
Repeating himself, but this time slipping from first person plural to singular
to underscore the fact that this Benjamite was a lone wolf among men, we are left
to question the motivation for the duplication. And with Shauwl so overly fixated
on his rivals, do you suppose the reason he didnt name them was because, had he
done so, his credibility would have been destroyed?
The Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear reads: As we have said before
and now again I say, if some you tells good message from what you took along
curse let be. The basis of their translation was as follows: As (hos like) we
have said before (proepo we have said already), and even (kai) just now (arti
simultaneously or immediately thereafter) also (palin again repetitively) I say
(lego I convey), if (ei under the condition) someone (tis) delivers a helpful
messenger or communicates a useful message (euangelizo) to you (sou)
contrary or in opposition to (para close to but yet besides, which is
approximate to, near, beyond, greater than, or is positioned alongside) that which
(hos) you received (paralambano you brought in or associated with), it shall be
(eimi I wish or command that it shall exist as (the present tense means that this
state currently exists and that it will continue for an undisclosed period, the active
voice means that the subject, Paulos (who is the speaker), is actively engaged
bringing about the curse, and the imperative mood serves as either a command or
as an expression of the speakers desire, or both)) a curse with a dreadful
consequence (anathema). (Galatians 1:9)
Since this is Pauls first letter, the as we have said before is little more than
a reference to the previous sentence, something he makes clear by way of arti
simultaneously and immediately thereafter. As a result, since Paulos is writing
exclusively under his own chosen name, we must consider what he was trying to
accomplish by using we, and then ponder why then he felt it was necessary to
transition back to I. Who were his partners and why at times did he exclude
them?
It is telling, therefore, that Galatians 1:6 begins: I am amazed (first person
singular present tense), but then transitions to we delivered (first person plural
past tense) in Galatians 1:8. Pauls recent visit to Galatia was with Barnabas,
according to Acts, perhaps accounting for the prior and plural message delivery.
But in the short period between the Yaruwshalaym Summit and the time this letter
was dictated, Barnabas and Shauwl had a heated argument and split up,
accounting for the present singular perspective. At least that would be the case
had Galatians 1:9 not included we and I in immediate succession. Also
interesting, Shauwl will take a mean-spirited swipe at Barnabas before this letter
is through.
As is the case with everything Paul writes, he never bothers to explain the
nature of the argument. All this says is that Im always right and everyone else is
always wrong. As such, even if Shauwls opinions were right, without a basis in
fact, this wouldnt be helpful. Thus far, and indeed throughout Pauls letters, we
will be exposed to Pauls opinions, and we will be apprised of his attitude, but
nothing else.
Other than omitting the accusative contrary or in opposition to, adding
preach without justification, replacing the verb euangelizo with the noun
gospel, and adding a pronoun at the end of the verse, the KJV got most of this
right: As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel
unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Their inspiration was
obviously Jeromes Latin Vulgate: Just as we have said before, so now I say
again: If anyone has evangelizaverit to you, other than that which you have
received, let him be anathema. The NLT paraphrase reads: I say again what we
have said before: If anyone preaches any other Good News than the one you
welcomed, let that person be cursed. All three versions were unable to translate
para, meaning close, but yet in opposition, appropriately when it was used in
conjunction with their Gospel and Good News. But by changing paralambano to
welcomed, the NLT was, once again, the least accurate.
Before we move on, I want to underscore a deficiency associated with the
previous statementsand indeed with all of Shauwls letters. For this to be an
effective warning, for it to be instructive and useful, we must know exactly what
Paul told the Galatians, and also know how his preaching differed from those he
was cursing. Without this information, speculation reigns supreme, and false
interpretations are far too readily developed. As it stands, all we have is that
anyone who delivers a message which differs from Pauls should be cursed, all of
which sounds hauntingly similar to the Qurans first eighty surahs
chronologically. And while that was designed to censure debate, and while it has
kept most critics at bay, by repeating this, Paul has tipped his hand. He has said
that his skin and doctrine are so thin that neither can tolerate criticism. It is a sure
sign of insecurity.
Those who cannot defend their message attack those who are critical of it. In
politics, this strategy is known as killing the messenger.
Introductions aside, here is a quick review of Shauwls second and third
sentences:
I marvel, am amazed and astonished, wondering and surprised that
namely in this way quickly and in haste you change, desert, and depart,
becoming disloyal apostates and traitors away from your calling in the name
of Grace to a different healing message and beneficial messenger, (1:6)
which does not exist differently, if not conditionally or hypothetically
negated because perhaps some are the ones stirring you up, confusing you,
and also wanting and proposing to change and pervert the beneficial
messenger and healing message of the Christou, (1:7)
but to the contrary, if we or a messenger out of heaven conveys a healing
messenger or beneficial message to you which is approximate or contrary to,
beyond, or positioned alongside what we delivered as a beneficial messenger
and announced as a healing message to you then a curse with a dreadful
consequence exists. (1:8)
As we have said already, and even just now, immediately thereafter,
repetitively, I say, if under the condition someone delivers a helpful
messenger or communicates a useful message to you contrary or in
opposition to, close or approximate to, even greater than that which you
received, it shall be (in fact I command and want it to exist as) a curse with a
dreadful consequence. (Galatians 1:9)

As we move to the next statement, while the interrogative required to frame

the questions presented in most English translations do not appear in the Greek
text, they are implied because Paul is asking us to choose. These questions,
however, are rather odd considering the fact that Paul has pitted his message
against God. Also, the first is advanced using a peculiar verb one that runs the
gambit from perplexing to inappropriate, from conceited to bewildering.
If I may, since the writing quality is so poor, lets begin with the Nestle-
Aland McReynolds Interlinear. Now for men I persuade or the God. Or I seek
men to please. If still men, I was pleasing of Christ slave not I was. So then
amplified, we find:
For (gar because) currently (arti simultaneously, just now) men
(anthropos) I persuade (peitho I presently, actively, and actually use words to
win the favor of, I seduce, mislead, coax, convince, appease, and placate) or (e
alternatively) the (ton) God ( a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples
and in the Septuagint to convey elohym, the Almighty, or Yahowah)?
Or (e alternatively by comparison or contrast) I seek (zeto I attempt and
desire) to please (aresko to accommodate) men (anthropos humans)?
Yet nevertheless (eti in addition besides), if (ei) men (anthropos), I was
pleasing and accommodating (aresko I was exciting the emotions of and
lifting up) slave (doulos) of Christou ( a placeholder used by Yahowshas
Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey Maaseyah), certainly (an) not (ou)
was me (eimi). (Galatians 1:10)
The initial verb, peitho, was written in the first person singular, present active
indicative, which not only means that Paulos is again operating on his own, but
also that the opening sentence literally reads: Because currently men I presently,
actively, and actually use words to win the favor of (peitho) or the God? So
regardless of which option we choose, this question poses a series of serious
problems.
First, the transition from we as the sources of the lone acceptable message
and as the originators of the curse, to I in a question, where men and God
represent the universe of potential answers, is curious. Rather than partnering with
men, as we might imply, is Paul opposing men in some sort of grand debate? Or
rather than partnering with God, as we might also suggest, is Paul actually
arguing against Him? And while Pauls personal confessions, his positions and his
approach, affirm that his partner is Satan, there is a hint of delusional arrogance
here in this transition back to I because, no matter how we translate peitho, Paul
is implying that his rhetoric and reason are sublime. It is as if he wants us to
believe that he was so much smarter than everyone else, he could take on God and
men single-handed.
Second, winning favor, along with persuade and convince, is the best we
can do with peitho. Every other connotation makes this question substantially
worse, because it would read: I presently, actively, and actually seduce, mislead,
coax, appease, and placate men or God?
Third, in spite of what religious zealots have been led to believe, we are not
called to win the favor of men, and we cannot win the favor of God. We are
not called to persuade or convince men. And the notion of persuading and
convincing God is nonsensical. Its Gods job to convince, not ours. And even
then, Yahowah isnt interested in winning our favor or in persuading us. He
lays out the opportunity to form a relationship with Him, He proves that we can
trust Him, and He invites us to get to know Him, but that is as far as God goes.
Therefore, even if we render peitho as favorably as possible, if the answer to the
question is men, Pauls approach is ungodly. And if the answer is God, then
Pauls arrogance is in league with Satan.
Thats the good news. When any of peithos alternative definitions are
considered, Paul becomes the Lord of Deceit. The Devil peitho seduces,
misleads, coaxes, appeases, and placates. That is why he is known as the Prince
of Lies.
As you might suspect, peitho is almost exclusively Pauline. It is used in
Pauls letters and attributed to him throughout Acts. One of the few times it is
found in association with Yahowsha, Mattanyah is translated using it to convey
the religious mindset of the opposition by writing: but the chief priests and elders
peitho the multitude that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Yahowsha.
Shortly thereafter, in 28:14, and now in a political setting, Mattanyah is translated
using peitho again to say: and if this comes to the governors ears, we will peitho
him. Luke, who was Pauls attach for awhile, in his hearsay account, translates
Yahowsha using peitho twice, but neither translation is credible in that Luke
wasnt an eyewitness and Yahowsha never spoke Greek.
Now I understand that religious individuals dont see any issue with men
persuading other men on behalf of God, but that is because they have been
deceived into believing that it is Gods will that we win souls for Him. They see
a conversion to their religion as a favorable event, as something that bolsters
their faith. They not only send out evangelists to persuade people into believing as
they do, the Church has used the threat of violence to convert the masses for
centuries. But not only is Pauls message opposed to Gods message, winning
souls isnt Gods style. He is only interested in people who are interested in Him.
And all He wants any of us to understand is who He is and what He is offering.
That way we can choose of our own volition to get to know Him, to ignore Him,
or to reject Him. With God, it is all about freewill.
These things known, there is no way to over emphasize the consequence of
this question. No matter the answer, it proves that Paul did not speak for God. It
also demonstrates that his use of we did not include God.
But it does not get better from here. After posing a question where both
options have horrendous ramifications, indeed religious implications, Shauwl
spins his question, posing it a different way. And yet, we ought not try to
accommodate or please men. Yahowah doesnt. Yahowsha didnt. In fact, Gods
approach is the opposite. He is resolutely intolerant. He does not accommodate
the views of the vast preponderance of people. And He is displeased with
humanity. While it is Yahowahs desire for us to get to know Him, He only
accommodates the few who do.
Also problematic, with the juxtaposition of the first and second e or, we
cannot isolate Paul seeking to please men from the possibility that he is
attempting to accommodate God. The first option is disingenuous and pathetic
while the second is ludicrous.
Not only were these questions left unanswered, which leaves one wondering
why they were posed, they were followed by eti nevertheless and ei if,
strongly suggesting that Paul actually wanted us to think that he was capable of
sparring with God. Further, aresko, the next verb Paul deploys, isnt a cerebral
concept, but instead speaks of exciting and enticing emotions. And the object
this time is Christou, indicating that God, rather than being predictable and
dependable, can be swayed by an emotional appeal. So while Yahowsha has an
emotional component to His nature, everything that we know about God affirms
that He values an informed and rational response over misdirected feelings.
It should go without saying, but because Paul routinely infers that he died to
become Christ, which is what of Christou, certainly not was me conveys, to
the degree that this is thought to be the Maaseyah Yahowsha, nothing could be
further from the truth. However, if one sees Pauls Iesou Christou as the new and
mythological caricature upon which the Pauline religion was contrived, then the
author of this letter is the living embodiment of the Christian Jesus Christ. Paul
is to Jesus Christ as Muhammad is to Allah. They are one and the same. If you
know one, you know the other. If you like one, youll like the other.
If we were to dispense with the dubious connections, and evaluate Pauls
rhetoric as if this was a debate, hed flunk that test too. Shauwl deployed a non
sequitur. The initial question was not answered by his hypothetical. And there was
no quid pro quo between accommodating man and serving his Chistou.
Moreover, how is it that Paul, who fashions himself as the one who liberated the
faithful from bondage to the Torah, is now positioning himself as a slave? And
not just anybodys slave, he is now in servitude to the same Christou whose death
supposedly freed everyone from slavery. So this has become a litany of
contradictions.
And the fact remains, only an egomaniac would suggest that someone might
actually wonder whether or not this man was persuading God. And that is
especially troublesome since the opening stanza of this letter affirms that Paul
wasnt effectively persuading and convincing men.
Beyond this, perhaps we can deduce that Pauls intent was to convince his
audience, by displaying hostility toward the Galatians at large, as well as against
any other messenger or message, that he was demonstrating, even proving, that he
was out to please God and not men. But nothing displeases God more than
denouncing and discarding His testimony.
This is a serious problem for thinking Christians. When Paul wasnt focusing
on himself, he was focused on presenting an errant characterization of
Yahowsha. Neither perspective has merit. Even Yahowsha told us that we
should focus on the Father and not on Him. But since Paul is opposed to Yahowah
and His Torah, that isnt possible.
I am keenly aware that there is a limit to the amount of criticism an audience
will endure. And while we are called to love our enemies, we are actually
encouraged to expose and condemn Gods foes, which is why questioning Paul is
so essential. But to be appropriate, our criticisms need to be bolstered by evidence
and reason, they need to be consistent with Gods testimony, and they should be
focused on an individual, an institution, or on a specific message. However, in
Pauls case, his blanket dismissal of an entire province and nation isnt
appropriate, nor is criticism without justification, and Paul seldom if ever
provides any. This letter opened similarly to the Romans 7 diatribe, with a
universal condemnation.
So while it is appropriate to constructively criticize religious documents and
institutions, it is not appropriate to rail against their victims en masse. And yet,
Paul is lashing out at everyone, while undermining everyone, because he suspects
everyone is his foe, from heaven to earth, and he feels compelled to cut them all
down. In this regard, his tone will evolve from condescending to vicious
becoming stunningly uncivilized. And while never appropriate, since Paul posed
the question, his wholly antagonistic attitude toward men reveals the answer to
the questions he has posed. In his mind, he was debating God. Moreover, as the
evidence will demonstrate, Pauls rage was universally misplaced. Shauwls
adversaries were leading the Galatians to Yahowah, while Shauwl was taking
them for a ride in the opposite direction.
Apart from the errant title, Christ, my concern with the most influential
translations is that neither were consistent with the actual text. They both added a
plethora of words to artificially elevate the writing quality. While Paul wrote,
For because currently and simultaneously, men I persuade, I presently,
actively, and actually use words to win the favor of, seducing, misleading,
coaxing, convincing, appeasing, and placating, or alternatively, the God? Or
by comparison and contrast, I seek and desire to please and accommodate
humans? Yet nevertheless, if men, I was pleasing and accommodating,
exciting the emotions of and lifting up a slave of Christou, certainly not was
me, the KJV published: For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to
please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. While
Christians no doubt see this as a rhetorical question, the deeper we dig into Pauls
mantra and mindset, the more likely it becomes that Paul thought himself
qualified to persuade God to change His plan of salvation. LV: For am I now
persuading men, or God? Or, am I seeking to please men? If I still were pleasing
men, then I would not be a servant of Christi.
Unlike the King James and Vulgate, the New Living Translation reads
beautifully. It is a shame God didnt inspire Paul to write as eloquently.
Obviously, Im not trying to win the approval of people, but of God. If pleasing
people were my goal, I would not be Christs servant. While there is an
extremely remote possibility that this may have been what he meant to say, it
absolutely wasnt what he wrote. And should they have magically captured Pauls
intent, we are incapable of winning the approvalof God. That is the reason
God conceived a plan whereby He did all that was required to make us
acceptable.
Next, we find Shauwl professing that the message he was revealing was his
own. And Paulos wanted everyone the world over to recognize that the mantra
which would become known as the Gospel was hypo ego by, under and
through me, by reason and force of me, because of and controlled by me.
But (de therefore, however, and nevertheless) I profess and reveal
(gnorizo I perceive and tell, I provide the knowledge Ive gained to make
known, I recognize and declare) to you (sou) brothers (adelphos) of the (to)
beneficial messenger and healing message (euangelion the rewarding envoy
and helpful communication) which (to) having been communicated
advantageously (euangelizo) by (hypo under and through, by reason and force
of, because of and controlled by) myself (ego), because (oti) it is not (ou eimi) in
accord with (kata according to) man (anthropos). (Galatians 1:11)
This, of course, means that Paul was solely responsible for his gospel. He
conceived it all by himself, and he, alone, was authorized to declare it. As such,
Paul was solely responsible for the mythology which became Christianity. There
is no one else to credit or to blame. If his personal and individual revelations are
not true, the religion he conceived is wholly unreliable.
Christian clerics universally recognize and readily admit that Paul opposed
Yahowshas Disciples. This statement merely explains why. His message was his
own while theirs was Yahowshas. And set into the context of debating God, this
is an incriminating confession.
But even if you were unaware of Pauls underhanded slap at his adversaries,
both human and divine, it was either egregiously presumptuous or an outrageous
confession to write gnorizo I reveal and provide the euangelion beneficial
messenger and healing message and I euangelizo communicate it
advantageously hypo ego by myself. If Paul were speaking for God,
shouldnt he be touting His words and not his own? Said another way, someone
who is actually speaking for God knows that its His message which matters, not
the one who delivers it.
Had this been anything more than Paul claiming the world as his own, he
would have done what we are doing, which is to dissect the errant message,
showing through evidence and reason where it is wrong. Shauwl should have
delineated pertinent examples of the euangelion which differed from his own. But
the only message Paulos has condemned is Gods, discrediting and discarding His
Torah.
The McReynolds Interlinear reveals that the Nestle-Aland text reads: I make
known for to you brothers the good message the having been told good message
by me that not it is by man. So in order to make those words appear credible,
euangelion and euangelizo had to be rendered differently, even though their
etymological basis is identical in the KJV: But I certify you, brethren, that the
gospel which was preached of me is not after man. That was incriminating. The
King James Version accurately asserted that Paul certified that the gospel
which was preached was of me. In a rational world, this would have been
sufficient to bury him.
Jeromes blend of Old Latin texts was both less accurate and less convicting.
LV: For I would have you understand, brothers, that the evangelium which has
been evangelizatum by me is not according to man. But ever in form, the NLT
ignored six of the twelve Greek words, and they added ten English words of their
own choosing. Still inadequate to support their theology, they grossly
misrepresented, and inconsistently translated euangelion. Dear brothers and
sisters, I want you to understand that the gospel message I preach is not based on
mere human reasoning. The use of mere implies that human reasoning was a
contributing factor. And that suggests that Yahowahs message was incomplete or
inadequate, and that He required the contribution of Shauwls considerable
intellect.
When you combine Pauls arrogant and incriminating statements with the
Christian interpretation of them, you have the crime and confession laid at your
feet. So why have so few people held Paul accountable?
What follows is the other half of Shauwls defense. Hes saying that he
wasnt influenced by any human agenda or institution, while implying that those
who oppose him are in opposition to God. The opposite, however, is true. Pauls
approach and style are rabbinic, and it would be hard to find someone more
opposed to God than he.
Now if only someone could have taught Paulos how to write...
But neither (oude nor or not) because (gar for the reason then) I (ego)
by (para among, from, or for) man (anthropos) associating myself with
(paralambano I received, learning and accepting) it (autos). Nor (oute but
neither) was I taught (didasko was I instructed as a disciple). But to the
contrary (alla by contrast) by way of (dia through) a revelation (apokalypsis
an appearance or disclosure, an uncovering or unveiling) of Iesou ( a
placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey
Yahowsha, meaning Yahowah Saves) Christou ( a placeholder used by
Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey Maaseyah). (Galatians
1:12)
Contradicting his previous statement, while at the same time contravening
Yahowahs and Yahowshas approach to teaching, Paulos would have us believe
that he did not associate with men and that he was not taught. He is evidently not
ready to disclose the fact that he has been in rabbinic school for many years.
According to Paulos, his message had been previously undisclosed, and he
alone had the right to convey what was miraculously unveiled, appearing to him
in a revelation attested by no one. So it begs the question: if this is so, why did
Yahowah bother with His Towrah Teaching? If this is so, why did Yahowsha
bother with Disciples. If this is so, why did Yahowsha bother to say or do
anything? If this is so, why did Yahowsha direct those with questions to the
Torah and Prophets for answers? If this is so, how could Paulos be speaking for
Yahowsha when Gods attitude, approach, and affirmations were the antithesis of
what is being written here?
Since it would be natural to assume that Im sabotaging Paul by making him
appear illiterate, please note that the scholastic Nestle-Aland published: But not
for I from man took along it nor was I taught but through uncovering of Jesus
Christ.
Beyond the fact that I now understand that the underlying purpose of
Galatians was to separate Yahowsha from the Torah, and thereby negate His
sacrifice while nullifying the means to our salvation, to say that he was not
taught his message is to say that he did not learn the truth in the same place
Yahowah and Yahowsha directed all of us to go for understanding: the Torah.
Neither Shauwl, you, nor I need private instruction regarding Gods public
disclosure. Proving this, the Disciple Yahowchanan recorded: Yahowsha
answered him, I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in
synagogues and in the temple where all of the Yahuwdym come together.
And I spoke nothing in secret. (Yahowchanan / Yah is Merciful / John 18:20)
This, of course, would also mean that what Paul just wrote was a lie. Yahowshas
statement and Pauls cannot be reconciled.
This was not Pauls only claim to secret revelation. In the New American
Standard Bibles rendition of Romans 16:25, we read: Now to him who is able
to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ,
according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for
long ages past but is now manifested. According to my gospel confirms the
obvious, but nonetheless I appreciate the confession: this is the Gospel of Paul
and not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But God doesnt keep secrets at least not
regarding anything vital to our relationship with Him. Mysteries form the sum and
substance of the myths which permeate pagan religions. And since Paul never
once cited Yahowshas preaching, in a rare moment of truth, calling the
gospel he was preaching his own should have been sufficient for Christians to
reject him and their religion. God does not have a gospel, nor should you.
And speaking of revealing something important regarding Yahowsha, this is
now the third time in three tries that Paulos has not only placed His title after
His name, but has omitted the requisite definite article. The backwards
approach gives the impression that Iesous last name was Christou, further
distancing Him from Yahowah.
Pauls fixation on unverifiable secret revelations, on mystery and mythology,
was further advanced in his letter to the Ephesians, when according to the New
American Standard Bible, he wrote: ...if indeed you have heard of the
stewardship of Gods grace which was given to me for you; that by revelation
there was make known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. And by
referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the
mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the
sons of men, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets in
the Spirit...of which I was made a minister...to preach to the Gentiles the
unfathomable riches of Christ and to bring to light what is the
administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who
created all things. (Ephesians 3:2-9) Funny thing though, the prophets never
spoke of mysteries, and to the contrary, Yahowah used them to dispel myths. The
Disciples never spoke of mysteries either, nor did Yahowsha. For those who are
open to Him, Yahowah is an open book. Open His Towrah and you will find Him
there. In fact, the only reason that God authored His Torah was to reveal Himself
to us so that we might come to know Him.
King Dowd (more commonly known as David) was inspired to share the
following insight into the nature, purpose, and effect of the Torah: Yahowahs
( ) Towrah (towrah source from which teaching, instructions, guidance
and directions flow) is complete and entirely perfect (tamym without defect,
lacking nothing, correct, right, helpful, beneficial, and true), returning,
restoring, and transforming (suwb turning around and bringing back) the soul
(nepesh consciousness). Yahowahs ( ) eternal testimony (eduwth and
restoring witness) is trustworthy and reliable (aman verifiable, confirming,
supportive, and establishing), making understanding and obtaining wisdom
(hakam educating and enlightening oneself to the point of comprehension)
simple for the open-minded (pethy). (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:7) Few
things so essential to life are this succinct. And that is why youve seen this verse
before and will see it again.
But lets assume, for the sake of argument, that the murderer who had been
Shauwl, who by his account was forced to become an apostle during a rather
nasty encounter with a prodding and debilitating spirit on the road to Damascus,
was a special case, that he was too remarkable an individual to learn about God
the way the rest of us mere mortals have done by observing the Torah as God
suggested. Its certainly Gods prerogative to teach someone individually if He so
desires. The Disciples had some group instruction, most of which they made
public. And their subsequent message, unlike Shauwls, was wholly consistent
with everything Yahowah and Yahowsha proclaimed publicly. So if God had a
private meeting with Paul, why was there no prophetic affirmation of it, and why
was everything they allegedly discussed the opposite of what had been conveyed
so many times before? And why do you suppose, if this revelation actually
occurred as Paul professes, that there isnt a single quote from Yahowsha in the
callosum of Pauls letters? Rather then write, Yahowsha said, ..., Paul wrote:
But I say.... Beyond not citing anything from their mythical private meeting, the
self-proclaimed Apostle only quoted one snippet of something Yahowsha said
publicly, and in his lone citation, Shauwl bungled the quote. As such, Pauls
entire premise is ludicrous.
And most revealing and incriminating of all is the realization that Pauls
message is the antithesis of everyone elses, including Yahowah, who just
happens to be God, all of Yahowahs prophets, Yahowsha, who just happens to
be the living manifestation of the Word, and Yahowshas Disciples. It was one
man against the Word and world. Everything the Maaseyah did and said affirmed
the importance of the Torah. And yet the primary thrust of Shauwls testimony is
to belittle and demean the Torah. His claim to a secret revelation from God for
which he alone has a license to promote is not only rationally impossible, it is
preposterous.
While Im admitting flogging a dead pig, since so many seem oblivious to the
obvious, if Shauwl spent time one-on-one with Yahowsha, as he claims, why
didnt he tell us anything about his encounter? Why, unlike everything else God
has revealed, wasnt there a single prophecy which could be used to validate the
inspiration?
The Torah, by contrast, is set into the context of history. It details Mosehs
meetings with Yahowah, in addition to their interactions with the Egyptians and
the Children of Yisrael over the course of time. There are not only thousands of
witnesses, the Towrah is filled with historical and prophetic insights which serve
to verify its validity. Moreover, its primary purpose was to explain the purpose of
God. And that means the Yahowsha was not only included, but was also
explained and predicted in this very same plan. And now we are to believe that all
of those promises and predictions were for naught? There was no reason for any
of it?
Also relevant, since most of the Torah consists of Yahowah speaking in first
person through Moseh, which is the same format used throughout the Prophets,
why is Galatians written in Pauls voice? The Prophets Zakaryah, Yashayah,
Yirmayah, and Malaky, to name a few, routinely get out of the way and allow
Yahowah to speak through them. Their personalities, their styles, their messages,
and their reputations are never an issue. But the same cannot be said of Paul.
There are seven signs, all along the same path, all pointed in the same
direction, all conveying the same message, all from the same God, and then there
is Shauwl. And his sign is on a distinctly different path, it points in the opposite
direction, and it conveys an entirely different message. And yet for every one
person choosing to follow the path laid out by the seven in concert with God,
hundreds of thousands prefer Pauls instead.
 Other than misrepresenting the second most important name and title in the
universe, the KJV and LV handled the rest of the words appropriately enough.
The King James reads: For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it,
but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. LV: And I did not receive it from man, nor
did I learn it, except through the revelation of Iesu Christi.
Unable to restrain themselves, the NLT felt compelled to add their own
personal embellishments to an otherwise simple statement. I received my
message from no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, I received it by
direct revelation from Jesus Christ.
Incidentally, and forgetting about the Divine Placeholders for a moment, just
because the Greek reads: Iesou Christou, that does not automatically mean that
it is always appropriate to order the name and descriptive title this way in English.
In Greek, like Hebrew and Latin, in fact in many languages, adjectives follow the
nouns they are modifying. But in English the opposite is true. For example, the
Hebrew reads Ruwach Qodesh, but in English, it is written Set-Apart Spirit.
But then at issue is whether Maaseyah is an adjective or a title, and if it is a title,
why is the definite article routinely omitted? And also, since Paul has already
deployed Satans title, the Lord, writing the Lord Iesou Christou, why is the
improper title in the proper place but the proper title is not?
Then, turning from the text to the religious translations of it, regardless as to
whether it was deployed as an adjective or a title, why is Iesou Christou the
lone exception, the only case where English translators failed to move adjectives,
adverbs, and titles forward, so that they precede the nouns and verbs they are
describing. Calling the Maaseyah Yahowsha Jesus Christ is like writing
James King, where King is inferred to be James last name, instead of his title.
And yet, it is hard to miss the possible intent and unavoidable consequence: the
Maaseyah Yahowsha became Jesus Christ to Christians.
You can be the judge as to whether this was incriminating, or affirming:
For because currently and simultaneously, men I persuade, I presently,
actively, and actually use words to win the favor of, seducing, misleading,
coaxing, convincing, appeasing, and placating, or alternatively, the God? Or
by comparison and contrast, I seek and desire to please and accommodate
humans? Yet nevertheless, if men, I was pleasing and accommodating,
exciting the emotions of and lifting up a slave of Christou, certainly not was
me. (1:10)
But nevertheless, I profess, reveal, perceive, provide, and declare to you
brothers of the beneficial messenger and healing message which having been
communicated advantageously by, under, through, by reason of, because of,
and controlled by myself, because it is not in accord with man. (1:11)
 But neither because I by man associating myself with it. Nor was I taught
or instructed as a disciple. But to the contrary, by way of a revelation, an
appearance serving to uncover and unveil of Iesou Christou. (1:12)

Shauwls animosity toward the Torah began before his conversion. As a

rabbinical student, he had been trained to argue against God. So Paulos wasnt so
much addressing his former association with Judaism, but instead revealing the
mindset which permeated his writings.
Initially, at least before I discovered that each of the hundreds times towrah
was written in Yahowahs Word as a proper noun that it was translated using
nomos throughout every extant copy of the Septuagint, I was hopeful that by
confessing his affinity for Judaism and the religions oral traditions, Paul would
associate his use of nomos with the Talmud instead of the Torah. But that did not
happen and it is not possible. While he knew the Talmuds Oral Laws like the
back of his hand, Shauwl never made the connection to Rabbinic Law and he
routinely associated the nomos he was assailing with Yahowahs Torah.
Moreover, the notion of rendering nomos as anything other than Torah is torn
asunder by Pauls own translation in Galatians 3:10. So now, listen carefully to
what he says:
For (gar because indeed) you heard of (akouo ten you received news
of) my (emos) behavior (anastrophe wayward conduct and upside-down way
of life) in some time and place (pote whenever, speaking of an undisclosed
point in the past or future; from pou where, addressing a place and te not only
and both) in the practice of Judaism (en to Ioudaismos in association with the
Jewish religion), namely that because (hoti since) throughout and
accordingly (kata coming down from and regarding this) showing superiority,
surpassing any measure of restraint (hyperbole to an extraordinary degree,
preeminently, excessively, beyond measure, and better than anyone else) I was
aggressively and intensely pursuing (dioko I was hastily striving toward,
systematically running after, persecuting, oppressing, and harassing) the (ten)
Called Out (ekklesia from ek out and kaleo call) of (tou the) God ( a
placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey
elohym, the Almighty), and (kai) I was and am devastating her, continuing to
annihilate her (portheo autos I was and am attacking and overthrowing her, I
was and am undermining and ravaging her, continuing to destroy her; from pertho
sacking (in the imperfect tense, this ongoing action began in the past but there is
no indication when it might cease if ever, in the active voice, Paulos was and is
personally engaged ravaging and destroying, and in the indicative, these attacks
are being presented as actually occurring)). (Galatians 1:13)
The Nestle-Alands Interlinear presents this same revolting pallet of words
using a slightly more sparse array of colors: You heard for the my behavior then
in the Judaism that by excess I was pursuing the assembly of the God and was
ravaging her.
The King James Version helped fan the flames of anti-Semitism by
combining Jews religion and beyond measure I persecuted the church of
God. For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews religion,
how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: Whats
interesting here is that there is actually no basis for or indication of a conversion
in Pauls letter.
And the British cant blame the Roman for this Christianitys deadly
opposition to Judaism. The Vulgates rendering was somewhat more accurate.
Jeromes Latin translation reads: For you have heard of my former behavior
within Iudaismo: that, beyond measure, I persecuted the ecclesiam Dei and fought
against Her. But here again, while former is a superior rendering of pote than
is conversion, it isnt accurate. It speaks of any place and time, of some place
and time, of an undisclosed point in the past, present, or future and is, therefore,
by no means limited to a former time.
This is not a minor point, because Paulos specifically used the imperfect
tense in association with portheo to say that he had and was continuing to ravage
and destroy those who have chosen to be with God. He never stopped attacking.
The New Living Translation turned back the clock even further on truth by
completely ignoring pote, by rendering ekklesia church, and by failing to
communicate the ongoing nature of the final imperfect verb. You know what I
was like when I followed the Jewish religionhow I violently persecuted Gods
church. I did my best to destroy it. God has a lot of things, but church is not
among them.
In this passage, Shauwl wasnt putting himself in opposition to Judaism, nor
suggesting that he was no longer practicing the religion, but instead was stating
that the Jewish religion was in opposition to Gods people. In fact, later in Acts,
before a Jewish assembly, Paul will speak of Judaism as if it remained the love of
his life. And yet throughout this letter, and in others, his comments are decidedly
anti-Semitic, fueling the animosity Christians would harbor against Jews. This
duplicity is an enigma unless perceived from the perspective that Paul wanted to
be seen as both in league with and in opposition to everyone and everything.
 And there is no question that Shauwl was and continued to be religious. It is
therefore instructive to know that Ioudaismos is based upon Ioudaizo, which in
turn is defined as the adoption of Jewish customs, traditions and religious rites,
even the observation of the ritual law. Thereby Ioudaismos describes: Rabbinic
Judaism.
Being a fundamentalist practitioner of Judaism made Shauwl opposed to a
redeeming Maaseyah, to a suffering servant, as opposed to a conquering warrior,
but that still does not explain his unbridled animosity toward those who quietly
elected to follow Him. Judaism, unlike Islam, indeed even unlike Christianity, has
never inspired rage. From the religions fledgling beginnings circa 200 BCE to
the present day, Jews have fought six defensive campaigns, the first three of
which failed, all hoping to liberate their homeland from invaders: the Greeks
once, the Romans twice, and more recently on three occasions against Muslims.
The religion isnt sufficiently aggressive or violent to inspire the kind of rage
Shauwl expressed. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that Shauwl was
anything more than a lone wolf singularly vicious and out of control.
This is the second time Paul has revealed that his cravings were insatiable.
First it was libertine lusts, sexual perversions, which he blamed on the Torah. And
now he is attributing his unrestrained annihilation of passive and peaceful people
on his religion. And yet, lost in his arrogance, he wants us to believe that he alone
was selected by God to slander Him and undermine His Torah.
But I know someone similarly perverted and violent Muhammad. His
bloodlust and appetite for sexual abuse were hallmarks of his life where terrorism
was used to supply an endless stream of booty and babes. His religion grew out of
his lust. Pauls may have as well.
As we consider Pauloss claim, Id be surprised if more than a handful of
people, most of whom would have been relatives of his victims, would have heard
of him. I suspect that Shauwl was a legend in his own mind.
And the evidence indicates that Judaism wasnt responsible for his actions.
There is no historic evidence to suggest that others were operating similarly.
There is no record of such orders in any rabbinic archive, and youd be hard
pressed to find any group more committed to documenting their aims and
arguments.
That may be one of many reasons that Paulos provided no specificity with
regard to time or place. And if you are wondering why he would admit these
awful things, especially if they were exaggerated, it is because he thought that the
comparison between the old Shauwl and new Paulos would serve to demonstrate
the relative merits of the Old System compared to his New Testament. The same
strategy is deployed in Islam which is why I recognize the ploy.
 And while these are all serious and deeply troubling issues, they dont
measure up to juxtaposing hyperbole showing superiority surpassing any
measure of restraint, dioko aggressively and intensely pursuing, and
portheo devastating and annihilating, especially when scribed in the imperfect
and directed at Gods children. Had Paulos wanted to say that he had been
conceited, that he had been out of control and intensely aggressive in the past
while annihilating, which is to murder in mass, Gods Covenant children, he
would have used the perfect tense, which describes actions which were completed
in the past which lead to the present state of affairs. The fact he didnt, not only
confirms that his assault on the Covenant was ongoing, indeed never ending, but
also that he had no respect for his audience, believing that they were so inferior to
his intellect that theyd never figure it out no matter how obvious he made it for
them.
We dont know all of the details of Shauwls life. He told us that he studied
to be a rabbi, but we dont know for certain if he never became one. As a young
man, he claims to have studied under the famed Gamaliel, which would have put
him in Jerusalem while Yahowsha was there. But an undisclosed time thereafter
he claims to have been making tents back in his hometown of Tarsus, in what is
now southwestern Turkey. So since there was no shortage of rabbis in
Yaruwshalaym to harass the followers of The Way, should that have been their
unofficial mission, why recruit a vicious and egotistical unbridled libertine?
That makes no sense, unless, of course, Shauwl was so immoral, myopic,
and uniquely savage that he became an ideal candidate for all of the wrong
reasons. But even then, how depraved would an individual have to be to engage in
a mission where the goal was to mercilessly bludgeon your own people, ripping
innocent families apart who had broken no laws, only because you disagreed with
their conclusions? A moral and rational individual could never have done such a
thing. So since Shauwl has confessed to all of these acts and attributes, and since
the attitude required to actually have done these horrendous things permeates this
letter, it is incumbent upon us to consider the character flaws which motivated
him.
Returning to the passage itself, the ekklesia, describing those who were
called out of the world and unto God, is a translation of the Hebrew qara
itself the basis of Miqra, the title of Yahowahs seven Invitations to be Called
Out and Meet with Him. It is telling that the ekklesia is feminine. This is because
it represents Yahowahs beryth Covenant, also feminine, and because
inclusion in it is facilitated by the ruwach qodesh Set-Apart Spirit, the
feminine manifestation of Gods nature.
Beyond this, Yisrael, like beryth, ekklesia, and ruwach, is feminine, with the
first two representing Yahowahs brideat least symbolically. Before the divorce
decree was announced through the prophet Howsha / Hosea based upon
Yisraels infidelity, the Familial Covenant Relationship was a monogamous
marriage between Yahowah and His Chosen People. But when Gods bride chose
to cavort with Baal (the Lord in Hebrew), Yahowah announced the divorce, a
split which He has promised to resolve on the Day of Reconciliations two
thousand years after He healed the rift with Yahowshas and the Set-Apart Spirits
fulfillment of the first four Miqraey. In so doing, Yahowah honored each of the
five promises He had made to His Covenant children, with our Spiritual Mother
enriching and empowering the ekklesia called out on Shabuwah Seven
Sabbaths. And it had been on this Miqra, after tangibly demonstrating the
purpose of Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread, and FirstFruits on the way out of Egypt,
that the Towrah was revealed to Gods children. It is another connection
Christians seldom acknowledge.
Sir Francis Bacon, the occultist that King Iames, as he was then known, most
likely hired to shepherd his self-serving translation, in addition to the politically
savvy theologians who served with him, must have felt that since the opening
verb of Galatians 1:13 was you heard, they had liberty to change wayward
behavior to conversation, after all, they could be pretty sure Paulos wasnt
going to object. And I suppose it sounded more racist to say the Jews religion,
rather than Judaism, which explains that decision as well. But no matter what
their justification may have been for copyediting Shauwl, as a consequence of
replacing ekklesia called out with church, the lone aspect of the message
which had any merit was lost, and a devastating misnomer was born.
While I have attempted to hold Shauwl, himself, accountable for the severe
character flaws required to perpetrate savagery on innocent kin, he must also bear
the burden of his legacy. His positioning of Judaism as a ruthless enemy of Gods
church has fanned the flames of racial hatred and caused horrible and needless
suffering. Translations exacerbated the problem to be sure, but it was Paul who
presented Judaism as the enemy of his faith: Christianity. The foreseeable and
inevitable consequence was to rally Christians to persecute Jews out of a
misguided sense of divine retribution.
This is a glaring red flag, a dire warning signal, a dead canary in the coal
mine, which most have missed. Satans religions engender a hatred for
Yahowahs Chosen People. In the Torah we read: For you are a set-apart
people unto Yahowah, your God. Yahowah, your God, has chosen you to be a
people for Himself, a treasured possession above all of the peoples on the face
of the earth. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 7:6) Gods love for His people
is unmistakable and unshakable. But so is Shauwls animosity.
The Babylonians and Assyrians, as the first practitioners of Satanic sun-god
religious schemes, were especially savage toward Jews (or correctly, Yahuwdym,
meaning Related to Yahowah), plundering their towns and hauling the people off
into slavery. The Egyptians, who practiced the same religion under different
names, held the Yisraelites captive for four centuries. Again changing the names
but still practicing the same religion, the Seleucid Grecian Empire, which was
created as a result of Alexanders conquests, ruthlessly sacked Yaruwshalaym
under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (the Manifestation of God), as is described in
the books of Maccabees. The Romans, who worshipped the same gods, but also
under different names, were perhaps even more barbaric in their treatment of Jews
than were the Babylonians and Assyrians. They razed Yahowahs Home, salted
Yahuwdah so that nothing would grow, and then renamed the Promised Land
Philistina, solely because the Torah presents the Philistines as Yisraels most
annoying enemy. From whence we get the myth of a Palestinian people.
Constantines Christians, governed as they were by Pauline Doctrine, were so
anti-Jewish, observing any aspect of Yahowahs Torah became a crime
punishable by death. Then came Islam, a religion born out of plundering,
enslaving, raping, and murdering Jews en masse. But they were not alone. Such
discrimination and lack of moral judgment lingered throughout the reign of
Catholicism in Europe, facilitating the horrid treatment of Yahowahs Chosen
People under the dominion of the first Socialist Secular Humanist regimes:
Hitlers Germany and Stalins Russia.
The common denominator manifest in each of these religions, including the
faith conceived by Shauwl, is a ruthless animosity directed at Gods Covenant
Children, especially those who were naturally born: Yisrael and Yahuwdym. It is
Satans trademark. It is why Yahowah predicted that the Serpent would bruise
the heel of man. Yaaqob, who was named Yisrael by Yahowah, is based upon
the Hebrew word for heel. Therefore, Shauwls animosity toward Gods
chosen people should have been seen as a red flag of monumental proportions.
Displaying the kind of arrogance that is the hallmark of the most grossly
insecure individuals, Shauwl continued to brag. But rather than isolate his next
statement from his previous one, lets join them because one flows out of the
other. And as you read these words, please note that the selection of the imperfect
tense, which made Pauls last statement so indicting and devastating, is manifest
again in his follow on comments, thereby, conveying two things. First, Paul is
suggesting that Judaism was the cause of his bloody rampage. And second, he is
saying that he is still progressing in the religion.
For because indeed you heard of my wayward behavior in some time
and place in the practice of Judaism, namely that because throughout,
showing superiority, surpassing any measure of restraint, to an
extraordinary degree, and better than anyone else, I was aggressively and
intensely pursuing, hastily striving toward, persecuting, oppressing, and
harassing the Called Out of God, and I was and am devastating her,
continuing to undermine, overthrow, and annihilate her. (1:13)
And so (kai) I was and continue to progress (eprokopto I was
accomplishing a great deal, and I persist moving forward, advancing; a compound
of pro before and kopto cutting, striking, and smiting (scribed in the
imperfect, where the writer is portraying the action as an ongoing process which
while initiated in the past is continuing to occur with no assessment of when if
ever it will end, in the active voice, which signifies that the subject, Paulos, is
performing the action, and in the indicative mood, whereby the writer is saying
that his assessments are genuine and his accomplishments are real)) in (en) the
practice of Judaism (Ioudaismos the Jewish religion), over and beyond (hyper
to a greater degree and for the sake of) many (polys the preponderance of)
contemporaries (synelikiotes people of similar age) among (en) my (ego) race
(genos progeny, descendants, ethnic group, kin, or nationality), excessively
(perissoteros over abundantly and to a much greater degree) enthusiastic
(zelotes zealous, jealous, and excited, devoted, emotional, and burning with
passion, vehemently adherent; from zeloo to burn with zeal, heated, envious,
and angry, boiling over) to belong to (hyparcho to be identical to, to exist with
and possess, to be equivalent to and yield to, and to be present with and assimilate
(in the present tense Paulos, at this very moment and moving on into the future, is
currently striving to embrace Judaism and to incorporate its Oral Law, in the
active voice, Paulos is doing whatever it takes to achieve this state, and a
participle, and thus as a verbal adjective, his desire to belong is influencing him
with regard to)) the traditions and teachings handed down by (paradosis to
being given over to the word of mouth which has been passed on by) my (ego)
forefathers (patrikos ancestors). (Galatians 1:14)
First things first. By successively deploying the imperfect tense, Paulos has
left no doubt that his unrestrained and depraved behavior and his participation in
this degenerate religion were not limited to the past experiences, but was an
ongoing devotion. He was and would continue to be a religiously inspired
assassin. And indeed, Paul morphed many of the worst characteristics of Judaism
into Christianity, thereby spreading its devastating consequences from a few to
many, from Yahuwdym to Gowym.
This confession means that there was no conversion experience on the road to
Damascus. Paulos is what Shauwl was. Nothing changed. He did not progress
from attacking Gods Covenant children to nurturing them, from rabbinical
traditions to the Christian religion.
If, as Yahowah asserts, it was Satan under the guise and moniker of the Lord
who had influenced the Yisraelites to oppose His Towrah and to reject His
Covenant in favor of their Oral Traditions, then as Shauwl will later admit, it was
the same spirit who appealed to the founder of the Christian religion on the road
to Damascus. In his opposition to God, Paulos would display the same attitude
and approach now manifest throughout the Talmud. And he was just like the
authors of Jewish traditions who while claiming to speak for God, did the
opposite.
Likewise, and in the manner of the rabbis, Shauwls characterization of the
Maaseyah would bear no resemblance to most of the promises made about Him
in the Torah or Prophets. The Christian Christ, like the Rabbinic Mashiach, would
be estranged from Yahowah. And most penalizing of all, there would be no
connection between the Maaseyah and His fulfillment of the Miqraey in the
Talmud or these Epistles.
Also, as was the case with the rabbis, Paulos would deploy arguments which
made his testimony, at least in the eyes of his adherents, more relevant than, even
vastly superior to, Gods. To this day, religious Jews hold their Talmud over the
Towrah, just as every religious Christian values their New Testament,
comprised chiefly of Pauls letters, over the Word of God and most especially
over His Towrah. Nothing changed except the audience.
In these words, Shauwl has conveyed and indeed embraced the rabbinical
mindset, defining what it means to be an adherent of Judaism. The religion was
conceived to zealously incorporate and integrate every descendant of Yaaqob so
that each and every religious Jew would have their lives defined and governed by
these Oral Traditions. Christianity has had a very similar influence on Gentiles,
with nations, communities, and cultures for vast swaths of time often being
indistinguishable from the religion.
While we shouldnt have been surprised, the Greek word designating the
religious teaching and traditions of Shauwls elders, paradosis, also means to
surrender, to give up, and to deliver oneself into the hands of others. It is based
upon paradidomai, whose tertiary definition after surrender and to be
delivered into custody, is to be judged, condemned, punished, put to death, and
be anguished as a result of treachery. The fourth connotation conveys to be
taught in such as way as to be molded as a result of verbal reports. In the realm
of etymology, this is especially revealing because it exposes the cause and
consequence of religious traditions and teachings. Therefore, so has Paul. He
loved his religion. He just hated his people. They would not honor him the way
Gentiles have done.
With regard to Shauwls affinity for Judaism, please consider this
confession. Having climbed some stairs to rise above his audience, motioning for
them to be silent, and then speaking in Hebrew, Shauwl proclaimed: Men,
brothers and fathers (andros adelphos kai pater), you must listen to me (akou
mou now I command you to hear me (aorist active imperative)), to this
regarding and against you (tes pros umas with this advantageously), the
current and present (nuni this moments) defense and justification (apologia
answer and retort). (Acts 22:1)
As is the case throughout Pauls letters, he is defending and justifying his
credentials and message, not Yahowahs or Yahowshas. It is a broken record
figuratively and literally. Rather than encouraging us to listen to God, Shauwl is
demanding that we listen to him.
Then rather than tell the uplifting story of Yahowsha of Nazareth, the
troubled troubadour continued to tout Shauwl from Tarsus...
And then (de) having heard (akouo) that the Hebrew language (oti te
Ebraida dialektos) he had been and was continuing to use to address them
(prosphoneo autois he was summoning them, calling them to him by speaking
to them (imperfect active indicative)), the more (mallon) they continued to be
(parecho) quiet (hesychia still and silent). And he declares (kai phemi so he
says and affirms), (Acts 22:2)
This serves as one of several indications that the conversations later recorded
in Greek throughout the so-called Christian New Testament were originally
spoken in Hebrew the language of Yahowah and Heaven. Therefore, any name
or concept derived from Greek rather than Hebrew should be discarded. Inclusive
of religious perversions, this includes: Jesus, Christ, Christian, Gospel, Cross,
Church, Grace, resurrection, religion, obedience, worship, holy, hell, and angels
in addition to Peter, Paul, John, James, and Matthew in addition to Jew among the
list of invalid names and corrupt concepts. Since there is no support for the
following in the Greek text, Christmas, Easter, and Sunday as the Lords Day, as
well as the Eucharist, Communion, and the Trinity were derived from the pagan
religious practices of Babylon, Egypt, Greece, and Rome and therefore cannot be
blamed on Christianitys New Testament.
Shauwl then admitted...
I am (ego eimi I exist as) a Jewish man (aner Ioudaios an adult male
Jew; an inaccurate transliteration of Yahuwd, meaning Related to Yah), having
been born (gennao) in Tarsus (en Tarsos from tartaroo being appointed to
decide who is held as a captive and cast into hell) of (tes) Cilicia (Kilikia due
south of Galatia in modern-day Turkey).
But then and now (de) having been reared, nourished, and educated
(anatrepho having been brought up, cared for, and trained; from trepho, fed by
suckling at the breast, and ana, into the midst) in (en) this (taute) city (polis)
alongside (para from beside) the feet (pous) of Gamaliel (Gamaliel a
transliteration of the Hebrew Gamlyel, from gamal el, meaning to deal with God
by repaying God), having been educated and trained (paideuo having been
taught and guided, having been instructed and disciplined in youth, having been
chastised, criticized, and reprimanded with words; from pais, a child, slave,
servant, attendant, or minister) with regards to (kata according to) the most
perfect and strictest conformity to, being absolutely accurate in exacting
accord with (akribeia tou the very careful, precise, and thorough approach to
the fundamentalist and rigorous application of; from akibestatos the most
precise, the strictest, the most exacting and careful interpretation and observation
of the most minute precepts of) the forefathers (tou patroos the ancestral)
apportionment which was received (nomou allocation of inheritance which is
parceled out), a zealous enthusiast and adherent (zelotes a devoted and
emotional zealot), present and existing (huparchon equivalent and identical to,
belonging to and found at the hand) of God (tou a placeholder used by
Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey elohym, the Almighty),
according to and in the same proportion degree as all of you (kathos pas su
inasmuch as you all, just as, and when compared to you all). (Acts 22:3)
This single proclamation contains several exceptionally inappropriate
statements. This man, who claimed to speak for the Maaseyah Yahowsha
wallowed in the idea of being educated and trained by a Rabbi, the leader of
those Yahowsha had said were born of serpents. It would have been one thing
for him to admit in passing that he had once been one of Gamaliels students, but
its another altogether to speak of this acclaimed rabbi as if he was filling the role
of the Set-Apart Spirit. It is obvious that Paul admired a man Yahowsha would
have despised.
The problem Yahowsha had with Rabbinical traditions, known as the Oral
Torah (later codified in the Talmud), is that it changes, corrupts, counterfeits, and
conceals Yahowahs actual Towrah Teaching. So why did Paul call the
inheritance which was received from his forefathers precisely accurate when
Yahowsha said the opposite? And speaking of perfect, Shauwl used the perfect
tense with reference to the training he had received from Gamaliel, saying that
while his education was complete, it had lingering effects. Therefore, we must
ask: why did Shauwl claim to be a religious fundamentalist, to be a zealot in
strict conformity with that which was parceled out by his forefathers?
This question is vital because it also suggests that Paul was either a
compulsive liar who cannot be trusted or he never converted from Judaism to
Christianity not that one was better than the other. Further, based upon this
statement, since Shauwl claimed to be in absolute accord with Judaism and its
Oral Traditions, the argument cannot be made that he was assailing the Talmud
instead of the Torah throughout his letters. Also, Paul will twice attest that he had
not been taught by men, and yet now when it suits him to gain credibility with this
audience, he is admitting to have received training from the most acclaimed
religious scholar of his day. So was he lying then or now?
This is one of the few times Shauwl specifically identifies whether it was
Yahowahs Towrah that he was addressing or the religious traditions of the Jews.
And it is one of the few times he speaks favorably of the text. For those who
know and love Yahowah, this juxtaposition is sufficient to demean and discount
everything Shauwl wrote and said.
Reinforcing this reality, by placing nomou amongst qualifiers such as the
teaching of the Jewish religious scholar Gamaliel, rabbinical training, conformity,
being a fundamentalist, adhering to the traditions of the forefathers, and being a
zealous enthusiast, the Torah Shauwl was declaring his loyalty to had to be
Rabbinic, and thus could not have been Yahowahs Towrah. So when we are
finally given some clarity, the picture being presented is the antithesis of the one
painted by God. Set into the context of his overt animosity for Yahowahs Word,
this is especially a-Paul-ing.
Its becoming apparent through his testimony that Paul loved the religious
Law Yahowah and Yahowsha despised, and hated the Towrah Yahowah and
Yahowsha loved. And perhaps that was why he so seldom differentiates between
them in Galatians. If he had made his allegiance this obvious in his initial letters,
his message would have been summarily rejected by all those who actually knew
Yahowsha.
In this regard it should be noted that of the 219 times the Hebrew word
towrah, meaning teaching, direction, guidance, and instruction, is found as a
proper noun in Yahowahs Word, in the Greek Septuagint translation of it, towrah
was rendered nomos, meaning an allocation of inheritance which is parceled
out, each and every time. Recognizing, therefore, the enormity of the
Septuagints influence on the Greek texts which comprise the so-called Christian
New Testament, a statement including nomos must reference unequivocal
modifiers, such as are evident here in Acts, to render nomos as anything other
than Yahowahs Towrah. So throughout this book, unless the context dictates
otherwise, we will continue to default to Torah when nomos is found in the Greek
text. There is no other informed or rational option.
Addressing Shauwls concluding comment, present and existing
(huparchon equivalent and identical to, belonging to and found at the hand) of
God, while religions such as Judaism, while religious leaders such as Gamaliel,
and while religious traditions and customs such as those manifest in the Oral
Traditions now found in the Talmud, seek to nourish a zealousness for god,
their god isnt Yahowah. The religious god is a false deity modeled after the men
who conceived him.
Some fifteen paragraphs ago I suggested that Shauwl became Paulos and
sought the acclaim of Gentiles largely because his own people refused to believe
him. Already prone to anger, he became enraged. So should you want additional
proof that Shauwl despised Yahowahs Chosen People, consider these
impassioned words from his second letter, where he rails against his race for
doing what he himself had done: You suffered, and under your own
countrymen, just as also themselves under the Jews, the ones having killed
the Lord Iesoun and the prophets, and having pursued and persecuted us,
not pleasing God and hostile adversaries against all men, hindering us as we
speak to the races so that they might be delivered. For they are filled to
capacity with continuous and eternal sins. So upon them is furious
indignation and wrathful judgment unto the end of time. (1 Thessalonians
2:14-16)
If this unjustified and unbridled religious rant doesnt bother you, you cant
be bothered. An entire book could be written about the many ways this is wrong.
Woven as it was on a single thread of truth, this repositioning of Yahowahs
Chosen People as being permanently disinherited, and as being the enemy of all
humankind, as being completely evil, has the Adversarys fingerprints all over it.
But at the very least, consider this: was Shauwl not a Jew?
Returning to Galatians 1:14, the Nestle-Alands Interlinear conveyed Pauls
arrogance thusly: ...and I was progressing in the Judaism beyond many
contemporaries in the kind of me more exceedingly jealous existing of the fathers
of me traditions. So it isnt that the King James is wrong, albeit it is poorly
worded, but that it is inadequate, saying: And profited in the Jews religion
above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of
the traditions of my fathers. Jerome did the passage justice, however. In the LV
he wrote: And I advanced in Iudaismo beyond many of my equals among my
own kind, having proven to be more abundant in zeal toward the traditions of my
fathers.
Under Philip Comforts guidance, the NLT suggested: I was far ahead of my
fellow Jews in my zeal for the traditions of my ancestors. It is as if the authors of
the New Living Translation felt compelled to change even the simplest messages.
Ioudaismos describes Judaismthe practice of the Jewish religion. It isnt the
Greek word for Jew. Judaism is a religion. Jews are a race. The difference
is gargantuan.
Shauwls next statement is also untrue, feeding the myth of predestination
and the mythos which became Calvinism. And speaking of mistakes, you should
know that the independent clause depicted within the brackets below isnt
included in the text of Papyrus 46, the oldest extant witness of this letter.
But (de) at a point in time (hote when) it pleased (eudokeo it was
chosen, preferred, enjoyable and better) for God ( a placeholder used by
Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey elohym, the Almighty),
the one (o) having appointed me, setting me aside (aphorize ego having
separated me) out of (ek) the womb (koilia) of my mother (mou meter) [and
having summoned me by name (kai kaleo) on account of (dia) his Grace (charis
autos)], (1:15)
...to reveal and disclose (apokalypto to uncover and unveil) the Son (ton
) of Him (autou) in (en) order that (hina) I (ego) could announce the
healing message and beneficial messenger (euangelizo) among (en) the races
and nations (ethnos the multitudes of people in different places), immediately
(eutheos straightaway, forthwith, without hesitation). I did not ask the advice
of or consult with (ou prosanatithemai I did not confer or communicate with),
flesh (sarx corporeal mass, physical nature, human or animal kind) or blood
(kai haima). (Galatians 1:15-16)
Unpolished in the Nestle-Alands Interlinear, Pauls words as he wrote them,
read: When but thought well the God the one having separated me from stomach
of mother of me and having called through the favor of him to uncover the son of
him in me that I might tell good message him in the nations immediately not I
conferred in flesh and blood.
Shauwl wants us to believe that God not only chose Him, but did so even
before He was born. And yet since this only occurred with Yahowsha, and only
because He wasnt actually born, Shauwl is lying by putting himself on par with
God.
It is one thing for God to have known us before we were born, as that simply
attests to the nature of His Light, where He can see the past, present, and future as
if they were all right now. But choice is sacrosanct with God. The entire purpose
of the universe, of life, and of the Towrah is for us to have the opportunity, and
thus the choice, to know and love God. These options are ours and they
necessitate freewill. Even with Abraham and Moseh, arguably the most important
individuals in human history, Yahowah asked them. He did not appoint them.
That is not to say, however, that Yahowah was unaware of Shauwl. I have
already shared two foreboding prophecies about him, and in due time you will be
exposed to many more very specific predictions pertaining to the most influential
man who ever lived.
 Paul will soon speak of a three-year fanciful sojourn to Arabia, the heartland
of the Torah, where he claims to have met with God. And yet while the timeline
prepared by the historian Luke in Acts makes this trip impossible, the very notion
of preparation is contrary to what this passage asserts.
While Pauls message does not change, in that it is nothing more than reject
the Torah and believe in my Gospel of Grace instead, and while Pauls
condescending attitude and circuitous style do not change, amongst his letters or
between his letters and the book of Acts, it is readily apparent that Paul is a
pathological liar with a faulty memory.
He began this letter in Galatians 1:1 with: Paulos, an apostle and
messenger who is dispatched not from men, not even by the means of man,
which would only be true if Gamaliel, Yisraels most acclaimed teacher, was not
a man and if Judaism was not a man-made religion. Then in Galatians 1:12, when
he continued with: But I profess to you brothers of the beneficial messager
which having been communicated by myself, because it is not in accord with
man. This would mean that Paul was lying when he said that he was in full
accord with strictest application of the religious traditions of Judaism in Acts
22:3. Also, his follow on statement, But neither because I by man associating
myself with it, nor was I taught, would have to be dishonest if he told the truth
about the many years he spent in the classroom learning how to argue against the
Torah in Rabbinical school at Gamaliels feet.
But forgetting for a moment that Paul contradicted himself in the book of
Acts when he stood up on the stairs to promote his religious credentials, he
undermined his credibility in the 13th and 14th statements in this letter when he
spoke of his practice of Judaism, stating that he continued to progress in
the practice of Judaism over any beyond his contemporaries, and that he was
an excessively enthusiastic to conform to the traditions and teachings
handed down by [his] forefathers. So while it is possible to have been taught
by both men and God, learning from each, Paul has both emphatically denied and
enthusiastically embraced human teaching. And the notion that he was taught by
God can only be considered valid if he, a known liar, is considered trustworthy.
So then now in Galatians 1:16, when Paul finally tells the truth, it only makes
the situation worse. It is obsessively true that he: did not ask the advice of or
consult with flesh and blood. But only because the aggelos messenger
prodding and controlling him, was by his own admission, Satans messenger.
Satan is not flesh and blood.
It should also be noted that Pauls unique path was completely unlike (if I
may use the errant versions of some of their names for a moment to make a point)
Adam, Enoch, Noah, Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moseh, Aaron, Yahowsha,
Samuel, David, Ezra, Nehemiah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joel, Jonah, Hosea,
Zechariah, Malachi, Daniel, Yahowsha, or Yahowshas Disciples, none of whom
received any religious training. There was nothing for them to reject or unlearn as
a consequence. And perhaps that is the reason behind Shauwls conflicting story.
There is no denying that he continued to be extremely religious, and it is
especially difficult for religious people to deal with the truth because they first
have to abandon most everything they have valued, and then change their attitude,
perspective and thinking. Very, very few overtly religious people are capable of
doing so. Paul wasnt.
And it was because Shauwls past was so dissimilar to those who had
previously spoken for Yahowah that he spent a considerable portion of his life
promoting his credentialsbut never as aggressively as in Galatians. Most new
religions grow out of old religions. Buddhas teachings were considered viable
because they grew out of Hinduism, the most popular religion in that part of the
world. Muhammads Quran derives all of its credibility from the Talmud, just as
rabbis surreptitiously usurped their authority from the Torah. Religions are
seldom made out of whole cloth, but are instead a patchwork of previous
traditions. That is what makes them so seductive and ultimately popular. And
there is no better example of one religion growing out of another than Pauline
Christianity.
It is also interesting to note that with both Christianity and Islam, their
inspiration became their enemy. Muslims turned on the rabbis who had provided
the many hundreds of Talmud citations which were bastardized and plagiarized to
form the Quran, ostensibly because they could prove that rabbis, not Allah, had
served as Muhammads inspiration. Similarly I suspect, Shauwl turned on
Judaism because had he not done so, it would have become obvious that he had
stolen their strategy and style.
Shakespeare wrote the line in Hamlet, the lady doth protest too much,
methinks, to convey what is occurring here. By vociferously repeating his denial,
we know that more than anything else, Paul wanted his audience to believe what
he knew to be untrue: that his message came directly from God, as opposed to
from man.
In truth, had Paul been telling the truth, he didnt need to convey any of this
ad nauseam. Yahowah had long ago established a method for us to determine who
spoke for Him, and who did not. Gods test is detailed in Dabarym / Deuteronomy
13 and 18so rest assured, we will determine with absolute certainty whether or
not Paul can be trusted with regard to his claims of inspiration.
According to Scripture, there are three aspects to being a productive
messenger. The first task is to cull the audience. There is no reason to waste time
speaking to religious individuals because the truth will simply bounce off their
veneer of faith as they struggle desperately to cling to their beliefs. Next, the
ground must be prepared around those who remain. For the seeds of truth to take
root, religious swamps must be drained of their stagnant waters, and the weeds of
deception must be pulled. In this regard, the most effective weed pullers and
swamp drainers are those who are cognizant of the delusions which permeate our
societies and have polluted most people. This requires study. And speaking of
preparation, we must come to understand Yahowahs Torah before we try to
educate others. Simply stated, to share the truth, you first must know the truth.
During my first pass through this material, I erroneously assumed that
Shauwl had come to recognize the truth, and knew that his forefathers had
crafted counterfeit rules and rituals, known as the Oral Law, to compete with
Yahowahs Torah. I had hoped, therefore, that Rabbinic tradition had become his
primary foe, thinking that he was motivated to expose and condemn the
suffocating religious regulations which had enslaved his people. Ideally, I would
have liked to have seen him differentiate between mans religious rites and the
healing and beneficial message conveyed in the Torahthe one lived out in
history by the Maaseyah Yahowsha. But alas, it was not to be.
And since Shauwls story is not going to turn out well, I thought Id
substitute my own journey from Christianity to the Torah, from religion to
relationship, from believing to knowing, and from faith to trust. I was like Paul in
a way. In my youth, I was the youngest ordained ruling elder in the Presbyterian
Church. I provided a keynote address while in my teens at the national assembly
on denominational reconciliation. I taught evangelism at a very young age, and
devoured Christian literature at a prodigious pace. But a time came when I could
no longer prop up my faith. There were way too many obvious conflicts between
religion and reason for me to believe in Christianity, the religion of my youth, any
longer.
So a time came when I devoted my life to secular pursuits. As an
entrepreneur, and with the help of others, I built three companies from business
plans into corporations with sales exceeding one hundred million dollars. I had
the privilege of taking two of those companies public. And as a result, at least for
a brief moment, I became a billionaire. But a year after having left the
management of my last enterprise, I found myself on the cover of an international
publication, being publicly humiliated for things I had not done. It was my
moment on the road to Damascus (albeit there were no flashing lights).
Fortunately for me, as I wished it had been for Paul, all of my prior
experiences, the successes and failures, were refined during this crucible of life. It
was then that a dear friend taught me to write, and together we wove a word
picture of what had actually happened at Value America. That story became the
book, In the Company of Good and Evil.
Then, almost the moment we were done, Yahowah, a God I barely knew,
asked me if I would be willing to do to Islam what I had erroneously anticipated
Shauwl having had done to Judaismexposing and condemning it based solely
upon its religious texts. After a brief negotiation, my literary friend and I were off
to Israel to ascertain the mindset of Islamic suicide bombers. It was immediately
after September 11th, 2001. Our meeting with al-Qaeda is retold in Tea with
Terrorists. It was during this time that I began a journey which would lead me
through the pages of the Towrah to the Covenant.
Unlike Shauwl, who was already an expert on Jewish scriptural literature, in
my quest to expose Muhammad, I had to find and study the oldest Islamic sources
in order to effectively condemn the religion. But like Pauls alleged experience in
Arabia, I actually spent three years preparing to engage in the spiritual battle
against a satanic foe. The result of being immersed in the scriptures of mankinds
most repulsive swamp led to the production of Prophet of DoomIslams
Terrorist Dogma in Muhammads Own Words. I would ultimately invest five
years of my life exposing and condemning Islam on behalf of Yahowah, doing
nearly 3,000 hours of talk radio interviews, before God finally let me know that
we had accomplished what we had set out to do.
But we were not finished working together. Having known what it was like to
be a Christian, having traveled to over 150 counties around the world, having
learned how Islam corrupts its victims ability to think, Yahowah encouraged me
to engage in another mission: Yada YahA Conversation With God
(www.YadaYah.com). Recognizing that I was utterly unqualified to contribute to
what is known about God is perhaps one of the principle reasons that I was asked.
Making flawed instruments shine is one of Yahowahs specialties. It was manifest
again in An Introduction to God (www.IntroToGod.org), which I would
encourage you to consider. The first of these two books recounts Yahowahs
scientific, historic, and especially prophetic testimony to prove beyond any doubt
that He exists and that He inspired the Torah and Prophets. The second book
reveals what He wants us to know about Him.
I share this story with you because, initially, I thought that I understood Paul.
I thought that his flaws were my flaws. I initially saw the best and worst of myself
in him. But that is no longer the case.
I now see myself as more flawed than ever. After all, I was fooled by this
man for a very long time. And yet the truth was blatantly obvious, even
ubiquitous, but blinded by the religious indoctrination of my past, I missed it. Yet
no longer. I now understand Shauwl. I know his mindset and strategy. And I
recognize his character flaws and his inspiration. Turns out, Ive written a book
detailing the life of a slightly more perverted and violent version of Paul, but
thats a discussion for another chapter.
As I mentioned briefly once before, after coming to realize that Paul was a
fraud, a wolf in sheeps clothing, I wrote another book, this one designed to clear
all of the clutter away so that Yahowah could speak to you directly, Father to
child, and reveal His Covenant relationship through His towrah teaching just as
He had with me. That presentation is available to you free at
www.IntroToGod.org, which is why Ive encouraged you to consider it.
As we return our attention to a more modern swamp, we find that the King
James Version continues to render euangelizo inconsistently, preferring gospel,
unless the context precludes the use of this inaccurate designation. Further, their
inclination to translate ethnos, the basis of the English word ethnic and
ethnicity, as heathen on some occasions and as Gentiles on others, is both
incriminating and unprofessional. Moreover, there is no basis for the title God
in the Greek text of this passage. This known, the KJV reads: But when it
pleased God, who separated me from my mothers womb, and called me by his
grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen;
immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Since grace cannot be found
in the original Greek manuscripts, the King James must have picked it up
elsewhere. The Vulgate, perhaps
Jerome wrote: But, when it pleased him who, from my mothers womb, had
set me apart, and who has called me by his gratiam, to reveal his Son within me,
so that I might evangelizarem him among the Gentibus, I did not next seek the
consent of flesh and blood.
Should God have set Shauwl apart, right out of the womb, to conduct this
mission, then God would have been with him when he was a pervert and when he
was an assign. God would have been at his side when he was religious and when
he was denouncing his religion. And that would make Pauls god every bit as
schizophrenic as his wannabe apostle.
The NLT, obviously infatuated with Grace, not only adds its alluring
religious charm without any textual support, but calls Grace marvelous. The
idea of being set apart was evidently lost on these theologians. But even before
I was born, God chose me and called me by his marvelous grace. Then it pleased
him to reveal his Son to me so that I would proclaim the Good News about Jesus
to the Gentiles. When this happened, I did not rush out to consult with any human
being.
By way of review, here is the third stanza of Shauwls initial epistle:
 For because indeed you heard of my wayward behavior in some time
and place in the practice of Judaism, namely that because throughout,
showing superiority, surpassing any measure of restraint, to an
extraordinary degree, and better than anyone else, I was aggressively and
intensely pursuing, hastily striving toward, persecuting, oppressing, and
harassing the Called Out of God, and I was and am devastating her,
continuing to undermine, overthrow, and annihilate her. (1:13)
And so I was and continue to progress, accomplishing a great deal, I
persist moving forward in the practice of Judaism, over and beyond many
contemporaries among my race, excessively and over abundantly
enthusiastic, zealous and excited, devoted and burning with passion,
vehemently adherent to belong to the traditions and teachings handed down
by my forefathers. (1:14)
But at a point in time when it pleased and was chosen enjoyable and
better for God, the one having appointed me, setting me aside out of the
womb of my mother (1:15) to reveal and disclose, uncovering and unveiling
the Son of Him in order that I could announce the healing message and
beneficial messenger among the races, immediately. I did not ask the advice
of or consult with flesh or blood. (Galatians 1:16)

We do not have a copy of the report Shauwl received from the Galatians, but
it is obvious from his response to them that they were, at the very least, highly
suspect of his credentials and his preaching.
I did not ascend (oute elthon I did not travel) into (eis) Yaruwshalaim
(Hierosoluma a transliteration of the Hebrew name meaning Source of
Information Regarding Reconciliation) toward the goal of being with or against
(pros) the Apostles (apostolos the messengers and enjoys who are sent out,
from apo sent out, and stello prepared and equipped) before (pro) me (ego), but
to the contrary (alla) I went away, withdrawing (aperchomai I departed) to
(eis) Arabia (Arabia a transliteration of the Hebrew arab, meaning to grow
dark), and (kai) returned (hypostrepho) again (palin also once more) to (eis)
Damascus (Damaskos a transliteration of the Hebrew Dameseq, meaning
shedding silent tears in sackcloth). (Galatians 1:17)
So that you know, Papyrus 46 uses elthon in the first clause, not anerchomai,
as is suggested in modern compiled manuscripts. So less accurate and verbose
perhaps, the Nestle-Alands Interlinear conveys: But not I went up into
Jerusalem toward the before me delegates but I went off into Arabia and again I
returned into Damascus.
Nothing would have been more compelling, more reassuring, with regard to
Shauwls credibility, than a trip to Arabia. It would put Shauwl in the same
conversation with Moseh. Just as the Torah was revealed to Moseh and the
Children of Yisrael on Mount Sinai in Arabia, affirmations regarding its teaching
and guidance would have been revealed to Shauwl for the benefit of the rest of
the world. Only it didnt happen.
The first of five compelling reasons to discount the Arabian sojourn is that
Pauls Galatians testimony cannot be reconciled with his own account in Acts
nine, which was written a decade later. In his testimony to Luke, Pauls portrayal
of events following his experience on the road to Damascus does not include a
trip to Arabia. In the historical account, he claims that his public mission began
within days of his spiritual encounter. And since the book of Acts is far better
attested and vastly more detailed than Galatians, logic compels us to favor the
historians authenticated chronology over Galatians, which is uncorroborated,
when they conflict.
In this regard, in the immediate aftermath of his so-called conversion
experience, Paul told Luke, the Greek historian who compiled Acts, that he was
specifically instructed to spend time with an especially timid man named
Ananiasan individual unknown to history apart from Pauls telling of the
events. And while we will consider Shauwls recollection of this meeting in a
moment, the newly minted Apostle told Luke that, after spending a few days
recovering in the home of his reluctant benefactor from the trauma inflicted by the
harassing spirit who besieged him, he immediately began preaching in Damascus.
We read: He took some food and regained his strength. Now for several days
he was with the Disciples who were at Damascus, and immediately he began
to proclaim Yahowsha in the synagogues, saying that he is the son of God.
(Acts 9:19-20)
There is a considerable difference between spending a few days in a home in
Damascus regaining strength and a long sojourn across the desert to Arabia. As
such, Paul either lied to Luke or to the Galatians. Beyond the discrepancy in time,
if we are to believe that Shauwl met with the Healing Messenger as he has so
often attested, why did such an encounter weaken him?
This says that Paul was with the Disciples, which means that either he was
meeting with two or more of the eleven surviving men who had walked alongside
Yahowsha, who just happened to be in Damascus, and who were so irrelevant to
Pauls story that they went unnamed, or Paul was lying once more. Moreover,
recognizing that they are one and the same, in Galatians, Paulos specifically stated
that he initially avoided all contact with the Apostles.
Also in direct conflict with Galatians, this time the chronology, the next line
in Acts reads: And all those who heard him continued to be amazed. And
they said, Is he not the one who in Yaruwshalaim destroyed those who called
on this name and who had come here for the purpose of bringing them
bound before the chief priests? (Acts 9:21) Annihilating people, as we were
told Paulos had done, is very different than bringing them to trial. Also, since the
Romans at this time were mostly ambivalent to a persons perspective on God,
inside the Roman province of Yahuwdah / Judea, the chief priests would have had
no jurisdiction in such matters. Not in Yaruwshalaim, and most especially not in
Galatia. This scenario is not only unattested in history, it is incongruous with the
evidence.
But Paulos would have us believe: And then Shauwl kept increasing in
power (enedunamouto in raw strength), confounding (sygcheo baffling,
confusing, and causing consternation among) the Jews who lived in Damascus.
(Acts 9:22) Sure sounds like the same arrogant fellow weve been reading about
in Galatians. All that mattered was that the world come to see Paul as great.
Well, and also that he wanted the world to come to see Jews as lesser life
forms. After all, just as the rabbis had been with Muhammad, Torah observant
Jews knew that he was lying. And when many days had elapsed, the Jews
plotted together to do away with him, but their plot became known to
Shauwl. And they were also watching the gates day and night so that they
might put him to death. But his disciples took him by night, and let him down
through the wall, lowering him in a basket. And when he came to
Yaruwshalaym, he was trying to associate with the Disciples, but they were
afraid of him. (Acts 9:23-26)
This also reads just like the Quran. In all of the early surahs, the Meccans are
shown scheming against Muhammad, only to have Allah alert his apostle and foil
the plot. It was never true, mind you, in that Muhammad was little more than a
whiney nuisance, but the same could be said for Paul in Damascus.
Most of this was made up to make Paul seem important. Just like Yahowsha,
the Jews plotted to kill him. Just like the Maaseyah, he was spirited out of town
to spare his life. And just like Moseh, he was lowered into a basket.
Ive received over one thousand death threats after having compiled Prophet
of Doom, but not once have I ducked for cover, sought the help of others to save
me, or fled town. Yahowah protects those who work with Him.
 Therefore, the detailed testimony in Acts, which like Galatians was provided
by Paul, is in direct conflict with his first epistle: I did not ascend into
Yaruwshalaim toward the goal of being with or against the Apostles before
me, but to the contrary I went away, withdrawing to Arabia, and returned
again to Damascus. (1:17) As such, the only possible conclusion is: Paul lied.
And if Paul cannot be trusted to tell you about his own life, why would you trust
him to tell you about Yahowshas lifeor your life?
Please pause here a moment. If you are a Christian, the fate of your soul
hinges upon your ability to process what you just read.
While Shauwl will self-inflict more than a thousand additional self-
incriminating lashes on his credibility, this singular stroke was sufficient to
undermine everything he had to say. And there is only one reason that Paul would
lie about his calling and preparation: he was perpetrating a fraud.
And that is a serious problem considering what he has just written: But
nevertheless, I profess and reveal to you brothers of the beneficial message
which having been communicated advantageously by and through myself,
because it is not in accord with man. (1:11)
But neither because I by man associating myself with it. Nor was I taught
or instructed as a disciple. But to the contrary, by way of a revelation, an
appearance serving to uncover and unveil Iesou Christou. (1:12)
For because indeed you heard of my wayward behavior in some time and
place in the practice of Judaism, namely that because throughout, showing
superiority, surpassing any measure of restraint, to an extraordinary degree,
and better than anyone else, I was aggressively and intensely pursuing,
persecuting, oppressing, and harassing the Called Out of God, and I was and
am devastating her, continuing to undermine, overthrow, and annihilate her.
(1:13)
And so I was and continue to progress, accomplishing a great deal, and I
persist moving forward in the practice of Judaism, over and beyond many
contemporaries among my race, excessively and over abundantly
enthusiastic, zealous and excited, devoted and burning with passion,
vehemently adherent to belong to the traditions and teachings handed down
by my forefathers. (1:14)
But at a point in time when it pleased and was chosen enjoyable and
better for God, the one having appointed me, setting me aside out of the
womb of my mother (1:15) to reveal and disclose, uncovering and unveiling
the Son of Him in order that I could announce the healing message among
the races, immediately. I did not ask the advice of or consult with flesh or
blood. (1:16)
I did not ascend into Yaruwshalaim toward the goal of being with or
against the Apostles before me, but to the contrary I went away, withdrawing
to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. (1:17)
Paul wanted everyone to believe that he was more important and better
prepared than Yahowshas Disciples, and that his calling superseded theirs.
According to Paul, both the Disciples and he spent three years (based upon Pauls
testimony in the next verse) in Yahowshas presence, but Paul, unlike the others,
received private, one-on-one instruction. And yet, since Pauls testimony was
false regarding the keystone of his credibility, the entire edifice of Pauline
Doctrine crumblesas does the religion based upon it.
If you are still a Christian, you may not be ready to process what all of this
actually means. I rejected Christianity for a relationship with Yahowah around a
decade ago, but until recently I couldnt deal with the errors or the conflicts in
Pauls testimony either.
For example, the enedunamouto raw strength Paul was said to have
increased in was a term only he used. The other seven times this verb is found in
the Greek texts, they are all in his epistles. Therefore, since it is not said by or of
anyone else, we know that this rather egotistical personal evaluation came from
Paul himself, not his audience or God. Apart from Paul, each time a unique
capability is ascribed to an individual it comes from the Set-Apart Spirit and it is
called: dunamis power, as it is in Acts 1:8 during the fulfillment of
Shabuwah / Seven Sabbaths, not enedunamouto raw strength
Also troubling, the first achievement Paul would claim on his own behalf
was sygcheo confounding, baffling, and confusing Jews. That is the antithesis
of Yahowahs purpose, which is to use His Towrah to teach His children. There is
but one spirit who would boast about deceiving others.
A Christian apologist might say that the change in Pauls behavior and
message confused the Jews, but that excuse is undermined by Shauwls
insistence that he remained true to Judaism. Moreover, Luke expressed two
separate thoughts, initially saying that those who listened to him were amazed by
his oratory. Then after telling us that Pauls physical power increased, Luke said
that Paul went on to befuddle his would be antagonists. The inference is that he
was too clever for them to effectively refute, at least according to Paul.
The alleged plot, whereby the Jews conspired to do away with the self-
proclaimed messenger of god, which was foiled by way of a revelation and
uncanny escape, as Ive just mentioned, is virtually identical to the story
Muhammad was inspired to tell six-hundred years hence at the inception of the
Islamic Era. Then, in the immediate aftermath of quoting the Satanic Verses,
Muhammad imagined that he had flown to Jerusalem (as opposed to the mythical
journey to Arabia) at night, where he visited with Moses and Issa (the Quranic
Jesus which is actually a transliteration of Esau) prior to visiting multiple levels
of heaven (something Paul will also claim). Then after the so-called messenger
of god told the Meccans this tall tale, they conspired to kill him, but Allah
revealed their plot, and Satans messenger slithered out of town by miraculous
means under the cover of darkness. Its the same story. So perhaps it was authored
by the same spirit. And thats a problem, because in the Quran, Allah was
modeled after Satan and he brags that he is the best schemer.
The other problems associated with Shauwls testimony begin with the
realization that it is inappropriate for him to have his own disciples should that
be what he was inferring. It is as if he was trying to impersonate the Maaseyah.
And further incriminating his account, as Ive previously hinted, Jews under
Roman dominion had no authority to put anyone to deathespecially in Syria
and most especially a Roman citizen, like Paul. The Sanhedrin didnt have the
authority to kill Yahowsha, which is why they begged the Roman authorities to
do it for them. This whole sordid affair is preposterous from beginning to end.
If you are into fairytales, then embrace the notion that this self-proclaimed
murderer, this man of enormous physical strength, was as a newborn prophet
lowered in a basket to save him from baffled and marauding Jews, and not to
replicate the story of Moseh, where Gods messenger was similarly spared from
impending death.
The second of five proofs that the Arabian sojourn was a myth is a derivative
of Pauls purpose in writing his first epistle. Galatians was composed to
accomplish two goals. Paul wanted to differentiate his message from the Torah,
and to accomplish that feat, he would have to be an extraordinarily credible
witness. Therefore, the first two chapters focus on establishing his personal
qualifications. But since everyone knew that Paul didnt walk in Yahowshas
footsteps, and did not thereby benefit from three years of training at Gods feet as
the Disciples had done, Paul had to make up a story which would appear to the
unsuspecting mind to put him on similar footing. Three years in Arabia with the
Maaseyah would do the trickat least if it were true.
But if Pauls claim to have met with God in the Arabian Desert was true then
it would make God a liar. After all, while standing on the Mount of Olives
Yahowsha warned us: If anyone says to you, Behold, here is the
Maaseyah, or There He is, do not believe him. (Mattanyah / Yahowahs
Gives / Matthew 24:23) God, Himself, told us that if someone claimed that they
had seen Him, just as Paul has done, that they were lying. Do not believe him.
 Further impugning Paul, who is the only one we know of who made these
claims, Yahowsha went on to say: For false Maaseyahs and false prophets
will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible,
even the elect. Behold, I have told you in advance. If therefore they say to
you, Behold, He is in the desert, do not go forth, or Behold, He is in the
inner rooms, do not believe him. For just as the lightning comes from the
east and flashes even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be.
Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. (Mattanyah /
Yahowahs Gives / Matthew 24:24-28)
This is a deathblow to the veracity of Pauls testimony. If Yahowsha has told
us the truth, then Paul was lying about meeting with Him along the wilderness
road to Damascus and in the Arabian Desert. And if Yahowsha was lying, then
Pauls witness on behalf of a liar would be worthless. So since both Yahowsha
and Shauwl spoke about this specific happenstance, and since this issue is central
to Pauls credibility and to the merits of Yahowshas advice regarding the
reliability of a false prophet claiming to have seen Him, a rational person can now
close the book on Paul. Its over. His credibility has been completely undermined
by the very person he claimed to represent. If you have a bible, rip Pauls letters
from its pages.
Yahowsha told His Disciples that from the moment He left this world to the
time He returned as brilliant as the stars and was seen by everyone at the same
time that anyone who claimed to have seen Him, as Paul had now done, was a liar
and should not be believed. And yet as clear as this is, as irrefutable as this verdict
may be, this realization is but one in many thousands which bury Paul. All that is
left is for us to do is to watch the vultures gather over his rotten corpse.
Returning to Pauls desperate, irritatingly repetitive, and almost pathetic
attempts at setting himself up as Gods lone authorized prophet to the world, if he
had actually met with Yahowah as Moseh had done, his testimony would have
been unassailable should he have described the experience and then produced a
written narrative, recounting word for word what Yahowah had saidall in
keeping with the Torahs narrative. But we have nothing. Not a word from Paul or
anyone else has ever been revealed regarding the lone event which would
otherwise have authenticated Shauwls authority. So when you contrast this
missed opportunity with Pauls countless protestations that we should trust him
because he was Gods chosen messenger to the world, there is a credibility gap
the size of the Great Rift.
Third, in an upcoming chapter (Yaruwshalaim Source of Reconciliation),
we will juxtapose Acts 15 and Galatians 2 in order to demonstrate that Pauls
ability to accurately recount recent events in his life was highly suspect. In this
regard, the entire fifteenth chapter of Acts is devoted to describing the
Yaruwshalaim Summit, sometimes called the Apostolic Conference, because
this meeting was arguably the most important in Pauls life, and in the history of
Christianity. And yet Shauwls testimony in the second chapter of Galatians
conflicts with the historical narrative provided by Luke in Acts in every
imaginable way. In fact, it becomes readily apparent that had Paul not written
Galatians, as his rebuttal to Yahowshas Disciples, his credibility would have
been destroyed. But reason tells us that if Paul was willing to write a detailed
revisionist account of a meeting, which was well attended and which had occurred
within the previous few months, that his lone, unsupported assertion that he had
gone to Arabia nineteen years earlier to meet with Godfor which there were no
witnesses nor corroborating testimonyis suspect in the extreme.
Fourth, as it turns out, the reason Shauwl was summoned to appear before
Yahowshas Disciples in Yaruwshalaim was that his preaching was in
irreconcilable conflict with the Torah. And since Yahowahs Word was
personally delivered by God to Moseh on Mount Horeb/Sinai in Arabia, the fact
that Pauls message was entirely different means that either the Source of
Mosehs inspiration was hopelessly unreliable or He was not the source of
Shauwls. And this problem becomes insurmountable when we recognize that
with His every word and deed Yahowsha affirmed the very book Paul was
assailing.
That is a startling realization because the central thrust of Galatians is
designed to meticulously belittle and then annul the Torah. Shauwl will say that
the Covenant memorialized on Mount Sinai was of Hagar and that it was
enslaving as a result. He will speak of the Towrah as being of the flesh, so as to
demean it, calling it an outdated and outmoded taskmaster. He reports that the
Towrah was a burden which no one could bear. He will say that the Towrah is
incapable of saving anyone. And yet all of these things are in direct conflict with
Yahowahs testimony. Regardless, Shauwl will write that the Torahs usefulness
had come to an end, effectively annulling it in direct conflict with Yahowshas
testimony during the Sermon on the Mount. He will go so far as to say that there
are two Covenants when God says that His one and only Covenant is everlasting.
Therefore, since these messages are the antithesis of one another, Yahowah, who
is the acknowledged Author of the Towrah, cannot be the same spirit who served
as Shauwls inspiration.
And fifth, the timeline Paul provided in Galatians, delineating the number of
years which transpired between his conversion and the Yaruwshalaym Summit is
too great. According to Pauls testimony in Acts 9, he spent a considerable period
of time in Damascus amazing the locals while confusing the Jews after his
conversion. (Acts 9:22-23) Lets assume this took the better part of a year. Then
he claims to have gone off to Arabia for three years before returning to Damascus
(Galatians 1:17-18) only to be lowered down the wall in a basket. (Acts 9:24-25
and 2 Corinthians 11:32-33 where the story changed and he claimed to be fleeing
a government official under the Arabian King Aretas who died in 40 CE) He then
went to Yaruwshalaym to meet with Shimown and Yaaqob. (Galatians 1:18-19)
His travelogue continues through Syria and Cilicia, a journey which collectively
transpired over the course of a year. (Galatians 1:21) However, in Acts nine,
Shauwl adds that he went to Caesarea, bypassing Syria, and then to Tarsus. (Acts
9:30) But then Paul tells us that he was summoned to the Yaruwshalaim ekklesia
after the passage of another fourteen years. (Galatians 2:1) Thats a total of
nineteen years.
Dark years, as it would transpire, because we dont have a record of any
sermon or any letter from Shauwl during the decade after his alleged conversion.
In fact during much of this period, it is apparent that gods self-proclaimed
messenger to the world went into hiding. And that is a far cry from the
immediacy of his mission in Galatians 1:16.
But speaking of time, the timing of the Yaruwshalaym Summit is well
documented. It is dated to 50 CE. So, if you subtract nineteen years, Shauwls
abuse at the hands of the prodding spirit on the road to Damascus would have
occurred in 31 CE, two years before Yahowsha fulfilled Passover. And if that
werent sufficiently incriminating, according to Shauwl, he had spent additional
time building an international reputation as the most ruthless assassin of
Yahuwdym before the meeting with the risen Yahowsha could have occurred
thereby pushing it back to 29 CE, a year before Yahowsha chose His Disciples.
That also means that his pursuit of the ekklesia would have begun four or five
years before it was conceived.
There is an old proverb which says that the problem with lying is
remembering what you said. These events represented the pivotal moments in
Shauwls life, so they would have been forever etched in his memory. But since
the truth didnt serve his interests, he lied, making up a story he couldnt
consistently recall from one occasion to the next. It is why we have three different
depictions of his alleged conversion experience, another problem we will detail in
upcoming chapters.
Since Shauwl has regaled us in a fictitious rendition of his initial ministry,
Id like to linger a moment longer in the ninth chapter of Acts before we return to
Galatians. In Pauls first and second, but not his third, accounting of his adventure
on the road to Damascus, he was asked to meet with a fellow named Ananias,
who was reluctant due to Shauwls burgeoning reputation as an uncivilized brute.
So according to Paul, after Ananias hesitated to tutor the now blinded and
weakened would-be apostle, the Lord intervened a second time, saying:
 But then (de) spoke (lego) to (pros) him (autos) the Lord [o kurios the
ruler and master who possesses (without a pre-Constantine manuscript of this
verse, its appropriate to deploy the title Paul would have used as he spoke on
behalf of his Lord while recounting the affair to Luke)), Go (poreuomai)
because (hote namely) the chosen (ekloge a selected) implement and
instrument (skeuos object and vessel) is (estin) for me (moi), this is the one
(outos tou) to remove and carry away the burden (bastazo to take up and
bear, to tolerate and to put up with, to endure and sustain the yoke and weight) the
(to) name (onoma and reputation) of me (mou) in the sight of (enopion so as
to be seen by; a compound of en in and optanomai to look at and to be seen
(the Lord said of the blind man)) the nations and races (ethnos), and (kai) sons
of kings (uios basileus), and Yisrael (Israel).
Because (gar) I (ego) by him will provide a glimpse into intimate secrets
(hypodeiknymi auto under him will show and suggest, pointing out using words
and arguments to warn; from hupo by and under and deiknuo to show and
reveal, to indicate and point out) as much as is necessary (hosos to the degree,
amount, and duration) as it is currently required and actually inevitable (dei
it is now compulsory, expected, and in fact necessary, actively binding, and
realistically fitting (present tense, active voice, indicative mood)) for him (auton)
for the sake of (hyper because and on behalf of) the name (tou onoma the
designation, person, and reputation) of me (mou) to suffer through this
experience (pascho to undergo this ordeal, vexed, affected, and ultimately
enduring death (the aorist tense speaks of a moment in time unrelated to any plan
or process, the active voice indicates that the subject is performing the action of
the verb, meaning that Paulos is causing the speaker to suffer, while the infinitive
makes this verb read like an active noun)). (Acts 9:15-16)
When, prior to this statement, Paul claimed that Ananias told the Lord
that: he had heard from many about the man who had to the greatest extent
possible done immoral and injurious things to your holy ones in Jerusalem,
and that here [in Damascus, Syria] he [Paul] has authority from the chief
priests to forcefully bind and imprison everyone calling on your name, it
became obvious that this was just another contrived fable designed to make Paul
look as if he were the chosen one. Most every Middle East historian of this period
acknowledges that there were no Jewish high priests outside of Jerusalem,
much less in Damascus, Syria. And outside of Israel, the priests had no authority
whatsoever. Adding to the fable, had there really been a man named Ananias,
since it is based upon the Hebrew Chananyah, meaning Mercy is from
Yahowah, he would have known that Yahowah didnt need Shauwls help.
Turning to the alleged testimony from Shauwls Lord, knowing that
Yahowsha chose twelve disciples at a time that Shauwl was available in
Jerusalem and not selected, we are now to believe that Paulos, as a reward I
presume for being especially immoral and injurious, is the chosen one. This
resolutely religious and evil man claimed to be the implement of God, which is
tellingly similar to Maaseyah the Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah. It
is yet another attempt to position himself as Gods co-messenger and co-savior.
But consider what the Lord wanted Shauwl, the man who changed his
name to Paulos, to do with his onoma name and reputation. The Lord did
not select Shauwl to introduce his name, explain his name, share his name,
proclaim his name, invite people to Yahowah using his name, or save people in
his name, even say his name, all things which would have been vitally important,
and none of which Paul actually did. The Lord, which is Satans title, from the
name Baal, chose Shauwl to bastazo remove and carry away the burden of
his name and reputation. That is something Satan craves and Yahowsha disdains.
This is because Yahowshas name is uplifting, describing the means God deploys
to carrying away our burdens. But Satans reputation as the Adversary needs to
be jettisoned for him to beguile souls into worshipping him as if he were God. So
by selecting bastazo, the Lord has to be Satan, who is the only one who would
benefit from having the burden of his adversarial name and reputation
removed and carried away. It would be senseless and counterproductive for
God to ask for such a thing.
And then we find Shauwls Lord mimicking Pauloss mantra, which is
revealing secrets. Shauwl even has his Lord say that the selection and
implementation of Paulos was not only inevitable, it was actually compulsory and
required. As for suffering, Yahowshas sacrifice on our behalf was not only part
of a very specific plan, it was now long past, so once again, He cannot be Pauls
Lord. But Satans ordeal would endure.
So if we are to believe Shauwls testimony here, the three years Yahowsha
spent with His Disciples was a colossal waste of time. All of the prophecies and
instructions the Maaseyah spoke to Shimown would be hereby nullified. His
name would have not only been irrelevant, it was a burden He wanted removed.
His teaching, the Towrahs Teaching, must have hidden the secrets that were just
now going to be revealed secrets so intimate, God, Himself, must have been too
shy to share them. And as for freewill and God being powerful, sorry, He
desperately needed Shauwl and was compelled to deploy him.
Not that we require more evidence to distrust Shauwl, but this statement
contradicts Pauloss testimony throughout Galatians, where he divides the world,
giving Shimown, Yaaqob, and Yahowchanan responsibility for the Jews, while
he assumed authority over every other nation and race. And lastly, even if we
discount the troublesome vocabulary, if Shauwls mission was to carry
Yahowahs to every race and place, then he failed miserably. Not one Christian in
hundreds of thousands knows Gods name.
But since Christians the world over know and proclaim the Lords name,
Satan was obviously the spirit who chose Shauwl. Fixated as they both were on
immorality and injury, on submission and death, on secrets and concealment, they
were a match made in Sheowl Hell. After all, Shauwls testimony has been
dishonest and Lord Baal is the Prince of Lies.
As an interesting study, consider how many false gods have been called the
Lord. Baal, which means lord, was the dominant deity of the Canaanites, of
the Phoenicians, of the Babylonians, and of the Assyrians. The Philistines
worshipped the infamous Baalzebub. Remarkably, the center of Baal / Lord
worship was in the town of Baal Chermown the Lord of Destruction.
In that we first considered Galatians 1:17 several pages ago, lets review it
again in advance of presenting the Christian renditions. I did not ascend into
Yaruwshalaim toward the goal of being with or against the Apostles before
me, but to the contrary I went away, withdrawing to Arabia, and returned
again to Damascus. It would have been a great story, if only it were true.
These translations are passable (notwithstanding that there is no J in
Hebrew, Greek, Latin or even in English prior to the 17th century). KJV: Neither
went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into
Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. It reads similarly to the Latin
Vulgate: Neither did I go to Ierosolymam, to those who were apostolos before
me. Instead, I went into Arabiam, and next I returned to Damascum. The NLT
published: Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to consult with those who were apostles
before I was. Instead, I went away into Arabia, and later I returned to the city of
Damascus.
You will notice, however, that all three texts made a reasonable attempt to
transliterate the Scriptural name for Yaruwshalaym, Arab, and Damesheq. So
why were they all unwilling to transliterate Yahowsha and Maaseyah
accurately?
By way of background, Shauwl (meaning Question Him (and
indistinguishable from Sheowl, the place of questioning more commonly called
Hell)) was born and initially educated in Tarsus, the capital of the Roman
province of Cilicia, which is on the Mediterranean coast of what is southern
Turkey today. It lies directly south of Galatia, the Roman province he was
addressing with his first letter. At the time, it was home to the worlds preeminent
university. Shauwls father was both Jewish, from the tribe of Benjamin, and a
Roman citizenthings which will loom large as this story unfolds. His father
may also have been a Pharisee, which affirms why Shauwl remained a religious
fundamentalist.
For a frame of reference, its about a five-hundred-mile hike from Tarsus,
south-southeast to Damascus. Similarly, Mount Horeb (also known as Mount
Sinai) in Arabia, is another 500 miles by foot, almost due south of Damascus
(Horeb is directly east of Nuweiba on the west coast of the Gulf of Aqaba, and is
known as Jabal al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia). Jerusalem lies between the two, less
than two hundred miles south-southwest of Damascus.
After lying, and telling us that he went to Arabia, but not even bothering to
humor us with a word of what was spoken there, Shauwl revealed exactly how
long he remained in the wilderness. And that is odd because other than
incriminate him, the one detail he shared was otherwise irrelevant.
Then later (epeita thereafter in the sequence of events), with (meta
after) three (treis) years time (etos), I ascended up (anerchomai I went up) to
(eis) Yaruwshalaim (Hierosoluma transliteration of the Hebrew name meaning
Source of Guidance Regarding Reconciliation) to visit and get acquainted with
(historeo went to inquire about and investigate, hoping to gain knowledge by
becoming familiar with) Kephas (Kephas transliteration of the Aramaic word
keph, meaning stone or rock, a reference to Shimown, who became Petros (a
transliteration of the Greek word for stone), and is known today as Peter) and
remained (kai meno stayed and persevered, endured and abided, continuing to
persist) against (pros to, at, among, or with) him (autos) fifteen (dekapente)
days (hemera). (Galatians 1:18)
While it may be relevant, Papyrus 46 uses meno for stayed in the final
clause, while later scribes wrote epimeno, a related word which is much more
emphatic with regard to Shauwl remaining in close proximity to Shimown.
However, since the Nestle-Aland was compiled from the most popular texts, not
the oldest manuscripts, their McReynolds Interlinear was oblivious to the
alteration. Then after years three I went up into Jerusalem to visit with Cephas
and I stayed on toward him days fifteen.
It is instructive to know that Moseh was on Mount Sinai for 40 days, during
which time he received the Torah a three-hundred-page book with prophecies so
astounding and insights so profound the resulting document left little doubt that it
was inspired by God. And yet if we are to believe Pauls story here in Galatians,
as opposed to his story in Acts, Shauwl was in Arabia three years. And this
pathetic letter is the product of all that time. Rather than being equipped to share
Yahowahs Towrah Teaching as Moseh had been, and explain how Yahowsha
had honored its most essential promises by fulfilling the initial Miqraey, we get
an angry and egotistical diatribe that serves to negate everything God has said and
done.
The interesting nuance in this passage is one we considered earlier. Shauwl
may have been more comfortable communicating in Hebrew and Aramaic than he
was in Greek. Recognizing that Petros, meaning rock or stone in Greek,
wasnt Shimowns actual name, but instead his nickname, he was at liberty to
translate itwhich he did, but into Aramaic. The official language of Tarsus
would have been Latin. Aramaic would also have been spoken as a result of the
Babylonian, Assyrian, and Persian influence in the region. So we should always
be mindful of the fact that if a statement is being made by God or if two
Yisraelites are in the midst of a discussion, then the Greek text represents a
translation of what was said in Hebrew or Aramaic. The reference to the Disciple
Shimown as Kephas keeps us mindful of this distinction, which is true for the
entirety of the eyewitness and historical accounts.
It is a distinction, however, which was lost on Francis Bacon and his
associates. But other than changing the name of the place and person, the rest of
the KJV is reasonably accurate with regard to this otherwise insignificant verse.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him
fifteen days. LV: And then, after three years, I went to Ierosolymam to see
Petrum; and I stayed with him for fifteen days. NLT: Then three years later I
went to Jerusalem to get to know Peter, and I stayed with him for fifteen days.
Speaking of names, the next one destroys one of the foundational claims of
Catholicism, in addition to devastating the foundation of Protestantism. But (de)
other (heteros different) of the Apostles (ton apostolos of those who were
prepared messengers and were sent out), I did not see (ou eidon I did not pay
attention to, concern myself with, or understand) except (ei me if not) Yaaqob
(Iakobos a transliteration of the Hebrew Yaaqob who became Yisrael), the
(tov) brother (adelphos male sibling) of the Lord (tou a placeholder used
by Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey edon, the Upright One,
or Yahowahs name). (Galatians 1:19)
In the Nestle-Alands Interlinear, these same words were either translated or
misrepresented to say: Other but of the delegates not I saw except [not
applicable] Jacob the brother of the Master.
Before we consider the issue this verse raises for Protestants, Catholics, and
Orthodox Christians, please note that had this been an eyewitness account
chronicled by the Disciples, had this been one of Yahowsha many citations of the
Torah or Prophets, when we turned to the quoted section of Scripture, we would
have found Yahowahs name where the placeholder was deployed. And while
Id prefer to follow the example established by Yahowshas Disciples when citing
Him, if we were to replace this Kappa Upsilon with Yahowahs name, the
statement would become senseless.
This is because it has been Shauwls intent to use tou the Lord,
replete with the definite article, as the proper designation of his Lord, the one who
prodded and possessed him. So while I am conflicted, knowing the function of the
Placeholders and realizing that the Lord serves as Satans title, while Baal,
meaning lord serves as the Adversarys name in addition to depicting his
ambition, the evidence strongly suggests that Shauwl meant to promote the
mythos of the Lord actually being God. So while neither he, nor scribes in
Alexandria decades later, wanted these letters to appear different than those
penned by the Disciples, one or the other deployed these devices, because they
now appear in an early second-century manuscript.
So while it is impossible to know for certain if Paul actually wrote Kuriou
Lord, only to see his nomenclature replaced by a scribe who sought consistency
and uniformity with the treasured biographic accounts of Yahowshas life, or
whether Paul used the appropriate placeholders, knowing that if he didnt, his
letters would differ from the Septuagint and from the Disciples, so that leaves us
in a quandary. Should these passages be translated as Paul likely intended, or as
the placeholders portend? At issue here is: does the Lord or the Upright One
more accurately reflect Pauls purpose?
The reason this verse should be troubling to Protestants is that it undermines
the credibility of the King James Bible, and indeed the credibility of every
English translation since that time. While Shauwl correctly transliterated the
name of Yahowshas brother, Yaaqob, Francis Bacon changed his name to match
that of his kings. The King James Version therefore reads: But other of the
apostles saw I none, save James the Lords brother.
The political mindset required to justify altering the name of Yahowshas
brother, Yaaqob, so that he would forever be known by the name of the reigning
English monarch, is the same twisted mentality required to justify copyediting
God and His messengers whenever it suits a religious purpose. Such men cannot
be trustednor can their institutions or translations.
But what does this say about the attitude of those in the ministry today who
know that this was done and yet have done nothing to correct the record
preferring instead to perpetrate the myth? Even to this day, in Christian bibles,
King James name sits atop the letter written by Yaaqob.
This literary fraud exposes the lack of moral character manifest by Christian
leaders who continue to accept the wholesale infusion of Babylonian religious
rites and symbols into Christendom. While its one mans name, its indicative of
how the Torah was replaced by Gratia / Grace in Christianity, of how
Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits became Easter, how the Sabbath
time spent with Yahowah became Sunday worship of the Lord, in fact it is how
Yahowah became the Lord, and how the Maaseyah Yahowsha became Jesus
Christ to Christians.
This statement, however, contains an even bigger problem for Catholicism
a religion fabricated on the Babylonian presentation of the Madonna and Child,
upon the Mother of God and the Queen of Heaven. Catholicism requires that
Mary remain a virgin, and that she never age nor die. But this statement from
Pauls pen clearly states that Yaaqob was Yahowshas brother, as do many other
passages. So Jerome was in a pickle. Therefore, after writing: But I saw none of
the other apostolorum, except Iacobum, the brother of the Domini, Jerome was
forced to add the following to the Latin Vulgate: This Iacobum is Iacobum the
Less, who stayed in Ierosolymam, while the other apostolorum went out to preach
the evangelium to the world. He functioned as the spiritual leader of the city
where Christi preached and died; he was the Bishop of Ierosolymam. He was
called the brother of the Domini because he was a cousin of Iesu, and also
because he was similar in appearances to Iesu. It was all untrue, every word of it,
and Jerome knew it. But religious leaders will say and do anything to perpetuate
the myths which empower them.
And yet now, with the benefit of over one hundred manuscripts dating to
within three centuries of the actual witnesses, all of which affirm that Yahowshas
brother was Yaaqob, todays esteemed religious scholars and theologians are still
unwilling to convey the truth. Those associated with the New Living Translation
failed to correct the King James political malfeasance. The only other apostle I
met at that time was James, the Lords brother. So much for religious integrity
and biblical inerrancy. Because familiarity sells, had they not included a book
named after the English King, too few Christians would have purchased their
bibles for them to have profited from the endeavor.
Galatians 1:19 was otherwise inconsequential, and yet it laid two religions
bare. The moral of the story is: you cannot trust men guided by religion or
politics.
Seen as a collective whole, Shauwls fifth paragraph reads:
I did not ascend into Yaruwshalaim toward the goal of being with or
against the Apostles before me, but to the contrary I went away, withdrawing
to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. (1:17)
Then later in the sequence of events, after three years time, I ascended
up to Yaruwshalaim to visit and get acquainted with Kephas and remained
against / with him fifteen days. (1:18)
 But other of the Apostles, I did not see, I did not pay attention to, or
concern myself with except Yaaqob, the brother of the Lord. (1:19)
My initial inclination in composing this review was to pass over these
positioning statements and move directly into the substance of the arguments
Christians raise from Pauls writings to dismiss the Torah. And yet by studying
them, we have come to know that, no matter what Paul said, he cannot be trusted.
And that was worth the effort.

Shauwls next statement is troubling on three separate fronts. He wrote:

But now (de because then) what (o this means that which) I write (grapho
using a pen to form letters on papyrus I communicate in writing (used elsewhere
to denote Scripture)) to you (umin) you must pay especially close attention to
(idou you are ordered to intently look at, focus upon, behold, carefully consider,
and remember this command (in the imperative mood this is a command) in the
presence (enopion before and in front of) of God (tou a placeholder used
by Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey elohym, the Almighty),
because (oti) I cannot lie (ou pseudomai mislead or deceive, speak falsely or
communicate that which is not true). (Galatians 1:20)
This message is wholly dissimilar to that of Yahowahs prophets and
Yahowshas disciples. They wrote Thus says Yahowah, or Yahowsha
said, but Shauwl proclaims But now what I write. Those who speak for
God, speak Gods words, because they know that their choice of words pales in
comparison to His. Even Yahowsha quoted the word of God: For He
(Yahowsha) whom God has sent, speaks the words of God. (Yahowchanan /
Yah is Merciful / John 3:34)
The only rational conclusion which can be drawn from the statement, I
cannot lie, is that the one who made it is a liar. Apart from the human
manifestation of Yahowah, no man has or ever will tell the truth all of the time.
As such, this statement alone rendered this epistle worthless. And in reality, based
upon what we have read thus far, Paul has made far more invalid statements than
accurate ones. But on the bright side, this means that Paul was telling the truth
when he said that he was vicious and perverted, not to mention possessed by one
of Satans demons.
Further exposing Shauwl, the Greek word for writing a letter is epistello,
from which we get the English word epistle. But it wasnt used, even though it
would have been the perfect verb to state: Im writing a letter to you. And while
grapho simply means writing, the term was often deployed by the Disciples to
designate Scripture from the Torah and Prophets. But whats particularly telling
here is that Shauwl has set his grapho writing in the context of something
which must be evaluated in the presence of God because I cannot lie. And in
that context, Paul clearly wanted his letters to be seen as Scripture, equivalent
to the Word of God. And nothing could be further from the truth.
Before we consider Christian bible publications, the Nestle-Aland Greek
New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear provides a
somewhat unbiased approach: What but I write to you look before the God [not
applicable] not I lie. Turning to the King James Version, it is apparent that
Christians desire the rationally impossible, for Paul to truthfully contradict God.
And that is why the King James Bible says: Now the things which I write unto
you, behold, before God, I lie not. And it is once again obvious that the King
James was a revision of the Latin Vulgate, which reads: Now what I am writing
to you: behold, before God, I am not lying.
Before we consider the NLT, as a reminder, this statement, when converted
to follow English grammar rules, begins with o what, not ego I. Further,
there are many Greek words which can be translated declare (endeixis to
prove by declaring, apaggello to communicate a message, gnorizo to make
known, diegeomai to describe by way of narration, ekdiegeomai to relate,
kataggello to announce, and euaggelizo to bring a beneficial message), but
none of these appear in Shauwls epistle. So why then did the New Living
Translation publish: I declare before God that what I am writing to you is not a
lie. Desperate is as desperate does, I suppose.
Returning to Shauwls flight of fancy, we find: Thereafter (epeita later
then), I came (erchomai I moved toward and happened upon) to (eis) the
regions (ta klima) of Syria (tes Suria a transliteration of the Hebrew sowr,
meaning scorched rocks) and also of Cilicia (kai tes Kilikia the Roman
province in todays southern Turkey were Shauwl was born). (21) But (de) I was
(eimi) not known and disregarded (agnoeo ignored or ignorant, neither
recognized or understood) personally (to prosopon by appearance as an
individual) by the (tais) Called Out (ekklesia) of Yahuwdah (tes Ioudaia
transliteration of the Hebrew name, meaning Related to Yah, errantly
transliterated Judea) in (eis) Christo ( a placeholder used by Yahowshas
Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey the title Maaseyah, but consistently
deployed by Paulos without the definite article). (Galatians 1:21-22)
As we know, Shauwl was born and raised in Cilicia (Acts 22:3). He was the
son of a prominent Roman citizen. If he was known anywhere, it would have been
there. But should he have been telling the truth, he also would have been known
to the Called Out Yahuwdym in Yahuwdah because he just said that he had met
with Shimown Kephas and Yaaqob the leaders of that Assembly. And while I
suppose that it was possible, albeit unlikely, that Shauwl was unknown in these
communities, moments ago he claimed that his reputation preceded him. These
assessments cannot all be true.
Also troubling, in Acts 9, Paul tells us that he went to Caesarea, which is on
the Judean coast, before traveling to Tarsus, Cilicia, and thus bypassing Syria.
While its just a detail, the inconsistency is troubling juxtaposed against I cannot
lie.
Turning first to the Nestle-Alands Interlinear, we find: Then I went into the
regions of the Syria and the Cilicia. I was but being unknown in the face to the
assemblies of the Judea the in Christ. The King James manages to properly
transliterate Syria and Cilicia, but cant seem to do the same for ekklesia,
Yahuwdah, or Maaseyah. KJV reads: Afterwards I came into the regions of
Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which
were in Christ: Jerome did a reasonable job transliterating ekklesia and
Yahuwdah, but must have thought that Yahowsha was a Greek bearing gifts. His
Latin Vulgate says: Next, I went into the regions of Syri and Cilici. But I was
unknown by face to the ecclesiis Iud, which were in Christo.
Shauwl has made a habit of including the definite article before every title,
from the God to the Lord. And in this sentence, even the title ekklesia was
scribed tais ekklesia the Called Out. So it is telling that he has not yet
included the definite article before the title of the individual he claims to be
representing. And yet since Christo isnt a name, what options are available to
us other than to conclude that Shauwl wanted readers to consider it as such?
Philip Comfort, the overall coordinator of the New Testament passages
which comprise the New Living Translation, emphatically reveals on pages 224
and 225 of his Encountering the Manuscripts that he is aware that the initial
Followers of the Way were called Chrestucians, not Christians. And he
knows that in all three references to these people in the Greek textsActs 11:26,
Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16that the oldest, most reliable manuscripts,
including the vaunted Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, read Chrestucians not
Christians. Furthermore, Philip Comfort is keenly aware that neither
Chrestucians nor Christians appear in any other passage. So why do we find
Christians in Galatians 1:21-22? After that visit I went north into the provinces
of Syria and Cilicia. And still the Christians in the churches in Judea didnt know
me personally. Christian publishers must believe that their religious readers
dont care that the evidence they are presenting is invalid.
While there is no textual basis for the NLTs use of that visit, north,
still, me, or personally, Mr. Comforts most egregious crime was changing
ekklesia - called-out assembly to church, and then associating this church
with the nonexistent Christians. It is as if he felt that he was at liberty to assist
Paul in the creation of a new religion.
If you follow the link on the NLTs homepage to Philosophy &
Methodology, you will find that they dont acknowledge the methods they have
deployed in creating their translation. They simply list a pair of philosophies
and a method. And both philosophies are opposed to the liberal transformations
we have witnessed in most every NLT passage. They say:
Essentially Literal (free only where absolutely necessary): This
philosophy is reluctant to clarify the meaning of the text, though it is open to
doing so when absolutely necessary for understanding. It holds English style at a
higher value than the more literal approach and often adjusts syntax to help it read
better, even if this makes it less literal.
Dynamic Equivalent (free where helpful to clarify meaning): This
philosophy is open to clarify the meaning of the text whenever a literal
rendering of the text might be confusing to the normal, uninitiated reader. This
does not mean it deviates from the text; on the contrary, it does whatever is
helpful to ensure that the texts meaning comes through in English. In general,
such translations try to balance the concerns of both functional equivalence and
literal approaches.
Based upon what we have experienced thus far, nothing the NLT has
published has been essentially literal. They have shown no reluctance to
clarify the meaning of the text. So we must assume that either they dont abide
by this philosophy (and that it was stated as a diversion), or they believe that it
was absolutely necessary to revise, ignore, change, or extrapolate most
everything Shauwl wrote.
I recognize that this is standard operating procedure in politics, where even
though the public has access to their constitution, their elected officials reinvent
its meaning on a daily basis. But Pauls epistles are positioned as the inerrant
word of God, making this practice a fraud.
As for their pervasive use of what they call dynamic equivalence, we must
conclude that they believe everything Shauwl had to say would have been
confusing to the normal, uninitiated reader. And that means that if Galatians is
to be considered Scripture (in the sense of being inspired by God), then the folks
working for the New Living Translation believe that God is a very poor
communicator. (Id be remiss if I didnt point out that the concept of being
initiated in a religion, especially its mysteries, dates back to the Babylonians.
And it is something Paul has continued to promote.)
 While it is egotistical in the extreme, not to mention ignorant, irrational, and
foolish, to place ones writing style and ability above the Creator of the universe
(or even above someone claiming to speak for him), the NLTs claim that they
dont use dynamic equivalence to deviate from the text is laughably inaccurate.
But none of that really matters. This pedantic posturing was designed to take
your attention away from the method they actually deployed.
Paraphrase (free for clarity and to catch attention): This method is
normally used by an individual translator, while the other methods usually employ
committees of scholars. Creativity and style are extremely important here; the
translator sometimes tries to catch the attention of readers in a fresh way, seeking
to jolt and surprise them into understanding.
The New Living Translation is so fresh, so jolting and surprising, it is as
if Philip Comfort and Company (a.k.a., Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) felt as if
God, Himself, had personally inspired them to write their own bible.
Leaving one fictional realm, and returning to another, we find the Nestle-
Alands Interlinear suggesting that Paul concluded his opening statement by
writing: Alone but hearing they were that the one pursuing us then now he tells
good message the trust which then he was ravaging (23) and they were giving
splendor in me the God. (24)
But then (de) only (monon alone) they were constantly (eimi) hearing
(akouo) that the one (oti o) presently pursuing and persecuting (dioko
systematically, hastily, and intensely approaching, running and following after,
oppressing and harassing (scribed in the present tense)) us (emas) at various
times (pote at any undisclosed period)) now (nyn at the present time) he
presently proclaims a healing message (euangelizo he currently announces a
beneficial messenger (scribed in the present tense and middle voice, thereby
influencing himself)) of faith (ten pistis of belief) which (os) once or now (pote
at some or any unspecified period) he was attacking and continues to
annihilate (portheo he was consistently ravaging and destroying, he is
devastating and overthrowing, he was sacking and is continually wasting and
killing (the imperfect tense addresses an in process action which began in the past
but is still ongoing with no assessment of its conclusion, the active voice says that
Paulos was personally engaged in this savage behavior, while the indicative mood
reveals that this depiction actually occurred)). (23) And (kai so) they were
praising and glorifying, attributing an exceptionally high value and status
(doxazo they were considering illustrious and magnificent, holding the opinion
of an especially high rank, thereby supposing to honor, extol, celebrate, dignify,
and magnify) in (en in relation to, upon, with, or at) me (emoi) for the (ton)
God ( a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to
convey elohym, the Almighty). (Galatians 1:23-24)
The presentation of portheo attack and annihilate is identical to what
weve seen before. By deliberately writing it in the imperfect tense, this grotesque
behavior is ongoing. Paulos continues to ravage and destroy. That is the legacy of
his letters. They remain as destructive and deadly as the day they were written.
While it isnt currently apparent, we have been given another clue into the
nature of what would become known as Pauline Doctrine. This time it comes
through the forced inclusion of pistis, which Ive translated faith.
Etymologically, the word originally conveyed the exemplary concepts of trust
and reliance. But that was before Paul made pistis so central to his religion that
faith became synonymous with Christianity. Therefore, by alleging that his
admirers equated his euangelizo beneficial message to pistis faith, Paul
was setting the table for his treatise. Pistis was awkwardly tossed into the mouths
of others because Pauls entire edifice will be based upon faith. It will become his
alternative to the Towrah.
No matter how we render en emoi ton in me for the God, there is no way
to incorporate doxazo praising and glorifying without gagging on the result.
Paul has either imagined groupies who are now worshipping him, or the Called
Out from Syria to Cilicia were collectively suffering from the Stockholm
Syndrome.
Keeping in mind that the scenario Shauwl has laid out, whereby the religion
of Judaism, in concert with the instructions of its chief priests, recruited and then
ordered Shauwl to bludgeon Torah-observant Jews, is a charade, still, at least,
based upon what Shauwl has said about himself, it is entirely possible, perhaps
probable, that the founder of the Christian faith was ruthless. But should this be
the case, it means that we are dealing with a delusional and amoral psychopath.
Nonetheless, to the extent that Shauwl told the truth, and that he was
exceptionally and uniquely vicious, in concert with his repetitive claims, then the
victims of his wonton savagery may have misconstrued this apparent remission,
albeit temporary, in his brutality as being praiseworthy. In such cases, victims
often bond with their abuser. They see the merciless as merciful.
So in this concluding sentence, we are witnessing a psychological
phenomenon that profoundly alters an individuals ability to exercise good
judgment regarding those who are abusing them nineteen centuries before it was
codified and explained.
This was not the first time, nor would it be the last, that this strategy would
be deployed for nefarious means. Islam, for example, would not exist without it.
Muhammad expressly authorized Muslim men to berate, imprison, and beat their
wives so long as they occasionally relented and showed some mercy, which was
usually in the form of having their way with their bodies. And if that was not
sufficient to exercise complete dominion over women, then they could murder
them.
Doxazo, which is being directed at Paul, was translated: they were praising
and glorifying, attributing an exceptionally high value and status. It also
conveys: they were considering illustrious and magnificent, holding the opinion
of an especially high rank, supposing to honor, extol, celebrate, and dignify Paul.
Doxazo is from the base of doxa, which is to form a favorable opinion, and thus
to hold someone in high esteem by taking into account their behavior and
reputation. And since Pauls reputation, at least according to Paul, has been that
of a libertine and terrorist, both of which in the sight of Gods people would be
considered reprehensible, should this declaration have occurred, the Stockholm
Syndrome provides the lone rational reason to deploy doxazo glorified in the
opinion of the beholder in association with Paul.
And since the praiseworthy connotations associated with doxazo are directed
in me for God, Shauwls statement can be read that people thought highly of
God in me, which is extraordinarily arrogant, placing Paul in the company of the
Caesars, Emperors, and Pharaohs who claimed to be godor, at the very least, to
represent him before men. This serves to establish Paul as co-savior and co-
author, his personal contribution completing Gods work.
This is yet another way in which Paul sounds like Muhammad in the Quran.
This sentence pushes the envelope, elevating Pauls opinion of himself well
beyond anything which is appropriate.
But the other options may be even worse, especially if we read this as saying
for God in me, making Paul and his god one and the same. And if God is
brought into the equation, and is seen as part of the arrogant evaluation, then Paul
rises above his god in status.
Each of these themes will play out again in Islam, where Allah and
Muhammad speak with the same voice because Allah is Muhammads alter ego
having demonically possessed him as he had Paul. And this similarity is germane
to our evaluation of Paul because in Islam Allah is indistinguishable from Satan.
They have the same personality, ambitions, attitude, and methods. In Islam, which
means submission, Allah replaces Yahowah as God. In Christianity, the Lord
replaces Yahowah as God. The result is the same.
The King James Version crafted a bizarre ending that serves to exacerbate the
problem: But they had heard only, that he which persecuted us in times past now
preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. And they glorified God in me. The
Latin Vulgate, from which the inappropriate ending materialized, reads similarly:
For they had only heard that: He, who formerly persecuted us, now
evangelizat/evangelizes the fidem/faith which he once fought. And they glorified
God in me.
While typically Im critical of these translations when they diverge from the
original text, both conclusions are reasonable adaptations of Pauls poorly worded
statement. It is easy to construe this as if Paul was suggesting that he and his god
were equally praiseworthy. And keep in mind, the path to this place was paved
with the pronouncement that Paul cannot lie.
In the context of religious deceptions, its also important to recognize that the
King James rendition of the beginning of this statement was errant because the
Greek word for preach is kerysso, not euangelizo which means to convey a
healing messenger or beneficial message. And since faith is the result of not
knowing, how and why would it be preached?
Faith is required when there is insufficient information to know and thus
understand. That is why it is part and parcel to Pauline Doctrine. Paul never
presents sufficient information to grow beyond faith. This realization drives to
the heart of the Great Galatians Debate.
It is only out of a sense of duty, that of pulling weeds from the swamp that
has become Christendom, that I continue to share the methodology of the New
Living Translation: All they knew was that people were saying, The one who
used to persecute us is now preaching the very faith he tried to destroy! And they
praised God because of me.
While this isnt what Paul wrote, if this is what he was intending to say, if
this is what he believed, then we should pity him. Neither Noah nor Abraham
made such a claim. We do not find these words on the lips of Moseh (Moses) nor
Dowd (David). Not even Yahowsha said this.
Recapping the sixth Pauline stanza serves as a real eye opener.
But now what I write to you, you must pay especially close attention in
the presence of God, because I cannot lie. (1:20)
Thereafter, I came to the regions of Syria and also of Cilicia. (21) But I
was not known and was disregarded, I was either ignored or ignorant, not
recognized or understood, personally by appearance as an individual by the
Called Out of Yahuwdah in Christo. (1:22)
But then only they were constantly hearing that the one presently
pursuing and persecuting, systematically, hastily, and intensely approaching,
oppressing and harassing us at various times now he presently proclaims a
healing message of faith which once or now at some unspecified period he
was attacking and continues to annihilate, he was consistently ravaging and
destroying and he is devastating and overthrowing. (23)
And so they were praising and glorifying, attributing an exceptionally
high value and status, considering illustrious and magnificent, holding the
opinion of an especially high rank, thereby supposing to honor, extol,
celebrate, dignify, and magnify in me for the God. (Galatians 1:24)

The most appropriate way to conclude this chapter is to provide a review of

everything Paulos has written in his first chapter. It has been a rough ride to a
place most wouldnt have even dared to imagine...
Paulos, an apostle or delegate, not separating men, not even by the
means of man, but to the contrary and emphatically on behalf of Iesou
Christou and God, Father of the one having roused and awakened Him for
public debate, raising Him out of a dead corpse, (1:1) and all the brothers
with me to the called out of the Galatias, (1:2) Grace to you and peace from
God, Father of us and Lord Iesou Christou, (1:3)
the one having produced and given Himself on account of the sins and
errors of us, so that somehow, through indefinite means, He might possibly
gouge or tear out, pluck or uproot us from the past circumstances and old
system which had been in place which is disadvantageous and harmful,
corrupt and worthless, malicious and malignant extended downward from
and in opposition to the desire and will, the inclination and intent of God and
Father of us, (1:4)
to whom the assessment of the brilliant splendor, the opinion regarding
the glorious radiance and appearance of the shining light, the
characterization of a manifestation of Gods reputation, by means of the old
and the new systems, Amen, let it be so. (1:5)
I marvel, am amazed and astonished, wondering and surprised that
namely in this way quickly and in haste you change, desert, and depart,
becoming disloyal apostates and traitors away from your calling in the name
of Grace to a different healing message and beneficial messenger, (1:6)
which does not exist differently, if not conditionally or hypothetically
negated because perhaps some are the ones stirring you up, confusing you,
and also wanting and proposing to change and pervert the beneficial
messenger and healing message of the Christou, (1:7)
but to the contrary, if we or a messenger out of heaven conveys a healing
messenger or beneficial message to you which is approximate or contrary to,
beyond, or positioned alongside what we delivered as a beneficial messenger
and announced as a healing message to you then a curse with a dreadful
consequence exists. (1:8)
As we have said already, and even just now, immediately thereafter,
repetitively, I say, if under the condition someone delivers a helpful
messenger or communicates a useful message to you contrary or in
opposition to, close or approximate to, even greater than that which you
received, it shall be (in fact I command and want it to exist as) a curse with a
dreadful consequence. (1:9)
For because currently and simultaneously, men I persuade, I presently,
actively, and actually use words to win the favor of, seducing, misleading,
coaxing, convincing, appeasing, and placating, or alternatively, the God? Or
by comparison and contrast, I seek and desire to please and accommodate
humans? Yet nevertheless, if men, I was pleasing and accommodating,
exciting the emotions of and lifting up a slave of Christou, certainly not was
me. (1:10)
But nevertheless, I profess and reveal to you brothers of the beneficial
message which having been communicated advantageously by and through
myself, because it is not in accord with man. (1:11) But neither because I by
man associating myself with it. Nor was I taught or instructed as a disciple.
But to the contrary, by way of a revelation, an appearance serving to uncover
and unveil Iesou Christou. (1:12)
For because indeed you heard of my wayward behavior in some time and
place in the practice of Judaism, namely that because throughout, showing
superiority, surpassing any measure of restraint, to an extraordinary degree,
and better than anyone else, I was aggressively and intensely pursuing,
persecuting, oppressing, and harassing the Called Out of God, and I was and
am devastating her, continuing to undermine, overthrow, and annihilate her.
(1:13)
And so I was and continue to progress, accomplishing a great deal, and I
persist moving forward in the practice of Judaism, over and beyond many
contemporaries among my race, excessively and over abundantly
enthusiastic, zealous and excited, devoted and burning with passion,
vehemently adherent to belong to the traditions and teachings handed down
by my forefathers. (1:14)
 But at a point in time when it pleased and was chosen enjoyable and
better for God, the one having appointed me, setting me aside out of the
womb of my mother (1:15) to reveal and disclose, uncovering and unveiling
the Son of Him in order that I could announce the healing message among
the races, immediately. I did not ask the advice of or consult with flesh or
blood. (1:16)
I did not ascend into Yaruwshalaim toward the goal of being with or
against the Apostles before me, but to the contrary I went away, withdrawing
to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. (1:17) Then later in the sequence
of events, after three years time, I ascended up to Yaruwshalaim to visit and
get acquainted with Kephas and remained against / with him fifteen days.
(1:18) But other of the Apostles, I did not see, I did not pay attention to, or
concern myself with except Yaaqob, the brother of the Lord. (1:19)
But now what I write to you, you must pay especially close attention in
the presence of God, because I cannot lie. (1:20) Thereafter, I came to the
regions of Syria and also of Cilicia. (21) But I was not known and was
disregarded, I was either ignored or ignorant, not recognized or understood,
personally by appearance as an individual by the Called Out of Yahuwdah in
Christo. (1:22)
But then only they were constantly hearing that the one presently
pursuing and persecuting, systematically, hastily, and intensely approaching,
oppressing and harassing us at various times now he presently proclaims a
healing message of faith which once or now at some unspecified period he
was attacking and continues to annihilate, he was consistently ravaging and
destroying and he is devastating and overthrowing. (23)
And so they were praising and glorifying, attributing an exceptionally
high value and status, considering illustrious and magnificent, holding the
opinion of an especially high rank, thereby supposing to honor, extol,
celebrate, dignify, and magnify in me for the God. (Galatians 1:24)
It is spellbinding.

LE: 05-26-2013
 Questioning Paul
Volume 1: The Great Galatians Debate
Is Christianity Right or Wrong?

Yaruwshalaim Source of Reconciliation

What Really Happened in Yaruwshalaim

Shauwl continued his travelogue and autobiography with an inaccurate

statement. With respect to the reason for and timing of the meeting in the heart of
the Promised Land, the wannabe apostle lied when he wrote:
Later (epeita thereafter in the sequence of events), through (dia by)
fourteen (ekatessares) years (etos) also (palin furthermore, again, and
additionally), I went up (anabaino I ascended and rose) to (eis) Yaruwshalaim
(Hierosoluma transliteration of the Hebrew name Yaruwshalaim, meaning
Source from which Guidance Regarding Reconciliation Flows) along with (meta)
Barnabas (Barnabas of Aramaic origin from bar, son of, naby, a prophet),
having taken along (symparalambano having brought) also (kai) Titus (Titos
of Latin origin meaning honorable). (Galatians 2:1)
Yaruwshalaim is where the Covenant was conceived and confirmed. It is the
place Yahowsha honored Yahowahs promises, and on behalf of the Covenants
children observed Passover, Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits, and Seven Sabbaths.
It is the source from which guidance regarding reconciliation of the relationship
flow. So it is incomprehensible that Shauwl would spend nearly two decades
within walking distance of the place and people who witnessed the most
important four days in human history, and not stop by on occasion to soak it all in.
And yet, since Shauwl will associate Yaruwshalaim with the enslavement of
mankind two chapters hence, his disdain for Yahowahs favorite place on Earth
shouldnt be all that surprising. Shauwl, and the faith he conceived, would
ultimately become adverse to Yahowahs Chosen People, Promised Land, Torah,
Covenant, and Invitations.
I went up (anabaino), but then (de) downward from (kata - down,
toward, along with, according to, and through) an uncovering (apokalypsis a
disclosure or vision that makes the unknown known, an unveiling which lays
bare; from apokalupto to uncover and unveil) and set forth (kai anatithemai
set before and laid down) to them (autos) the beneficial messenger (to
euangelion the healing messenger) which (o) I preach (kerysso I proclaim,
announce, and herald) among (en in) the races (tois ethnos people from
different races, places and cultures) down from (kata) ones own (idios
uniquely and separately),... (Galatians 2:2)
As we consider the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with
McReynolds English Interlinear rendition of this statement to further illustrate the
deplorable quality of Shauwls writing, beware that I checked a dozen lexicons
and all but one defined kata as downward from, not by. Not a single
dictionary listed by as an option. I went up but by uncovering and I set up to
them the good message that I announce in the nations by own... If we were
evaluating a creative writing assignment prepared by a developmentally
disadvantaged child in the sixth grade, we would be inclined to listen to this with
a sympathetic ear, but that is hard to do when the scribe is an adult claiming
divine inspiration. And keep in mind, the Nestle-Aland is the most universally
respected textual resource.
In due time, we will come to understand the reason that this unveiling came
kata downward, why Paul anatithemai set forth and laid down his
message as opposed to simply sharing it, and why he did so idios on his own,
uniquely and separately from anyone else. But between the attitude on display
here and the quality of the writing, something remains seriously amiss.
In actuality, Paul is lying again. He was compelled to go to Yaruwshalaim as
a result of a conflict between his message and the Torahs instructions. This
summit would include the most influential men on the planet at that time,
Yahowshas Disciples, in addition to the leadership of the Called Out in
Yaruwshalaim.
This statement includes the Greek noun euangelion, which as a compound of
eu well done, prosperous, healing, and beneficial and aggelos messenger,
literally means healing and beneficial messenger. While plausible as an
extension, its a stretch to render it: good news, as is often the case in Christian
bibles. Also, since the Greek verb kerysso, I preach, means to announce,
herald, or proclaim, by having used euangelion and kerysso together, we can
now be certain that if Shauwl wanted to say preach he would have used
kerysso, not euangelizo, here as well as in previous statements. And this
realization exposes the ubiquitous and indefensible translation errors manifest
throughout the King James and New Living Translation bibles.
As we are discovering, the epistle to the Galatians was Shauwls attempt to
reestablish a tattered reputationone that had been called into question because
he alone, among those claiming to speak for God, was willing to contradict God.
Therefore, the best way for him to appear credible while doing so would be to tell
us that he and his message had been approved and endorsed by Yahowshas
Disciples, and specifically by Shimown, Yaaqob, and Yahowchanan, the most
influential.
And if prudent to believe Paul, they may have given it to him. But if true, it
would be a favor Paul would not reciprocate.
but then (de) to the ones (tois) opinions (dokei presumptions and
suppositions) not (me) somehow perhaps (pos in some way possibly) to (eis
into) foolishly and stupidly (kenos without purpose and falsely, for nothing and
vainly) I might run (trecho I may have run in haste (present tense which
portrays an action in process with no assessment of its completion, active voice
which signifies that Shauwl is doing the running, and subjunctive mood which
presents this action as a mere possibility)) or (e) I ran (trecho I rapidly moved
hastily (aorist active indicative which conveys a moment in the past performed by
Shauwl). (Galatians 2:2)
This is nearly incomprehensible. So lets confer with the Nestle-Aland Greek
New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear to ascertain
whether this is what Shauwl actually wrote. ...but to the ones thinking not
perhaps in empty I might run or I ran. I suspect the problem is with the quality of
the writing rather than the merits of the translations.
Plunging into the words themselves, this is the first of five times we will
confront dokei opinion in the context of this letter. Its primary connotation is
to suppose and to presume, as well as to hold an opinion based upon
appearances. Dokei conveys the idea of wanting to see something a certain way,
or of someone being predisposed to a certain viewpoint. It is neither flattering
nor reassuring. And because it is not thoughtful, this isnt a ringing endorsement.
Cutting to the chase, dokei conveys a subjective opinion, as opposed to an
objective conclusion. So, in the context of an endorsement on a topic which is
literally life and death, and one so easily verified by way of the undisputed
standard, Yahowahs Towrah, this is a glaring red flag.
It gets worse in context, because in addition to the presumptuousness of
dokei, we must add the somehow and perhaps aspects of pos. Further, the
standard Paulos is claiming to have bested was kenos stupidly and
foolishness. Even I wouldnt accuse Paul of being stupid. False and vain, well
thats another story.
As weak as this supposed endorsement appears, there are reasons to suspect
that Shauwls tepid assessment may not even be accurate, or at the very least, it
may be purposefully misleading. There is another account, one more credible and
detailed than this, expressing what actually occurred during this meeting. And that
is why this may be what politicians would call spin, as opposed to an outright
lie. And in that light, this is not actually an endorsement of Paul, his message, or
his mission. This is more of an indication that something was seriously wrong:
opinions not somehow perhaps to foolishly and stupidly I might run or I
ran. Even if we could figure out the rest, this still doesnt say what he was
running to, for, or from.
In that Protestant Christianity is predicated in large part on the King James
Bibles interpretation of Pauls theology, its incumbent upon us to compare these
texts. Recognizing that Paul actually wrote, I went up, but then downward
from uncovering an unveiling which lays bare, laying down to them the
beneficial messenger which I preach among the races down from ones own,
uniquely and separately, but then to the opinions and presumptions, not
somehow perhaps into foolishness and stupidity, without purpose and
falsely, I might run or I ran, there is no basis for Gospel, privately, or
which were of reputation. KJV: And I went up by revelation, and
communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but
privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had
run, in vain. Should this be accurate, why would Shauwl consider running from
them? He had come to visit with them. And it had been he who had persecuted
them, not the other way around. Further, should Paul have actually been inspired
by Yahowah, he would have known that Gods message is never in vain only
mans. So if he is attributed saying these things, then Paul is providing us with a
window into the origin of his message.
By adding privately to this text without justification, biblical scholars,
inadvisably trusting their King James Version, have tended to disassociate Pauls
description of this meeting in Yaruwshalaim from the detailed account of the very
public Apostolic Council presented in Acts 15. I can only assume that they do
so because when the divergent testimonies are compared, Pauls credibility is
shatteredand, with it, their religion.
It is easy to see where the KJV went wrong. Rather than accommodate the
Greek text, they twisted the Latin Vulgate, the translation which gave rise to
Roman Catholicism. Jeromes amalgamated rendition reads: And I went up
according to revelation, and I debated with them about the evangelium that I am
preaching among the Gentibus/Gentiles, but away from those who were
pretending to be something, lest perhaps I might run, or have run, in vain. Since
it does not appear in the Vulgate or in the Greek, privately may have been
deployed by Francis Bacon, the suspected coordinator of the KJV, to steer clear of
the Latin translation but away from those who were pretending to be something.
Such thoughts regarding those supposedly appointed by God are debilitating for
kings and deadly for their subjects. However, by translating dokei pretending to
be something, Jerome and the Roman Church were acknowledging that Paul was
deliberately demeaning Yahowshas Disciples. And indeed he was.
The Latin Vulgates presentation also suggests that Paul was in competition
with others, debating with them racing against them. In this context, and based
upon what is revealed elsewhere, this could only mean that Shauwl is trying to
dismiss Yahowshas Disciples, discrediting them by suggesting that they were
pretending to be Apostles, while he was presenting himself as being idios
uniquely qualified to run his own race.
However, as we have acknowledged, this is actually a lame proposition. If we
are to believe that Paul was actually working with Yahowah, and doing what God
wanted done, nothing would have caused him to run away from the very men with
whom Yahowsha had entrusted with His witness. And this is especially
disturbing considering what follows, where Shauwl condemns Shimown for
running in fear.
It is becoming increasingly easy to see why so many Christians remain
befuddled and in the dark. The popular New Living Translation perpetuates the
mistakes inherent in the King James Version, and then adds some myths of their
own. I went there because God revealed to me that I should go. While I was
there I met privately with those considered to be leaders of the church and shared
with them the message I had been preaching to the Gentiles. I wanted to make
sure that we were in agreement, for fear that all my efforts had been wasted and I
was running the race for nothing. While his intent may have been to skirt the
truth by inferring that God rather than the Disciples had ordered him to appear in
Jerusalem, Paul did not actually say that his unveiling came from God, or that
it was the reason for his ascent. The contemporary audience would have
immediately recognized such suggestions as disingenuous. There is no reference
in Pauls testimony to a private meeting, but instead, Paul speaks of setting
forth and laying down the message through preaching, which is public
discourse. There was no reference to a church, nor leaders, nor to sharing in
Pauls prose. And the terms Paul selected to frame his statement were all
equivocal, and are thus the antithesis of making sure he wasnt a foolish,
stupid, deceiver, running in vain. As a result, if you have been led to believe that
this novel is a translation of the inerrant word of God, its time to abandon both
myths.
In addition to rebuking the New Living Translation for their contrived
interpretation of Shauwls letter, it is important to reinforce the fact that those
who know that they are presenting the Word of God do not seek the endorsement
of others ever. They rely exclusively on Yahowah. His testimony is
memorialized in writing, it is unambiguously and consistently stated, it is
available to everyone, and it does not change making it reliable and those who
share it dependable. Further, no matter the response, the time we spend conveying
our Heavenly Fathers teaching is never wasted. While most human endeavors
are run in vain, those who work alongside Yahowah, never run [His] race for
nothing.
However, those lost in a world of faith dont know, so they are compelled
to seek human approval. That is why believers congregate together. Perhaps the
inadequate faith of these religious publishers, thereby, seeped into their prose.
This is no small matter. It reveals why so many Christians get upset when
others dont agree with them. The insecure nature of their faith cant handle the
strain of knowing that informed and rational individuals dont support what they
have been led to believe. It is as if they worry that the slightest chip on the veneer
of their faith will cause everything to crumble. Questioning scares them, so they
react by reinforcing one another and collectively pushing the perceived threat
away.
Perhaps this is why history is rife with many extraordinary delusions and
with the madness of crowds, demonstrating that popular acceptance has never
been a measure of truth. Said another way, individual deceptions are rare, but
collective misconceptions are common.
Before we press on to Shauwls next sentence, lets linger here a moment
longer especially since the mothers milk of faith, the specter of supposition, has
now been raised. Opinions are to conclusions as faith is to trust. Since
Yahowshas Disciples had at their disposal a pair of unassailable tests to ascertain
for absolute certain whether Shauwl was speaking for Yahowah, for himself, or
on behalf of the Adversary, there was no reason for them to presume anything.
Gods criterion is straight forward, and it is easily accessible because it is found at
the conclusion of His Towrah Guidance. The best known of these tests contains
six elements (with six being the number of man):
1) Is the person a naby: someone who claims to speak on behalf of God?
(This is a screening codicil, because if a person admits that they are speaking only
for themselves, then there would be no reason for anyone to associate his or her
message with God. As for Shauwl, he unequivocally claimed to naby.)
 2) Is the person zyd: someone who oversteps their bounds, speaking
presumptuously and contemptuously, with an inflated sense of self-worth,
demonstrating self-reliance while taking liberties to defy God, someone who
arrogantly pretends to know, who insults others and is disrespectful, displaying
pride in the pursuit of personal recognition and acclaim while despising and
demeaning perceived competitors, someone who rebels against that which is
established and is prone to rage, who seethes with anger and is often furious,
overbearing, rude, and conceited in their plans (As we shall discover during our
review of Shauwls initial epistle, this could be written to say: does the person
act like Shauwl.)
3) Does the person dabar ba shem: openly and publicly preach to others,
communicating his or her message in the name of God? (As was the case with the
first codicil, this is also a screening test. If the person has an insignificantly small
audience, if his or her statements are exclusively conveyed in private, if his or her
influence is limited to a specific time and place without an ongoing legacy or
lingering consequence, then there would be no reason to apply this test. But such
is not the case with Shauwl whose public preaching and copious letters have
influenced billions.)
4) Is the persons message lo tsawah: inconsistent with what Yahowah has
instructed and directed, does his or her message conflict with what God
appointed, constituted, and taught, does it vary from His Instructions? (This is
where Shauwl is the most vulnerable because his theology is ususally the
antithesis of Yahowahs teaching.)
5) Does the person dabar ba shem aher elohym: speak in the name of gods
other than Yahowah? (When Shauwl based his doctrine upon a nullification of
Yahowahs Towrah, where Gods name and this specific instruction are
introduced, and upon a misrepresentation and misnomer of Yahowsha, while at
the same time promoting the Graces, he failed this test miserably.)
6) Are the individuals written and spoken statements consistent with that
which is hayah: existing and established, instituted by God, and with the test of
time, does what this person says bow: come to accurately reflect what has
happened in the past, and what will transpire in the future? (Shauwl not only
inaccurately conveyed the history of the Covenant, the Exodus, and Yahowshas
life, he will misrepresent current events, while also failing in his lone attempt at
prophecy.)
We are still early in our review of this epistle, so not all of the evidence
necessary to prove that Shauwl failed every aspect of this test has been revealed
thus far. But it has been presented here in connection with the reference to dokei
subjective opinion which Shauwl interjected into the previous statement so
that you know that there is an objective test. Recognizing this, you are now
properly equipped to quarrel with Shauwl if he violates clause two (of which we
already have serious concerns), four (which will serve as the focus of our
evaluation), five (of which Charis/Gratia/Grace is a problem), and six (when he
misrepresents the timing of his harpazo rapture).
Well also be looking for historic chronologies (such as his testimony
regarding the Yaruwshalaim Summit) as well as other prophetic predictions,
because without them, Yahowahs signature and endorsement will be missing.
Yahowahs prophetic trademark is required if this, or any of Shauwls letters, is
to be considered inspired. So once we have completed our review of Galatians,
we will deploy this same test to objectively determine with absolute certainty
whether or not Shauwl spoke for God.
Here is the actual text from which this test emerges: Surely (ak indeed,
emphasizing the point), the person who proclaims a message on behalf of a
deity (naby a prophet) who (asher relationally) oversteps their bounds and
speaks presumptuously and contemptuously (zyd has an inflated sense of
self-worth, demonstrating self-reliance while taking liberties to defy, who
arrogantly pretends to know, who insults others and is disrespectful, displaying
pride in the pursuit of personal recognition and acclaim while despising rivals,
who rebels against that which is established and is prone to rage, who seethes
with anger and is often furious, overbearing, rude, and conceited in their plans
(here the hiphil stem reveals that the prophet and his statements are one, thereby
sharing a similar effect and purpose, while the imperfect conjugation speaks of
their continual and ongoing influence)) for the express purpose of conveying (la
dabar for the intent of communicating a verbally or in writing (piel infinitive
construct by design and intent)) a statement (dabar) in (ba) My (any) name
(shem proper name, renown, or reputation) which accordingly (asher eth
inferring access, relationship, and benefit which) I have not expressly
appointed, taught, guided, nor entirely directed him (lo tsawah I have not
provided the totality of his instruction, nor assigned, constituted, decreed,
prescribed, or ordained for him, deliberately and demonstrably making him My
understudy (piel stem and perfect conjugation)) to (la) speak (dabar), and (wa)
who (asher relationally) speaks (dabar) in (ba) the name (shem) of other
(aher different and additional, even subsequent) gods (elohym), indeed, then
(wa) that prophet (ha naby that individual who proclaims a message on
behalf of that false deity), he (huw) is deadly (muwth devoid of life and
destructive). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:20)
Muwth makes the statements of a false prophet deadly and destructive,
revealing that those who believe him or her will die. And because this is
nothing to trifle with, we should do everything we can to destroy their message
before it infects and kills unwitting souls.
 And if (wa ky) you actually say (amar you genuinely ask over the course
of time (scribed in the qal imperfect)) in (ba) your heart (lebab your inner
nature and attitude), How (eykah) shall we actually and consistently know
(yada shall we continually possess the information required to genuinely
distinguish, discriminate, understand and acknowledge (here the qal stem was
used to convey actually, genuinely, and literally while the imperfect conjugation
reveals that the ability to know is ongoing, consistent, and continual irrespective
of time)) accordingly if the (eth ha whether the) statement (dabar written or
spoken communication) which (asher under the expectation of a beneficial
relationship) he speaks or writes (dabar his complete testimony (here the
prefect conjugation requires us to examine the totality of the persons written and
spoken communication while the piel stem reveals that our perceptions of the
objects writings, Yahowahs Towrah in this case, suffer the effect of the false
prophets testimony)) is not (lo) Yahowahs ( )?
If that which (asher) is deliberately spoken over time (dabar has
continually orchestrated through written or spoken communication (with the piel
stem the subject influences the object and with the imperfect conjugation the
consequence is ongoing)) by the one who proclaims the message (ha naby
prophet who claims divine inspiration) in (ba) Yahowahs ( ) name (shem
reputation and renown) is not literally and consistently present and established
(lo hayah is not actually instituted and existing (qal imperfect)), or it does not
actually come to be (wa lo bow does not consistently arrive (such as a
predicted harvest) or literally happen (such as an errant prediction) (qal
imperfect)), the message (ha dabar the written statement and spoken
communication) which (asher from the perspective of a beneficial relationship)
he (huw), himself, has deliberately spoken to influence (dabar the totality of
what he has communicated orally and in writing to effect ones perceptions
regarding the object, which is God (piel perfect)) is not (lo) Yahowahs ( ).
In (ba with) arrogance and presumptuousness (zadown with an inflated
view of himself, self-willed and self-motivated, this morally flawed, disrespectful,
imprudent, insulting, and shameless individual has taken great liberty while
overstepping all due bounds in contempt of the established authority), the
prophet (ha naby the one claiming to be issuing inspired statements from God)
has spoken and written (dabar he has conceived and presented his message
(piel perfect he has completely and deliberately sought to influence)).
You should not respect or revere him nor conspire to rebel with him (lo
guwr min you should not fear him, join him, congregate or live with him
either). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:21-22)
It should be noted that while hayah exists, is instituted, and is established
and bow come to be convey somewhat similar thoughts in English; they
dont in Hebrew. By using them in conjunction with each other, Yahowah is
telling us that if anything a prophet says is divergent from what He has already
instituted and established in His Word or inconsistent with history, both past and
future, this prophet was not inspired by God. Those who speak for Yahowah,
must, therefore, accurately describe what has occurred in addition to accurately
predicting what will occur, while never contradicting anything God has said.
So while it will soon become obvious that Paul flunked the prophecy and
consistency aspects of this test, dont discount the difficulty of flawlessly
reporting prior events. Neither Paul nor Muhammad could do it, and they,
thereby, failed the test of history past.
In addition, hayah is not only the basis of Yahowahs name, it is related to
the Hebrew word for life, chay. And the primary meaning of bow is to go
from one place to another, and to arrive, coming upon the scene. As such, by
using hayah and bow, Yahowah, who is the source of life, is predicting the
arrival of Yahowsha, tangibly demonstrating the power of prophecy. After all,
predicting the arrival of the Maaseyah, while teaching us how to recognize Him,
was the primary purpose of this test in Dabarym / Words 18.
Also, depending where the negation provided by lo is placed in the
concluding thought, Yahowah could be saying that a false prophet should not be
revered or respected, neither dreaded nor feared. He may be conveying this so
that we become more comfortable aggressively exposing and condemning those
who deliberately contradict His message.
So now that you are aware of this assessment, lets consider another.
Yahowahs teaching regarding false prophets was initially broached in Dabarym /
Words / Deuteronomy 13. Its evaluation is especially troubling for those who
embrace Shauwl because it reveals that we should not listen to anyone who
dismisses any aspect of the Towrah, who adds to the Towrah, or who claims to
have received divine revelations, especially if they claim to perform signs and
wonders, or if they promote service to or worship of a different god. It reads:
With regard to (eth) every (kol) word (dabar statement) which
beneficially (asher) I am (any) instructing (tsawah providing guidance and
direction to) you with accordingly (eth eth), observe it (shamar closely
examine and carefully consider it, focusing your attention on it) for the purpose
of (la) engaging in and acting upon it (asah responding by profiting from and
celebrating it), not adding to it (lo yacaph al never increasing it (through a
New Testament, for example)) and not subtracting from it (wa lo gara min
reducing nor diminishing the intent (by suggesting that it can be distilled into a
single promise, a single act, a single statement, or a single profession of faith, for
example)).
 Indeed, if (ky) a prophet (naby a person who claims to proclaim the
message of a deity and / or foretell the future) stands up trying to establish
himself (quwm rises up and exalts himself) in your midst (ba qereb) or an
interpreter of revelations (chalowm chalam), and provides (wa natan) a sign
(owth an omen via a consent decree (thereby claiming to be authorized to speak
for God as Shauwl did)) or (o) miracle (mowpheth something which appears
marvelous or wonderful, inspiring awe (as Shauwl claimed as well)) to you (el),
and the omen or miracle worker (ha owth o ha mowpheth) appears before
you (wa bow) who has spoken thusly (asher dabar who has communicated
and promised this) to you (el) to say (la amar), Let us go after (halak achar
later let us again walk toward and follow) other (acher different or additional)
gods (elohym) which (asher) you have not known (lo yada you do not
recognize and are not familiar with) and let us serve and worship them (wa
abad ministering on their behalf), do not listen to (lo shama el) the words
(dabar statements) of that prophet (ha huw naby) or (o) interpreter of
revelations (ha huw chalowm chalam), because (ky) the test (nacah the means
to learn if something is true) of Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym),
accordingly (eth) for you (la) to know (yada to recognize, acknowledge, and
understand) is whether this affirms your (ha yesh) love (ahab relationship
with and affection) for Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), with all (ba kol)
your heart (leb) and with all (wa ba kol) your soul (nepesh).
After (achar following) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), you
should walk (halak you should be guided and directed (which means following
His Towrah guidance)). And with Him (wa eth), you should always and
genuinely be respectful (yare you should actually show admiration, reverence,
continually and esteem (qal stem denotes a literal interpretation and genuine
response while the imperfect conjugation conveys that this respect should be
ongoing throughout time)). And (wa in addition) in concert with (eth in
association with and concerning) His terms and conditions (mitswah His
directions and prescriptions, the codicils of His binding covenant contract and His
instructions regarding the relationship), you should continually and actually be
observant (shamar you should consistently focus upon them, closely examining
and carefully considering them (qal imperfect)).
Concerning His voice (wa ba qowl then regarding His proclamations and
pronouncements), you should always and literally listen (shama you should
make a habit of continually hearing (qal imperfect)) so that (wa), with Him
(eth), you can consistently serve (abad always engage as a productive
associate (qal imperfect)). And (wa) to Him (ba with Him), you should always
choose to cling (dabaq you should literally and genuinely stay close, actually
choosing to join together and be united, tightly holding on (scribed in the literal
qal stem, the continuous imperfect conjugation and the paragogic nun ending
which serves as an expression of freewill)).
So therefore (wa), that prophet (ha huw naby) or (o) interpreter of
revelations (ha huw chalowm chalam) is deadly (muwth he is the absence of
life, is destructive and damning (with the hophal stem, the subject of the verb, in
this case, the false prophet, causes the object of the verb, which is those listening
to him, to participate in the action which is to die)). For indeed (ky because this
is reliable and true) he has spoken (dabar the entirety of what he has
communicated is totally (scribed in piel stem whereby the object suffers the effect
of the action and the perfect conjugation, collectively communicating that
everything the false prophet said should be considered revolting because it totally
separates us from God because it is)) rebellious renunciations (carah of revolt
and disassociation, of turning aside and departure, of defection and withdrawal, of
being removed) concerning and against (al) Yahowah ( ), your God
(elohym), the One who led you out (ha yatsa eth the One who descended to
serve you by extending Himself to lead you out) from (min) the realm (erets) of
the crucibles of Egypt (mitsraym human oppression and divine judgment) and
the One who redeemed you (wa ha padah the One who ransomed you) from
the house (min beyth) of bondage and slavery (ebed of servitude and
worship).
His desire is to seduce and scatter you (la nadach his purpose is to entice
and compel you to be drawn away and thrust aside) from (min) the way (ha derek
the path) which beneficially (asher which fortuitously as a result of the
relationship), Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), described, providing you
with a complete set of directions (tsawah He taught, told, and instructed you,
totally appointing these prescriptions for you (scribed in the piel stem, these
directions guide those who follow them, teaching and instructing them, and in the
perfect conjugation, it means that these existing directions are totally complete))
for you to walk in (la halak ba).
And so (wa) you can choose to completely remove (baar as an
expression of freewill, you can totally purge, completely ridding so that it no
longer exists (scribed in the piel stem, perfect conjugation, and consecutive mood
telling us that all things displeasing to Yahowah are completely removed from us
when we choose to follow His Towrah directions, including)) that which is
disagreeable, displeasing, and evil (ha ra that which is wicked, no good,
counterproductive, immoral, malignant, mischievous, troubling, undesirable,
unpleasant, distressing, injurious, and harmful) from your midst (min qereb
from your inner nature and thus from your soul). (Dabarym / Words /
Deuteronomy 13:1-6)
 I dare say that Pauls revolting review of Yahowahs Covenant and his
animosity towards His Towrah Teaching wouldnt engender love or respect for
the God who authored and offered them. Therefore, the only way to cling to Paul
would be to let go of God.
What Yahowah has reinforced with this test is consistent with my personal
experience. It wasnt until I took the Towrah seriously, closely examining and
carefully considering its guidance and teaching, that I came to realize that Paul
was a false prophet. The god Paul was describing and the means to salvation he
was presenting in his letters were completely different than the God and path I
came to know in the Towrah.
Summarizing this, Yahowah has said that the best way to know who isnt
speaking for Him is to closely examine and carefully consider every word written.
He says that knowing and understanding that His Towrah is His source of
instruction comes first. Acting upon His guidance and engaging in the Covenant
Relationship is next. Then God says that no one has been or will be authorized to
add to or subtract from His Towrah. Therefore, if we witness the Towrahs role in
our lives being diminished, or if we find a writer adding something new, like a
new covenant, be careful because such a person isnt speaking for God.
Yahowah reveals that if the prophet stands up claiming to have received a
revelation from God, and establishes himself, personally speaking his own words
in his own name, he is a false prophet. If he claims to have performed miracles, he
is a false prophet. If he encourages his audience to go after other gods by other
names, like the Roman Gratia or Greek Charis, he is a false prophet. If he
promotes religious worship, he is a false prophet. If his writings dont affirm our
love for Yahowah, he is a false prophet. If he directs his audience to disregard the
terms and conditions of the Covenant or the Path God has provided for our
salvation, he is a false prophet. And of such revelations, God says that they are in
opposition to Him, both ruinous and deadly, so we should completely remove that
prophets disagreeable, displeasing, and evil stain from our midst.

Since this has been Shauwls personal revelation, his testimony, and his race
against Yahowshas Disciples, and, indeed, his pursuits against everything
Yahowah has established and offered, in the context of him running this race, it is
time we return to Chabaquwq / Habakkuk. While we briefly considered
Yahowahs foreboding testimony through this largely unknown prophet in the
previous chapter, this time we will linger and be more thorough.
 But first, this reminder. Shauwl wrote: Later, through fourteen years,
also, I went up to Yaruwshalaim along with Barnabas, having taken along
also Titus. (2:1) I went up, but then downward from uncovering an unveiling
revelation which lays bare, laying down to them the beneficial messenger
which I preach among the races down from my own, uniquely and
separately, but then to the opinions, presumptions, and suppositions, not
somehow perhaps into foolishness and stupidity, without purpose or falsely, I
might run or I ran. (2:2)
As we shall discover in the concluding chapter of Questioning Paul,
Yahowahs haunting prediction regarding Shauwl was announced 666 years prior
to the time Galatians was written by the Devils Advocate. And as a preview of
that final review of Chabaquwq, here is an excerpt of what the prophet revealed in
his opening statements:
Toward You, there are cruel lies and great injustice, error leading to
death and destruction, so You continuously withhold salvation. (1:2)
Lies and injustice are conspicuous to me and are related. So he has been
and continues to be contentious, taunting, and quarrelsome, insulting in a
dispute, and hostile in opposition, harboring a different perception regarding
the proper standard which put God and man in conflict. And also, strife and
dissention, even argumentative objections with regard to vindication, he
brings, actually lifts up, and continuously advocates. (1:3)
So likewise, therefore, based upon this, he consistently incapacitated and
genuinely paralyzed the purpose of the Towrah (the source from which
teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance flows). So he did not bring
forth the glorious and eternal approach to vindicate by justly resolving
disputes. For indeed, wickedness encompasses and guilt abounds, hemming
in the hopeful against the righteous and innocent. So therefore, in this
manner, his judgment regarding his ongoing means to vindication is
perverted and distorted, twisted and false. (1:4)
Witness among the Gentiles, observing, considering and evaluating, so as
to be astonished and astounded, amazed and surprised, that indeed, a work
will be done in your days that you will not find credible even when it is
written down and he is held accountable. (1:5)
Rather, look to Me, paying attention to Me, standing upright,
established, and restored against the Chaldeans (a synonym for the
Babylonians), the nation of heathens and pagans that is disagreeable and
poisonous, impetuous and senseless. He makes his way to the vast expanses of
the world as if an inheritance, taking possession of inhabited places that are
not his. (1:6)
 Terrible, dreadful, and intimidating: this from his decision, his plan, and
lofty status which he brings forth, advances and spreads. (1:7)
Then at that time, he will actually go with a new and completely
different spirit, exchanging the existing Spirit for a totally dissimilar spirit.
He will become arrogant, meddling, intoxicating, and alienating. He is totally
guilty and will actually suffer punishment, genuinely enduring recompense
for his acknowledged offenses. For this is the influence of his god. (1:11)
Are You not from eternity, an unlimited duration of time, Yahowah, My
God, My Set-Apart One? You cannot die and cannot be killed, Yahowah.
Concerning this, judgment You have appointed for him.
And the Rock, You have established to argue against and rebuke him,
You have positioned, appointed, and ordained to prove that he is wrong, to
chide him, accusing and judging him. (1:12)
Too flawless and clean are eyes to witness such malignant and
displeasing evil. To look upon, consider, and evaluate such grievous and
perverse labor, the travail of childbirth this painful and full of iniquity, You
cannot endure.
Why would You look at or consider treacherous betrayal that is neither
trustworthy or reliable? You are silent and still, inactive, neither listening,
speaking, nor taking action in devouring the wicked more righteous than
him. (1:13)
With that introduction, God reveals that He isnt about to alter any of the
requirements to participate in His Covenant nor change the approach that He has
taken to facilitate our salvation by way of His Invitations. This alone is sufficient
to put Shauwl in opposition to Yahowah.
Upon (al on this) My requirements and responsibilities (mishmereth
My mission which functions and serves as a safeguard to watch over and preserve
the observant; from shamar to observe, closely examining and carefully
considering, retaining My focus), I have decided I will literally and continually
stand (amad I will always be present, actually standing and thereby genuinely
enabling others to consistently stand, sustaining and enduring (scribed in the qal
stem which addresses actual events which are to be interpreted literally, imperfect
conjugation which reveals that Gods presence here will continue throughout
time, and in the cohortative which expresses volition and desire)). And (wa) I will
choose to always stand and present Myself (yatsab I will consistently stand
firm, appearing and presenting Myself (the hithpael stem tells us that God alone is
taking this stand, the imperfect conjugation reveals that His stand is consistent,
continual, and enduring throughout time, and the cohortative form conveys the
idea that where and how He presents Himself is His choosing)) upon (al on the
Almightys) that which protects and fortifies (matsowr the defensive
stronghold which safeguards, preventing a successful attack by the adversary).
So then (wa) I will be on the lookout (tsapah I will of My own volition
continually keep watch (scribed in the piel stem where the object of the verb
suffers its effect, imperfect conjugation which reveals that God is constantly
observant, and cohortative form, affirming that this is His decision)) in order to
see (la raah so as to observe, consider, and perceive) what he will say about
Me (mah dabar ba posing a question concerning what he will communicate
regarding Me and what message he will convey in association with Me). But then
(wa) how can I be expected to change My attitude, My thinking, or My
response (mah suwb why should I reverse course and mislead) concerning (al
during and upon) My disapproving rebuke (towkechath My complaint,
correction, reproof, and strong disapproval, My rational arguments in response
and subsequent punishment). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:1)
Just as God announced that He would be on the lookout for the likes of
Shauwl, ever ready to disapprove and rebuke him or anyone suggesting that God
has changed His plans or approach, so should we have been. And specifically
Shauwl because no one else in all of human history fits this prophecy besides
him. He not only tried to change Gods requirements, specifically His stand on
participation in the Covenant relationship and the path to salvation, replacing
Gods approach with his own, he claimed to speak for God while consistently
contradicting and undermining Him.
And that is why Yahowah has introduced this prophecy in this way. By
affirming that He isnt going to replace His specific requirements for participating
in the Covenant with something as nebulous as faith, especially in Grace, nor
shirk His own personal responsibilities, whereby He has promised to become the
living embodiment of His approach to salvation through His participation in
Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread, FirstFruits, and Seven Sabbaths. God has
established Himself as being forever disapproving of Christianity, based as it is
upon Shauwls repudiation of the Torah.
A connection worth noting in what follows is that Shauwls preferred
conduit of misinformation was letters, often large and distinct ones from his own
hand. And not only has Shauwl admitted that he was running, he should have
been, just as we should be running away from him.
Then (wa) Yahowah ( ) answered, approaching me (anah
responded to me), and He said (wa amar), Write (katab use the alphabet to
inscribe) this revelation (chazown this communication from God), and then
(wa) expound upon and reiterate it using those letters (baar teaching others
its significance by plainly and clearly declaring it using large and distinct
alphabetic characters) upon (al) writing tablets (luwach engraving it in stone)
so that (maan for the express purpose and intent that), by reciting this (ba
qara by reading this), he might run and go away (ruwts he might flee).
(Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:2)
Yahowah realized that Shauwl would attempt to deceive His children.
Therefore, He not only warned us about him, He provided the means to rebuke
him so that we would not be fooled by him. Therefore, by reciting this prophecy,
we distance ourselves and all who will listen from Shauwl and his letters.
Yahowah finds the perpetrator of this scheme sufficiently deadly to warn us
specifically about him, and that is because this charlatan would claim that God
had authorized him to undermine His credibility and competence. The lines of
demarcation being so clear, and the consequences being so severe, Yahowah left
no doubt whatsoever regarding this man, naming him as we shall soon see, in the
prophecy.
And while only one man is guilty of every charge which is being laid out
before us, which is why he is identified in the third person masculine singular
throughout, there are three additional men who have earned a rebuke of this
magnitude. So pushing aside the principle culprit for a moment, chronologically,
the first of the remaining three is Rabbi Akiba. He was responsible for
establishing the Jewish religion as it is practiced today. He was a schemer of the
highest order, and extremely arrogant, but not much of a writer. And while he
operated in Yaruwshalaim, his promotion of the false Messiah bar Kocpha in 133
CE led to the Yisraelites being thrown out of Yahuwdah and to the Diaspora in
Europe. Its so immediately obvious to anyone other than an orthodox Jew that his
proclamations were deadly, there would be no reason to waste a prediction on
him.
Then there was Muhammad, the self-proclaimed Messenger of God. And
while his Quran recital in 600 CE in Arabia was based upon qara, the verb of
the last sentence (2:2), he spoke for Allah, not Yahowah, and he was illiterate.
Moreover, a literate person wouldnt need this warning to remain clear of
Muhammads verbal diarrhea, because he was simply too stupid for words. There
would have been no chance whatsoever that someone reading Yahowahs
prophets would have been fooled by Allahs messenger. Although it is interesting
to note that while Muhammad claimed that his Quran confirmed the Torah, it is
actually its antithesis. And while called a prophet, Muhammad never got one
prophecy right.
One millennia after Akiba and five centuries post-Muhammad, Maimonides
codified the principles of Judaism. He was a prolific writer, but rather than change
the Torah, he preferred instead to augment it and then misinterpret it.
Maimonides, however, was never in Yisrael, as he lived his whole life around
Muslims, not Jews, in Islamic Spain, Morocco, and Egypt. Also, like Akiba, the
Rambam never pretended to speak for God.
Collectively, these men deceived billions, but they did not promote their
delusions during the mowed meeting times something common only to
Shauwl, and which we shall learn in a moment is germane. Shauwl alone was in
Yaruwshalaim when Yahowsha was fulfilling the Mowed Miqraey Invitations
to be Called Out and Meet with God. And he not only became infamous for his
letters, he was a rabbi who did an about face to attack God from an entirely new
direction. Further, Shauwl admitted to being conceited and demon possessed
things which will loom large in a moment.
Speaking through the Prophet Chabaquwq around 600 BCE, it would be six
centuries before Shauwl would question Gods Word, earning Yahs disapproval
and punishment. Therefore, Yahowah encouraged those who first read these
words to be patient. This warning was for another day.
Still indeed (owd ky so therefore the expectation and subsequent
realization of), this revelation from God (chazown this divine communication)
is for the Mowed Appointed Meeting Times (la ha mowed for the time of
the Mowed). It provides a witness to and speaks, pouring out evidence
(puwach it reveals facts which condemn, trapping and ensnaring) in the end (la
ha qets). The extended period of time required for this question to be resolved
(im mahah question him, because no matter how long it takes) shall not prove
it false (lo kazab this revelation shall not deceive, delude, nor fail). Expect
him in this regard (chakah la be certain concerning this) because indeed (ky),
he will absolutely come (bow bow he will certainly come upon the scene and
make his appearance), neither being delayed nor lingering (lo achar).
(Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:3)
The first four Mowed Meeting Times Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and
Shabuwah were fulfilled by Yahowsha and the Set-Apart Spirit in year 4000
Yah, more commonly known as 33 CE. They enable the Covenants promises and
our salvation. Shauwl was in Yaruwshalaim at the time training to be a rabbi.
Shortly thereafter, he began undermining them.
I find it interesting that now, in 2013, just twenty years shy of Yahowahs
return, we are reading this prophecy and identifying it with Shauwl. Better late
than never, I suppose.
As bad as this is, it is about to get much worse. This specificity suggests that
Yahowah read Shauwls letters and is responding to them...
 Pay attention (hineh behold), he will be puffed up with false pride
(aphal his head will swell and he will be haughty and arrogant, he will be lifted
up for being boldly presumptuous heedless of the truth). His soul (nepesh), it is
not right nor straightforward (lo yashar he does not consider anything
appropriately and is circuitous in his reasoning, he wanders away by twisting and
convoluting the teaching, and nothing is on the level) in him (ba).
So then (wa) through trust and reliance (ba emuwnah by being firmly
established, confirmed and upheld by that which is dependable and steadfast,
always truthful and reliable), those who are righteous and vindicated (tsadyq
those who are upright, innocent, and acquitted) shall live (chayah they shall be
restored to life, being nurtured and growing). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This /
Habakkuk 2:4)
While narrowing in on Shauwl in the first stanza, in the second, Yahowah
reminds us that vindication and life everlasting come to those who trust and rely
on His firmly established and always dependable testimony. This is and always
has been the antidote for religion, especially Pauls Christianity.
And yet in Galatians 3:11, in the midst of his initial assault against the Torah,
Shauwl misquotes this verse, the very one which condemns him for mocking
God, removing it from its context and truncating it, all to promote a faith based on
ignorance... But because with regard to the Torah absolutely no one is
vindicated or justified by God becomes evident because: Those who are
vindicated, justified, and righteous out of faith will live.
But as is the tendency of a daredevil when faced with the specter of death,
Shauwl was so transfixed by this damning and deadly prophecy regarding him,
he cited it again, this time at the beginning of his most famous letter: For in it
the righteousness of God is revealed from belief to belief, as it has been
written, But the righteous shall live by belief. (Romans 1:17) Shauwl and
Satan are taunting God. Their collective arrogance is unmatched.
Moving on, there are six specific details in this next prophetic statement from
Yahowah, all of which implicate Shauwl six hundred years before he
incriminated himself. But one clue in particular removes any doubt about whom
God is warning us about because Yahowah identifies His foe by name. If you are
a Christian, you may want to pay special attention to this...
Moreover (aph), because (ky) the intoxicating wine and inebriating
spirit (yayn the consequence of the inebriation) of the man (geber the
individual human being) of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal
(bagad of adulterous and offensive behavior, of handing people over to the
influence and control of another without justification through trickery and deceit)
is a high-minded moral failure (yahyr is arrogant, meritless presumptive), he
will not rest, find peace, nor live (wa lo nawah then he will not succeed,
achieve his aim, or reach his goal, not be beautifully adorned nor abide (qal
imperfect)), whomever is open to the broad path (asher rachab the wide,
greedy, opportunistic, duplicitous, and improper way) associated with (ka
according to) Shauwl (Shauwl the personal and proper name of the individual
in question, it is also the name of the place of separation, the realm of the dead,
the dominion of questioning: Sheowl (sheowl and shauwl are written identically
in the Hebrew text (consider Strongs 7585 and 7586))). He (huw) and (wa) his
soul (nepesh) are like (ka) the plague of death (maweth a pandemic disease
that kills a large population of people).
And so (wa) those who are brought together by him, accepting him
(acaph el those who associate with and join him, those who are removed and
withdrawn by assembling with him, moving toward him and thereby gathered in
and victimized by him) will never be satisfied (lo saba will not find
contentment nor fulfillment (based upon the Dead Sea Scrolls)). Most every
Gentile (kol ha Gowym the people from every race and place) will gather
together unto him (qabats el will assemble before him), all of the people
from different races and nations (kol ha gowym). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This
/ Habakkuk 2:5)
In 1 Corinthians 11:20-21, Shauwl / Paulos tells those who have joined his
assembly not to participate in Passover, which is the ultimate plague of death, and
not to drink wine in association with it, which thereby nullifies the symbolism
associated with the blood of the Passover Lamb. This serves as a treacherous
betrayal of Yahowahs instructions regarding the narrow path He provided to
salvation. Attacking the core of Yahowahs plan is the epitome of
presumptuousness and immorality. Those who ascribe to such moral turpitude die.
Those who promote it will find themselves in Sheowl along with Shauwl. And
yet, Pauline Doctrine is popular, providing for those who are open to it, mans
broadest path to destruction. Yahowsha will differentiate this same immensely
popular and broad path from the Towrah in His Instruction on the Mount,
revealing that religious affiliations lead to death and destruction.
Shauwl promises the gift of life, but his religion, the most popular ever
conceived, is the plague of death. Shauwl promises heavenly rewards to those
who place their faith in his Gospel of Grace, and yet those intoxicated by this
myth will find no satisfaction or contentment. They will remain estranged from
God because, unlike Yahowahs assurances in the Towrah, Shauwls hallow
promises will all go unfulfilled. And that means that the people Shauwl claimed
as his own, the Gentiles individuals from many different races and places will
suffer the consequence of his New Testament.
 Even if Shauwl had not been condemned by name, with the mention of the
Gentiles, or the ethnos races in Pauls parlance, Rabbis Akiba and
Maimonides have now been eliminated from the potential list of contentious
culprits not that it isnt already obvious. These religious stalwarts corrupted
Yahuwdym not Gowym.
Pauline Doctrine has influenced more people in more places in this world
than any other corruption of Yahowahs testimony. And the means to this
madness is consistent with Yahowahs prophecy, in that Paul inferred that God
had authorized him to alter the requirements upon which Yahowah has already
taken His stand.
Shauwl, like Satan before him in the Garden, shortchanged Yahs testimony,
removing His directions from their context to beguile individuals into believing
that God had instituted the changes. Every time Shauwl quotes Yahowah, it is
always a terse reference which is lifted as an object of scorn to ridicule the Torah,
most often with these allusive references serving as clichs simple adages which
are easy to articulate and remember.
In spite of this, and even though Shauwl means Question Him, nary a
Christian considers the irresolvable conflicts between Pauls letters and Gods
Word. So while the following continues to identify the culprit, most Christians
remain oblivious to Yahowahs prophecy regarding them or him...
They do not ask questions, any of them, about him (ha lo eleh kol al
nor are any of them against him). Terse references to the Word they lift up as
taunts to ridicule (mashal nasa simplistic and contrived equivalencies, often
easy to remember aphorisms (clichs, dictates, and adages) become bywords with
implied associations with that which is well known to mock and to exercise
dominion through comparison and counterfeit), along with (wa) allusive sayings
and mocking interpretations (malytsah derisive words wrapped in enigmas
arrogantly spoken).
There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him
(chydah la there are difficult enigmas to be solved, dark and hidden secrets, and
double dealings, to be known regarding him). And (wa moreover) they should
say (amar they should declare), Woe (howy alas, expressing a dire warning)
to the one who claims to be great so as to increase his offspring, acting like a
rabbi (rabah to the one who thrives on numbers and who considers himself
exceedingly great (the basis of rabbi, something Shauwl claimed to be)),
neither of which apply to him (lo la which is not his). For how long (ad
mathay until when) will they make pledges (abtyt will they be in debt)
based upon his significance (al kabed pursuant to the weight and burden of
his testimony and the grievous honor afforded him)? (Chabaquwq / Embrace
This / Habakkuk 2:6)
Shauwl dismissed all those who would dare question him, claiming that by
doing so they were opposed to God, that they were Satanic, when the opposite
was true. And speaking of truth, the reason religious belief systems like
Christianity are adverse to questions is because those who do so lose their faith.
Evidence and reason seldom matter in matters of religion. It is only the believers
pledge of allegiance which is considered binding.
Besides, now you know why this book is entitled Questioning Paul. Turns
out, it wasnt my idea.
This next statement is associated with the previous prediction. It is rendered
from the Dead Sea Scrolls because the Qumran text differs considerably from the
Masoretic. And (wa) he loads himself down (taan he burdens himself) with
(eth) thick (aphelah dark and wicked) mud (tyt dirt and dust to be swept
away),... God is saying that the only thing kabed weighty and significant
about Shauwl is that he has covered himself and others in muck. Methinks Yah
was poking fun at Shauwls murky and messy prose.
We cannot say that we were not warned or advised. God even told us how to
respond to this horrible individual. He wants us to stand up against all forms of
corruption: political, religious, military, and economic. We are to confront lies
and liars.
...so why not (ha lo) quickly, for a short period of time (peta
instantly), rise up and take a stand (quwm)?
And (wa) those of you who are bitten and are making payments to him
(nashak those showing interest, earning money, or becoming indebted to him),
wake up from your stupor (yaqats take action and alter your state of
awareness) moving away in fear of him (zuwa in dread of him, abhorring his
terrifying and vexing nature). Because (wa) you will be (hayah) considered (la)
plunder, victimized by them (mashchah la as booty, spoiled by them).
(Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:7)
Only Paul among those who claimed to speak for God solicits money. It is
why Christian clerics embrace him. So following his example, his instructions,
Christian institutions have made merchandise of men and worst among them has
been the Roman Catholic Church. Yah is trying to rouse these victims before it is
too late.
But there is a consequence...
 Because (ky) you (atah) have plundered, stealing the possessions of
(shalal you have looted and victimized) an enormous number of (rab a great
many; and serving as the basis of rabbi) Gentiles (Gowym people from different
races and places), so (wa therefore (from the DSS)) they shall loot and
victimize (shalal plunder and rob) all of (kol) the remaining (yether the
residue of the wealth of) nations (Gowym Gentiles from different races and
places) by means of (min) the blood (dam) of humankind (adam mankind)
and also (wa) through the violent and cruel destructive forces terrorizing
(chamac the immoral maiming and murdering which oppresses) the Land
(erets the Promised Land, singular, and thus Yisrael) and (wa) Yahs city
(qiryah to Encounter Yah, Yaruwshalaim the source of teaching regarding
reconciliation, also singular; from qarah to encounter and meet Yah an
abbreviation of Yahowah), even all of those (wa kol) living in her (yashab ba
dwelling in her (Yaruwshalaim is a feminine noun)). (Chabaquwq / Embrace
This / Habakkuk 2:8)
Paul mercilessly attacks Jews throughout his letters, making them the
enemy of his new religion, thereby creating the anti-Semitism that ultimately took
root in the Christian church. Paul, a Roman citizen, seeded the hatred of Gods
Chosen People that boiled over seventy years later with the destruction of Yisrael
and Yaruwshalaim by the empires legions. It happened just as Yahowah
predicted it would. Seven hundred years from the time this prophecy was
committed to writing, Yaruwshalaim was sacked, Yisrael was salted, and those
not murdered by Rome where hauled off into slavery.
According to Yahowah, to be cut off from Him is to be estranged from the
Covenant, thereby, excluded from this relationship and forsaken which is to be
damned. Therefore, you do not want God to say of you what He said of Shauwl...
Woe (howy) to one who is cut off, coveting (batsa to one who is greedy
and dies), while wickedly (ra harmfully and immorally, adversarialy and
malignantly) soliciting ill-gotten gain (betsa theft through deception, and
threat of violence, immoral solicitation and plunder) in relation to him setting
(la sym for him to place and appoint) his house and temple (la beyth his
household and establishment) in association with heights of heaven (ba ha
marowm in an advantaged, desirable, elevated, and high place or status in
association with Gods home in heaven) so as to spare (la natsal for the
purpose of snatching away and delivering the plunder) the acquired property
and possessions (qan what has been confiscated through envy and religious
zeal, the nest egg and snare) from the paws (kaph hands and palms, the control)
of fellow countrymen (ra of those living in close proximity). (Chabaquwq /
Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:9)
 It is difficult to know if qan is the contracted form of qana to acquire
wealth, qanan nest, qenets snare, or more likely qanah acquire
property and possessions, even qana jealousy, envy, religious zeal, and
sexual passion. But in this context, I suppose they would all apply.
The Roman Catholic Church, which was founded on Pauline Doctrine, not
only constructs gold-laden cathedrals and has storehouses filled with tens of
billions of dollars of ill-gotten gain, they have positioned themselves as having
sole possession of the keys to heaven. It is interesting, however, that recently they
have had to return more than a billion dollars to the families of children their
priests have molested, priests following the Pauline mandate not to marry.
We are not yet at the point in this book where I came to first understand the
ploy Paul was using to foist his plot on the unwary. But six hundred years before
he conceived and articulated it, Yahowah was cognizant of his scheme.
You have deliberately decided upon and conspired at the advice of
another to promote a shameful plot to confuse (yaats bosheth after
consultation you have come to an informed conclusion through deliberation to
conceive and perpetrate a lowly plan with the intended purpose to confound while
displaying an adversarial attitude; note: bosheth shameful, lowly, and confusing
is from bashan the serpent, associating this adversarial scheme with Satan, with
whom Shauwl admittedly consulted) those who approach your house (la beyth
those who enter and are associated with your household and your construct),
ruining and reducing by cutting off (qatsah severely injuring and destroying
by scraping away and ending the existence of) many (rab a multitude of)
people from different races and places (gowym Gentiles; Greeks in Shauwls
parlance who he claimed exclusively for himself) and in the process (wa) losing
(chata forfeiting by impugning guilt upon through missing the way and bearing
the loss on) your soul (nepesh). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:10)
This answers a question Im often asked: did Paul deliberately perpetrate this
fraud or was he misled. It also affirms the now obvious connection between Paul
and Satan, the very spirit Shauwl claimed had possessed and goaded him.
Since beyth serves as the basis for beryth covenant, God is inferring that
Shauwls new covenant is a shameful plot designed to confuse the unwary.
And make no mistake, Paul routinely referred to himself as the father of his
faithful children, and thus of his covenant family. He wrote about life in the
household he had conceived.
To be cut off from Yahowahs one and only Covenant, the very Covenant
Shauwl condemned in Galatians, is to die with ones soul ceasing to exist. So
while the perpetrator of this crime will endure forever in Sheowl, the souls of his
victims are reduced to nothing, their lives squandered as a result of Shauwls
shameful scheme.
Indeed (ky surely and truly), the Rock (eben) as part of the structure of
a home (qyr as the walls and ceiling which provides protection for a family)
will issue a proclamation (zaaq will issue a summons for an assembly
meeting and will cry out (qal imperfect)), and (wa) that which connects (kaphyc
the plaster, the rafter, and the beam comprising the structure of a home) from
(min) the timber (ets the carpenters work, the tree, and gallows), he will
answer and respond (anah making a public declaration, providing a
contextual reply (qal imperfect)). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:11)
We will soon discover that Shimown Kephas, the man Yahowsha
personally named the Rock, summoned Shauwl to Yaruwshalaim and issued a
proclamation against him. And Shimown acquired the moniker Rock when
Yahowsha, in Hebrew, told Shimown: Upon (al) this (zeth) Rock (eben) I
will build (banah) My Invitations to be Called Out and Meet (Miqraey).
We will also find Paul embracing Gnosticism to denounce the Towrah,
thereby fixating on the flesh. So God says...
Woe to (howy a strong warning to) the one who reestablishes (banah
the one who builds a family, erects and constructs a home (qal participle)) place
of exposed naked flesh and anguish (iyr the city where terror is exposed;
from uwr to incite and to stir up by blinding and rendering the chaff naked and
laying the skin bare) in blood (ba dam through death; from damam to
destroy by making deaf and dumb), and he forms (wa kuwn he proposes,
prepares, establishes, and supports (the polel stem reveals that the subject suffers
the effect of the verbs action and the perfect conjugation affirms that the process
is complete)) a populated institution promoting (qiryah a city; from qarah
and qaryah to encounter, meet, and befall the foundation, beams, building, and
furnishings of an institution where people congregate based upon preaching)
that which is unrighteous, invalid, and harmful (ba awlah in wickedness
with evil intent, unjustly damaging others through perversity). (Chabaquwq /
Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:12)
And since there is a better option, the prophet reveals...
Why not look here and pay attention (ha lo hineh why not look up and
behold (hineh pay attention is conveyed by the two found in )) by
means of an association with (min eth by approaching and being part of)
Yahowah ( ) of conscripts who provide assistance (tsaba vast array of
spiritual implements who are enlisted and arranged in a command and control
regimen, serving as effective tools by following orders)?
 But instead (wa), the people (am family) expend their energy and grow
weary (yaga they toil and labor, growing tired for lack of rest (qal imperfect))
amongst an abundance of worthlessness (ba day esh with excessive trifling
uselessness which is of no value), and the nations which gather together
(laowm the peoples who congregate) in more than enough (ba day with an
excess of) delusions and fantasies which are poured forth which are unreal
and have no benefit, resulting in nothingness (ryq fictitious myths which are
unreliable, of empty and vain deceptions which are poured out, experienced, and
consumed) exhausting and destroying them (yaeph physically draining and
ruining them and causing them to be slighted, diminishing to nothingness (qal
imperfect)). (2:13)
Indeed (ky but this is reliable and true), She will fulfill, edify, and
completely satisfy (male She will impart an abundance of that which is
healthy, valuable, empowering, and satisfying (the niphal stem is the grammatical
voice of genuine relationships and the imperfect conjugation addresses ongoing
effects)) the land (erets realm, region, and world) to approach, to actually
know, and to become genuinely familiar with (la yada eth to move toward,
discover, and acknowledge, coming to understand and appreciate becoming
friends in association with (qal infinitive)) Yahowahs ( ) manifestation of
power, glorious presence, and abundant value (kabowd splendor, honor,
respect, status, and reward), similar to (ka) the rain (maym the waters)
providing a covering (kacah spread over and overflowing, filling and adorning
(piel imperfect)) for the sea (al yam upon a lake). (Chabaquwq / Embrace
This / Habakkuk 2:13-14)
God has a lot more to say about Shauwl, and while we need to move on and
continue to expose his letter, Id be remiss if I didnt share a couple of additional
thoughts. In the first, we find the prophet not only warning us about Shauwls
profuse venom and his perverted sexuality, he addresses Paulos little and lowly
reputation in addition to his animosity toward circumcision. So from Shauwl
and Questioning Him to Paulos and his lowly and little moniker, from
poisonous toxins to an unacceptable approach to the sign of the Covenant, this is
an indicting summation of this mans legacy.
Woe to (howy a strong warning to) the one who causes and allows his
companions and countryman to drink (shaqah ra), thereby associating them
with (caphach) this antagonizing venom upon you (chemah this poisonous
and serpentine toxin which injures and antagonizes you, making you displeasing
and antagonistic), but also (wa aph and yet surely) intoxicating (shakar) for
the purpose of (maan) looking at (nabat al) their genitals (maaowr male
genitalia). (2:15)
 You will get your fill of (saba you will be met with an abundance of (the
qal perfect indicates that his is completely reliable while the second person
masculine singular reveals that this is directed a lone male individual)) shame
and infamy, a little and lowly status (qalown dishonor, disgrace, scorn, and a
very small and humbling reputation) instead of (min) honor and glory (kabowd
the manifestation of the power and presence of God which rewards and
empowers).
Choosing to intoxicate (shathah deciding to actually inebriate (qal
imperative)), in addition (gam besides), you (atah) also (wa) elect to show
them unacceptable, going round about over their choice not to become
circumcised (arel muwcab choosing to deploy circular reasoning in altering
their perspective regarding their decision to remain uncircumcised for religious
reasons, you have chosen to actually make them unacceptable (niphal imperative
and qal imperative)).
Upon you is (al before you is) the binding cup (kowc) of Yahowahs
( ) right hand (yamyn serving as a metaphor for judgment), therefore
(wa) public humiliation and a lowly status (qyqalown shame and ignominy,
dishonor and disgrace) will be your reward (al kabowd the manifestation of
your reputation and attribution of your status (second person masculine singular
suffix thus addressing a solitary man)). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This /
Habakkuk 2:15-16)
Pauline Doctrine is poison, intoxicating venom from the most vile of
serpents. But more indicting still, Shauwl, who never knew the love of a woman,
provocatively expressed his love for a young man, Timothy. And even though
Paul detested circumcision, and spoke hatefully about the sign and requirement of
the Covenant, he personally circumcised Timothy. Furthermore, Shauwl so
craved recognition and status, he heaped it upon himself. But here God is saying
that Shauwls poisonous attack against circumcision will come full circle and
slather him in shame. The man who claimed to be Gods exclusive apostle to the
Gentiles has become the man of infamy.
I dare say, in the whole of Yahowahs prophetic testimony, no prediction is
as dire as this one. But that is because no one ever did what Paul has done. It was
not required of anyone else.
If nothing else, Yahowah has provided His evaluation of Paul and His
assessment of his followers. In this light, the only way to view him and his
religion favorably is to ignore God and estrange ourselves from Him. The debate
now is between good and evil, because the issues are white and black. We will
question everything Paul says and writes. And we will hold him accountable. It
may be too little, but it is never too late.
 And that is why we find Yahowah conveying...
Indeed from (ky this is reassuring instead because from) this grievous
injustice against and blatant wrongdoing in opposition to (chamac this
unrighteous and unrestrained campaign of error and towrahlessness in destructive
conflict with) that which purifies, empowers, and enriches (labanown
typically transliterated Lebanon, but from laban purifying, cleansing, and
whitening and own being substantially empowered, growing vigorously,
while becoming enormously enriched), He will constantly keep you covered
and continually protected (kacah He will always provide a covering by which
He adorns you, clothing and forgiving you (the piel imperfect affirms that we, as
those being clothed, receive continuous protection) and as for (wa) the
destructive demonic (shed the Devils devastating and ruinous) beasts
(bahemah), He will shatter them (chathath He will astound them, causing them
to wane) as a result of (min) the blood (dam death) of humankind (adam),
and also (wa) this grievous injustice against and blatant wrongdoing in
opposition to (chamac this unrighteous and unrestrained campaign of error and
towrahlessness in destructive conflict with) the land (erets realm, region, or
world), the city (qiryah to encounter Yahs foundation, the upright pillar,
beams, and furnishings associated with the Word), and all (wa kol) of her
inhabitants (ba yashab who have settled there to meet, to marry, to be restored,
to be established, and to live (qal participle)) (Chabaquwq / Embrace This /
Habakkuk 2:17)
And yet since most people remain oblivious to the obvious, not realizing that
the Christian Jesus Christ is a caricature who has become an object of worship,
Yahowah asks a foreboding question...
How does he succeed with a caricature (mah yaal pecel why does he
benefit by valuing an idolatrous image he has shaped (hiphil perfect))? Indeed
(ky), he will construct him (pacal he will shape it), fashioning him (yatsar
he will devise, form, and ordain him (qal perfect)) by offering a veiled form of a
pagan god (macekah by forming an alliance which conceals and an association
which hides, covering up the true identity (qal perfect)) and by teaching lies (wa
yarah sheqer and through deceptive, misleading, mistaken, and useless
instruction, guidance and direction (with the hiphil stem the subject, Shauwl, is
putting the lies into action while the participle is a verbal adjective, making Paul a
deceiver)), so that (ky) he adds credence and partiality to (batach he makes
credible and believable, even preferable, so that believers stumble and the
unsuspecting fall as a result of their penchant and fondness for and partiality to)
the one who created the construct of him (yatsar yetser the one who devised,
planned, prepared, fashioned, and formed such thoughts and reasoning regarding
him (qal participle)), for him (al) to make (asah to act and cause) the
shepherds (alylym) bound and mute (ilem tied up and negated, appearing
dumb). (2:18)
Woe to the one who says (howy amar) to the wooden pillar (la ha ets
approaching the upright timber, tree, carpenter, and gallows) return from the
dead (quwts awaken from lifelessness and become alive again after death; from
the verbal form which addresses the idea of abruptly starting something after
having been asleep), rising up to blind by providing false testimony and
precluding further observation (uwr awake in the flesh, ready to blind the
observant so that they are unjustly deprived of an accurate recollection of what
was witnessed), to the Rock (la eben), he who consistently teaches (huw yarah
he who instructs and constantly provides guidance to the Rock (hiphil
imperfect)), be silent (duwmam be silenced and be struck dumb and mute).
Behold (hineh pay attention), he (huw) has actually been seized,
captured, controlled, and then covered (taphas has been grasped hold of and
wielded skillfully (qal passive having this actually done to him)), brilliantly
shimmering (zahab splendorous and golden), extremely valuable and
desirable (keceph ornamented and gilded in silver so as to be yearned for and
desired), but (wa) without (ayn devoid of) any (kol) spirit (ruwach) in his
midst (ba qereb in his corpse and physical being animating his life).
(Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:18-19)
Shauwl will repeatedly state that the wooden pillar, more commonly
known as the Christian Cross, exists as the means to be quwts awakened
from the dead, or to be resurrected in religious parlance. He will even equate
sleep with death and speak of those who were sleeping rising up abruptly. So
this is an allusion to the Pauline fixation on the wooden cross, from which he
promotes resurrection from the dead, thereby dismissing Pesach, Matsah,
Bikuwrym, and Shabuwah in addition to Taruwah, Kippurym, and Sukah. Pauls
plan begins and ends at the cross with the death of his god.

In the most favorable light, what comes next, had it been set into a different
context, might have been designed to reflect the shamar observational view of
the Torah. Many, if not all, of its instructions are vastly more valuable to us when
we study and understand them than they are to us when we habitually do them
irrespective of their intent. In this regard, the symbolism of circumcision is even
more important than the act although both are essential to our ability to respond
to and engage in the Covenant relationship with God.
 That is not to say that we should simply disregard our Heavenly Fathers
advice. If you want to be included in the Covenant, if you want to be adopted into
His family, and if you want to be invited into heaven, if you are not currently
circumcised, get circumcised, for example. As we shall see, with Yahowah, male
circumcision is a life and death decision, one in which He is unwilling to
compromise. Therefore, my point is simply that we should seek to understand all
of Yahowahs instructions regarding life in the Covenant and then respond
rationally based upon what we have learned.
These things known, Pauls statement is misleading. In fact, without the
proper perspective, it is actually counterproductive.
To the contrary (alla by way of contrast and making a distinction), not
even (oude) Titus (Titos a Latin name meaning nurse), [the one with (o syn) me
(ego),] a Greek (Hellen) being (eimi existing (present tense, active, participle)),
was compelled (anagkazo was forced or pressured, necessitated or obligated
(aorist, passive, indicative indicating he was acted upon in the past)) to be
circumcised (peritemno to be cut off and completely separated; from peri,
concerning the account of, near, and all around, and tomoteros, to cut something
so as to create separation (aorist, passive, infinitive conveying that at that time he
was influenced in this way by the verb which has properties of a noun)).
(Galatians 2:3) (The reason for bracketing the clause the one with me is that it
isnt found in Papyrus 46, the oldest witnesses of this statement.)
Those who may place greater confidence in the McReynolds English
Interlinear associated with the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition,
here is that rendering for your convenience and consideration. But but not Titus
the with me Greek being was compelled to be circumcised. So much for the
myth that the NA27 has been updated to reflect the oldest extant manuscripts.
There is nothing posterior to P46 and they ignored it.
Regardless of ones preference or interpretation, someone actually trying to
share Yahowahs message would have provided some context and an explanation
as to why it would have ever been appropriate to force anyone to do anything.
God does not issue mandates and there are no obligations. We are all free to
accept or reject the Covenant. The choice is ours, and it is offered under the
auspices of freewill.
So while there is nothing associated with God which is obligatory, and no
choice should ever be compelled, an explanation would have gone a long way
toward helping people understand the symbolism involved in their decision
regarding whether or not to be circumcised. It is after all life and death. And that
is because while circumcision does not guarantee participation in the Covenant, or
thus salvation, a man who dies circumcised has no chance of either. If Titus
remained uncircumcised, his soul no longer exists or it is imprisoned in Sheowl.
Few things are more obvious to the observant than Yahowah does not
anagkazo compel. He is first and foremost a proponent of freewill. The
decision as to whether or not to circumcise our sons, or to become circumcised
ourselves should our parents fail to prepare us for the Covenant in this way, is
ours to make as parents and as individuals. Those who choose wisely position
their children and themselves to enjoy the Covenants benefits. Those who dont
are automatically and summarily excluded.
The somewhat complementary acts which serve to demonstrate our
acceptance or acknowledgment of the Covenant are circumcision and baptism
albeit the former is required and the later is purely symbolic. The Torahs sign
demonstrating a familys acceptance of the conditions and benefits of the
Covenant, and denoting their desire to be included in it, is circumcision. The
symbolism is hard to miss, as this sign deals with the part of the male anatomy
responsible for conceiving new human life.
And since three of the Covenants greatest benefits are eternal life, cleansing
leading to perfection, being born spiritually into Yahowahs familywater
baptism became a symbolic act demonstrating life, cleansing, and rebirth. We are
immersed in water as an outward declaration that we have chosen to be born anew
from above into Gods family, becoming His adopted children. Understanding
both is useful. And while circumcising our sons is advisable, and being
circumcised as a man essential, there is also expressive merit associated with the
symbolism of baptism.
By consistently filling in words which arent actually in the Greek text to
improve readability, without designating them as being added by way of brackets
or italics, translators have artificially elevated the status of this epistle, far beyond
what the words deserve. But other than that, the KJV rendering is permissible:
But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be
circumcised: LV: But even Titus, who was with me, though he was a
Gentilis/Gentile, was not compulsus /compelled to be circumcidi/circumcised,
Jerome, a Roman, couldnt write Greek, even though the text required it. Thats
funny in a way.
Arbitrarily putting words into Pauls mouth has lost its charm. There is no
basis for the NLTs opening clause: And they supported me and did not even
demand that my companion Titus be circumcised, though he was a Gentile. Do
you suppose that the team of scholars and religious leaders who compiled this
supposed translation really thought that Hellen meant Gentile?
 The reason that I suggested that this statement, at least without a proper
explanation, was counterproductive, is that it could be construed to suggest that
Paul and others were in a position to annul one of Yahowahs most essential
instructions. Rabbis would in fact claim this power for themselves, albeit never
regarding something as clear as circumcision. Akiba, in particular, playing off
Yahowahs penchant for volition, promoted the view that a majority vote by
Rabbis (sages) could override the Torah on any subject that was of interest to
men. This arrogant assertion eventually became the basis of Judaism as it is
practiced today, with rabbinical arguments in the Talmud superseding the Torah.
And in a roundabout way, it is also the basis of Roman Catholicism, whereby a
Pope, elected by Cardinals, is seen as having the authority to establish new rules,
even those which contradict Gods guidance. Therefore, this is one of many
places where Shauwls lack of specificity has become problematic. And frankly,
there is no way to see any of this as productive.
But thats not the only issue at play here. First, by transitioning from: Later,
through fourteen years, also, I went up to Yaruwshalaim along with
Barnabas, having taken along also Titus. (2:1) I went up, but then downward
from uncovering an unveiling revelation which lays bare, laying down to
them the beneficial messenger which I preach among the races down from
my own, uniquely and separately, but then to the opinions, presumptions,
and suppositions, not somehow perhaps into foolishness and stupidity,
without purpose or falsely, I might run or I ran, (2:2) to To the contrary,
not even Titus, a Greek being, was compelled, forced or pressured,
necessitated or obligated, to be circumcised, (2:3) without any intervening
explanation is a sure sign that: 1) The purpose of the Yaruwshalaim Summit was
designed to deal with Pauls contrarian position regarding circumcising Greeks. 2)
That Paul wanted it to appear as if the Disciples agreed with his position against
circumcision even though this would place everyone in opposition to God. 3) That
this decision not to encourage a man to be circumcised so that he could participate
in the Covenant was so fresh in everyones mind that no transition or introduction
was required to remind the audience that the reason for the meeting had been the
disconnect between Pauls message and Gods position relative to circumcision.
And as such, for this reason and many more, it is apparent that Galatians was
written immediately after the Yaruwshalaim Summit in 50 CE, which was before
Shauwls first visit to Thessalonica, Corinth, or Romethe other candidates for
his initial epistle.
Second, according to Paul, as we will learn, Titus was encouraged to become
circumcised at this meeting. Therefore Pauls testimony regarding his recent past
is once again suspector, at the very least, intentionally misleading. And that
means that he has violated the hayah clause of Yahowahs prophetic test a second
time. He has failed to accurately report what has already happened.
Third, as we shall soon discover, Yahowahs position on circumcision is
clearly stated, as is Shauwls opposition to it. Their views are the antithesis of
one another. So if what Im claiming is true, and it is, this begs the question: how
then can an informed, rational person believe that Paul was authorized to speak
for God under these circumstances? To think that Yahowah changed His position
on an issue, in which He has always been unequivocal, is to believe that God is
capricious and unreliable. And if thats the case, we cannot trust anything He
says, nor anyone who claims to speak for Him. Therefore, there is no possible
way for Paul to be credible in this conflict.
And speaking of credibility, what follows should give us pause. Regardless of
whether you or I concur with Gods position on the sign of His Covenant, the only
way to justify the reference to Tituss lack of circumcision set awkwardly
between Galatians 2:2 and 2:4 is to realize that, while this letter may have been
addressed to the Galatians, it was not about them. Shauwl went to Yaruwshalaim
to undermine the competition: Yahowshas Disciples. This letter was designed to
discredit them so that Paulos could rise unchallenged.
Grammatically, the following clause isnt the start of a new sentence. And it
has nothing whatsoever to do with Titus being a Greek or being uncircumcised (or
so it would appear). And the problem with it, apart from the fact that the required
transition is nonexistent, is that there is no reason to criticize someone or demean
anyone without demonstrating that what they have said or have done was
inconsistent with Yahowahs instructions. Paul didnt. And it wont be the last
time. And worse, its Paul who should actually be exposed and condemned for
advocating the contrarian position.
With all of this in mind, Pauls subsequent statement transitions from being
inappropriate to being devastating when seen flowing out of his opening salvo
against the Torah. If you recall, Paulos claimed that the old system which had
been in place was disadvantageous, harmful, wicked, and worthless. And since
the sign of that system was circumcision, its hard to miss the association between
this statement and Pauls underlining contention that the Torah enslaves. So
without further introduction, here is Galatians 2:4:
...but (de moreover then) on account of (dia through, by, or because of)
the (tous) false brothers (pseudadelphos impersonators who faked their
kinship, relationship, and affinity) brought in surreptitiously under false
pretenses (pareisaktos joining secretly, smuggled in), who (hostis literally:
whoever and whatever) sneaked into the group (pareiserchomai crept in by
stealth, slipping in) to secretly spy upon (kataskopeo to closely investigate,
evaluate, and consider but more typically: to lie in wait, to spy out, and to
clandestinely plot against) the freedom and liberation (ten eleutheria the
liberty and release from conscience, from binding morality, from slavery and
bondage, the emancipation from all constraints) that (en which) we (emon)
possess (echo hold on to and experience) in (en with or among) Christo
( a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples to convey the title
Maaseyah, but used here without the definite article) Iesou ( a placeholder
used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey Yahowsha,
meaning Yahowah Saves) in order that (hina) us (emas) they will actually
make subservient (katadouloo they will control for their own ends, making
slaves and bringing into bondage (future tense, active voice, indicative mood)),...
(Galatians 2:4)
Before we analyze this statement, lets reconstitute our bearings by reviewing
it in context: Later, through fourteen years, also, I went up to Yaruwshalaim
along with Barnabas, having taken along also Titus. (2:1) I went up, but then
downward from uncovering an unveiling revelation which lays bare, laying
down to them the beneficial messenger which I preach among the races down
from my own, uniquely and separately, but then to the opinions,
presumptions, and suppositions, not somehow perhaps into foolishness and
stupidity, without purpose or falsely, I might run or I ran (2:2) to the
contrary, not even Titus, a Greek being, was compelled, forced or pressured,
necessitated or obligated, to be circumcised (2:3) but then on account of the
impersonators who faked their relationship brought in surreptitiously under
false pretenses, who sneaked into the group to secretly spy upon and
clandestinely plot against the freedom from conscience and liberation from
the constraints of morality that we possess in Christo Iesou in order that us
they will actually make subservient, controlling for their own ends,... (2:4)
Therefore, we know that as a result of Pauls separate and distinct
message or messenger, it became apparent that he had to go up to
Yaruwshalaim to confront the presumptions, suppositions, and opinions of
others that he might be running foolishly and in vain. We know that not
obligating Greeks to be circumcised was the overriding issue, a topic so vital
to Pauls credibility and mission, he felt compelled to deliberately demean the
character and motives of the participants. Paul claimed that either Yahowshas
Disciples, or those they had invited into the Covenant, or both, were
impersonators who faked their relationship. He claimed that the beneficiaries of
Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuwah in Yaruwshalaim had secretly snuck
into this meeting under false pretenses to spy upon and plot against the
liberation from conscience and constraints Paul and his followers claimed to
possess. And worse, the intent of the clandestine interference of the interlopers
was to make [Paul and associates] subservient, controlling them for their own
means.
Youd expect this from Machiavelli, perhaps Goebbels, or from any
conniving and immoral politician, but it is crude, even rude, when written about
those who personally knew Yahowsha by someone claiming to speak for
Yahowsha. But at the very least, the lines of the debate have been drawn and we
are all compelled to take sides.
If we are to believe Shauwls words, they suggest that someone who claimed
to be born anew into our Heavenly Fathers Covenant family, but who had not
actually availed themselves of the adoption process (which is delineated in the
Towrah), wanted to enslave Paul and his companions, making them subservient to
them. But since the liberty the Maaseyah Yahowsha provides comes from the
Towrah, and since the benefits are eternal, this scenario isnt possible. And
flowing out of an edict against circumcision, which is required to receive any of
the benefits Yahowsha is providing by observing the Towrah, the freedom Paul
is claiming for the likes of Titus isnt possible.
While no person, spirit, government, or religious institution has the power or
authority to revoke our liberties as part of Yahowahs Covenant family, in the
culture of that day, at the time the letter to the Galatians was written, there were
only two human agencies which sought temporal submission and which had the
power to enslave individuals during their mortal existence: the Jewish Sanhedrin
and the Roman government. But if these men had been representatives of these
institutions, they would have been identified as such. Moreover, to associate the
curtailment of the liberty in Yahowsha, which is both spiritual and eternal,
with human institutions like these, which are neither, is irrational.
And why even speak of surreptitiousness, false pretences, slipping in, and
secrecy in relationship to the ekklesia called out Yahowsha and His
Disciples, especially Shimown Kephas, had guided? These would have been the
same individuals who had been empowered and enriched by the Set-Apart Spirit
during the Miqra of Shabuwah (discussed in Acts 2).
Yahowahs plan of salvation isnt a secret. Not only shouldnt we concern
ourselves with someone hearing the Word of God who shouldnt, we should want
everyone to hear it, even if they reject it and us. The liberation we experience in
our relationship with Yahowah should be so joyously expressed, that it becomes
contagious.
This diatribe sounds a bit like Paulos was part of a secret society such as
Mithraism, the Babylonian religion which became the dominant mystery religion
practiced in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 4th centuries. It is as if he was
concerned that those mysteries, the seven grades of initiation, the clandestine
symbols, the secret handshake, and insider slogans known only to the initiated,
were somehow on the verge of being compromised by a spy.
The reason Mithraism was cited as an example is because as a religiously-
oriented Roman citizen, it is quite possible that Shauwl was an initiate, especially
since the religion he and Constantine conceived embraced so many of its beliefs.
Mithras was the Savior god, not unlike Pauls depiction of his god. He was born
of a rock, something embraced by Roman Catholicism through their misguided
association with Saint Peter, the Rock. Mithras loved to ride and then
slaughter sacred bulls, symbolic of the son of the sun god usurping the old gods
authority, thereby demonstrating his superiority. And in Christianity, we find
vestiges of sun worship woven into the fabric of the faith and see the sons
religion being presented as superior to that of the fathers outdated modes.
Having done away with the old god, and thus that gods old testament, the son of
the sun could reign supreme, again in keeping with Pauls letters.
Mithras was emblazoned with scorpions and serpents, which is incriminating
because the thorn and goad Paul referenced controlling and guiding him were
synonymous with scorpion stingers, and the serpent is Satan, through whom Paul
admitted being possessed and inspired. Rather than observing Yahowahs seven
feasts, all of which Paul negated, Mithras ate supper with Sol (the Sun), who is
shown bowing to him. He is always depicted with a halo or sunburst above his
head, and is commonly shown with torch bearers whose lanterns and staffs are
upside down. Especially interesting considering Pauls inverted and twisted
testimony, depictions of Mithras are most always double-faced.
This Roman god with a Babylonian pedigree is presented amidst flashing
rays of light, even lightning bolts, just as Paul claimed to have seen him on the
road to Damascus. He is depicted with the moons blessing and approval after
having defeated the sun god, Sol. Mithras then ascends through the seven
heavens, something Paul claimed to have done as well.
The caduceus, the symbol of Mercury, the messenger of god, is universally
associated with Mithras throughout these myths, which is telling because Pauls
principle claim was to have been Gods exclusive messenger to the world.
Mithras is typically shown carrying keys, not unlike the Roman Catholic Church.
He has a scepter in his hand, denoting his authority. He either holds a globe in his
hand, or has one at his feet, conveying the notion that the world was his, again
just as was the case with Shauwl. These globes are even festooned with crosses
another Pauline fixation with a pagan past.
Especially telling, considering Pauls fixation on the death and bloodletting
of his savior, in Mithraism souls are immersed and saved in their graves by the
blood of their god so as to be bodily resurrected in harmony with Mercurys
message most of which undergirds Pauls testimony. Especially intriguing,
Mithras always wore a conical Phrygian cap, which denoted freedom from the
law in the pursuit of liberty which is hauntingly familiar to those aware of
Pauls penchant to preach freedom from the Towrah. Also interesting, the Roman
Savior who defeated the old god was costumed in Anatolian robes, the official
dress of the land of Pauls birth. He is even shown as a fountain, baptizing his
initiates.
The birthday of Mithras was December 25th, which was celebrated as the
Festival of Natalis Invicti the Birth of the Unconquerable. That means that he
was conceived, and thus resurrected each year on Easter Sunday nine months
earlier. To be saved by him, the initiate simply swore an oath of devotion making
salvation faith based. The rituals included recitals of a catechism, where believers
in the mythical god were asked to provide the prescribed answers to rehearsed
questions to receive the gift of salvation. The highest-ranking clerics were called
Pater Father, carried a shepherds staff, and wore elaborate robes emblazoned
with sunbursts, a Phrygian cap covered in thunderbolts, and a ruby ring most of
which survive today in Roman Catholicism. Their hierarchy of participation and
status are all echoed in Pauls writings as well as in Pauls legacy: the Roman
Catholic Church. Believers were united and universal, which is what catholic
means. They identified themselves through their special handshake something
Paul also introduced. Women were excluded, just as they were from Pauls
personal life. Only men could participate and become clerics also in keeping
with Pauls theology. So all of this provides us with something to think about.
Beyond the covert religious nature of mythology, and the fact that it plays no
part of our relationship with Yahowah, we must also deal with the rather peculiar
sequencing of statements and events. Paul has connected mutually exclusive
concepts and inconsistent conclusions. On one hand, he has implied that he
assumed the Disciples were somewhat supportive of his message, and that no one
suggested that a Greek be circumcised, strongly inferring that everyone was in
agreement with his position. But now, in the next breath, we discover that Paul is
facing such severe opposition, that he is compelled to exclude and demean his
foesa sure sign that he could not effectively refute their message.
And we cannot blame these incompatible associations on scribal error.
Papyrus 46 dates to within thirty-five to seventy-five years of the time Shauwl
connected these conflicting statements. Further, there is no discrepancy between
the Nestle-Aland and the oldest surviving manuscript. Further, we cannot even
blame these conflicting notions on the difficulty of translating words from one
language into another. In this case the words are perfectly clear. There is no
dispute regarding their meaningsonly the message.
 And then we have the absurd transition from not compelling circumcision to
surreptitious spies intent on making Shauwl subservient to them. On the surface,
it is insane. It does little more than provide a window into this mans soul and
affirm that Paul was insecure and malevolent. Demonstrating the resulting
paranoia, he saw everyone as a potential adversary. And so he would abandon all
moral constraints to undermine those he sought to rise above.
The best that can be said of Paul is that what he wrote was nonsense.
Yahowahs willingness to free us from human oppression isnt a secret and it
cannot be invalidated by anyoneits the foundational message of the Torah, the
Covenant, the Exodus, the Invitations, and even the Ten Statements all of which
embody an everlasting promise.
Also at issue is the fact that the men who attended this meeting were
identified in the book of Acts. They were neither Romans nor members of the
Sanhedrin. Some had been, but were no longer, Pharisees. They were all elders in
the Yaruwshalaim Called-Out Assembly, which means that they were not false
brothers. They did not sneak into the meeting; they were invited. And they were
active participants, not secret observers.
Unless something changes, we are on the cusp of having to acknowledge the
unavoidable. The evidence is all too quickly becoming undeniable. It is obvious
that God did not inspire these words. They are Pauls. And they are wrong on all
accounts.
Those who would excuse Galatians 2:4 forfeit the high ground of reason. And
yet, theologians are driven to protect the man responsible for inspiring their faith,
their prestige, and their incomes. They do so to keep from ostracizing themselves
from their fellow Christiansthose who believe that the so-called Christian New
Testament is not only Scripture, but also inerrant. And yet such an assumption is
a religious myth akin to the Greek Charities and the Roman Graces.
The Nestle-Alands McReynolds Interlinear of Galatians 2:4 reads: through
but the brought in secretly false brothers who came in along to look carefully the
freedom of us that we have in Christ Jesus that us they will enslave thoroughly,...
While the KJVs publication of Christ Jesus isnt appropriate, their
translation is otherwise accurate. In this case, the problem is with Pauls Greek,
not Bacons English or Jeromes Latin: And that because of false brethren
unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in
Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
The Vulgate acknowledges that this verse is in fact a continuation of the
previous sentence: ...but only because of false brothers, who were brought in
subintroductos/unknowingly. They entered subintroierunt/secretly to spy on our
liberty, which we have in Christo Iesu, so that they might reduce us to servitude.
Jeromes rendering also associates the reason for not compelling circumcision
with the arrival of the false brothers. So other than the transliteration of a
nonexistent name and title (those of the Maaseyah Yahowsha), the Latin
translation was quite literal.
Being literal, however, simply illuminates the senselessness of Shauwls
words. Therefore Jerome explained: ~ The sub prefix of both subintroductos
and subintroierunt indicate secrecy or a lack of knowledge about the action of
the verb. In other words, the true brothers did not realize at first that these others
who were brought into the Faith were false brothers. They entered while their
intentions and falseness were unknown. But this doesnt help. No man has the
power or authority to alter what Yahowah has said and what Yahowsha has done.
When reading a novel, I prefer style over substance. But the Christian New
Testament isnt marketed by bible publishers as a work of fiction. And yet, based
upon the liberties they have taken, the NLT is a work of fiction. Even that
question came up only because of some so-called Christians therefalse ones,
reallywho were secretly brought in. They sneaked in to spy on us and take
away the freedom we have in Christ Jesus. They wanted to enslave us and force
us to follow their Jewish regulations. In that Yahowah told us that: being
presumptuous, overstepping ones bounds, and taking liberties serves as proof
that someone is a false prophet, seems Tyndale Publishing House, Inc. just
revealed their true identity.
Nothing in the statement Shauwl wrote said anything about being forced to
follow their Jewish regulations. There was no subject or race mentioned. And
while the NLT was wrong, it wasnt completely wrong. Based upon what we
learn in the Acts 15 accounting of this meeting, a disagreement arose over
whether or not Gods children should follow Gods example, and thus observe the
Torah. This known, however, there is no correlation between the Torah and
Jewish regulations. They are all derived from Rabbinic Traditions and the Oral
Law especially the Talmud. And yet this is a very common Christian
misconception, bred out of ignorance, disdain for the Torah, affinity for Paul,
religious rivalry, and anti-Semitism.
As you contemplate Shauwls response to the alleged false brothers,
recognize that submission, from hypotage, isnt found in Papyrus 46, the late
first-century witness of this letter, even though it is included in more recently
compiled texts (following eiko, meaning yield). Additionally, euangelion,
rendered Gospel in most English translations, but more accurately translated
healing message and beneficial messenger, is not extant in the earliest
manuscripts either. Further, in P46, we find a placeholder for Yahowahs title
between e aletheias the truth and diameno may continue to be associated
in the oldest Greek text, but not in the Textus Receptus, the Novum Testamentum
Graece, nor the Nestle Aland Greek New Testament, even though the first claimed
to be the text received directly from God, and the other two have claimed to
have corrected every error of the former by referencing older manuscripts.
So, the two things we know for sure are: we are not the first to be troubled by
what Paulos said, and others have already tried to fix these problems. Therefore,
at the very least, this response is the product of considerable meddling and
copyediting some of which may have been required just to make what follows
appear lucid.
...to whom (ois) neither (oude not even and but no) to (pros against,
among, with regard to, or advantageously) a moment (hora an occasion in time
or an hour) we yielded (eiko we surrendered, gave in, or submitted) [to the
submission (te hypotage to the obedience and subjection)] in order that (hina
as a result) the truth (e aletheia that which is an eternal reality and in complete
accord with history and the evidence) of the God (tou ) [beneficial message
and healing messenger (euangelion)] may continue to be associated (diameno
might remain and continue) among (pros to against, or advantageously with
regard to) you (umas). (Galatians 2:5)
With regard to this statement, the Nestle-Alands McReynolds Interlinear, in
direct denial of their claim to have corrected their text to reflect the oldest extant
manuscripts, published: ...to whom but not to hour we yielded in the subjection
that the truth of the good message might stay through to you. The earliest
witness of this statement reads: to whom neither to a moment or hour we
submitted in order that the truth of the God might continue to be associated
among you. (2:5)
Excuse me while I vent for a moment, but this is pathetic. If the imposters
had to be sneaky just to get into the room, and if their mission was simply to spy
on Shauwl, why is not surrendering to them being presented as a heroic and
selfless stand which was required to bring us the truth? Couldnt we just read the
Torah? Couldnt we listen to Yahowsha by reading Mattanyah or
Yahowchanans eyewitness accounts? Couldnt we just ignore them especially
since nothing they said, if anything, is known? Why is everything being presented
as if it is not only Paul against the world, but that without Pauls brave stand
against the forces of darkness that wed all succumb? And how is it that we are to
believe that Paul is the arbitrator of the truth of the God when he began this
letter telling us that His old system was immoral and corrupt?
The issue here is that since circumcision is required to participate in the
Covenant, the inference is that you have to submit to and obey the Torah to
benefit from the old system. But you should know that there is no Hebrew word
for obey. When it is found in English translations it is because they have
misrepresented the meaning of the Hebrew verb, shama, which means to listen.
Likewise, there is no Hebrew word for submit. The few times it is found in
English bibles either kachash to deceive, raphac to stamp down, or
anah to respond were twisted to provide this errant connotation. At issue
here is that Towrah is teaching that we should listen and respond to, rather
than a set of laws to which we must submit and obey.
No one can diminish Yahowahs gift, so I am at a loss to see how Shauwls
failure to yield to these men would have had any material effect on anyone. But I
do see an ego of gargantuan proportions masking a debilitating bout with
insecurity.
Considering the audience, Paul is claiming that he is preventing the
application of the same instructions our Heavenly Father provided to the Children
of Yisrael in His Towrah. So by taking this stand, Shauwl is freeing believers
from listening to God.
While it is irrelevant in this context, should you be curious, the only people
with the authority to enslave Paulos, and thus silence him, would have been
representatives of the Roman government. Not even the Sanhedrin could have
done so because Paulos was a Roman citizen. Moreover, as a rabbinical student in
Yaruwshalaim, Shauwl would have known the latter personally. And as we will
discover, Rome allegedly imprisoning Paulos didnt silence him. And if the
Romans had incarcerated him to moot his message, and if he was actually
speaking for God, Yahowah would have found another witness. So, Shauwls
response was as flawed as was his proposition.
Christian theologians, knowing what the founder of their religion will say
next, would have us believe that the purpose of this troubling exchange was to
free believers from the Torah. And that is because they, like Paul, despise Gods
Teaching. They neither understand it nor respect it.
Christian clerics also insist that the false brothers who were advocating on
behalf of the Torah were Judaizers. But this is ridiculous. Judaism is predicated
upon Rabbinic Law, upon the Talmud, as opposed to Yahowahs Torah. And
Jews dont evangelize.
That means Christian theologians would be wrong on every account, that is,
except their premise. It saddens me to say that it is obvious: Shauwl despised the
Torah as much as they do. As a rabbinical student, he hated every word of it, just
as do the rabbis of this day, arguing against it in their Talmud.
Yahowahs position, since it still matters, is the antithesis of Pauls,
Christianitys, and Judaisms. The fulcrum upon which the Torah pivots is the
Exodus: the story of Yahowah freeing His people from religious and political
oppression in Egypt as a result of His Covenant.
This is why the First Statement Yahowah etched on the First of Two Tablets
begins: I am Yahowah, your God, who delivered you from the crucible of
Egypt, out of the house of bondage and slavery. The Exodus serves as a
historical portrait of Yahowahs plan of liberation, one which is prophetically
portrayed in the seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God.
The Miqraey, the first four of which were fulfilled during the Exodus and by
Yahowsha, free us from being subject to mankinds political and religious
schemes, from mortality, corruption, and separation. Therefore, it is blasphemous
for Shauwl to suggest that he considered the Torah to be a source of bondage, or
for Christians to promote such an idea, especially since the path to freedom
delineated, commemorated, predicted, explained, and fulfilled in Yahowahs
seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with Him gave birth to the Called-
Out Assembly Shauwl was addressing.
Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis chronicles Abrahams journey away
from the religious climate of Babylon and into a liberating personal relationship
with God. For only the second time in human history, the Creator and His creation
walked side by side as friends. This relationship developed into the Family-
Oriented Covenant which served as the backbone of the Torah and as the
expedient of the Exodus. The first four Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with
God were fulfilled to deliver its promises on Passover, Unleavened Bread, and
FirstFruits, giving birth to the empowering and enriching aspects of Seven
Sabbaths. In this way, Yahowah has freed us from death and from sin, from all
forms of human oppression. And with the relationship reconciled, we are adopted
into Yahowahs family. It is one cohesive story from beginning to end. There are
no turns in this path, no dead ends. There are no changes or modifications along
the way.
In this light, and as Ive shared before, the definition of the Hebrew title
Towrah isnt Law, but is instead Teaching and Guidance. The Towrah is our
Owners Manual written by lifes Architect. It is the soil from which the Tree of
Life grows. Its fruit is a loving relationship leading to salvation, to knowing God
and to living forever with Him. Every word of the Towrah exists to highlight this
path.
As we discussed briefly a moment ago, while infinitely more essential,
circumcision is somewhat like baptism in this regard. The acts themselves dont
save us. Its what they represent that matters. So long as we understand and accept
that circumcision is symbolic of being separated and set-apart from mans desires
and from his oppressive religious schemes so that we can enter into the beryth
Familial Covenant Relationship with God, we are spiritually circumcised. So
long as we understand and accept that baptism is symbolic of being reborn by way
of the Set-Apart Spirit, of being immersed in Her Garment of Light, and of having
our souls purified and cleansed by our Spiritual Mother, we are spiritually
baptized. That said, physical circumcision remains a condition of the Covenant, so
every man who wants to participate in it is encouraged to tangibly demonstrate his
commitment to the relationship in this manner.
We observe the Towrah by closely examining and carefully considering
Yahowahs teaching and guidance. We benefit from the Towrah when we respond
to what we have come to learn and understand. Slavishly devoting oneself to a
rigorous regime of doing everything the Torah says, however, at precisely the
right time and in precisely the right way, and never doing anything contrary to its
instructions, has never saved anyone. But coming to understand the towrah, and
then capitalizing upon the means to reconciliation articulated therein, has
ransomed and redeemed every child of the Covenant.
Returning to the passage, here is what the King James Version says relative
to Galatians 2:5, not that I understand it: To whom we gave place by subjection,
no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. If it is
possible to make Paul sound worse than he already does, credit the English for
revealing it.
Since the Latin Vulgate reads: We did not yield to them in subjection, even
for an hour, in order that the truth of the evangelii would remain with you, we
know why subjection and gospel were included in more recently compiled
Greek texts, and in every subsequent translation. And yet, no one was trying to
hold anyone in subjection, and Yahowah doesnt have a gospel.
But you wouldnt know it by reading the New Living Translation. In another
break from their Essentially Literal and Dynamic Equivalent philosophy, one
which has consistently rendered euangelion as Good News, this time they wrote
Gospel (even though euangelion wasnt actually written in the Greek text). But
we refused to give in to them for a single moment. We wanted to preserve the
truth of the gospel message for you. Its too bad the Tyndale brain trust wasnt as
committed to preserving the truth. (Not that its found in Pauls epistles.)
Moving on to the next plank in the Ark of the Deception, we find our
handrail in this disorienting realm of Pauline verbosity, the Nestle-Alands
McReynolds Interlinear, suggesting that the troubadour of faith provided the
following rebuttal to his critics: From but the ones thinking to be somewhat kind
then they were nothing to me it differs face the God of man not receives to me for
the ones thinking nothing conferred.
 More literally and completely rendered from the words Shauwl actually
selected, his retort was materially more demeaning and considerably less
convincing:
But (de and then now) from (apo) those (ton the ones) currently
reputed and supposed (dokei presently presumed based upon opinions and
appearances) to be (eimi) someone important (tis something) based upon
some sort of (hopoios some kind of) unspecified past (pote both former or
present time), they were actually (eimi they were in the past and continue to
genuinely exist as (imperfect active indicative)) nothing (oudeis of no account
and completely meaningless and worthless) to me (moi).
It carries through (diaphero it currently actively and actually (present
active indicative) spreads, really performs drifting different ways, it presently
bears in alternate directions; from dia through and diaphero to carry a burden)
the face (prosopon head, person, individual, and appearance) of the God (o
a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey
elohym, the Almighty) of man (anthropou of a human) not (ou) take hold of
(lambano presently obtain, actually acquire, or actively receive (present active
indicative)).
Because (gar making a connection) to me (emoi), the ones (oi) currently
presuming and supposing (oi dokei presently dispensing opinions based upon
reputed appearances), of no account (oudeis nothing and nobody, meaningless
and worthless) was their advice and counsel (prosanatithemai was their one
time cause, additional comments, and limited contribution (in the aorist indicative
this was a merely a moment in time having occurred in the past)). (Galatians 2:6)
So much of this is awkward and disjointed. And the combination of the odd
selection of verbs, the missing prepositions, the inappropriate grammatical forms,
and the overall lack of sufficient information renders the result an enigma. But in
the context of a meeting with the Called Out in Yaruwshalaim, besides
Yahowshas Disciples, and specifically Shimown, Yahowchanan, and Yaaqob,
who else could have been in attendance who might have been reputed and
supposed to be someone important based upon something that occurred in past?
No one else could have been held to be especially important. But then to say that
these men were actually worthless to Paul is gut wrenching. And since the
Disciples are the only potential candidates for Pauls demeaning dismissal, why
didnt this weasel have the courage to name them here while he is rebuking them?
Fact is, he will name them three sentences hence, but only because he claims that
Shimown, Yahowchanan, and Yaaqob granted him the right place of honor and
authority.
 But I must ask: why does Shauwls opinion matter? Why attend a meeting if
the counsel of others is considered meaningless? Why did Paul respond by
undermining the credibility of those who challenged him rather than by debating
them? Typically, those who counter challenges in this manner do so because they
realize that they cannot prevail on the merits of their argument.
So in the first sentence, its whats not said that renders the result somewhere
between senseless and salacious. But with the second statement, we have to
question whether Paul was even lucid. Diaphero speaks of carrying different
things, typically a burden, in various ways. So how does one apply this activity
to the face of the God or to the context of the discussion? Why wasnt a
preposition added before the face and why was anthropou man scribed in
the genitive, making it of man? Furthermore, how does any of this relate to
lambano taking, obtaining, acquiring, or receiving?
If Paul was intending to say that there are no distinctions in the presence of
God which a man can receive, then that is what he should have written. But he
didnt, and I suspect that is because he, himself, claimed to be different and
distinct, to hold a status no one else had ever acquired the lone chosen and
appointed apostle to the Gentiles (and thus 99.9% of the world). Therefore, if the
words are accurately translated, the statement is senseless. But if we try to make
sense of them though copious copyediting, Pauls entire mantra is contradicted.
As a result, all we know for sure is that Paul writes poorly. Additionally, he
held Yahowshas Disciples in low esteem. And he felt that it was easier to
demean them than it would have been to debate them.
Overall, this is an interesting comment for Shauwl to make considering his
penchant for offering unsubstantiated opinions as if they were snowflakes in the
Arctic. To him it is as if the three years the Disciples spent listening to and
observing Yahowsha didnt mean squat. Shauwl, after all, had been to rabbi
school, and they were manual laborers. So I suppose that this is not unlike the
disdain clerics have for laity today.
This is the second time over the course of five statements that we have
confronted dokei were of the opinion. And in this context, it is dokeis
subjective side which unequivocally prevails. According to Paul, these men
purported to be important, and they considered themselves authorities. They
were wannabes in Pauls opinion. And yet, they were irrefutably called by God,
publicly appointed Disciples by God, and led and instructed by God over the
course of time, all within the purview of history. But compare that to Shauwl
who cant name a single witness to corroborate his momentary misadventure on
the road out of town.
 Besides the obvious, this passage should have been a warning to the Roman
Catholic Church. Their patron saint has just said that his god, which is the
Christian god, does not recognize human hierarchies. Those who claim rank in
relationship to the Pauline god, such as popes, not only have no such authority,
they are operating in direct opposition to the founder of their faith.
In actuality, however, some do have an elevated and special standing with
God. We are His Covenant children. We are His heirs, inheriting everything He
has to offer, from eternal life to perfection, from adoption to empowerment.
While it is akin to putting a pig in a pretty pink dress, I suppose it might have
been good had Shauwl affirmed that religious and political hierarchies have no
standing with God. Had these men not been Yahowshas handpicked Disciples, it
would have been appropriate to identify the nature of the organization to which
other men may have once belonged, and also to have listed the invalid positions
others may have articulated. So while just three sentences from now will reveal
the names of those he is impugning, in Lukes testimony in Acts, beyond the
Disciples, themselves, the only others mentioned may have formerly been
associated with the Pharisees but so was Paul. And even then, we are left
wondering what issues they may have raised.
Based upon what follows in this letter, from Pauls perspective the worthless
wannabes were Disciples, specifically Shimown, Yahowchanan, and Yaaqob.
And their testimony was discounted because they encouraged everyone to observe
the Torah. And that revelation is devastating to Pauls credibility, because
speaking of those who had promoted Yahowahs Torah, he just said that they
added nothing to the conversation. With Paul, it continues to be one step
sideways and all others backwards.
Since this allegation was utterly devastating to King James claim to having
divine authority to rule, which was the entire purpose behind the publication of
the King James Bible, the passage was edited to say that God accepteth no mans
person. I kid you not. KJV: But of these who seemed to be somewhat,
(whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's
person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to
me: Last time I checked, the purpose of salvation was so that God could accept
mans person.
Jerome had the same problem with his pope, so he authored: and away from
those who were pretending to be something. (Whatever they might have been
once, it means nothing to me. God does not accept the reputation of a man.) And
those who were claiming to be something had nothing to offer me. Shauwls
convoluted refutation of divine sanction was something they were unwilling to
convey. So they copyedited the letter to suit their leaders agenda. But to his
credit, Jerome accurately captured Pauls attitude and ego, if not also his
underlying insecurity.
The NLT must have considered the words: but then (de) from (apo) those
(ton) unimportant, so they omitted them from their rendering. And they
evidently wanted Paul to be seen referencing the leaders of the church, so they
arbitrarily added this clause. Likewise, the NLT translators must have thought it
would have been nice for Paul to have written to what I was preaching, so they
included this thought into the text of the epistle as well. And by the way must
have seemed like the way Paul would have conveyed his thought had he been as
articulate as the Tyndale team. Similarly the NLTs inclusion of great leaders
and favorites was without textual support. So much for being Essentially
Literal: And the leaders of the church had nothing to add to what I was
preaching. (By the way, their reputation as great leaders made no difference to
me, for God has no favorites.) To the contrary, God has favorites. Adam,
Chawah, Enoch, Noah and his family, Abraham, Sarah, Yitschaq, Yaaqob, Lot,
Moseh (through whom the Torah was revealed), Dowd / David, Shamowel, and
Yahowsha immediately come to mind. And, of course, Paul has gone out of his
way to tell us that he was preferred over all others.
The transition from the derogatory, but now from the ones currently
reputed, presumed, and supposed to be someone important based upon some
sort of unspecified past, they were actually and continue to be nothing,
completely meaningless and totally worthless, to me, to Petros in this next
sentence is concerning. Since Shimown had been a Disciple, and was now the
most respected member of Yaruwshalaims Called-Out Assembly, it infers that
Paul thought that Peters opinions added nothing to the conversation.
In support of this unflattering conclusion, Galatians 2:7 begins with a
somewhat contrarian position. The Greek actually reads:
Contrariwise (tounantion on the contrary), nevertheless (alla however
notwithstanding the objection, exception, or restriction), having seen and
perceived (horao having looked at, having been aware of, and having looked
at) that because (oti namely for the reason) I have been believed (pisteuo I
have been convinced to faithfully give credence to, thereby I have been entrusted
(in the perfect tense this occurred in the past producing the state which exists in
the present, in the passive voice, Shauwl had this done to him, and in the
indicative mood, it actually occurred)) with the (to) healing message and
beneficial messenger (euangelion) of the uncircumcised (tes akrobystia)
inasmuch as (kathos to the degree that and just as) Petros (Petros rock or
stone; typically transliterated Peter; the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic
kephas) of the circumcised (tes peritome). (Galatians 2:7)
 As has been the case previously, we cannot blame the scribes for the apparent
deficiencies. The Greek text reads exactly this way in every ancient manuscript,
including Papyrus 46which dates to as early as 85 CE.
The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds
English Interlinear, the most acclaimed scholarly representation of the text,
presents these same words as follows: But on the contrary having seen that I
have been trusted the good message of the uncircumcision just as Peter of the
circumcision.
Therefore, should we believe Shauwl, Shimown Kephas and Paulos were
assigned the same mission, but to different people. But if this was the case, why
was Paul so condemning of the Disciples message?
And while this statement is less grammatically deficient than the preceding
six, it is barely literate and its message is contrarian and convoluted. For example,
tounantion literally means opposite or contrariwise, although it can be rendered
rather or to the contrary. And that begs the question, how and why was Pauls
message so contrary to the presumed leaders of the Yaruwshalaim ekklesia?
Likewise, alla also conveys to the contrary, in addition to nevertheless
and notwithstanding, indicating that there is a significant contrast, objection,
exception, distinction, or exemption being made. But the problem with both of
these terms, and most especially the use of tounantion in conjunction with alla, is
that this clause isnt related to Gods disdain for hierarchies, or to self-promoting
types not adding anything to this conversation. So as back to back comparative
terms denoting a very significant contrast, they were deployed to demonstrate that
Paul sharply disagreed with what was being said at the meeting. And that means
that Galatians 2:7 is not only about divvying up the world, with Paul taking a
99.99% share for himself, his use of tounantion alla screams that neither his
power grab nor his disdain for the Torah were well received. So he was telling
Yahowshas Disciples to capitulateto see things his way, to accept their fate
and his, and to live with it.
And please dont miss the fact that Paul divided the world between the
circumcised and the uncircumcised. So since male circumcision is an absolute
requirement to participate in the Covenant, Pauls followers would remain
estranged from God. And since God only saves His Covenant children, they
would all die. But at least he has staked out his turf. Unfortunately, however, by
doing so he has declared his animosity to everything God holds dear.
From henceforth, Shauwl would be the Torahs principle antagonist, and in
pursuit of his new religion, he would do everything in his power to keep those
who disagreed with him away from his target audiencethe world apart from
Jews. And in so doing, from Shauwls perspective, Jews became competitors and
opponentshis rivals and thus enemies. So while Yahowahs Chosen People had
faced the wrath of the Egyptians, the Philistines, the Hittites, the Babylonians,
Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans, Paul would be their most formidable foe. The
religion he conceived with this statement and with this letter would be a two-
thousand-year curse and lead directly to the death of more Followers of the Way
and Jews at large than any villain in their history.
Prior to this parting of the ways, the overwhelming preponderance of the
followers of The Way had been Torah observant Yahuwdym who had come to
know and trust Yahowah through the way the Maaseyah Yahowsha lived and
affirmed the Torah and Prophets. They had invited and welcomed Gowym into
the Covenant family with open arms but under the same terms. However, now,
as a result of Shauwls mindset and this meeting, Pauls new faith would reflect a
contrarian view. A wedge was being driven between Jews and Gentiles creating a
distinction where there had been none. Pauls church would henceforth view
Yahowahs Chosen People as a conniving and ruthless enemy, and Christians
would come to discount their God, His Land, and Word.
Even the Shimown bar Kochba revolt against Rome in 133 CE which led to
the Diaspora was rooted in Shauwls animosity for his own people. The false
messiahs sponsor, Rabbi Akiba, was able to wage his revolt by completing the
job Shauwl had begun, completely isolating and marginalizing the Yisraelite
members of The Way so that they had no safe harbor. Hated by everyone, they
were destroyed before Akibas loyalists were routed by Rome, severing the
connection between Yahuwdym and the Land as well as The Way.
Rather than Yahowahs Spirit guiding him, Shauwls ego blinded him. His
anti-Torah message would be in direct opposition to Yahowahs instructions. The
constraints he put on Shimown Kephas mission were now in direct opposition to
Yahowshas instructions. So if Shauwl was opposed to Yahowah and
Yahowsha, who was he aligned with and promoting?
Since we dont have much to work with when trying to translate Galatians
2:7, before I share my thoughts on why these deficiencies exist, lets consider
how Bacon and Jerome dealt with Pauls concluding statement. KJV: But
contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed
unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; As we shall see, the
King James Version is setting the stage for Pauls Two Covenant Theory.
The KJV added when they without textual support. They errantly replaced
euangelion with Gospel. The King James also added the clause was committed
to me without justification in the Greek text. They repeated gospel a second
time, even though there was no basis for doing so. Then they added, again without
support in the Greek, was and unto before Petros. In other words, there is
almost no correlation between the Greek manuscripts and the English found in the
King James.
But as a result of all of their contribution to Pauls epistle, it was now: the
gospel of the uncircumcision which was committed unto [Paul]. So while this
wasnt an accurate translation, as an occultist, Sir Francis Bacon had no difficulty
conveying the intended message. By discouraging circumcision, half of the
worlds population was automatically and irrevocably excluded from the
Covenant and thus could not be saved. If you were opposed to God, it was a
brilliant move.
Jeromes take on the verse was astute. While he had to add the words it
was, since, they, me, and to, at least his definition of pisteuo as was
entrusted to was reasonable. However, by doing so, he undermined his
translation of pisteuo as faith elsewhere. Jerome also had to significantly alter
the word order. Yet, these things aside, considering what he was working with, it
was a respectable effort. At least he did not create a new gospel for the
uncircumcised. But it was to the contrary, since they had seen that the
evangelium to the uncircumcised was entrusted to me, just as the circumcised to
Petro.
However, from: contrariwise, nevertheless notwithstanding the
objection, exception, or restriction, having seen and perceived that because
namely I have been believed entrusted with the healing message of the
uncircumcised inasmuch as Petros of the circumcised, the NLT produced:
Instead, they saw that God had given me the responsibility of preaching the
gospel to the Gentiles, just as he had given Peter the responsibility of preaching to
the Jews. And yet there is no indication, apart from Shauwls power grab, that
this was true. In fact, to the contrary, Yahowsha called Petros the rock upon
which I will build My called-out assembly. So either Yahowsha was lying or
Paul was.
The reality that we must confront here, at least to be honest with ourselves, is
that this sentence doesnt even approximate Godly perfection. In fact, even if it
had been appropriately worded, it wasnt true. According to Acts 15, neither
Shimown nor Yaaqob supported Shauwls position. And since we are
compelled to think, I want to deal openly and thoughtfully with what Shauwl has
written. After all, we are encouraged to test messages, searching to know if they
are from God or from man.
The first step with regard to these deficiencies is to admit the obvious: the
writing quality is poor. It is most certainly beneath Gods talent to have inspired
this. And while we cannot blame Paul for Gospel, we cannot excuse his
replacement of Yahowahs fortuitous gift with the Greek goddesses, Charis, or
their Roman counterparts, the Gratia. Further, there is too much ambiguity in
this letter for it to be considered Divine. More often than not, the nature of the
problems Shauwl was encountering was inadequately developed. And soon, we
will be left wondering which set of instructions Paul was promoting or assailing
the Torah or the Talmud (the Jerusalem Talmud existed at this time, but not the
Babylonian extension).
So, for what it is worth, and that may be nothing, here is the most favorable
spin I can put on these words, a perspective that is very thinly supported by what
we are reading. A possible justification for the defects in wording may have been
because Shauwl was dictating this as a letter to a community of people he
distrusted in response to an attack on his qualifications and on his message. The
penman may have been one of Pauls associates as opposed to a professional
scribe. But the bigger issue was that Paul was angry, hurt, and overly emotional,
and he let his ego get in the way.
But to infer, especially without any textual support, that Shauwls letters
were inspired, word for word as the Set-Apart Spirit moved his lips, is to demean
Yahowahs ability to communicate. Unlike what we find in the Torah, there is no
instruction to write Yahowahs words down, to pass Gods personal, first-person
testimony on to future generations. There is no admonition to leave Gods witness
exactly as it was delivered, without any additions or subtractions. There is no
comparison between the magnificently profound, mind-expanding, and soul-
stirring presentation we consistently experience in the Torah, Prophets, and
Psalms and what we are reading here. Moreover, much of Shauwls message has
been untrueand all of it has been unsupported.
One of my favorite litmus tests, at least apart from Dabarym / Words /
Deuteronomy 13 and 18, for determining that which is from man and that which
was created by God, is the comparison between the pin and the lily. Both serve a
purpose, but one is beautiful, no matter how closely you look. Examine a pin
under a microscope, as we are doing here with Pauls letters, and the flaws
become pervasive. Not so with the lily, where like Scripture, the more it is
magnified, the more obvious it becomes that it was authored by a superior being.
Therefore, it is obvious that Pauls letters are from Shauwl of Tarsus, not
God. And Paulos had his issues, being both insane and demon-possessed. These
problems bubble to the surface in Galatians, a letter which chronicles one of the
darkest episodes in this controversial mans life. As such, this epistle remains his
most haunting legacy. And that is the most positive and conciliatory explanation
of the evidence at our disposalat least at this point in our investigation. We still
have a great deal to learn.
 But even if you dont agree with my conclusion, it would be preposterous to
conclude that the manuscript copies of this letter, both ancient and modern,
replete as they all are with numerous grammatical deficiencies and inaccurate
statements, represent the perfect and inerrant, the divinely-breathed and inspired,
Word of Godi.e., Scripture. The God I have come to know in the Torah does
not make mistakes. Further, Shauwls will never escape the dark shadow of death
Yahowah cast upon him in Habakkuk.
All that matters is that Yahowah has demonstrated that the Torah, Prophets,
and Psalms are perfect, complete, trustworthy, and reliableeasy to understand
and totally sufficient with regard to our spiritual renewal. Our relationship with
God and salvation are predicated exclusively upon Yahowah, His credibility and
His Word.
Before we move on, lets summarize where we have just been. Pauls
relentless onslaught has taken a negative turn, replete with many notions which
are either conflicting or errant:
Later, through fourteen years, also, I went up to Yaruwshalaim along
with Barnabas, having taken along also Titus. (2:1)
I went up, but then downward from uncovering an unveiling revelation
which lays bare, laying down to them the beneficial messenger which I
preach among the races down from my own, uniquely and separately, but
then to the opinions, presumptions, and suppositions, not somehow perhaps
into foolishness and stupidity, without purpose or falsely, I might run or I
ran (2:2) to the contrary, not even Titus, a Greek being, was compelled,
forced or pressured, to be circumcised (2:3) but then on account of the
impersonators who faked their relationship brought in surreptitiously under
false pretenses, who sneaked into the group to secretly spy upon and
clandestinely plot against the freedom from conscience and liberation from
the constraints of morality that we possess in Christo Iesou in order that us
they will actually make subservient, controlling for their own ends, (2:4) to
whom neither to a moment we yielded, surrendered, or submitted in order
that the truth of the God may continue to be associated among you. (2:5)
But now from the ones currently reputed, presumed, and supposed to be
someone important based upon some sort of unspecified past, they were
actually and continue to be nothing, completely meaningless and totally
worthless, to me. It carries through and bears differently the face of the God
of man not take hold of, acquire, or receive, because to me, the ones currently
presuming and supposing, presently dispensing opinions based upon reputed
appearances, of no account, utterly meaningless and worthless, was their
advice and counsel, their cause and contribution in the past. (2:6)
 Contrariwise, nevertheless notwithstanding the objection, exception, or
restriction, having seen and perceived that because namely I have been
believed entrusted with the healing message and beneficial messenger of the
uncircumcised inasmuch as Petros / Rock of the circumcised. (Galatians 2:7)
It is hard to imagine that this as the product of a sane or rational mind. It is
rambling and psychotic, delusional and paranoid. It serves to prove that Yahowah
was right when He warned us not to trust this horrible individual.

The realization that Galatians is not Scripture, however, does not infer that a
spirit wasnt engaged in Shauwls mission. By using energeo in the next
statement, Shauwl was saying that something was functioning in him,
facilitating the results the Christian world has come to acknowledge.
For indeed (gar because then namely), the one (o article nominative
singular masculine) having previously functioned (energeo (scribed
energesas) having operated and produced previously at work (in the aorist
participle, this refers to a snapshot in antecedent time)) in Petro (Petro in rock
or stone; typically transliterated Peter from the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic
kephas) to (eis into and inside) an apostle (apostolen one who is prepared to
be sent out with a message) for the (tes) circumcision (peritome), it actually
functioned (energeo (scribed energesen) it truly operated and really worked
(aorist active indicative) also (kai) in me (emoi) to (eis) the nations and
ethnicities (ta ethnos the people from different places and races). (Galatians
2:8)
According to the testimony provided by Shimown Kephas to Luke and
presented in the opening chapters of Acts, this is wildly inaccurate. The expressed
benefit of receiving the Set-Apart Spirit on Seven Sabbaths was the ability to
share Yahowahs and Yahowshas message with those who did not speak Hebrew
and thus to the ethnicities. A dozen or so nations were listed as the beneficiaries
of the fact that the Called Out in Yaruwshalaim were now able speak whatever
language was most familiar to the uncircumcised in nations as distinct as Greece
and Rome, Persia and Arabia, Asia and Egypt, even Libya and Crete. (See Acts
2:1-12) Therefore, since Shimown and all of Yahowshas Disciples were among
those empowered by the Set-Apart Spirit to specifically witness to ethnicities and
nations, Shauwls limitations on Shimown are as errant and troubling as is his
claim to the rest of the world. And just as he has lied about their relative territory,
he has also misrepresented the commonality of the powers working in them.
 If this had been true, and it wasnt, if Shauwl had identified the Set-Apart
Spirit as the source of his power, but he didnt, and if he had not improperly
divided the world, limiting Shimown, but he did, this would have been the song
sung by every child of the Covenant. So while Shauwl remains divisive and
dishonest, he was at least suggesting that he and Shimown were on the same
team, and were producing results the same way.
One of the reasons that I prefer the insights we glean through amplification is
because of words like energeo. By examining them, we not only plumb the depths
of whats being conveyed, we also come to understand that words like ethnos
convey a much broader, and more all-encompassing, idea than either nations or
Gentiles.
Energeo, when applied to Shimown Kephas, was scribed in the aorist active
participle, thereby, exhibiting the characteristics of a verb and an adjective as a
moment in antecedent time. This grammatical form is used to say that this took
place earlier in his life and that one thing preceded another. But when Shauwl
applied energeo to himself, he used the aorist active indicative, whereby the mood
of assertion proclaims that the state being presented by the writer was real. So in
this context, and by incorporating these telling nuances, we can read Pauls
statement to say: there was a time, long before I took charge, that this other
fellow did in a limited way what Ive done and am doing in a massive way.
Translated having previously functioned and actually functioned, the two
times it appears in Galatians 2:8, energeo speaks of causing something to
function or work, thereby producing an effect. But it is an amoral term, without
any inference as to whether the power is good or bad, whether the effect being
produced is right or wrong, or whether the result is beneficial or harmful. And I
suppose this is the reason that Yahowsha is never translated using this verb.
Therefore, all we know for sure is that Paul wanted his audience to believe that
there was no difference between the source and the result of his power and
ability, and that which had once been demonstrated long ago through Shimown.
But that false impression evaporates when we examine the Greek text even
more closely. Energeo was written as energesas, which is masculine singular in
reference to the subject, o the one, also written in the masculine singular. But
the ruwach qodesh Set-Apart Spirit of Yahowah is feminine in Hebrew and
neuter in Greek (although the neuter pneuma is universally rendered with a Divine
Placeholder, effectively negating its Greek characteristics). Therefore, the source
of power Paul was claiming was masculine, and thus could not have been
Yahowahs Set-Apart Spiritwhich was most assuredly the source of
Shimowns power (as documented in Acts 2). Fortunately (or unfortunately
depending upon your perspective), as we have already seen, Shauwl wasnt mum
on the identity of the spirit who possessed him.
 Regarding this highly misleading and inaccurate statement, the Nestle-Aland
Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear (NAMI)
asserts that Paul wrote: The one for having operated in Peter to delegateship the
circumcision operated also in me to the nations. Therefore, these things known,
save one glaring issue, the translations which follow are reasonable, albeit
inadequate. KJV: (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of
the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) The
adjective-verb, energesas, which we have been addressing, was accurately
translated wrought effectually in its first occurrence, but even though it is
singular and masculine in the Greek text, it was not rendered in the third person,
making For he that inappropriate, albeit telling.
And while there was no basis for he in the Greek text because o the one
is an article and not a pronoun, its once again apparent that Jeromes Latin
Vulgate served as the basis of the King James: For he who was working the
Apostolatum/Apostleship to the circumcised in Petro, was also working in me
among the Gentes/Gentiles.
As usual, the NLT has been presumptuous. Paul did not identify the source of
his power: For the same God who worked through Peter as the apostle to the
Jews also worked through me as the apostle to the Gentiles.
Since the New Living Translation inappropriately associated the entity
working with Paul as God, I am compelled to provide another option for your
consideration. And while I have presented this and will do so again in other
chapters, at this juncture it is especially prudent for us to consider the implications
of this stunning confession:
Because (gar for indeed) if (ean) I might want (thelo I may decide,
desire, propose, or enjoy) to brag (dauchaomai to boast or to glorify myself)
truthfully (aletheia honestly), I would not be (ouk esomai) unjustified or
imprudent (aphron acting rashly without reason, inappropriate or foolish).
For then (gar because) I will say (ero) I am presently abstaining
(pheidomai I am currently refraining). But (de) someone (tis) not (un)
approaching (eis) me (eme) might ponder (logizomai may have reason to
logically conclude, embrace an opinion, or hold a view) beyond (hyper over
and above and because of) what (o) he sees (blepo he will be able to view and
discern) in me (me), or (e) something (ti) he hears (akouo he listens to,
receives, pays attention to) from (ek) me (emou), (12:6) and of the (kai te so
with regard to the) extraordinary superiority of the exaggerated (hyperbole ton
preeminence and exceedingly great, transcendent, magnificent, and awe-
inspiring aspects of the overstated) revelations (apokalypsis disclosures with
the appearance of instructions concerning the unknown).
 Therefore (dio it should be self-evident), in order that (hina for the
purpose that) I not become overly proud and be lifted up (me hyperairomai I
not become conceited, exalting myself beyond what would be justified, so as not
to be insolent, audaciously lifting myself above the source of my inspiration),
there was given to me (didomi ego there was deposited upon me, allowing me
to experience, there was granted and entrusted to me for my advantage) a sharp
goad and troubling thorn (skolops a sharp pointed prod used to control dumb
animals, featuring poisonous scorpions stinger) in the body (te sarx
incorporated into the flesh and as an aspect of my physical, animal, and human
nature), a messenger (angelos a spiritual envoy or demonic spirit) of Satan
(Satan a transliteration of satan, Hebrew for the Adversary), in order to (hina
so as to) strike and restrain me (kolaphizo adversely harm, beat, and torment
me, violently mistreating me to painfully afflict, attack, buffet, and batter me;
from kolazo to prune, control, check, curb, and restrain me), so that as a result
(hina) at the present time there is the possibility that I might not be conceited,
currently exalting myself beyond what would be justified, lifting myself up
(me hyperairomai I may not be overly proud nor excessively exalted or lifted
up, overdoing it (scribed in the present tense, meaning at this time, in the passive
voice, affirming that this is being done to him, with the subjective mood
indicating that this outcome is a mere possibility, and in the first person singular,
thereby identifying Paulos as the one being possessed and controlled). (2
Corinthians 12:6-7)
This unequivocally and undeniably reveals the identity of Pauls power. And
it explains why the one providing it was masculine, not feminine.
In the next chapter, Kataginosko Convicted, we will consider what Paul
just said in the context of the Dionysus quote attributed to the flashing light he
encountered on the road to Damascus. But suffice it to say for now, Paul admitted
that he was driven by his ego and controlled by a demon.
Without the clutter of the Greek text, the Adversarys Apostle testified:
Because indeed if I might want or may desire to brag and boast, glorifying
myself, honestly, I would not be unjustified or imprudent. But then I will say
I am presently abstaining and currently refraining. But someone not
approaching me might ponder beyond what he sees in me, or something he
hears from me, (12:6) or of the extraordinary superiority of the preeminent
and exceedingly great revelations.
Therefore it should be self-evident, in order that I not become overly
proud and be lifted up, exalting myself beyond what would be justified, there
was given to me a sharp goad and troubling thorn in the body, a messenger
and spiritual envoy of Satan, in order to strike and restrain me, controlling
me, so that as a result at the present time there is the possibility that I might
not be conceited, currently exalting myself beyond what would be justified,
lifting myself up. (2 Corinthians 12:6-7)
After you catch your breath, well move on.
As we have come to expect with Paul, after stepping sideways, he stumbles
backwards again. He is once again associating his message with his favorite
pagan goddesses.
And (kai) having known and having recognized (ginosko having
become familiar with and having acknowledged) the Grace (ten Charis the
name of the lovely and lascivious Greek goddesses of merriment, known to the
Romans as the Gratia, from which Grace is derived) of the one (ten article
accusative singular feminine) having been given (didomi having been offered
and bestowed, having been assigned, experienced, and furnished) to me (moi),
Yaaqob (Iakobos an inaccurate transliteration of Yaaqob, meaning One who
Digs in his Heels, Standing Steadfast), and (kai) Kephas (Kephas a
transliteration of the Aramaic word for stone, the nickname Yahowsha gave
Shimown), and also (kai) Yahowchanan (Ioannas an inaccurate Greek
transliteration of Yahowchanan, a compound of Yahowah and chanan meaning
Yahowah is Merciful), the ones (oi) presently presumed and regarded (dokei
currently considered and supposed, of the opinion and assumed) to be (eimi)
pillars (stulos metaphorically used to symbolize an important, authorized, or
authoritative leader, especially someone who establishes, upholds, and supports),
the right (dexias to take the right hand and place of honor and authority) they
gave (didomi they offered, granted, and extended) to me (emoi), and (kai) to
Barnabas (Barnabas meaning Son of a Prophet) fellowship (koinonia
association and participation) as a result (hina). We (emeis) to (eis) the (ta)
nations and ethnicities (ethnos people from different races and places), but
(de) they (autos) to (eis) the circumcision (ten peritome). (Galatians 2:9)
Conveying the meaning of the same words somewhat differently, the Nestle-
Alands McReynolds Interlinear reads: And having known the favor the one
having been given to me Jacob and Cephas and John the ones thinking pillars to
be right they gave to me and Barnabas of partnership that we to the nations
themselves but to the circumcision.
While the Greek doesnt flow exceptionally well into English, the message
translates that Shauwl claimed that the three men closest to Yahowsha, His
brother, Yaaqob, the excitable, albeit thoughtful, Shimown Kephas, and the
most beloved Disciple, the man named for this very mission, Yahowchanan (Yah
is Merciful), all allegedly granted the right place of honor and authority to Paul.
And then as an afterthought, they said that his pal, Barny, could tag along. But it
is all a lie, both egotistical and delusional.
 While it may be a smaller issue among much bigger ones, the distinction
between how Paul says he was treated versus Barnabas is revealing. Based upon
the way Paul worded this, associating the right with him and fellowship with
Barnabas, it would be inappropriate to suggest that the right hand of fellowship
was extended to Paul and Barnabas. And with this deliberate distinction,
rendering dexias as the right hand, when removed from koinonia
fellowship, would be misleading. Therefore, we are left with what the context
thus far has consistently conveyed: Paul wants us to believe that the Disciples
Yahowchanan, Shimown, and Yaaqob stepped aside to position Shauwl in
dexias the place of honor and authority. And if you believe that...
But at least now we know one thing for absolute certain. The men who
Shauwl was demeaning with dokei presumed and supposed have been
named: Yahowchanan, Shimown, and Yaaqob. And while that is what we
suspected, in this context, it is ironic because in 2:6 Paulos told us that their
advice and counsel was utterly worthless and that they meant absolutely
nothing to him. But now that Paulos craves their endorsement, all of a sudden the
presumed pillars are credible at least when seen stepping aside and bowing to
the ascendency of Paul.
While it is another small thing, you may have noticed that the one has
changed genders from one sentence to the next. He was masculine in 2:8, but in
the shadow of the naked goddesses of licentiousness, she is now feminine in 2:9.
This suggests, at least grammatically, that the Charities empowered Paulos.
It is true that Yahowshas Disciples would have recognized the Greek and
Roman goddesses, and they most likely suspected that Paul was associating his
faith with the Charities, but thats not a good thing. Although, in a conversation
between four Yahuwdym, they all would have spoken Hebrew, so charis would
have been chanan. But then, for there to be mutual familiarity and acceptance,
they would have had to agree on circumcision, because without it there is no
mercy.
Beyond his associating with false gods, and taunting the First Statement
Yahowah engraved on the First Tablet, the evidence suggests that Pauls
declaration was another lie. Even if the dexias the right is extrapolated to be
the right hand as in a handshake or greeting rather than the right to take
the place of honor and authority, in Acts we learn that the greeting preceded the
discussion, making this account, where ginosko recognition precedes
acceptance, invalid.
In Galatians the inference is that the Disciples had listened to Pauls
presentation of his past preaching, and then approved of it, offering him the
position of power and authority. Thereby, the use of ginosko knowing and
recognizing at this juncture portends that Yaaqobs, the Rocks, and
Yahowchanans acknowledgement should be equated to an acceptance of his
message. But as Ive mentioned, in Acts we learn that this welcoming greeting
occurred before, not after, Paul presented his case, and therefore it did not serve
as an endorsement of his ministry.
On the positive side, the Greek word stulos is related to stauros, the upright
pillar upon which Yahowsha hung, opening the door to life. His sacrifice as the
Upright Pillar (the edon) on the upright pole (stauros) was symbolic of the
authorized and authoritative leader who establishes and upholds (stulos). And
that is why in most of the early manuscripts stauros upright pillar was written
by way of a Divine Placeholder literally associating Passovers Doorway to Life
with God, Himself.
Stulos, which literally means a pillar or column which stands and supports
something, is used several times in the Greek texts. The next two occurrences are
found in Revelation 3:12 and 10:1. The edon concept of the Upright One who is
the Foundation of the Tabernacle is advanced by: All who are victorious will
become pillars (stulos) in the Tabernacle of My God and will never have to leave
it. And I will write on them the name of My God (Revelation 3:12).
In Revelation 10:1, the stulos symbolism is reminiscent of Yahowah going
before the Children of Yisrael by day as a pillar-shaped cloud and by night as a
pillar of light. Then I saw another mighty messenger coming down from heaven,
surrounded by a cloud, with a rainbow over His head. His face shone like the sun,
and His feet were like pillars (stulos) of fire.
On the less than admirable side of the ledger, while the metaphor being
established here is uplifting, there is a disturbing tone to some of this which needs
to be considered. While dokei can convey the idea of choosing to think and of
thought, its primary meaning is more along the lines of supposition and
presumption, and thus of imagination and opinion. That is not to say that dokei
cannot be translated as recognized and regarded, as evidenced by the verb
dokimazo, which means to examine, to regard as worthwhile, and to judge as
good, genuine, worthy. But recognizing and acknowledging that Shauwls intent
was to label Yaaqob, Shimown, and Yahowchanan the supposed, presumed,
and opinionated pillars would be more accurate especially since he has already
equated this word to these men to say that they were meaningless and worthless.
So we must ask: why would Shauwl choose to refer to the three most
important Disciples as the dokei assumed pillars when he could have used
epiginosko acknowledged pillars? Epiginosko speaks of a thoughtful
conclusion which is formed after becoming thoroughly acquainted with the
evidence. Epiginosko is the synthesis of knowledge and understanding, of
having sufficient information and the ability to process it rationally. Epiginosko
is objective while dokei is subjective. Epiginosko speaks of an informed
conclusion while dokei is an unfounded opinion. Therefore, in our search for
truth, in our desire to know that which is trustworthy and reliable, epiginosko is
the epitome of that quest, while dokei leads us backwards into the murky and
mystical religious realm of faith. Further, dokei continues to pit Paul against the
Disciples, as opposed to unifying them and their mission.
Twice now Paulos has divided the room, and each time inaccurately and
unfairly, claiming that the outreach of Shimown, Yaaqob, and Yahowchanan,
was limited to the Jews, while his mission encompassed the whole worldthe
nations and races. This simply was not true on either side.
Yahowchanans mission wasnt limited. If anything, it was focused on the
uncircumcised, especially the Greco-Roman world. He lived in Ephesusthe
largest, most influential Greco-Roman city in the world. And Yahowchanan was
the leader of the ekklesia there, not Shauwl. Moreover, Yahowchanans
eyewitness account of Yahowshas words and deeds was written in Ephesus, a
city which lies well beyond the province of Galatia from the perspective of
Yahuwdah / Judea. And it is interesting, that according to his second letter to
Timothy, everyone who knew Paul intimately, ultimately rejected him.
In this light, if we were to consider the Torah as the treasure in the chest of
the Ark of the Covenant, then Yahowchanans eyewitness account of Yahowshas
life helps illuminate many of its most profound truths. Said another way, I have
come to understand the Torah better because of what Yahowchanan recorded
Yahowsha saying and doing. And Im sure Im not alone.
While the eyewitness account of Mattanyah (meaning: Yahs Gift) was
written from the perspective of a Yahuwdym, and is especially meaningful to me
know that Ive come to cherish the Torah, Yahowchanans testimony was written
to appeal to the Western mind, to enlightened Greeks. Its opening chapter is a
soaring treatise on the Logos becoming flesh and tabernacling among usa
concept that resonated with, and inspired, Greeks and those who learned to think
like them. To my mind, Yahowchanans commentary, at least apart from the
Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, is among the most brilliant presentations ever
written.
Further, Yahowchanans eyewitness account of Yahowshas Revelation,
which was developed on the Greek Island of Patmos, provides a set of clues
which assists us in our quest to understand the words of the prophets, especially
those predictions which pertain to the last two-thousand years of human history.
Without the book of Revelation, understanding what they predicted would be a bit
more challenging.
 I share this with you because to this Gentile, Yahowchanans writings are
influential, enlightening, reliable, and accurate. And in my opinion, without
Yahowchanans testimony, many of the seeds the Disciples spread throughout the
nations would not have grown.
So, not only was Shauwl wrong in limiting Yahowchanans influence,
claiming it for himself, in conjunction with his use of dokei presumed with
regard to Yahowchanans status, this letter has taken on an undeserved and
undeniable egotistical tint, bordering on delusional.
And as we have just discovered, Pauls ego was so enormous the Devil had to
prod him to control himto keep him in line. But that was not only the thorn in
Pauls side; it was just the reason for it. After all, Shauwl was a self-proclaimed
expert on all things pertaining to rabbinic Judaism. And He was a Roman citizen
from Tarsus, the center of Greco-Roman enlightenment. Adding to his rsum,
Shauwl had studied in Yaruwshalaim / Jerusalem under Gamaliel, the foremost
religious scholar of his day, and he wanted to be known as an extraordinary
student with a superior intellect. He considered himself a soaring orator and an
accomplished writer. By comparison, Yaaqob was a lowly stonemason from
Nazareth, and Shimown and Yahowchanan were fishermen from backwater
towns in Galilee. So while Shauwl protests (when it serves his interest) that men
hold no rank with God, among men, Paulos seemed to rank himself well above
others.
Continuing to deal with this controversial passage, we find the KJV affirming
the supposed connotation of dokei: And when James, Cephas, and John, who
seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me
and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen,
and they unto the circumcision. But that is not what Paul wrote. The right was
only associated with Paul and fellowship was all that was attributed to
Barnabas. Remember... And having known and having recognized, becoming
familiar with the Grace of the one having been given to me, Yaaqob,
Kephas, and also Yahowchanan, the ones presently presumed to be pillars,
and thus leaders, the right place of honor and authority they granted to me,
and to Barnabas fellowship as a result. We to the nations and ethnicities, but
they to the circumcision. (2:9)
Jeromes Vulgate blend of Old Latin texts revealed: And so, when they had
acknowledged the gratiam/grace that was given to me, Iacobus, Cephas and
Ioannes, who seemed like pillars, gave to me and to Barnab the right hand of
fellowship, so that we would go to the Gentes/Gentiles, while they went to the
circumcisionem/circumcised, Jerome also picked up the less than flattering
nature of dokei with seemed to be and seemed like. And while we may also
see glimpses here into the secret handshake of fellowship associated with the
Mithraism mysteries, Jerome is to blame for creating the myth of the right hand
of fellowship being offered to both men.
Writing their own bible, the New Living Translation authored the following
verse, repeating every mistake while creating some of their own: In fact, James,
Peter, and John, who were known as pillars of the church, recognized the gift God
had given me, and they accepted Barnabas and me as their co-workers. They
encouraged us to keep preaching to the Gentiles, while they continued their work
with the Jews. In this case, they werent even consistent with their beloved
charis translating it as gift, rather than transliterating the Roman goddesses
name. This malfeasance highlights the most serious problem with Galatians 2:9.
This is the second of 107 times that Paul blurred the line between Yahowah and
paganism. He said: having known the Charis of the one given to me. Charis
is the name given to the Greek Charities, just as Gratiam identifies the Roman
Graces.
Had Paul wanted to say that he had been the recipient of Yahowahs loving
kindness, he would have selected the Greek word associated with the Maaseyah
and His followers: chrestos. Elsewhere in the Greek texts, chrestos is rendered
kind, good, fit for use, useful, benevolent, virtuous, and moral as
in upright. Chrestos is even translated gracious on occasion, albeit should
have been rendered merciful. In this light, it is little wonder the Maaseyah was
called Chrestus in Greek, or that those who served with Him were known as
Chrestucians. Knowing the appropriateness and history of chrestos, it saddens me
more than words can express that Paul didnt use it instead of charis.
Should you be curious, had Paul wanted to say favor, he would have used
eunoia. If he had wanted to say gift, didomi would have been the perfect choice.
If his intent was to say fortuitous, tucheros would have worked. Love is
agape. Joy is chara.
More appropriate still, the Greek word for mercy is eleeo, and merciful is
eleemon. Eleeo speaks of demonstrating mercy through helping the poor and
afflicted by providing aid in the form of an unearned gift. As such, it was a
vastly superior term. But there is more. Eleos also conveys mercy, loving
kindness, and goodwill toward those who are troubled. Ideally, eleos
demonstrates a willingness to help the unpretentious by offering them
clemency. The related eleemosune even speaks of a merciful gift which is
charitably donated to the otherwise impoverished.
So with many practically perfect words at his disposal, and especially
chrestos and eleos, why on earth did Paul choose to promote the name of a pagan
goddesses and select Charis? And while I do not know the answer for certain, I
know the result. He discredited himself and led billions of souls the wrong way,
down a dead-end street. Christians would culture a faith-based relationship with
an imaginary deity.
Since Pauls path has led so many souls away from the Torah, its important
to recognize that the concept we have come to know as grace is advanced more
aggressively in Yahowahs Testimony than it is in Pauls letters. While Im sure
that is shocking to Christians, the fact remains that God inspired His prophets to
write chen and its verb form, chanan, the Hebrew words for the unearned gift of
mercy and loving kindness, of unmerited favor and acceptance, twice as often as
Shauwl scribed charis. So, the problem isnt with the concept of grace as we
know it today, but instead with Pauls choice of words.
What we know for certain, however, is that Yahowshas words and deeds set
an important example for us to follow. Therefore, we must recognize that we are
called to nourish both body and soul. And that is why the stonemason and
fishermen admonished the scholar:
Only (monon just, alone by itself) the (ton) lowly and poor (ptochos
worthless, of little value, beggars, destitute, and impoverished) that (hina the
purpose of) we might remember (mnemoneuo we could call to mind, be
mindful of, and possibly think about) which (hos who) also (kai) I was eager
and quick (spoudazo I was giving the best effort, always ready) same (autos)
this (houtos) to do (poieomai to accomplish). (Galatians 2:10)
This is funny in a way since Paulos means lowly in Latin. With tongue
planted smugly in his cheek, Im sure he was all too eager to profess that he was
ever ready to serve his interests. He was doing so at this very moment. But alas,
even if Im being a little too cynical, what are the chances that after spending
three years walking in the footsteps of God, witnessing everything that He said
and did, that these three men would distill His words and deeds down to: alone,
by itself, the lowly that we might remember?
Should this have been the sum total of His lifes work, there would have been
just one unidentified and unspecific statement etched on a singular tablet. God
could have dispensed with the rest of the Torah, including the Covenant. The
Prophets were a waste of time. And why bother with all of the pain associated
with fulfilling Passover and Un-Yeasted Bread? For that matter, why did Paul
trouble himself by writing thirteen letters? And how does doing this fit into a
faith-based religion where works are strictly forbidden?
The NAMI reads: Alone the poor that we might remember that also I was
diligent same this to do. I suspect Shimown, Yaaqob, and Yahowchanan were
slightly more articulate than this portends. But Im not sure which was more
impoverished, Shauwls Greek or Bacons English. KJV: Only they would that
we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. (So
much for the notion that Francis Bacon wrote the Shakespearian plays.)
Jerome wrote fluidly and fluently. LV: asking only that we should be
mindful of the poor, which was the very thing that I also was solicitous to do.
But for readability, the NLT is always smooth as silk: Their only suggestion was
that we keep on helping the poor, which I have always been eager to do.
Recapping Shauwls eighth paragraph, we find:
Because then namely, the one having previously functioned in Petro to
an apostle for the circumcision, it actually functioned also in me to the
nations and ethnicities. (2:8)
And having known and having recognized, becoming familiar with the
Grace of the one having been given to me, Yaaqob, and Kephas, and also
Yahowchanan, the ones presently presumed, regarded, and supposed to be
pillars, and thus leaders, the right place of honor and authority they granted
to me, and to Barnabas fellowship as a result. We to the nations and
ethnicities, but they to the circumcision. (2:9)
Only alone by itself the lowly and poor, the worthless beggars of little
value that we might remember and possibly think about which also I was
eager and quick same this to do. (Galatians 2:10)

There is considerable reason to believe that Paul was lying with regard to the
purpose and outcome of this meetingindeed, with regard to most aspects of it. I
say this because the Yaruwshalaim Summit, also called the Council of
Jerusalem and the Apostolic Conference, between Shauwl and Yahowshas
Disciples, is also presented in the book of Acts, dominating the 15th chapter. And
Lukes account stands in stark contrast to what Paul has written.
Beginning with the 15th chapter or Acts, we read: And some (kai tis) having
come down from (katerchomai apo) Yahuwdah (tes Ioudaia transliteration of
Yahuwdah, meaning Related to Yah, known today as Judaea) were teaching
(didasko were instructing) the brethren (tous adelphos the brothers) that if
(oti ean) you might not be circumcised (me peritemno) as prescribed by Moseh
(to ethos to Mouses per the manner or practice customary of Moseh), you are
not able (ou dynamai you are incapable, lacking the capacity) to be saved (sozo
to be healed, rescued, or delivered). (Acts 15:1)
 Luke just did two things Paul has been unable, or at least unwilling, to do. He
not only identified Moseh as the author of the book Paul was assailing, thereby
identifying it as Yahowahs Towrah, he unambiguously told us what they were
arguing about. Specifically, and recognizing that this was directed at the
brothers, the question before us is: can a man who is not circumcised in
accordance with the Towrahs prescriptions be saved?
So before we consider the impact of this testimony in relation to Shauwl,
lets check to see if the message these Yahuwdym were conveying was consistent
with the Towrah. Yahowahs instructions regarding circumcision are initially
presented in Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17.
And (wa) God Almighty (elohym) said (amar promised) to (el as
God to) Abraham (Abraham Loving, Merciful, and Enriching Father), And
(wa) as for you (eth atah regarding you), you should actually and
continuously observe (shamar you should carefully consider, diligently paying
especially close attention to the details so that you understand and you should
literally keep your eyes focused upon (scribed in the qal stem which addresses
that which is literal and relational and in the imperfect conjugation which speaks
of that which is ongoing)) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth-
y My mutually binding agreement, relational accord, and promise based upon
home and family (feminine singular, scribed in the construct form, associating the
beryth covenant with shamar observation; written with the first person
singular, My, revealing that the Covenant is Gods)), you (atah) and (wa) your
seed (zera your offspring (singular)) after you (achar following you)
throughout (la) their generations, dwelling places, and eras of time (dowr
their families, related births, and lives (plural)). (Baresyth / In the Beginning /
Genesis 17:9)
It should be noted that zera seed and dowr generations, dwelling
places, lives, and epochs of time, were both scribed in the construct form, not
only linking the zera and dowr together, but also both with beryth. Therefore, the
Covenant is the seed from which generations come to dwell throughout
time with Yah. Christians, either unaware of this Towrah teaching, or opposed to
it, fool themselves into believing that Jesus Christ was the singular seed.
According to God, our responsibility regarding His Covenant is to shamar
observe it literally and continually. It is the same instruction He provides
regarding His Towrahwhich not so coincidently represents the only place where
we can go to observe Yahs Covenant, because its terms and conditions are
recorded there and nowhere else.
The means to become a zera offspring of the beryth family-oriented
covenant relationship, and thereby dowr live throughout time in Gods
dwelling place is breathtakingly simple: shamar actually and consistently,
carefully and diligently, observe the terms and conditions of the Covenant, closely
examining and carefully considering every detail as it is presented in Yahowahs
Towrah. We should do this, as should our fathers and our children, no matter
where or when we live or with whom we are related.
And although shamar observe serves as the operative verb with respect to
our participation in the Covenant, shamar is among the least understood words in
the Towrah. It is almost always errantly rendered keep in English bibles in spite
of the fact that, etymologically, shamar is based upon using our sense of sight to
be watchful, carefully examining and closely scrutinizing that which can be seen.
It speaks of being focused and visually alert by keeping ones eyes open, and of
overseeing things from the proper perspective so as to be aware of what is
occurring. The linguistic inference is that those who carefully observe and
diligently examine everything within their purview will come to understand what
they are seeing, and that through this understanding they will be able to protect
that which they value and those whom they love, keeping them safe by
responding properly. Shamar conveys the idea that people should keep their
eyes open, that they should always be on guard, and that they should be focused,
alert, aware, and perceptive.
The message of shamar observation is: look and you will see. See and you
will know. Know and you will understand. Understand and you are empowered to
respond appropriately.
Therefore, shamar is being used to encourage us to observe the terms and
conditions of the Covenant by using our eyes to read, indeed, to focus upon what
is written in the Towrah. God wants us to examine and consider the
requirements and benefits of the Covenant as they are delineated in His Towrah
so that we are secure, protecting those we love.
Shamar is related to shama, whereby we are encouraged to use our sense of
hearing to listen to what God has to say to us. Collectively then, the senses of
sight and hearing enable us to know Yahowah and understand His Towrah by
qara reading and reciting it. But there is more: by observing Yahowahs
Guidance, by listening to Gods Instructions regarding His Covenant, by coming
to know and understand His Teaching regarding this relationship and our
salvation, we come to trust Yahowah and rely upon His Directions, thereby
enabling God to adopt us and save us.
You may have noticed that this proclamation from Yahowah regarding what
He expects from those who want to participate in His Covenant was direct and
unequivocal. Simply stated: shamar beryth is a requirement. If you want to have a
relationship with God, you do so by carefully and continually observing His
written Towrah testimony regarding His Covenant. At least, that is what God,
Himself, had to say regarding our participation, and He ought to know.
What many miss, and especially those who are religious, is that this statement
from God is utterly devastating to Pauline Doctrine. Pauls thesis, better known as
the Faith in the Gospel of Grace, is based upon the notion that Abraham was
saved, not because He closely examined and carefully considered what Yahowah
had personally revealed to him regarding His Towrah Teaching and Covenant
Relationship, but instead because he believed God. According to Paul,
Abrahams salvation was a product of his faith and not his willingness to do as
Yahowah had instructed. But being observant, especially during personal
experiences like this one, leads to knowing, to understanding, to trusting, and to
relying, while belief is the product of not knowing and of not understanding. In
fact, belief all too often leads to faith in things which are neither reliable nor true.
Those who know, trust. Those who do not know, believe. Moreover, the
means to knowing is shamar careful observation.
God did not ask Abraham to believe Him, nor did He suggest that we should
believe Him. He asked Abraham and those who would benefit from the Covenant
to carefully observe what He had to say. And to accomplish this, we must read the
Towrah, closely examining its every word.
Lets continue to do what Yahowah requested and see where it leads. This
is the one and only (zeth this particular, singular, unique, and specific)
Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship of Mine (beryth-y mutually binding
agreement of Mine, My promise and relational accord based upon home and
family), which relationally and beneficially (asher by way of making a
connection, developing an association, benefiting and blessing) you should
actually and continuously observe (shamar you should carefully and literally
consider, you should diligently and consistently pay especially close attention to
the details) forming an understanding between Me and you (byn wa byn for
the purpose of coming to know and understand Me as a result of you being
perceptive, prudently considering the insights which are discernible), and also for
forming and understanding between (wa byn for the purpose of coming to
know) your offspring (zera your seed (singular construct)) following you
(achar after you), for you to actually circumcise (muwl so that you literally
cut off and remove the foreskin of the penis (scribed using the niphal stem which
is used to convey the voice of genuine relationships where the subject, which is
you, receives the action of the verb, which is circumcision, and the infinitive
absolute, which intensifies the action of the verb)) accordingly your every (l-cm-
kol) male to encourage remembering (zakar masculine human individual who
recalls and remembers (singular and absolute)). (Baresyth / In the Beginning /
Genesis 17:10)
 Not only was this request clear and unequivocal, not only does this affirm
Yahowahs previous appeal, not only does it reinforce the uniqueness of the one
and only Covenant, it encourages us to be observant and to think so that we come
to understand precisely what God is asking of us and offering to us.
But also, this verse is additive, providing us with another requirement:
circumcise our sons so that we and they remember the Covenant. So, I ask you,
when Paul screamed out against circumcision in his letter to the Galatians,
demeaning it while promoting a second and different Covenant, why did anyone
believe him? His position and Gods are irreconcilable.
Sometimes, if we pause long enough, if we dig deep enough, if we are
especially observant and thoughtful, we learn something we would otherwise
miss. Such is the case here. You see, muwl circumcise was scribed using the
niphal stem. The niphal, as the passive form of the qal, conveys three ideas. First,
it is a relational stem, affirming the fact that circumcision is germane to our
relationship with God. Second, it requires a literal interpretation of the testimony,
meaning that these circumcisions are actual and not merely symbolic. And third,
the niphal, as the reflexive counterpart of the qal, indicates that the subject, which
is us as parents, receive the benefit of the verbs action, which is circumcision.
Collectively then, when the niphal stem is used in conjunction with muwl in
this context, we discover that by actually circumcising our sons, we as parents
benefit from the act. It is as if we, ourselves, are being circumcised. And that is a
very good thing, because circumcision is the sign of the Covenant. It affirms our
acceptance, validating our willingness to be cut into this relationship with God.
We are in essence saying: we will raise our children to become His children.
When we bring this all together, and consider everything God said to
Abraham from the beginning, we discover that through their relationship
Yahowah systematically presented the guidance and instructions necessary for us
to know Him, for us to relate to Him, and for us to be saved by Him. After asking
us to walk away from all forms of babel confusion, including family
traditions, national allegiances, and religious corruption, Yahowah encouraged us
to trust and rely upon Him instead. He then asked us to walk to Him to become
perfect, with His Towrah providing the directions and means. Gods fourth
request of us, indeed, His requirement with respect to our participation in His
Covenant, was presented in the previous two statements. He wants us to
continuously and genuinely observe His Covenant, focusing upon and diligently
considering the conditions and benefits of this relationship. He knows that when
we come to appreciate what He is offering that well respond appropriately
(which is what is revealed in Acts 15:21 by the way). And so now to demonstrate
our understanding, to help us remember everything He has shared with us, God is
asking us to circumcise our sons. Consider it a signature, a vow to accept and
embrace this extraordinary gift the opportunity to engage in a personal
relationship with our Heavenly Father.
If we want to participate in Yahowahs Covenant, we must circumcise our
sons. It is as simple as that. Written in the infinitive absolute, and followed by
kol all, there is no room for negotiation or interpretation. We can either accept
Yahowahs terms or reject them but we cannot alter them to suit us which is
what Pauline Doctrine has done.
And (wa) you all shall cut off and separate (muwl you shall circumcise
(scribed in the niphal stem which is used to convey the voice of genuine
relationships where the subject, which is us as parents, receive the benefit of the
verb, which is circumcision, in the perfect conjugation designating that this
instruction shall be followed wholly and completely, and in the consecutive
thereby associating it with our basar flesh) your foreskins (aralah the fold
of skin covering the conical tip of the penis) association with (eth) the flesh
(basar the physical body and animal nature). And (wa) this will exist (hayah
this was, is, and forever will be (scribed in the qal perfect, signifying something
associated with a relationship which is unchanging and unending) as (la) the sign
to remember (owth the owth and example to visually and verbally illustrate
and explain, the symbol and standard, the pledge and attestation of the miraculous
nature of (singular, as in there is only one sign, construct form, linking the sign
to...)) the Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth mutually binding
agreement, household promise, relational accord, marriage vow based upon home
and family (feminine singular, scribed in the construct form, eternally associating
the beryth covenant with owth the sign of muwl circumcision)) forming an
understanding between Me any you (byn wa byn for the purpose of coming to
know and understand Me as a result of you being perceptive, prudently
considering the insights which are discernible). (Baresyth / In the Beginning /
Genesis 17:11)
Yahowah wants us to muwl be cut off and separated from our eth
association with our basar physical bodies and animal nature. To be
associated with God, we have to disassociate ourselves from man. Therefore, not
only is the owth sign of the beryth covenant a reminder that we must
walk away from Babylon before we can walk to God, it signifies that to be
adopted into our Heavenly Fathers family, we must transition from physical
beings with mortal, imperfect, substantially limited, and decaying bodies, to
spiritual beings who are elevated, empowered, and enriched by this relationship.
It is interesting to note that while circumcision is symbolic, the act itself is
literal and physical. Further, hayah, which was scribed in the third person
masculine singular, and was rendered this will exist, in the passage, was
actually scribed he shall exist as the sign. Therefore, when we accept the terms
of Yahowahs Covenant, we become its living symbols.
Hebrew verbs do not designate the past, present, or future, as is the case with
English tenses, but instead they reflect truths which remain unchanged throughout
all time. Such is the case with hayah, meaning was, is, and will be all at the
same time. Therefore, we were, we are, and we will always be signs of the
Covenant.
Owth sign to remember and uwth to consent and agree are written
identically in Hebrew. So not only is circumcision, this separation from our
physical and animal nature, a visual means to illustrate and explain the
miraculous nature of the Covenant, it is our way of showing our consent and
agreement to raise our children in harmony with the conditions Yahowah has
outlined. Circumcision is a parents pledge to honor Gods family-oriented
agreement. It is our signature on their adoption paperstelling our Heavenly
Father that we want our children to become His children; that we will dedicate
ourselves to encouraging this desirable result. And not so coincidently, the best
way to accomplish this is to recite the Towrah to our children and thereby expose
them to its Covenant, sharing its prerequisite, requirements, and benefits.
And (wa) a son (ben a male child) of eight (shamonah from shamen,
meaning olive oil, which is symbolic of the Spirit, of light, and of being rooted in
the land) days (yowmym) you shall circumcise (muwl you shall cut off and
separate his foreskin (scribed using the niphal stem denoting a relationship which
is genuine and indicating that parents benefit from doing as God has requested,
and in the imperfect conjugation which tells us that this must continue to occur
over time and that it is designed to produce ongoing results)) with regard to your
(la) every (kol) male (zakar masculine individual; from zakar: to commit to
memory, to remind, and to remember) throughout (la) your dwelling places and
generations (dowr your protected households and extended families, elevating
and extending your lives), those naturally born (yalyd those naturalized as a
member of an extended family through natural childbirth) in the home (beyth
into the household and family), and also (wa) those really wanting to be (kasap
those deeply desiring, strongly yearning, and passionately longing to be)
acquired and included (miqnah adopted) of (min) every (kol) son (ben male
child) of foreign lands (nekar of places where they are not properly valued and
appreciated) who relationally (asher by way of making a connection) are not
(lo) from (min) your seed (zera). (Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis
17:12)
In Scripture, eight symbolizes eternity, which is why the symbol for infinity
and the numeral itself are so similar. It is why there is an eighth day of celebration
associated with the Miqra of Sukah Shelters, which is symbolic of us camping
out with God for all eternity. Additionally, the Hebrew word for eight,
shamonah, is based upon sheman, meaning olive oil, which is used as a
metaphor for the Set-Apart Spirit who makes us eternal. Further, the olive tree is
not only one of the worlds longest living, it is native to Yisrael.
We ought not be surprised in that we were designed by the Author of this
instruction, but it should be noted that the eighth day is the perfect time to
perform this minor procedure. Excessive bleeding is minimized, as is infection,
because human blood coagulates most effectively at this time because the major
clotting agents, prothrombin and vitamin K, do not reach peak levels in the blood
until the eighth day.
You may have noticed that this is the second time Yahowah has used zakar
male in association with circumcision. Since the instruction is directed toward,
although not exclusive to, young boys, literally ben sons, the reason for using
zakar only becomes obvious when we study the words etymology. Zakar means:
to establish in ones memory, to remind, to remember, to reflect, to recall, and to
memorialize something important, making it known. It also conveys the idea that
truth can cleanse and purify, causing us to shine brightly and brilliantly. When
we are enveloped in the Set-Apart Spirits Garment of Light, we are cleansed and
purified by Her so that we can radiate Yahowahs pure and brilliant light.
Moreover, each time a parent bathes their son, they will be reminded of their
commitment to raise him to embrace the Covenant.
Relevant in light of Pauls argument with Yahowshas Disciples, and his
claim to the uncircumcised world, is that there are two different classes of
individuals described in this statement. And both are to be circumcised, which
signifies that two distinct groups of people can become part of Yahowahs
Covenant Family. Abrahams direct descendants through Yitzchaq and Yaaqob
(who became Yisrael) are yalyd naturally born into Yahowahs beyth
family. But since Yahowah has routinely promised that the benefits of the
Covenant would also be available to gowym people from different races and
places, He has provided a provision for adoption. That is what kasap miqnah
those deeply desiring to be acquired and included from nekar foreign lands
represents. These are adopted childrengowym.
Hiding this reality, most English bibles base their translations of this verse on
the Masoretic Text, where the ksp root of kasap longing is pointed kesep
money. As kasap miqnah, the clause speaks of those who really want to be
acquired and included. But as kesep, the order of things has to be reversed and
miqnah kesep becomes a string of nouns: acquisition money, which is then
corrupted to read purchased with money.
 And yet while the kasap miqnah really wanting to be acquired and
included translation is more consistent with the Covenant and more informative,
the miqnah kesep vocalization does address adoption, and thus provides us with
two distinct ways to be included in the Covenant: natural childbirth as a literal
descendant of Abraham, and by choice through adoption. Therefore, both
renderings are acceptable when viewed from this perspective.
By chance, should you have an aversion to adoptive parents, who value a
child more than its natural parents, purchasing a child, be aware that this is how
Yahowah adopts us. He paid the price for us to live with Him as His children.
This is what Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits represent.
As we return to Gods Covenant testimony, it is important that we
consistently approach Yahowahs Word from the proper perspective and with an
open mind. In this light, when a word is repeated in Hebrew, it serves to
substantially increase its importance. Such is the case with muwl muwl in this
next passage.
Also, while its primary definition is to circumcise, to cut off, to separate,
and to remove the foreskin, you may be surprised by muwls secondary and
tertiary definitions both of which are listed below. Additionally, because of
what we learned about kasap versus kesep, the following translation includes both
renderings.
He (huw) must absolutely circumcise him, definitely cutting off the
foreskin (muwl muwl he must cease what he is currently doing, he must turn
him around to face the opposite direction, to ward off threats to his wellbeing by
changing his priorities while making a binding promise (scribed with the niphal
stem denoting the genuineness of this relationship while stressing the benefit
accrued to the parent, in the infinitive absolute which intensifies the importance of
the act, and in the imperfect conjugation telling us that this instruction on
circumcision will endure uninterrupted throughout time)) of the naturally born
(yalyd naturalized as a member of an extended family through natural
childbirth) in your home (beyth into your household and your family (singular
construct)) and also (wa) those really wanting to be (kasap those deeply
desiring, strongly yearning, and passionately longing to be) included (miqnah
acquired, purchased, and obtained) / as well as those who are acquired (miqnah
purchased, obtained, and included, i.e., adopted) with your money (kesep
your precious metals; born out of a deep longing and love).
This shall be (hayah this was, is, and always will be, this exists as (scribed
with the qal stem, denoting a genuine relationship between the subject and the
action of the verb which is existence, in the perfect conjugation telling us that this
shall endure completely unchanged, in the singular conveying that there are no
other options or contingencies, and in the consecutive form, associating our
existence with the beryth family-oriented covenant relationship and its sign
muwl circumcision)) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth-y
My mutually binding agreement and promise, My relational accord based upon
home and family), in (ba) the flesh (basar physical realm with humanity),
serving as (la toward the goal of) an everlasting and eternal (owlam
forever existing and never ending) Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship
(beryth). (Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:13)
Based upon Gods testimony, a New Covenant of any kind, much less one
where circumcision is not required, is therefore a nonstarter. Dont believe anyone
who tells you otherwise, and that includes Paul. Also, if someone condemns the
flesh, calling it evil, as Paul is wont to do, please note that Yahowahs Covenant
was cut with us in the flesh. In addition, in Baresyth 1:31, we read: And God
saw all that He had made, and saw that it was good. And there came to be evening
and there came to be morning, the sixth day. It is mostly in Gnosticism and
Pauline literature where the flesh is considered bad.
Gods instructions have been all encompassing and perfectly clear
especially on circumcision. He simply asked parents to circumcise their sons on
the eighth day. The request is easy, safe, and inexpensive when done shortly after
birth. Its man who has messed this up. Very few parents read the Towrah, much
less consider its implications. Fewer still observe its instructions or share what
Yahowah had to say with their children, as God has so often asked. And as a
consequence, circumcision is one of many things which separate the
preponderance of people from God.
As for Paul being authorized by God to contradict Him on a subject as
essential as the Covenant and its sign, circumcision, youd have to be a fool to
believe this occurred. Yahowah said one thing, and Paul said the opposite. One of
them was not telling the truth. Guess who?
Beyond this, if God changed His mind, if He decided to do something new
which was counter to His previous promises, He would then cease to be
trustworthy or reliable. So the entire notion of placing ones faith in a god prone
to make exceptions to his instructions is indeed a fools folly.
God is serious about circumcision. So we should be as well. This next
statement is as enlightening as it is unequivocal. And especially relevant is arel,
a word which when fully amplified explains the nature of those who are
uncircumcised.
And (wa) the uncircumcised (arel the stubborn, unresponsive,
untrusting and un-reliant, the un-listening and un-observing, the un-cut-off, un-
set-apart and un-separated) male (zakar man who fails to remember to do this)
who relationally (asher who by association beneficially) is not (lo)
circumcised (muwl willing to change his direction and priorities and make this
binding promise) with regard to (eth) the flesh (basar physical, human, and
animal nature) of their foreskin (aralah), those souls (nepesh speaking of
what makes us unique individuals, alive, aware, and conscious) shall be cut off,
be excluded, and banished (karat shall be severed and cut down, shall be
uprooted, die, perish, be destroyed, and cease to exist) from (min) Her (huw
speaking of our Spiritual Mothers Covenant) family (am people who are
related biologically and through language).
By way of association (eth), they violated and disassociated themselves
from (parar they nullified the agreement, revoking its promises, tearing asunder
and thwarting its benefits, splitting away and injuring themselves in the process
by severing) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth-y My
mutually binding agreement, My household promise, My relational accord, My
marriage vow based upon home and family (feminine singular, scribed in the
construct form, connecting and associating the beryth covenant with Gods am
family)). (Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:14)
There should be no doubt. There should be no debate. According to
Yahowah, circumcision and the Covenant are related. They go hand in hand.
Preclude one and you exclude the other.
Circumcision is a signature, signed in blood, declaring our desire to be born
anew by way of our Spiritual Mother into Gods family. And in that light, there is
an interesting affirmation of the purpose our Spiritual Mother plays in our
adoption at the end of this passage. Yahowah told Moseh to write Her family,
not the family, or His family. As a result, those willing to shamar closely
examine His beryth Familial Covenant Relationship recognize that God was
connecting several aspects of His message together for us.
First, God has a Paternal and a Maternal nature. (So God created the man in
His image, in the image of God, He created him male and female He created
them. (Baresyth 1:27)) The Set-Apart Spirit (the feminine Ruwach Qodesh in
Hebrew) performs Yahowahs maternal responsibilities with regard to His family.
Second, beryth covenant is a feminine noun, as is the Greek ekklesia
Called-Out Assembly, confirming the role our Spiritual Mother plays in the
conception of both.
And third, by using hy Her in association with nepesh souls being
karat cut off and separated from Gods am family, as a result of not
accepting His advice, we are provided with yet another insight into the reason the
souls of those who ignore Yahowahs Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with
Him, especially Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread, and Day of Reconciliations
summons, are estranged from His family and cut off and destroyed ceasing to
exist. This occurs because they have rejected our Spiritual Mothers provision.
While the more subtle innuendoes were instructive, the primary message here
was clear and unequivocal. Yahowah established circumcision as the sign of the
Covenant for all of the descendants of Abraham naturally born or adopted for
all of Gods children, for every male member of Yahowahs Covenant, regardless
of race, place, or time. According to our Heavenly Father, there will be no
uncircumcised males in Her Family or in His Covenant. And that means that
circumcision is required to enter into heaven.
For those of you who cringe at the notion that Yahowah might have
established a requirement, which somehow negated freewill, relax.
Circumcision is optional. We all are given the choice to be circumcised, and to
circumcise our sons, or not. The choice is ours to make. All Yahowah is saying is
that it is His beyth home, His beryth covenant, and His am family,
and that if we want to participate and to be included then we must make the
choice to be circumcisedspiritually and physically. As with all fathers, it is His
Home, and therefore: His rules. You dont have to do what He says unless you
want to live under His roof.
There are so many questions which are answered by this passage, lets pause
here a moment longer even at the risk of being a bit redundant. First, while muwl
circumcision is a physical act in the flesh, our nepesh souls are everything
but physical. The nepesh represents our consciousness. While it is an essential
part of our animal nature, as all animals have a nepesh soul, a unique
personality, and an awareness of their environment, our consciousness has no
physical properties. It has no mass and it is not matter. And yet, by failing to be
circumcised our soul dies, because it is expressly excluded from Yahowahs
Covenant Family. Therefore, the choices we make in our mortal, material bodies
influence whether or not we are elevated to a spiritual status.
Second, circumcision is not the means to salvation. But it can be a barrier to
salvation. While not all, or even most, of those who are circumcised will be
adopted into Gods family, men who have not been circumcised will not be
admitted.
Third, we either agree to Gods terms or we nullify the opportunity He has
given us to survive our mortality and to live with Him. There is no hint of
leniency here, no sense of compromise, no opportunity for a future revision to
alter this rule. We either accept it or not. No circumcision, no Covenant. No
Covenant, no relationship with God. No relationship with God, no salvation. And
therein is why such souls die.
 God isnt about to compromise. He not only isnt going to change the terms
of His agreement, He cannot change them without becoming untrustworthy and
unreliable. There is a singular path to life. There is no accommodation for
individual approaches to salvation, or for the collective appeal of Christianity,
Judaism, or Islam.
The implication here is something no Christian or Muslim seems willing or
able to appreciate. Most believe that it matters not if their beliefs are in
compliance with Gods instructions or not, because He knows their heart.
Contradictions become irrelevant. To them, God is God no matter what you call
Him. To them, observing the Sabbath is not relevant, and Friday prayers and
Sunday worship are perfectly acceptable. Jihad and Grace are both embraced by
the faithful, and many opposing paths are thought to lead to God. Sure Christmas
and Easter are pagan, but since that is not what they mean to the celebrant, the
faithful believe that their god will be understanding. For them mercy invokes a
level of capriciousness which they do not see as either unjust or untrustworthy.
Their god wouldnt condemn them for getting some of the details, well actually
most everything, wrong.
And yet, all of these musings are inconsistent with the God who inspired
these words. With Yahowah, you accept the Covenant on His terms or not at all.
Not only are we in no position to negotiate with God over something integrated
into His very nature, we have everything to gain if we agree to His terms, and He
loses nothing if we dont.
Fourth, the nepesh souls of those who do not rely upon Gods
instructions karat die and are permitted to perish, ceasing to exist. This is the
prevailing outcome for the vast preponderance of human souls. At the end of most
peoples mortal lives, when they die, they will cease to exist, because their souls
will simply perish. But this is not a penalty or a Divine punishment. In fact,
Yahowah has little to do with this eventuality. It is by karat disassociating
from God that this fate occurs naturally. You see, eternal life with God requires
us to associate with Him in the specific manner He has delineated. If we dont
accept His terms, if we dont avail ourselves of the path He has provided, then our
souls remain disconnected from the source of life, which means that they will
perish, the individual consciousness ceasing to exist.
Most all religions, but most especially Christianity and Islam, seek
submission by threatening eternal suffering and fiery tortures in hell for all of
those who dont acquiesce to their gods edicts. But not a person among such
believers pauses to think that if their god actually said, Love me and agree with
me or Ill see to it that you suffer forever, such a spirit would not be lovable. In
fact, a god who would make such statements would be sadistic. And that is why
there is an alternative fate awaiting souls which is neither heaven nor hell, neither
a reward nor a punishment. And yet, since such an outcome is neither something
to be coveted nor feared, since ceasing to exist cannot be used effectively to lure
masses of people into submission, religious leaders almost universally deny the
fact that God has such a provision. Such threats are good for business, because
they enable clerics to control and plunder believers.
That is not to say that there isnt a place of eternal separationthere is. But
there are no fires blazing or physical tortures perpetrated therein. Sheowl, known
as the Abyss in Greek, is a lightless place which exists exclusively in the
dimension of time. And it is only for Satan, fellow demonic spirits, and for those
who lead others astray by associating with them. This is a place of separation,
filled with the most outspoken and notorious religious, political, economic, and
military advocates. It is for those who victimize others, oppressing them, and
leading them away from Yahowah, His Towrah, and His Covenant.
While eternal separation from God is a penalty, having ones soul perish is
not. Each individual is given the gift of life and freewill. Everyone can do with
them as they please. If a person chooses to avail themselves of Yahowahs
Covenant, to walk away from Babylon and to walk to Him along the path He has
provided, God has promised to give him or her the gift of eternal life, to
mercifully forgive their sins, to empower such an individual, to enrich them, and
to adopt that soul into His family.
But if we choose instead to ignore Gods provision, to rely on a different
scheme, to alter the deal He has cut with us, or simply reject it, we will be ignored
by God and remain unaltered by His Covenant promises. Its ashes to ashes and
dust to dust. Such souls dont know God and God does not know them. For them,
death will be the end of life.
The fifth lesson brings us back to Paul. Circumcision is the fulcrum upon
which those who rely on Yahowahs Word move in a different direction than
those who believe the thirteenth apostle and his thirteen epistles. In Acts, the
moment we are introduced to Paul, we learn that he advised against circumcision.
As a result, he was called to Yaruwshalaim to explain his departure from
Yahowahs Covenant instructions. Therefore, in his initial letter, the one he wrote
to the Galatians, he was motivated to demean the message of Yahowshas
Disciples, especially Shimown (One who Listens, commonly known as Peter),
Yahowchanan (Yahowah is Merciful, more commonly known as John), and
Yaaqob (Yahowshas brother, who was renamed James to flatter an English
king). In Galatians, Paul ruthlessly attacks circumcision, and demeans Yahowahs
Covenant, calling them: of the flesh, a cruel taskmaster, enslaving, and a
curse, incapable of saving anyone.
 Therefore, Christians have a choice. They can trust Yahowah, or they can
believe Paul. Their claims are diametrically opposed and irreconcilable.
It is also instructive to know that we cant blame this conflict between
Yahowah and Paul on scribal error. While not a word from Baresyth 8:21 to
17:11 can be found among the Qumran scrolls, these specific passages on
circumcision are not only extant, they are unchanged. There isnt a single
discrepancy between the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to the second century BCE, and
the Masoretic Text from Baresyth 17:12 through the end of the chapter. And on
the other end, we have a complete copy of Pauls letter to the Galatians dating to
the late first century CE.
Moreover, the preposterous notion that Paul didnt write Galatians, a book he
claims to have written, a book which is universally attributed to him, a book
which provides the most sweeping panorama of his life, and a book which serves
as the most direct rebuttal to the Disciples regarding his animosity toward
circumcision, the Covenant, and the Torah, does not exonerate Paul. He is equally
opposed to circumcision, the Covenant, and the Torah in Acts and in Romans.
This means that the conflict between Yahowah and Paul cannot be resolved.
If you side with Paul, you will invalidate the benefits of the Covenant. You will
be excluded from Gods family. And your soul will cease to exist. (Unless you are
a soul winner, someone who evangelizes for Christianity and its Gospel of
Grace. In that case, you will spend all of eternity in the Abyss with everyone else
who deliberately sent souls away from Yahowahs Covenant.) And that is why the
choices we make in the flesh, while we retain our physical and animal nature, are
so important.
The sixth lesson we can learn from this passage is not to trust English bible
translations. Yahowah actually said: And (wa) the uncircumcised and
unresponsive (arel) male who fails to remember this (zakar), who relationally
(asher) is not (lo) circumcised or changed (muwl) with regard to (eth) the
flesh (basar) of his foreskin (aralah), that soul (nepesh) shall be cut off, be
excluded, be banished, and be uprooted, ceasing to exist (karat) from (min)
Her (huw) family (am). By way of association (eth) he violated,
disassociating himself from (parar) My Family-Oriented Covenant
Relationship (beryth-y). (Baresyth 17:14)
While not as revealing or complete, the Roman Catholic Vulgate was
accurate up to the point of identifying whose family a soul would be excluded
from. The male whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul
shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant. Not
only is the pronoun Her scribed independently in the Hebrew text via huw,
am family was suffixed in the third person feminine singular, reinforcing the
fact that it is Her family speaking of the Set-Apart Spirit and the Covenant.
Also, the reference to his people suggests banishment from the villages and
land of Yisrael, rather than from our Spiritual Mothers family.
The King James Version reads identically, and thus promotes the same myth.
It is one which would reinforce the ability of the church to excommunicate those
who they opposed.
Recognizing that both translators had made a mistake, the New Living
Translation, not knowing how to deal with Her, added a second covenant and
substituted it for Her. Any male who fails to be circumcised will be cut off
from the covenant family for breaking the covenant. Since it is Gods Word, and
since accuracy is therefore important, you should know that there is no basis for
any in the Hebrew text. They combined arel uncircumcised and
unresponsive with lo muwl is not circumcised or changed, as if only one of
these words was spoken by God. Then they completely ignored eth basar
aralah with regard to the flesh of their foreskinostensibly to avoid
destroying Pauline Doctrine. Then reversing course, they not only repeated
beryth covenant, even though it was written only once, they neglected to
convey that beryth was scribed with the first person singular suffix, making it
My Covenant.
Simply stated, as a sign of our desire to participate in Yahowahs Covenant
we are to be circumcised. The covering of the male genitalia responsible for
consummating a marriage and producing children is to be cut off and
separatedset apart. Our Heavenly Fathers Covenant is about bearing children
and building a family by way of a monogamous marriage relationship. Yahowah
does not want anyone to miss this point.
And yet adversarially, Paul has used not being circumcised as the fulcrum
of his assault on the Torah, calling it irrelevant with regard to ones salvation
even enslaving. Therefore, Yahowahs message is the antithesis of Pauls.
And so is what follows. Yachezqel was given a prophetic preview of
Yahowahs return to Earth, during which time he received the following
instructions regarding the Torah and, by association, circumcision...
And (wa) Yahowah ( ) said to me (amar el shared with me), Son
of man (ben adam child of Adam), place upon your heart (sym leb), look
with your eyes (raah ba ayn), and listen with your ears (wa shama ba ozen),
accordingly, to (eth) everything (kol) which, relationally and beneficially
(asher as a blessing) I (any) have spoken (dabar have communicated orally
and in writing using words) with regard to (eth la) all of (kol) the clearly
communicated and inscribed prescriptions for living (wa chuwqah the
written arrangements regarding life and abiding; from choq the shared and
nourishing thoughts associated with an allocation of something from one who is
set apart which is designed to cut us into a relationship) in Yahowahs Family
Home (beyth the household, temple, and tabernacle of Yahowah).
And so with all of (wa la kol) His Towrah teachings (Towrah towrah His
Towrah instructions, His Towrah guidance, and His Towrah directions (scribed in
the singular as a specific and unique title and then in the plural as a word to
indicate that the Towrah is comprised of many teachings, directions, and
instructions)), therefore indeed (wa), you should choose to place them on your
heart (sym leb you should decide to set and examine them in your core (qal
stem indicating a literal reading is preferred, perfect conjugation telling us that
this should be done without reservation, and consecutive form indicating
volition)) in order to approach the entrance (la mabow so that you gain
entrance into) the Family and Home (ha beyth the house and household, the
temple and tabernacle) with regard to (ba) every (kol) stage of the journey
(mowtsa step along the way) to this set-apart place (ha miqdash the
separated and dedicated sanctuary). (Yachezqel / God Grows / Ezekiel 44:5)
The Torah is the path which leads to the entranceway of Yahowahs Home.
There is no other way; no other door; no other set of instructions. Go forth and tell
this to all those who want to live with God.
Yahowah is not fond of those who rebel against Him or those who diminish
the value of His instructions. In this next verse, God specifically criticizes
Yisraelites (and especially, Shauwl) for inviting those who have ignored the sign
of the Covenant into His Homecalling what Paul has done: the greatest and
most detestable of all abominations. Indeed, to all of those who are opposed to
Yahowah, to Yisrael, to Yahuwdym, to the Covenant, or the Towrah, Yahowah
says:
And you shall say to (wa amar el) the rebellious and contentious (mary
the revolting and embittered who resist My position and guidance, and those
displaying animosity who are insubordinate and opposed), regarding (el to and
about) the House of Yisrael (beyth yisrael the home of those individuals who
strive, engage, and endure with God), this is what (koh) My Foundation, the
Upright Pillar, Yahowah (edon ), says (amar): The greatest of all of
your (rab la min kol) detestable abominations (towebah your repulsive,
loathsome, immoral, and abhorrent practices) in the House of Yisrael (ba beyth
yisrael home of those individuals who strive, engage, and endure with God)
(44:6) is your inclusion (bow bringing in) the male offspring (ben sons) of
foreigners (nekar strangers) who are uncircumcised (arel stubborn and
forbidden, unobservant and unresponsive) of heart (leb) and uncircumcised (wa
arel unobservant, unresponsive, and forbidden) of flesh (basar body) to exist
(hayah) in My Sanctuary (ba miqdash in My Home, from qadash purifying
place which is set apart) to defile and profane it (la halal huw to desecrate and
pollute it, treating Him with contempt (written with the third person masculine
singular suffix this refers to Him, serving to unify Yahowsha and the Temple))
along with (eth) My Home and Family (beyth House and Household),
(Yachezqel / God Grows / Ezekiel 44:6-7)
It isnt that God is opposed to foreigners entering His Home. But instead, the
message here is that we Gowym must follow the same path to Yahowahs
Household that Yahuwdym doand that is by way of the Covenant and Called-
Out Assemblies. There arent two paths to God, or two doorways to heaven, one
for Jews the other for Gentiles. There is but one Covenant, one Towrah, one God,
and one Way.
The inference here is that by ignoring and rejecting the sign of the
Covenantcircumcisionsome Yisraelites have treated Yahowahs Home, with
contempt. And considering that Shauwls principle argument with the Torah has
been and will be circumcision, his ministry and letters sit at the crosshairs of this
prophetic warning. Its hard to imagine Yahowahs disgust being directed at
anyone other than Shauwl in this regard. No one else in all of human history even
came close to Pauls influence regarding the specific topic of disassociating
circumcision from salvation.
This is one of the most specific, and yet devastating passages on the topic of
disrespecting the Torah, and especially the sign of the Covenant. In it, Yahowah is
speaking about His return on the Day of Reconciliations (Yowm Kippurym), five
days before the beginning of the Millennial Sabbath on the Miqra of Sukah. And
in the context of bringing the Tribulation to a close, the one thing that He wants
Yachezqel to tell His people above all else is that inviting non-circumcised
Gentiles into His Sanctuary (which serves as a metaphor for Sukah and thus
heaven) is the single most repulsive and immoral thing any Yisraelite has ever
done. This does not bode well for Pauls letters and for the masses of Christians
who read them as an invitation to heaven.
Yahowah is predicting that there will be a devastating consequence
associated with Pauls position on this matterwhere he flaunted his rejection of
the Torah and circumcision. And that is because disassociating circumcision from
the Covenant, demeaning the Torah, and disassociating the Upright Pillar
(Yahowsha) from Yahowahs instructions, has nullified Gods plan of salvation
for billions of souls, causing Yahowah to prophetically tell us that the letter
Shauwl would write to the Galatians is an abomination.
By profaning the human sign, or signature, of the Covenant, the Spiritual
signs, or metaphors, of the Covenant would also be defiled: bread, oil, wine, and
blood. in your coming near and approaching (ba qarab) My finest oil,
bread, and My chosen blood (cheleb lechem wa dam symbolic of His
fulfillment of Pesach and Matsah). And also (wa) they broke (parar they
severed, violated, and nullified, you revoked, frustrated, and thwarted) My
Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth) by way of all your detestable
abominations (el kol towebah all of your repulsive, loathsome, and abhorrent
acts of idolatry), (Yachezqel / God Grows / Ezekiel 44:7)
Our collective unwillingness to take Yahowah and His Word seriously has
led to the nullification of the Covenant for many. And this problem has become
ubiquitous as a result of Galatians and its byproduct: Christianity.
Specifically, Pauls antagonism toward circumcision is mixed with references
to the Maaseyah, represented by bread, the Spirit, represented by oil, and
Passover, the Doorway to Life, denoted by blood. So by demeaning one, Paul
demeaned all. He broke the connection between them and thereby nullified the
Covenant and thwarted its intent.
For Yahowah to be this angry at this one thinginappropriately inviting
uncircumcised Gentiles into His family and home in opposition to His Towrah
Instructionsit strongly suggests that God is using Shauwls most notorious
single act of rebellion against His Torah to alert us all to the consequence of the
mans message. Pauline Doctrine, by severing the connection between Yahowsha
and the Towrah, rendered Yahowahs promises moot for billons of Gentile
Christians.
While Shauwl has invited people of every race and place into Gods family
and home, Yahowah has put us on notice that his invitation was a fraud, and that
the self-acclaimed messenger of god was the greatest abomination in human
history. And this is not the first, nor will it be the last time Yahowah lashes out at
Shauwl prophetically. He and we have just begun.
Thirteen ill-advised letters were sufficient to separate Christians from God,
because as a direct result of the canonization of Pauls epistles, far too few
Christians observe the Torah or teach the required functions of Yahowahs
Set-Apart Ones, the Maaseyah Yahowsha and the Set-Apart Spirit.
and (wa) by not observing, closely examining and carefully
considering (lo shamar by not focusing upon being aware of, paying
especially close attention to and contemplating) the requirement and
responsibility (mishmereth function and purpose, the expression, condition, and
accountability) of My Set-Apart Ones (qodesh set apart ones includes Gods
Home, His Temple, the Children of the Covenant, Yahowsha, and the Set-Apart
Spirit in addition to Yisrael, the Shabat, and the Miqraey). (Yachezqel / God
Grows / Ezekiel 44:8) One God, two manifestations, different roles, same result.
The Set-Apart Spirit and the Son are both set apart from Yahowah to serve us.
 The requirement and responsibility of Yahowahs Set-Apart Ones are
something we are to closely observe and carefully consider. Therefore, God
wants us to understand the roles His Son and Spirit play in this relationship and in
our salvationand specifically appreciate their contribution, and ours as parents,
to the Covenant. The entire Torah exists in large part to convey this information
to us because our lives depend upon it. And yet it is this connection that Shauwl
has severed. As a result, faith in his Gospel of Grace became nothing more than
the belief in a ghoulish spectacle and myth.
Youll also notice that there are requirements to participate in the Covenant
and responsibilities for us as parents. And while we are free to ignore them, even
reject them, we arent free to enter Gods home when we do either. When God
makes a promise, such as those delineated in His seven-step plan of salvation, He
is committed to fulfilling and honoring what He has vowed. And that is what
makes Him and His Torah trustworthy.
To appreciate this, we are encouraged to carefully observe the Torah so that
we can properly convey what it says regarding the path we are invited to follow to
reach the doorway of Yahowahs Home. And you were appointed (wa sym
and you were put in place and established) to (la to approach, to come near, and
to) observe (shamar to closely examine and carefully consider) My conditions
and requirements (mishmereth My purpose, expression, and terms) in (ba) My
Set-Apart Home (miqdash My Set-Apart Sanctuary and Place) for you to
draw near (la on your behalf for you to approach). (Yachezqel / God Grows
/ Ezekiel 44:8)
But most Jews and Christians have rejected Yahowahs instructions in favor
of their debilitating faith. Far too few personally and carefully observe what the
Torah has to say about Yahowahs home and how we are to get there. And some,
like Shauwl, have actually spoken against the path Yahowah has provided.
What follows is revealed in Gods voice. It is unequivocal...
Thus says (koh amar this is what is communicated by) My Foundation,
the Upright Pillar (edon the Upright One of the Tabernacle), Yahowah
( ): Every (kol completely all) foreign male (nekar ben non-native son)
who is uncircumcised (arel stubborn, unhearing, and forbidden) of heart (leb)
and uncircumcised (arel stubborn and forbidden) in the flesh (basar), he
shall not come to or be included inside (lo bow el he shall not arrive at or be
brought to) My Set-Apart Home (miqdash My Set-Apart Sanctuary and Place)
this concerns the approach of (la) every non-native son (nekar ben foreign
male) who is in the midst (asher ba tawek) of the Children of Yisrael (beny
Yisrael sons who engage and endure with God). (Yachezqel / God Grows /
Ezekiel 44:9)
 To be circumcised in the heart is to understand and accept the symbolic
significance of what circumcision represents. To be circumcised in the flesh is to
have ones foreskin cut. And keep in mind, the second half of Yachezqel /
Ezekiel is devoted to the Millennial Shabat and its temple, so it is prophetic of our
future life with our Heavenly Father in His home. This comment from our God,
therefore, cannot be relegated to a previous time, a prior relationship, a people
long ago dismissed, or to a different place.
Therefore, since Yahowahs miqdash set-apart Home and Sanctuary, His
purifying place, His Temple and Tabernacle is synonymous with Sukah
Shelters, which serves as a metaphor for heaven, then this is the second time that
Yahowah has told us that He is so serious about the significance of circumcision
that He will not associate with anyone who has rejected His instruction in this
regard. And yet regardless of what Yahowahs Sanctuary symbolizes here, God
has already told us in Baresyth / Genesis that the souls of males who are not
circumcised will die, separated from Him and thus from Heaven. Equally
important, since the foundation of Galatians is the negation of circumcision and
the Torah, it is unequivocally wrongas is any religious institution predicated
upon it.
Also, while some may protest and say that this is just an advisory notice
regarding the Millennial Temple, youve got three things working against you.
First, Revelation 3:12 tells us: All who are victorious will become pillars in
the Tabernacle of My God and will never have to leave it. And I will write on
them the name of My God All means all, thats all all means.
Second, during the Millennial Sabbath there wont be any uncircumcised
individuals because the One Thousand Year Shabat observation of Sukah is a
celebration of the Covenant. And during this time, Yahowah, Himself, will reside
in His Millennial Temple, making such ubiquitous malfeasance impossible.
And third, the Millennial Sabbath is a celebration of the Miqra of Sukah. As
such, it embodies all that the seventh Festival Feast represents, making it the
ultimate party. The entire Earth will be remade in the image of the Garden of
Eden, and thus will be a joyous paradise. This isnt, therefore, the kind of
environment or atmosphere in which the most detestable abomination in human
history could transpire.
These things known, I am haunted by two questions. With Yahowahs
position on circumcision being so clearly stated, so vital, unequivocal, and
nonnegotiable, why did Shauwl choose this issue to pick a fight with the
Disciples and with God? And with Yahowshas position on the Torah being so
clearly stated, so vital, and nonnegotiable, how is it that Shauwl thought he could
contradict Him and not be repudiated and dismissed for having done so?
 While Id love to linger here in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, and ponder
the import of each word and phrase, having proven that the Yahuwdym depicted
in Acts 15:1 were correct with regard to the connection between circumcision and
salvation, our mission at the moment is to determine whether or not Paul was
telling the truth regarding the Yaruwshalaim Summit. So, lets return to the book
of Acts.

Recognizing that the testimony the Yahuwdym from Yahuwdah (Jews from
Judea) had delivered in Antioch regarding the connection between circumcision
and salvation was accurate, Lukes historic depiction began, saying:
And some having come down from Yahuwdah were teaching the
brethren that if you might not be circumcised as prescribed by Moseh, you
are not able to be saved. (15:1) Now continues with...
So (de) a rebellion (ginomai stasis a heated quarrel and open discord, an
insurrection and uprising) and also (kai) a disputed argument (zetesis a
debated controversy) which were neither limited in scope, degree, or time (ouk
oligos not among a few, not to a small degree, and not for a short while),
pertained to the individual (to) Paulos (Paulo of Latin origin meaning Little
and Lowly) and (kai) to (to) Barnabas (Bar-Naby meaning Prophets Son).
Regarding them (pros autous against them), they gave the order and
assigned the task (tasso they proposed, decided, and instituted the plan) to
come up to (anabaino to stand up to, to rise up and embark on the mission to
reach) Paulos (Paulon Little and Lowly) and (kai) Barnabas (Bar-Naby
Prophets Son) and some others (kai tinas allos) among (ek from) them
(autos) on behalf of (pros concerning) the Apostles (apostolos those who are
prepared and sent out) and elders (kai presbyteros leaders) in Yaruwshalaim
(Ierousalem transliteration of Yaruwshalaim, meaning the Source of
Reconciliation) with regard to (peri) this (toutou) controversy and question
(zetema point of dispute and inquiry, debate and argument). (Acts 15:2)
So much for the notion of Shauwl going to Yaruwshalaim because of a
revelation. It was actually an all out rebellion which prompted this inquisition.
Pauls message denouncing circumcision and the Torah was under attack by those
who knew better.
In that we will be comparing these two presentations, Lukes Acts and Pauls
Galatians, Id like to proceed by reviewing what Paul had written regarding this
meeting when he said:
 Later, through fourteen years, also, I went up to Yaruwshalaim along
with Barnabas, having taken along also Titus. (2:1)
I went up from uncovering an unveiling revelation which lays bare,
laying down to them the beneficial messenger which I preach among the
races pertaining to my own, uniquely and separately, but then to the
opinions, presumptions, and suppositions, not somehow perhaps into
foolishness and stupidity, without purpose or falsely, I might run or I ran
(2:2) to the contrary, not even Titus, a Greek being, was compelled or
pressured to be circumcised (2:3) but then on account of the impersonators
who faked their relationship brought in surreptitiously under false pretenses,
who sneaked into the group to secretly spy upon and clandestinely plot
against the freedom from conscience and liberation from the constraints of
morality that we possess in Christo Iesou in order that us they will actually
make subservient, controlling for their own ends, (2:4) to whom neither to a
moment we yielded, surrendered, or submitted in order that the truth of the
God may continue to be associated among you. (2:5)
But now from the ones currently reputed, presumed, and supposed to be
important based upon some sort of unspecified past, they were actually and
continue to be nothing, completely meaningless and totally worthless to me.
It carries through and bears differently in the face of God for man not take
hold of, acquire, or receive, because to me, the ones currently presuming and
supposing, presently dispensing opinions based upon reputed appearances,
are of no account, utterly meaningless and totally worthless, was their advice
and counsel, their cause and contribution in the past. (2:6)
Contrariwise, nevertheless notwithstanding the objection or exception,
having seen that because namely I have been believed entrusted with the
healing message and beneficial messenger of the uncircumcised inasmuch as
Petros of the circumcised (2:7) because then namely, the one having
previously functioned in Petro to an apostle for the circumcision, it actually
functioned also in me to the nations and ethnicities. (2:8)
And having known and having recognized, becoming familiar with the
Grace of the one having been given to me, Yaaqob, Kephas, and also
Yahowchanan, the ones presently presumed to be pillars, and thus leaders,
the right place of honor and authority they granted to me, and to Barnabas
fellowship as a result. We to the nations and ethnicities, but they to the
circumcision. (2:9) Only alone by itself the lowly and poor, the worthless
beggars of little value that we might remember and possibly think about
which also I was eager and quick to do this similarly. (2:10)
 That was Shauwls version of the events. Now, lets return to the book of
Acts and consider the historians perspective on the Yaruwshalaim Inquiry. This
monumental meeting was dated to 50 CE seventeen years after Yahowshas
Passover and Unleavened Bread Sacrifice and the fulfillment of FirstFruits and
Seven Sabbaths.
Now that we know that the pretext for this meeting was misrepresented by
Paul, how about the spies? Were they false brothers unknown to Paul or the
Called Out in Yaruwshalaim?
But (de) having arrived in (paraginomai eis having approached and
appeared in) Yaruwshalaim (Ierousalem transliteration of Yaruwshalaim,
meaning the Source of Reconciliation), they were acknowledged and received
(paradechomai were welcomed hospitably as visitors) by the (apo tes) Called
Out (ekklesia), the (kai ton) Apostles (apostolos), and elders (kai ton
presbyteros and the leaders). And then (te so then likewise) they reported
(anangello they announced and proclaimed) as much as (hosos to the degree
that) God (o ) did (poieomai worked and performed) with (meta) them
(autos). (15:4)
But (de) some important individuals (tines certain specific people)
steadfastly stood up (exanistamai resolutely rose up to take a stand), the ones
(ton) from (apo as in separated from and disassociated with) the religious
party (tes hairesis the faction based upon false teaching and heresy; from
haireomai to think and choose for oneself) of the Pharisees (ton Pharisaios
rabbinical religious fundamentalists; a transliteration of the Hebrew parash,
meaning to separate, some of whom left their ranks to follow Yahowsha), who
having come to trust and to rely (pisteuo to think and be persuaded, thus
becoming confident), said (lego and affirmed) that (hoti) it is a necessary
requirement (dei it is a must, it is inevitable, it is proper and established, right
and beneficial) to circumcise (peritemno) individuals (autous) not only (te) to
provide instruction as a messenger (parangello to convey the message or to
announce or proclaim the teaching), but also (kai) to observe (tereo to attend to
by focusing upon, closely examining and carefully considering) the Towrah of
Moseh (Mouseos nomon a Greek transliteration of Moseh, meaning: the One
who Draws us Out and nomon an allotment which is parceled out, an
inheritance which is given, nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and
used, precepts which are apportioned, established, and is received as the means to
be proper and approved, prescriptions to become heirs; from nemo that which is
provided, assigned, and distributed to ones children to nourish them). (Acts
15:4-5)
Once again, Luke has made it unequivocally clear that these individuals were
advocating and endorsing the Torah Yahowah dictated to Moseh, not Rabbinic
Law. And since they were Pauls antagonists, and therefore the motivation behind
Pauls letter to the Galatians, it would be ridiculous to suggest that Pauls foe was
anything other than the Torah. This is a devastating blow relative to Pauls
credibility and it was provided by his biographer, Luke, Christianitys most
respected historian. The lone viable excuse that could have been deployed to
partially exonerate Paul, the notion that he was assailing and demeaning Rabbinic
Law rather than the Torah, has just been even more fully obliterated by this
testimony. If you are an informed and rational person, the debate is over, as is any
possibility that Christianity is valid.
The men who stood uphad come to trust and rely, which means that they
were not false brothers. They did not sneak into the meeting under false
pretenses, as they were elders among the Called Out in Yaruwshalaim. I suspect
that Nicodemus, the Pharisee who is shown meeting with Yahowsha in
Yahowchanan 3, was among them. But either way, they did not come to secretly
observe, but to the contrary, to stand up and speak. Like Paul, these individuals
were former Pharisees. But unlike Paul, they, like the One they followed, were
Torah observant.
While Pauls first five statements regarding this meeting have all crumbled in
the face of the historic evidence Luke has provided, his sixth, seventh, and eighth
assertions are also in jeopardy. Paul had written in Galatians 2:9 that he had
presented his case, and then after having done so, he had been accepted by
Yaaqob, Shimown, and Yahowchanan. But Luke deliberately says that the
welcome occurred prior to Pauls presentation of his message and ministry. He
also suggests that the welcome was little more than an acknowledgement that
these visitors had shown up. And that means even the false notion of a right
hand of fellowship could not have been the ringing endorsement Paul would
have his readers believe it might have been. Rather, the false Apostle was putting
a carefully designed spin on the actual events to deliberately mislead his
audience.
Also, contrary to Pauls claim that everyone was accepting of the
uncircumcised condition of his Greek associate, Titus (in Galatians 2:3), we find
that the elders strongly encouraged circumcision, calling it: a necessary
requirement, proper, established, right, and beneficial to circumcise
individuals not only to provide instruction as a messenger, to convey the
message, and to announce or proclaim the teaching, but also to observe, to
attend to by focusing upon, the Towrah of Moseh. Therefore, Pauls eighth
recollection, that he was only told to remember the poor, was also untrue. He
was told to remember the Torah generally and circumcision specifically.
Now, lets see if Pauls claim that an agreement was allegedly reached in the
meeting to divide the world, limiting Yahowchanan, Shimown, and Yaaqob to
the circumcised, while granting Paul authority over every other nation and race, is
valid. Luke writes:
So then (te) demonstrating leadership (sunago drawing people together;
from sun, with, and ago, to lead), the Apostles (apostolos those who were
prepared and sent out; speaking specifically of Yahowshas Disciples) and (kai)
the elders (presbuteros the leaders) paid attention (horao looked at,
perceived, recognized, were aware of, and understood) concerning (peri
because of and with regard to) this (toutou), the Word (tou logou statement,
reason, account, declaration, affirmation, treatise, decree, and mandate). (Acts
15:6)
In other words, the Apostles and elders supported the men who stood up and
affirmed the Torahthe Word of Godplacing all of them at odds with Paul.
They were in a word, observant. Further, this testimony affirms that the Word
and the Towrah of Moseh were considered one and the same.
As we continue, we are confronted with additional testimony which
invalidates Pauls all they said was to remember the lowly, and that they agreed
that the nations and ethnicities belonged to Paul with Shimown limited to the
circumcised. Turns out they had a lot more to say, and it all was in direct
opposition to Pauls recollection.
But then (de) with considerable and extensive (polys very great) debate
(zetesis questioning and controversy, mediating and reasoning, contentious
argument and deliberation, seeking information and dispute) happening (ginomai
having come to exist), the Rock (petros meaning rock, a translation of
Shimowns nickname, Kephas, of the same meaning in Aramaic) having stood
up (anistamai having taken a stand, rising, standing upright), said (eipen) to
and against (pros about) them (autos), Men (andres), brothers (adelphoi),
you all (umeis) have examined the evidence, thought about it, and have come
to understand (epistamai through intellection evaluation of what you have
come to know, possessing sufficient information to comprehend and take a
resolute and confident stand) that (hoti) from (apo) in (en) the beginning
(archaios existing for a long time in the past) you all (umin) chose for yourself
(eklegomai selected) Yahowah ( a placeholder used by Yahowshas
Disciples, like Shimown, and in the Septuagint to convey elohym, the Almighty,
and Yahowah) on account of (dia through and as a consequence of) my (mou)
spoken words (stoma message from my mouth), listening to and considering
(akouo receiving, hearing, paying attention to, comprehending, and
understanding) the Word (legos) of the healing messenger and beneficial
message (tou euangelion) to the races and nations (ethnos to the ethnicities),
and considered it to be trustworthy and reliable (pisteuo were convinced and
became confident). (Acts 15:7)
 Yahowsha had personally trained Shimown, teaching and guiding him
every step of the way, equipping him to articulate His healing and beneficial
message to the world. And then God deliberately and unequivocally authorized
the Shimown, as well as Yahowchanan and Yaaqob, to represent Him to
everyone. There were no limitations, no restrictions, no ethnicities off limits. And
as proof of this, everyone of those Called Out in Yaruwshalaim on this day, save
Paul, knew Yahowah because they had heard His message shared by Shimown or
Yahowsha, Himself.
And lets be very clear about this. Shimown did not say that his words had
saved anyone. The Rocks role in their salvation was sharing the Word therefore
reciting the Torah. Better trained and prepared than anyone else on the planet
(save Yahowchanan and Yaaqob perhaps), this Apostle knew Yahowsha, he
understood Yahowah, he acknowledged the importance of the Torah, and
therefore he was an especially effective witness.
By acknowledging his history and theirs, Shimown Kephas confirmed what
Yahowsha had promised and thereby pulverized Pauls ninth claim. The Rock
upon which the Ekklesia Called-Out Assembly would be established was
Shimowns pronouncement of Yahowahs Word, whereby he proclaimed that
Yahowsha was the Maaseyah, the Son of God.
Beyond this, everyone who was part of the Called-Out Assembly in
Yaruwshalaim during the fulfillment of the Called-Out Assembly of Seven
Sabbaths was specifically equipped by the Set-Apart Spirit to share the healing
and beneficial message with the entire world, regardless of what languages the
Gentiles spoke. Simply stated, the ministry of the Apostles had never been limited
to Jews as Paul had claimed. The exact opposite was true. In fact, for Shauwl to
be right, the fulfillment of the Miqra of Shabuwa, which serves as the foundation
of the Ekklesia, and the impetus for the book of Acts, had to be a complete
fabrication.
These things known, when we place Lukes account of this meeting as it is
presented in the book of Acts next to Pauls description of it in Galatians, we find
that the historical account is markedly different.
Paul began preaching within a few days of his flashing light from the
sky experience, negating the possibility of a three-year training session in
Arabia. (Galatians 1:17-18)
The Yaruwshalaim Summit was held seventeen years after Yahowshas
fulfillment of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, and the Set-Apart
Spirits fulfillment of Seven Sabbaths, so it could not have occurred seventeen to
nineteen years by Pauls reckoning after he had been struck by lightning on the
road to Damascus, because this would require Pauls encounter to have occurred
prior to Yahowshas crucifixion. (Galatians 1:18 & 2:2)
A massive disagreement over Pauls antagonism toward circumcision
compelled the meeting, not a revelation from God. (Galatians 2:2)
The Yaruwshalaim Summit included the Apostles, elders, and the
leadership of the Yaruwshalaim Called-Out Assembly, not just certain
individuals. If Luke was right, a multitude of people were in attendance.
(Galatians 2:2)
The Apostles and elders did not agree with Paul, and indeed opposed what
he said. (Galatians 2:2)
Those who spoke in support of the Torah were not false brothers. They
were elders in the Ekklesia. Paul unjustly slandered them. (Galatians 2:4)
Those who spoke in support of the Torah did not sneak into the room.
They were invited children of the Covenant. (Galatians 2:4)
Those who spoke in support of the Torah were not secret observers, they
were active contributors. (Galatians 2:4)
There is no connection between observing the Torah and being enslaved
as Paul testified. The Torah presents Gods plan of salvation. (Galatians 2:4)
Pauls position on circumcision was challenged on the basis of the Torah
during the meeting with those in attendance siding with Gods Word and against
Paul. And Paul did yield to them. He personally circumcised Timothy, the next
Gentile he encountered. (Galatians 2:5 & Acts 16:3)
Paul could not have been an advocate for the truth or for freedom. For
Paul to be right, God had to be wrong. So Pauls stand was the antithesis of
beneficial, healing, or advantageous. (Galatians 2:6)
If those who spoke on behalf of the Torah were unimportant and worthless
because they had formerly been Pharisees, then why did Paul brag about his
achievements within this sect? (Galatians 1:13-14 & 2:6)
Those who spoke on behalf of circumcision cited the Torah, so they added
Gods perspective to the meeting not their own. (Galatians 2:6)
Shimown quoted Yahowsha as proof that he had been called to share
Yahowahs message to the uncircumcised in opposition to Pauls assessment.
(Galatians 2:7)
Shimown specifically referenced the Gentiles in the room who had been
saved as a result of the words he had spoken, negating Pauls claim of exclusivity.
(Galatians 2:8)
Shimown, Yaaqob, and Yahowchanan acknowledged Paul before the
meeting began, not after Pauls presentation ended, and thus their handshake was
not given in recognition of Charis/Grace given to Paul, as Paul alleges. This
misrepresentation, which was designed to be seen as an endorsement, speaks
volumes about Pauls willingness to twist the evidence to salvage and promote his
reputation. (Galatians 2:9)
The Apostles were important because they were personally trained and
appointed by the Maaseyah, Yahowsha. There was nothing supposed about
their positions. They serve as pillars along the path to the Covenant. It was
completely inappropriate for Paul to disparage them. (Galatians 2:9)
Lukes historic portrayal of events in the book of Acts is in direct conflict
with Pauls claim that Shimown, Yaaqob, and Yahowchanan agreed to limit
their outreach. There is no indication whatsoever that the Apostles supported
Pauls exclusive right to witness to Gentiles. In fact, all evidence is to the
contrary. (Galatians 2:9)
Those who spoke at the meeting told Paul to remember many things, and
foremost among them was the Torah, and most especially the requirement to be
circumcised to be Torah observant. They clearly and succinctly articulated
Yahowahs position that we are all called to witness to everyone, that there is no
difference between Yahuwdym and Gowym as it relates to the Covenant
relationship or the process of salvation. To speak for God and to be saved, one
must observe the Torahs instructions. (Galatians 2:10)
In conclusion, if Paul cannot be trusted to accurately present what happened
during the two most important meetings of his life (the mythical meeting in
Arabia and the inquisition in Yaruwshalaim), he cannot be trusted with regard to
his contrarian message. This is a wakeup call for those who have been led to
believe that Paul was right when he said that the Torah had been replaced by
faith in his Gospel of Grace.
If you havent already recognized that it is rationally impossible for Paul to
be a reliable witness when he contradicts the God he claimed to represent, then
the realization that Paul cannot be trusted to accurately relay conversations
between men should be sufficient for you to discount his testimony regarding
God.
To be clear, Im not saying that everything Paul wrote has been discredited,
just a third of Galatians (everything we have read up to this point), and with it, the
foundation of Christendom. The remainder of Pauls letter and letters are awaiting
our examination. But the realization that the first third of his first epistle has been
deficient in every conceivable way should suffice to indicate that his remaining
words arent Scripture either. It is obvious that they never should have been
elevated to this status. Gods standard is perfection. Paul has no standards.
Therefore, while it requires study and thought, Pauls epistle to the Galatians
has taught us a valuable lesson: we must be careful. Yahowah is trustworthy and
men are not.
LE: 05-30-2013
 Questioning Paul
Volume 1: The Great Galatians Debate
Is Christianity Right or Wrong?

4
Anomos Without an Inheritance

To those without the Torah, I was Torahless

The reason we have taken a detour into the book of Acts, in the midst of our
review of Pauls letter to the Galatians, is that Lukes historical portrait provides
the best contemporaneous platform from which to judge the veracity of Shauwls
writings. And now that we are here, there are many additional things we can learn
some of them surprising.
Shimown, meaning He Listens, but more commonly known as Peter, is
going to be our star witness. He, with Luke serving as our narrator, reveals that a
wide-ranging controversy had arisen between Yahowshas handpicked Disciples
and the self-proclaimed apostle Paul. Not only was Shauwls message the
antithesis of what Yahowsha had taught Shimown, and indeed in irreconcilable
conflict with Yahowahs Word, the man who has come to be known to many as
Paul was also claiming exclusive rights to preach his contrarian message to the
world.
So that we regain the perspective that has been provided by Luke, lets quickly
review what had transpired before we consider the additional testimony Shimown
Kephas provided to deliberately undermine and discredit the entirety of Shauwls
premise.
And some, having come down from Yahuwdah, were teaching the
brethren that if you might not be circumcised as prescribed by Moseh, you are
not able to be saved. (15:1)
So an openly heated and hotly disputed argument, which was substantial
and pervasive, arose pertaining to the individual Paulos and to Barnabas.
Regarding them, they gave the order to stand up to Paulos and Barnabas,
and some others among them, on behalf of the Apostles and elders in
Yaruwshalaim with regard to this controversy associated with this point of
dispute and inquiry. (15:2)
 Then having arrived in Yaruwshalaim, they were acknowledged and
received by the Called Out, the Apostles, and elders. So then they reported as
much as God did with them. (15:4)
But some important individuals steadfastly stood up, the ones now
disassociated from the religious party of the Pharisees who having come to
trust and to rely, said that it is a necessary requirement, it is established, right
and beneficial, to circumcise individuals, not only to provide instruction as a
messenger, but also to observe the Towrah of Moseh. (15:5)
So then demonstrating leadership, the Apostles and the elders paid
attention concerning this statement from the Word. (15:6)
But then with considerable and extensive debate happening, the Rock
having stood up said to and against them, Men, brothers, you all have
examined the evidence, thought about it, and have come to understand that
from the beginning you all chose Yahowah for yourself on account of my
spoken words, listening to and considering the Word of the healing message
and beneficial Messenger to the races and nations, and considered it to be
trustworthy and reliable. (15:7)
While the elders testimony on behalf of the Torah and then Shimowns claims
on behalf of everyones shared experience with Yahowah, have completely
pulverized Pauloss position, Shimown wasnt finished pummeling Gods foe. He
continued to say...
And (kai) Yahowah ( a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples, like
Shimown, and in the Septuagint to convey elohym, the Almighty, in addition to
Yahowahs name), the One (o) who knows hearts (kardiognostes addressing the
individuals attitude and what they have incorporated into their lives), provided
testimony and spoke of (martyreo witnessed on behalf of and vouched for)
having given (didomi having produced and granted, appointing, assigning, and
bestowing) to them (autois) the Set-Apart (to agion and purifying) Spirit (to
a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples like Shimown and in the
Septuagint to represent the ruwach Spirit of Yahowah) just as (kathos for the
same reason and to the same degree) also (kai) to us (emin). (15:8)
And no one (kai outhen) can make a distinction (diakrinomai can create a
difference) between (metaxy) us (emon) and also likewise (te kai) them (auton),
in that which is trustworthy and reliable (pistis), having cleansed (katharizo
having healed and purified) their (auton) hearts (kardias addressing the
individual, their desires and attitude). (Acts 15:9)
This is a brilliant opening statement by Shimown Kephas, especially
considering the nature of his adversary. In direct opposition to Pauls but I say,
Yahowshas Disciple affirmed that, with regard to salvation, Yahowahs
testimony is all that matters. Then, the Rock further differentiated himself from
Shauwl when he identified the source of his effectiveness: the Set-Apart Spirit
the same Spirit which Yahowah had previously spoken about and had provided
to His Covenant children. By contrast, however, in the previous chapter, we learned
that Pauls power came from a masculine spirit whom he later identified as a
messenger of Satan.
Also in direct contrast to Shauwl, the Rock said that no one should make a
distinction between us and them, which was to say that the world should not be
divided between Yahuwdym and Gowym, or even into past, present, and future
circumstances. All of Yahowahs Spirit-filled troubadours are called to share Gods
healing message, and to anyone and everyoneto all those whose minds are open,
regardless of race, place, or time.
As a result of the fulfillment seventeen years earlier of the Torahs promises
regarding Seven Sabbaths, where the beneficiaries of Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread,
and FirstFruits were enriched and empowered, our Heavenly Fathers Covenant
family grew in numbers and capability. And consistent with the Towrahs
Instructions, Gowym and Yahuwdym, men and women, young and old, rich and
poor, free and slave were all invited to participate. While there was still a distinction
nationally and communally, individually the door was wide open. Regardless of
ethnicity, gender, age, or economic status, the path to become Yahowahs children
is the same, because there is and always has been only one Way to God and one
way to witness on His behalf.
Therefore, Shimown asks Shauwl and company a rather poignant question,
one which casts Paul in the role of Satan...
Now (nyn), therefore (oun), why (ti) do you test and tempt (peirazo do
you (speaking to Shauwl and Barnabas) look for mistakes and try to exploit and
trap) God (N a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint
to convey elohym, the Almighty), to place upon and impose (epitithemai to lay
on, subjecting, and inflicting) a yoke (zygos a mechanism for controlling the
movement of animals) upon the neck (epi ton trachelos) of the Disciples (ton
mathetes followers who are committed to a relationship and who as students are
instructed and tutored) which (on) neither (oute) our (emon) fathers (pateres) nor
(oute) we (emeis) were given the authority (ischuo were able to enforce, were
competent to validate, and sufficiently empowered) to accept, support, or put up
with (bastazo to comprehend, take up, carry, or endure in our walk)? (Acts
15:10)
While it is a translation of what Shimown actually said, since this discussion
would have been conducted in Hebrew, or possibly Aramaic, there is no dismissing
the fact that peirazo is an unsavory term. It is used in reference to Satan tempting
Yahowsha in the wilderness prior to the beginning of His witness in Mark 1:13.
Mattanyah is also translated using the same word in relation to Satan, calling him
the tempter in Mattanyah 4:3. Then peirazo was supplied by a scribe in
Mattanyah 16:1, showing the Pharisees and Sadducees trying to tempt
Yahowsha, so as to manipulate Him.
Therefore, the Disciple Shimown is implying that Shauwl was acting like
Satan and his religious minions in his attempt to test and tempt God, searching
for mistakes to exploit and trap God. He has done so by misquoting God. And the
issues at play were Torah observance, especially circumcision, and messaging,
particularly the audience. So since Yahowahs instructions in this regard are clear
and invariable, to claim otherwise and to expect God to acquiesce, is to tempt fate.
It is a losing hand, and Shimown knows it.
Then Shimown said that Shauwl was inappropriately trying to control
Yahowshas Disciples, imposing restrictions upon them which they could never
support. He is in effect, telling us that all of Shauwls claims regarding God
changing His approach and then authorizing one man to proclaim those alterations
were completely bogus. This is a refutation of everything we have read thus far in
Galatians.
The Disciples were specifically asked by Yahowsha to carry His message to
the world. So theyd have to refuse Gods direction to accept Shauwls mandate.
And they wisely were unwilling. But beyond this, Shimown was quick to point out
that Yahowah didnt give any of us the authority to change His testimony, and most
especially the terms and conditions associated with His Covenant. So what Paul
was preaching was something the Disciples could not and would not accept,
support, or put up with.
In the next chapter, we are going to consider another of Yahowshas prophetic
warnings regarding Shauwl, this one directed at Shimown, and directly germane
to the Rocks most recent affirmation. Seventeen years before Shauwl would
attempt to do this very thing to Shimown, Yahowsha warned His Disciple...
Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you were girding
yourself, fastening the ties of your own garments, preparing yourself for work,
and you were walking, traveling around, conducting, and directing your life,
wherever you were intending and whenever you decided. But when you grow
older, you will extend, holding out and stretching forth your hands and
another will gird you, placing a yoke on you to control you (se zosei will fasten
a strap around your midst; from zugos imposing a yoke of bondage to manipulate
and control, used to depict the burden of troublesome religious laws and
commands) and he will move, manipulating and driving you to a place where
you do not presently intend or desire. (21:18)
And then this, He said, making the future clear, signifying and foretelling
what kind of deadly plague he will attribute to Yahowah. And this having been
conveyed, He said to him, You should choose to follow Me and My Way,
actively engaging as My Disciple. (Yahowchanan / Yahowah is Merciful / John
21:18-19) With Yahowshas warning still ringing in his ears, Shimown told
Shauwl that he would not accept his yoke.
While there is no test, yoke nor trap, nor a reference to neck nor to the
ability to endure a burden associated with the concluding statement of Mosehs
public pronouncement in Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26, Christian
apologists in a wild and unsupported leap of faith, say that Peter was referencing
this verse to suggest that a person is trapped by the Towrah unless they obey
everything it says. But not only is that conclusion in irreconcilable conflict with
Yahowahs testimony on this subject, and Yahowshas, its not even what the
Towrah reveals.
After saying that a person will invoke harm upon themselves if they make
religious idols or images that are detestable to Yahowah, if they dishonor their
Father or Mother, if they confiscate their neighbors land, if they mislead a blind
person, if they deprive an orphan of justice, or if they have sexual relations with a
parent, animal, sibling, in-law, or if they secretly strike down a fellow countryman,
or if they take a bribe which damns an innocent soul, we read: Relationally, he
invokes harm upon himself who (arar asher) does not take a stand (quwm is
not established and affirmed, raising up) with regard to (eth in association with)
the words (dabarym the statements and message of) this (ha zeth), the
Towrahs guidance (ha towrah the teaching, direction, and instruction), for the
purpose of (la and to approach by) engaging in and acting upon them (asah
eth endeavoring to exert considerable effort to gain and profit from them). And
the entire family (wa kol ha am) said (amar), Surely this is truthful and
reliable (amen this is acceptable and true). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy
27:26) So as with most things Christians claim on behalf of their religion, the
inverse of their argument is true. We are being asked to take a stand with regard to
the words which comprise the Towrahs guidance, thereby acting upon Gods
instructions.
When it comes to analyzing the words, themselves, there is an enormous
difference between Pauls letters and the testimony found in the historical and
eyewitness accounts. In the former, Pauls epistles were originally written in Greek
to those who were fluent in Greek. Therefore, Paul, himself, selected each of the
Greek words we are reading. However, the conversations presented in the
eyewitness and historic accounts were all spoken in Hebrew or Aramaic, making
the Greek text a translation, typically by a scribe, and often hundreds of years later,
rather than a transcript. This is important because it means that, in his next
statement, Shimown said chen mercy not charis grace. Luke, who at the
time was traveling with Paul, may have provided the errant rendering, but it could
also have been added much, much later by a Roman Catholic scribe in the late
fourth century. While there is an extant pre-Constantine manuscript of Acts, this
next statement was omitted.
So here we find Shimown, after telling Shauwl to go to Sheowl with his
arrogant and condescending attitude, with his grossly inappropriate turf war which
sought to anoint him lord of the world and purveyor of the word, and with his
contrarian message which conflicted with everything Yahowsha said and did, in
addition to everything he personally had said and done, transitioning away from
Shauwl and back to reality...
Nevertheless (alla to the contrary, yet certainly and emphatically), through
(dia by and on account of) the mercy (charis was errantly selected by a scribe
to convey chen, the Hebrew word for undeserved kindness and unmerited favor) of
Yahowah (tou a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the
Septuagint to convey either edon, the Upright One, or Yahowahs name), in
Yahowsha ( a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the
Septuagint to convey Yahowsha, meaning Yahowah Saves), we presently trust
and actively rely (pistos we express actual conviction and confidence so as to
genuinely depend (present active indicative)) to be saved (sozo to be healed and
delivered) according to (kata in accord with) this manner, this means, and this
way (on tropos direction and fashion by which something is accomplished), the
same as them (kai ekeinos and also those, a conjunction and pronoun referencing
a similarity with people who were relatively distant in time and thus referring to the
way of the forefathers in the previous sentence). (Acts 15:11)
Shimown is saying what Ive been saying, and hes saying it because it is what
Yahowah said: God is the source of mercy. He always has been and always will be.
Yahowsha is simply Yahowahs delivery mechanism. When it comes to our
salvation they are inseparable. The mercy Abraham, Yitschaq, and Yaaqob
enjoyed, and the means they availed themselves of it, was the same as that
experienced by Shimown, Yahowchanan, and their fellow Disciple Yaaqob.
There is only one God, one Torah, one Covenant, one Way. Shimown had chosen
appropriately in every case, consistently siding with God. Shauwl, well not so
much. His mission was to change everything, including God.
Forgetting Pauls affinity for the Graces for a moment, believing Yahowsha
hasnt saved anyone. Salvation has nothing to do with our faith. Satan believed
that Yahowsha was the Maaseyah, and he understood the merit of His sacrifice,
but it didnt do him any good. Our salvation is a function of choosing to pass
through the door (Passover) that Yahowah has provided, and then walk along His
path from Unleavened Bread to Shelters, trusting and relying upon Yahowah every
step of The Way to Life. And thats the Truth.
This explains why the Disciples and the entire Called-Out Assembly in
Yaruwshalaim responded so coldly and unreceptively to Shauwl. Sigao, meaning
to hiss while holding ones peace, suggests that they were trying to disassociate
themselves from Pauls message. And the more he tried to impress them, the less
they were impressed.
So then (de) the entire (pas to everyone associated with the) large
assembly (plethos multitude and great crowd) was actually hissing while
keeping their perceptions to themselves (sigao they were holding their peace,
keeping relatively closed-mouthed, actively concealing their reactions; from sige
to utter a hushed hiss), as (kai) they were listening to (akouo all the while they
were using their sense of hearing to actively and actually consider (imperfect active
indicative)) Barnaba (Barnaba a transliteration of bar naby; meaning in
Aramaic, the son of a prophet, transliterated Barnabas) and (kai) Paulou (Paulou
of Latin origin meaning Lowly and Little, transliterated Paul) telling (exegeomai
revealing, explaining, and describing) the quantity and extent (hosos) they
performed (poieomai they did, created, caused, constructed, worked, fashioned,
made, and brought about) of (o the definite article in the nominative case
indicating to become) Godly () signs (semeion miracles) and (kai) wonders
(teras portentous events or extraordinary omens) in and among (en) the (tois)
races and nations (ethnos the ethnicities) through (dia) them (auton). (Acts
15:12)
God is not a show off. He seldom performs miracles. It isnt His style. He
prefers words. He wants us to think our way to Him. It isnt about impressing us.
His testimony is more than sufficient.
Therefore, if Barnaba and Paulou wanted to impress this assembly, they would
have done so by citing the Torah, equating its message to their own, while affirming
Yahowahs Covenant, His Invitations, and His mercy. But no, with Paul (we have
to be careful lumping Barnabas in with him because immediately after this meeting
he would soon reject Paul as well), it is all about him, his magnificent message and
his mighty deeds. So as a result, the Assembly hissed at the self-proclaimed assassin
and libertine.
We must always be careful with regard to Paul, or anyone, when they claim to
have produced signs and wonders. Rather than serve as proof of Gods influence,
they usually provide another nail in the pontificators coffin.
In Mattanyah / Yahowahs Gift / Matthew 24:4-5 and then in 23-24, seventeen
years in advance of the day they would benefit from this advice, Yahowsha warned
His Disciples to be especially wary of the likes of anyone who would make the
claims Paul has now professed. In the midst of His Olivet Discourse, we find:
And Yahowsha ( ), having responded judgmentally (apokrinomai
having answered using discernment to separate fact from fiction; a compound of
apo from, and krino separation, thereby being discriminating), said to (eupen
spoke to) them (autos speaking of His Disciples), Its important that you are
observant and that you pay attention, presently being aware and perceptive
(blepete choose to look closely and watch out, consider carefully and be
discerning, think so that you understand (present active imperative)), lest (ue)
someone (tis) will try to cause you to wander away from the truth (planeon
umas he will intentionally deceive and will probably try to delude you, attempting
to lead you astray (aorist active subjunctive). (24:4)
For (gar because) many (polys) will come (erchomai) in (en [from
Papyrus 70]) My (mou) name (onoma reputation), saying (lego claiming), I
(ego) represent (eimi am, exist for, belong to, and I stand for) the (o) Maaseyah
( a placeholder used to convey Maaseyah, the Implement Doing the Work of
Yah). And so (kai) many (polys) they will mislead (planaomai they deceive and
delude, causing to go astray). (24:5)
Then (tote) if (ean) someone (tis) might say (eipon may speak) to you
(umeis), Behold (idou indeed, suddenly now, look, and pay special attention,
emphasizing that), here in this place (hode), the Maaseyah (o ), or (e), In
this case, over there (hode), you should do not think that this is trustworthy
or reliable (me pisteuo). (24:23)
Because (gar) those pretending to be useful implements Doing the Work
of Yahowah (pseudochrestui) and (kai) false prophets (pseudoprophetai) will
arise and take a stand (egeiromai arousing and stirring the comatose), and (kai)
they will give (didomi they will claim the authority to provide, offer or bestow)
many great (megas significant and surprising, important and astonishing) signs
(semeion) and (kai) wonders (teras miraculous and portentous events) in order
to (hoste therefore as a result to) momentarily deceive and mislead (planao
to in a moment in time attempt to delude, temporarily wandering away from the
truth so lead astray (aorist active)), if possible (ei dynatos if able), even (kai)
those who choose to be called out (tous eklektos those who choose to be called
out based upon the word, those who select and are selected because of the word,
from ek, out of, and legos, the Word). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 24:24)
In a private meeting in which only His Disciples were present, and thus
speaking to Shimown, Yahowchanan, and Yaaqob, Yahowsha told them to pay
attention, to be especially discerning and judgmental, being observant and careful,
lest someone will cause you to wander away from the truth, deceiving and deluding
you. Since this warning was stated specifically to the Disciples, might this
someone be Paul, and the occasion be the Yaruwshalaym Summit? And if not him,
who? If not then, when?
I realize that Christian apologists will say that this warning was meant for
othersincluding for us today. And by way of extrapolation, that might ordinarily
be possible, except for the fact that all of the pronouns and the translated tenses
suggest otherwise. Blepete its important that you are observant was presented
in the present tense, and thus was not addressing encounters nearly two-thousand
years later. Further, planeon he will intend for you to wander away from the
truth was scribed in the aorist, which while in the subjunctive mood, reveals that
the attempt to deceive and delude would be both probable and intentional, it does
not specify when the wayward and misleading individual would attempt to beguile
them. But it would be them, specifically, which is why umas you was deployed.
Also, tis someone is singular and masculine as is planeon, the deceiver.
So I say again, if not Paul and before them at this meeting then we have no
record of who or when, rendering the prophecy either inaccurate or irrelevant. Yet
with Paul at the Yaruwshalaim Inquisition, we have Shimowns eyewitness
testimony that it was precisely and accurately fulfilled. And since this is the opening
statement of the Olivet Discourse (Yahowshas most comprehensive prophetic
revelation) in which everything else Yahowsha said has or is coming true before
our eyes, I dont suspect that His first prediction was erroneous or superfluous.
And by the way, there is considerable evidence to suggest that Pauls deliberate
attempt to mislead prevailed. While the Disciples never accepted him and are seen
as his opposition, they were not nearly aggressive enough. And as a result, Pauls
faith has deceived and misled billions.
Since it is easy to blend Yahowshas thoughts together, lets consider them one
at a time. Initially He said: many will come in My name, and indeed, many have,
but not all of those who have claimed to represent God have been deceitful.
Fortunately, or sadly, depending upon our perspective, the remedy was and
remains simple, available, and infallible: be observant and judgmental. When we
exercise good judgment, when we are discerning and discriminating, based upon
what we have learned by God by closely and carefully examining His Towrah, we
cannot be deceived and we can prevent others from being misled. This instruction
was written in the imperative because God wanted us to realize that few things are
as important as choosing to observe His Guidance. Turning to the Towrah is always
the best answer. And that is where this meeting began.
Turning to the second statement, the most literal rendering of eimi in the middle
clause would suggest that Yahowsha predicted that many people would say I am
the Messiah. And while there have been a number of isolated nutcases, with the
most famous being Rabbi Akibas Shimown Bar Kokhba, and the more recent
being Sun Myung Moon, their victims are relatively few and are usually counted in
the hundreds, sometimes thousands, but seldom millions or billions.
Those who have led the most people astray, and thus more completely satisfy
this prophetic warning, simply claim to represent the Maaseyah, which is one of
eimis most common connotations, along with exist for, belong to, and stand for.
And while Paul would tell the Galatians that they had treated him as if he were the
Maaseyah, that he died with Him and thus now lives as Him, and even that he
should be considered the co-savior by completing Yahowshas sacrifice, more
typically Shauwl claims to speak exclusively for Him which is to represent Him.
So whether you consider Paul to have falsely claimed to be the living incarnation
of the Maaseyah, or simply to have falsely represented Him, with regard to both
he was not unique.
But he was unique when we consider his carnage. The billions of Christians
his letters have led away from Yahowah and His Torah, who have been deceived
and deluded by placing their faith in his Gospel of Grace, are many by any
standard. In fact, it would be hard to identify another individual who has misled
more people than Paul. It is why I refer to him as the most influential man who ever
lived.
Second unto Paul would be Muhammad, who has also misled billions. But
Allahs Messenger only claimed to be the Maaseyah as he approached Yathrib.
This brief and failed interlude came immediately following the Satanic Verses
when his tattered reputation needed a boost. Moreover, Muhammad never spoke in
the Maaseyahs name because he didnt know it. The Quran calls Yahowsha
Issa, which is an Arabic transliteration of Esau. And Muhammad never claimed
to represent the Maaseyah, but instead Allah. So, he would be disqualified from
this prophecy. Not to mention the fact that he lived six centuries after the lifetimes
of Yahowshas Disciples.
Before we move on, lets pause a moment and contemplate a most startling
fact. Paul has repeatedly claimed to speak for the Maaseyah Yahowsha, and yet
in all of his sermons and in all of his letters, he only quotes Him once! The lone
citation is found in 1st Corinthians 11:24-26, and even it is wrong, with Yahowshas
body being broken in addition to the bread, and forgetting to mention that the
blood of the Passover Lamb was shed for many for the forgiveness of sin. So how
is it that a man who never once quotes Yahowsha accurately can actually be His
spokesman?
Moreover, when we compare Galatians to Mattanyah or Yahowchanan, where
Yahowshas words and deeds dominate the text, or to Zakaryah or Yashayah, where
Yahowahs words reign supreme, the juxtaposition serves to awaken us to the
reality that, unlike the others, Paul was speaking for himself. Simply stated: Paul
wrote as if his words were Gods, and yet they seldom if ever were.
Continuing with the Olivet Discourse, Yahowshas warning to His Disciples
was advanced twenty verses later with a prediction that Paul, alone, is known to
have fulfilled. He, in perfect harmony with the prediction, claimed to have seen the
Maaseyah twice, in one place and then in another, on the road to Damascus and
then again in Arabia. The sandal still fits. And it fits Shauwl exclusively, because
no one else made such claims during the lifetimes of Yahowshas Disciples if
ever.
Also, Yahowsha has returned our focus to a unique individual with this
prophecy, because it is once again focused on tis someone singular. So this then
begs two questions: since Christians claim to believe Jesus, when Jesus said,
if someone might say to you, behold, here in this place the Christ, or in this case,
over there, do not think that they are trustworthy, why dont they believe Him?
And why do they trust Paul?
Yahowshas next statement isnt extant in any pre-Constantine manuscript.
And since we know that Mattanyah originally wrote his eyewitness account in his
native Hebrew, we have no way to tell if the first scribe to translate his testimony
into Greek, or one working for the Roman Catholic Church centuries later, wrote
pseudochristoi or pseudochresui. The former is based upon the christos root
which speaks of the application of drugs while the later would have been based
upon chrestus, meaning useful implement. The Ebionites, who formed a Called-
Out Assembly in Yaruwshalaim under Yaaqob in the first century, were the first
to propose a canon, and they claimed to have read Mattanyah in Hebrew. And while
there are a score of credible witnesses to this fact, the oldest Hebrew manuscript in
our possession dates to the Middle Ages.
However, since we are considering this dire prediction in light of Pauls
fulfillment of it, it is instructive to know that the Ebionites, who were first-century
followers of The Way, specifically excluded Pauls letters from their canon, as they
considered him to be a false prophet. It wasnt until Marcion, in the early second
century that Paul was canonized, even promoted, as the only true Apostle
bequeathed with the foreboding distinction of being Gods chosen Messenger.
Recognizing that this eyewitness account of Yahowshas testimony on the
Mount of Olives chronicled a Hebrew conversation in Hebrew, for the Greek text
to read will give (didomi) many great signs and wonders instead of will perform
(poieomai) signs and wonders, the underlying Hebrew word spoken on this
occasion had to be natan to give, especially in the since of offering and
providing. It suggests that the alleged signs and wonders werent actually
performed, but were instead offered as proof, thereby provided as justification
for believing them.
So when Paul and Barnabas got up before the Yaruwshalaym Ekklesia and
tried to impress them by bragging about the semeion kai teras signs and
wonders he had performed, using the exact same phrase Yahowsha had warned
them about, the Disciples should have remembered Gods prediction regarding
false prophets who would take a stand and offer many great signs and wonders
and seen Paul and Barnabas as the ones attempting to planao momentarily lead
them astray, actively trying to deceive and delude them. Therefore, they should
have done more than hiss to have responded appropriately. Paul had failed
another prophetic test, this one right before their eyes.
I have always enjoyed the humor in Yahowshas approach. Here, rather than
just saying that folks would rise up and arouse people, claiming to speak for Him
while offering signs and wonders as proof in order to deceive, He said, if it were
possible, they would attempt to momentarily delude kai tous eklektos even the
chosen. While all of us are given the opportunity to choose God based upon the
Word of God, there were twelve individuals who were actually and specifically
chosen by God. So by augmenting His false-prophet warning with this particular
hypothetical in front of this unique audience, Yahowsha was elbowing His
Disciples in the ribsHint, hint, Im talking to you, the chosen, about someone
who will falsely claim to have been selected.
While Pauls testimony isnt ever credible, it is nonetheless interestingly that
even he associates signs and wonders with Satan and Torah-lessness, doing so in
2 Thessalonians 2:7-10, a conversation which we will review shortly. Therefore,
even Paul-fixated Christians ought to have been alarmed.
And while they would not have considered the Towrah, Yahowah also
associated signs and wonders with false prophets and interpreters of revelations,
especially with the likes of Shauwl who would eliminate the Torah and replace it
with their New Testament. Remember:
With regard to every word which beneficially I am instructing you with
accordingly, observe it for the purpose of engaging and acting upon it, not
adding to it nor subtracting from it.
Indeed, if a prophet, which is a person who claims to speak for God, stands
up trying to establish himself in your midst, an interpreter of revelations, and
offers and provides (natan) a sign (owth an omen, promise, or consent decree
claiming to be authorized to speak for God) or wonder (mowpheth miracle which
appears marvelous or wonderful, inspiring awe) to you, and the omen or miracle
worker appears before you who has spoken thusly to you to say, Let us go
after and follow other different or additional gods which you have not known,
and let us serve and worship them, do not listen to the words of that prophet
or interpreter of revelations, because the test of Yahowah, your God,
accordingly for you to know and understand is whether this affirms your love,
relationship, and affection for Yahowah, your God, with all your heart and
with all your soul.
Following Yahowah, your God, you should walk. With Him, you should
always and be respectful. And in concert with His terms and conditions, you
should continually and actually be observant, consistently focus upon them,
closely examining and carefully considering them.
Concerning His voice, and thus His proclamations and pronouncements,
you should always and literally listen so that with Him, you can consistently
serve and always engage productively. So to Him, you should always choose to
cling.
Therefore, that prophet claiming to speak for God or that interpreter of
revelations is deadly. For indeed, he has spoken rebellious renunciations,
creating a revolt which leads to disassociation and to being misled concerning
Yahowah, your God, the One who led you out, descending to serve you by
extending Himself to guide you away from the realm of the crucibles of Egypt,
speaking of human oppression and divine judgment, and the One who
redeemed you, ransoming you, from the house of bondage, from servitude,
from worship and from being enslaved.
His desire is to seduce and scatter you from the Way which beneficially,
Yahowah, your God, described, providing you with a complete set of directions
for you to walk in. And so, you should choose to completely remove, ridding
yourself of that which is disagreeable, displeasing, and evil, malignant,
mischievous, and harmful, from your midst. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy
13:1-6)
This is as clear as words allow. If an individual wants to demonstrate that he
or she is speaking for God, then that person should share Yahowahs testimony.
They should neither annul any aspect of it nor augment Gods Word with their own
ideas. And please, neither personal revelations nor signs and wonders are credible.
Yahowsha would be even more specific regarding Paul, tailoring the prophetic
prediction to reflect the wannabe Apostles boast that he met with Him in Arabia,
the ultimate Scriptural wilderness. Listen to God:
Pay close attention (idou indeed look, being especially observant,
encouraging the listener to focus upon this subject), Ive told you this beforehand,
forewarning you (proeipon umin I have spoken to you about this previously,
predicting in advance that it will actively and actually occur in your future (perfect
active indicative)). (24:25) Then when, therefore (ean oun indeed when the
condition is met and surely), someone says to you (eiposin umin), Look, suddenly
(idou calling everyones attention to emphasize a narrative), in the wilderness
(en te eremo in a deserted, remote, and uninhabited place in the desert) it is
currently present (estin it is presently, actively, and actually (present tense,
active voice, indicative mood in the third person, singular and thus it exists, and
not I exist), you should not leave (me exerchomai you ought not go forth).
Indeed, you (idou emphasizing this to you) in the (en tois) inner room (tameion
the reserved and secure chamber of a household and storehouse where [the Spirit]
will be distributed) should not consider this to be truthful (me pisteuo you
should not think that this is reliable). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 24:25-
26)
Making matters even worse for the self-proclaimed Apostle, in the next verse,
Yahowsha will go on to say that when He is next seen on earth, He will be seen by
all. It is yet another nail in Shauwls now crumbling coffin.
The reference to you in the inner room, provides a second insider look into
Yahowshas style. The Disciples met with Him after His fulfillment of Pesach,
Matsah, and Bikuwrym in an tameion inner room. It is where they received the
treasure of the Set-Apart Spirit. Yahowsha had miraculously walked through the
wall of the room to appear before them. And while He looked so different than He
had previously in His transitional state between energy and matter that they didnt
initially recognize Him, He did not appear to them as flashing rays light, but instead
became corporeal. The inner room was also the private place Yahowsha told His
Disciples that they should go when they wanted to talk with the Father.
Juxtapose this with Pauls claim to have encountered the Maaseyah on the
road to Damascus, and then to meeting with Him in Arabia, and once again, Paul
is not only a perfect fit for this warning, he is the only candidate who made these
claims within the lifetimes of Yahowshas audience. Therefore, the only informed
and rational conclusion is that Yahowsha specifically warned His Disciples about
Shauwls deceptive claimsand us through themtelling us not to believe him.
Are you listening?
While we are on the topic of Paul hanging himself with his own words, Id like
you to consider his conversion experience alongside Yahowshas statement
regarding Satan. Describing Satans fall from heaven, and our dominion over him,
Luke, in 10:18, translates the Maaseyah saying:
But then (de) He said (eipon) to them (autois addressing the seventy
witnesses He had sent out), I saw (theoreo I was watching) the Adversary, Satan
(ton Satanan the Devil who opposes; a transliteration of the Hebrew satan
adversary and antagonist who slanders and accuses in opposition), as (hos like
and similar to, approximating) lightning, a bright beam or ray of flashing light
(astraphe a ray of light in the form of a natural, weather-based phenomenon like
lightning; from astrapto a shining and dazzling object) from (ek out of) the
heavens (tou ouranos the sky and the spiritual abode of God), having fallen
(pipto descending to a lower realm, now prostrate, bowed, failed, and inadequate).
Behold (idou now pay attention, indeed), I have given you (didomi umin
I have offered and provided to you all) the authority, ability, and opportunity
(ten exousia the legal jurisdiction and authorization, the control, power, choice,
and right) to trample (tou pateo to step and tread under foot, to crush, subdue,
subjugate, and devastate), being superior to (epano being above and having
authority over), serpents (ophis snakes which serve as a metaphor for Satan and
his fellow demons) and scorpions (kai skorpios poisonous insects which sting
and supernatural demonic powers, from skopos, skeptics who conceal).
So upon (kai epi) the entirety of (pas all of) the Adversarys (tou echthros
the hated and odious hostile enemys) power (dynamis ability and rule,
capability and strength, especially the performance of miracles), therefore (kai),
you (umas) will absolutely never be harmed by his fraudulent deceit (ouden ou
me adikeo will not be injured by his wrongdoing and injustice or his violation of
the standard). (Luke 10:18-19)
Now for Pauls depiction of what he experienced: But (de) to me (moi) it
happened (ginomai it came to be), traveling (poreuomai going to) and (kai)
approaching (engizo nearing) Damascus (te Damasko a transliteration of
Damaskos, the capital of Syria; from the Hebrew Dameseq, a compound of dam
and tsedeq: justice torn asunder leaves the righteous weeping) around noon (peri
mesembrian near midday), suddenly and unexpectedly (exaiphnes unforeseen
and immediately) from (ek out of) the sky (tou ouranou the atmosphere
(singular masculine)), a nearby lightning strike (periastraphai lightning
glittering roundabout, shining brightly all around, flashing nearby; a compound of
peri about, near, and concerning, and astrape lightning, a beam or flashing ray
of bright light which dazzles (aorist as a moment in time unrelated to any plan,
active and thus doing the flashing or striking, and infinitive, turning glittering into
a verbal noun)), sufficient and adequate (hikanos enough) light (phos) about
(peri around and concerning) me (eme). (Acts 22:6)
Pauls depiction of the lightening strike, other than to add peri about or
near to astraphai lightning, was exactly as Yahowsha had described the fall
of Satan. Although Shauwl did say that the lightning bolt was both unexpected
and adequate, whatever that might be worth.
It might also be worth noting that Pauls explanation of this lightning strike
differs in Acts 9:3, 22:6, and 26:13. No one else was affected by the bolt of lightning
in Acts 22:6, but in Acts 26:13, Pauls traveling companions are also enveloped in
it. In the middle of the day (mesos hemera), along the road (kata ten odon),
King (basileus), I saw (eidon I perceived) from the sky (ouranothen), beyond
(hyper to a greater degree than) the suns (tou helios) brightness (lamprotes
radiance and brilliance), shining around (perilampo) me (me) light (phos), and
(kai) the ones (tous) traveling (poreuomai) together with (oun) me (emoi). (Acts
26:13)
Beside the fact that all three of Pauls conversion accounts are materially
different is that the primary meaning of hyper isnt beyond or to a greater degree,
but instead, for the sake of and on behalf of. So in actuality, Paul was saying that
he saw from the sky for the sake of and on behalf of the suns brilliance,
brightness shining around me. This is akin to General Constantine, the first
Pope, seeing a pagan cross in the sky superimposed upon his god, which was the
Unconquerable Sun, and then hearing a voice, perhaps the same one Paul said he
heard, saying: In this sign, conquer.
But even when we turn to the secondary meaning of hyper, with the shining
around being beyond the suns brightness, we find Paul saying something that
would not only have permanently blinded everyone, but would have been such a
unique event in the human experience, it would have been duly noted and recorded
in Damascus. And speaking of Damascus, why would Yahowsha reveal Himself
there, and not in Yaruwshalaim, and as lightning rather than as a man?
Paul said things in his own defense that he never should have thought, much
less conveyed. Along those lines, Pauls depiction of his encounter with
Yahowsha as lightning, as a flash of light from the sky, was inconsistent with
the way the risen Maaseyah appeared to the women at the tomb, to His Disciples
in the upper room, to the men on the road to Emmaus, and to some five hundred
other witnesses over the course of forty days, in which He always appeared as a
regular, nondescript man. It was also different from the way Yahowah appeared to
Adam, Abraham, Yaaqob, Moseh, and Yachezqel / Ezekiel. Yahowah is actually
humble: He has no good looks or majesty. When we see Him, there is no
beauty that we should desire Him. (Yashayah 53:2)
Beyond these comparisons, you may have noticed that Yahowsha gave His
witnesses the express authority to trample upon serpents and scorpions in the
context of confronting Satans power. We know that the Scriptural metaphor for
Satan was established as a serpent in the Towrahs presentation of the fall of man
in the Garden of Eden. This symbolism was then reinforced four thousand years
later by Yahowsha when He said that religious clerics were the children of
poisonous snakes in Mattanyah 23. But even with pateo to step and tread under
foot, we find another correlation to the Towrah, because there we were told that
Satan would bruise mans heel.
 And while that explains the association between Satan and these serpents,
why did Yahowsha add scorpions in the context of His prophetic portrayal of
Shauwls spiritual encounter? Those who were paying close attention know the
answer. You may recall that Shauwl claimed that his enormous ego was held in
check because: Therefore it should be self-evident, in order that I not become
overly proud and be lifted up, exalting myself beyond what would be justified,
there was given to me a sharp goad and troubling scorpions stinger (skolops)
in the body, a messenger and spiritual envoy of Satan, in order to strike and
restrain me, controlling me, so that as a result at the present time there is the
possibility that I might not be conceited, currently exalting myself beyond
what would be justified, lifting myself up. (2 Corinthians 12:6-7) In addition to
being a sharp pointed prod or thorn, skolops means scorpion. In a criminal trial,
as in this evaluation, the details tell the tale. And rest assured, there is yet another
convicting detail hidden within this confession.
While its a big picture item, it is also worth noting that in the Olivet Discourse,
in the context of warning His Disciples about the likes of Paul, Yahowsha said that
when He returns, He will be seen by everyone from the horizon in the west to the
east, and not just by a one fellow in the company of a couple of others. If Yahowsha
was telling the truth, Paul was lying.

So could it be? Is it possible that Yahowsha was right about Paul? Was his
bout with the lightning bolt actually an encounter with Satan? It is interesting to
acknowledge, after all, that Paul seemed to know. And to prove this, we are going
to take a stroll through Shauwls second letter to the Greeks living next to the
isthmus of Corinth, because our spiritual spokesman has a lot to say about himself,
including that he has become insane, and about Satan, who he admits to having
possessed and controlled him.
After shaking down his followers for money, saying in 2 Corinthians 9:7 that
God loves a cheerful giver, thereby encouraging them to dig deep if they wanted
to be rewarded by his god, Paul tried to undermine Yahowahs most treasured
possession, His Covenant. Saying that he was engaged in a war against the flesh
which is a reference to circumcision, the sign of the Covenant in 2 Corinthians
10:3-4, he wrote in 10:5 that we are destroying speculations and taking every
thought captive. He was in essence removing evidence and reason from the
equation so that faith in his message might prevail over knowing God. Paul wanted
belief to trump understanding.
 Then, contradicting his own overt animosity toward legalism, the founder of
the Christian religion hypocritically wrote: And we are ready to punish all
disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete. (2 Corinthians 10:6) Not
only is obedience something Yahowah opposes, justice is His not ours.
Paul told his followers in 2 Corinthians 10:7 not to look outwardly so as to
avoid observing the Towrah, I suppose, but instead to consider what is within,
all in support of a faith nurtured by feelings and beliefs rather than conviction
derived from observation and contemplation.
Of his role promoting such rubbish, the always arrogant, self-promoter, wrote:
Even if I should boast somewhat further about our authority...I will not be
put to shame. (2 Corinthians 10:8) I imagine Satan thinking the same thing.
This is followed by another odd and indicting comment: For I do not wish
to seem as if I would terrify you by my letters. (2 Corinthians 10:9) Sure, the
tone is condescending and the prose bizarre, but unless written by a despot with a
large and ruthless army, why would a letter terrify anyone?
An even more peculiar reference is conveyed by: For they say, His letters
are weighty and strong, but his personal presence is unimpressive, and his
speech is contemptible. (2 Corinthians 10:10) While I dont care what Paul
looked like, and youd have to be delusional to view his rhetoric as weighty, he was
correct in this regard: his speech was contemptible. But alas, this devolves into an
incomprehensible clash of egos in 2 Corinthians 10:11 through 18, with Shauwl
positioning himself as the only one whose boasts are justified.
Paul digresses further in opening of the 11th chapter of his second letter to the
Corinthians, writing: I wish that you would bear with me in a little foolishness;
but indeed you are bearing with me. (2 Corinthians 11:1) Unless Im reading
this wrong, to put up with Paul is to be foolish. But seriously, why would anyone
want to suffer such foolishness if he or she could instead observe Gods brilliance
by reading the Towrah?
And even though Shauwl errantly wrote that love is not jealous in his first
letter to those living in Corinth, now he admits to the same audience: For I am
jealous for you. (2 Corinthians 11:2) Ever the chameleon and schemer, in
conjunction with this hypocrisy, Paul wants to present those who have been
beguiled by his letters as pure virgins, which is to say untouched by the Torah
and its God. (This is the conclusion of 2 Corinthians 11:2 as presented from the
New American Standard Bible.)
Pauls next statement is among his most beguiling, because it is predicated
upon being a virgin to the Towrah by the simplicity of Christ. Also rendered from
the NASB, it reads: But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his
craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of
Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:3) This is to suggest that if a person ignores everything,
and simply believes, that they are pure, and thus free from Satanic deception. And
yet Yahowah says just the opposite, that the only way to prevent being beguiled is
to observe His Teaching.
While Shauwl craftily deployed the exact same tactic Satan used in the
Garden, that of removing Yahowahs instructions from their context and
misquoting Him to convey a believable delusion, at issue here is that faith is simple
because it isnt based upon anything real; it requires no knowledge or
understanding. But without knowledge and understanding, Yahowsha is
unknowable and what He did and said cannot be understood. So while Yahowahs
desire to build a growing family through His Covenant is a relatively simple
concept, the means He deployed to facilitate it, so that He could include us within
it, is anything but simplistic.
There is a reason that Yahowahs teaching and guidance in the Torah, Prophets,
and Psalms requires over one thousand pages of precise instructions to accomplish
His intended goal. If He intended it for simpletons, Hed have drawn a couple of
pictures and not wasted our time or His. But that wouldnt have achieved His goal,
because He wants to spend eternity with those who are eager to learn, with those
who enjoy the adventure of discovery. Moreover, the directions which
systematically reveal who God is and what He is offering, while explaining how
we can most beneficially respond to Him, are too essential to our relationship and
to our salvation to shortchange.
Yahowsha consistently answered every question, including explaining who
He was and what He was doing, by directing His audiences attention to the Towrah
and Prophets. There was no shortcut to understanding then and still isnt now.
Furthermore, once a person comes to know Yahowsha, they become Towrah
observant because He was Towrah observant. But when this occurs, they cease to
be Christians because they come to recognize that Pauls opposition to the Torah
puts them in opposition to God. And that is why Shauwl wanted to present pure
virgins to his wannabe god.
Until a person appreciates the connection between Yahowsha and Yahowah,
and between Yahowsha and Yahowahs Towrah, there is no way to properly
respond to and thus benefit from His fulfillment of Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and
Shabuwa, and thus no way to be saved. Such a person cannot process anything
Yahowsha said during His initial and most comprehensive public declaration
known as the Sermon on the Mount. As a diminished manifestation of Yahowah,
Yahowsha is profoundly revealing, tangibly demonstrating the extraordinary depth
and complexity of a God who is neither shallow nor simple.
 Demonstrating that these conclusions are correct, Shauwl was afraid that his
simplistic and erroneous presentation of the Maaseyah would be exposed and
criticized by those who knew better, so he wrote: For if one comes and preaches
another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit
which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not
accepted, you bear beautifully. (2 Corinthians 11:4 from the NASB)
The actual Yahowsha bears no resemblance to the Christian Jesus, a character
who has far more in common with Dionysus and Mithras than Yahowah or His
Towrah. The Pauline Christian misnomer is no longer the living manifestation of
the Word of God, but is instead a caricature contrived to annul it.
As for a different spirit, Yahowah has but one Spirit that we can receive, the
Set-Apart Spirit, and She exists to help us understand and then share Yahowahs
Towrah. That means Pauls different spirit represents the Adversary.
Turning to a different gospel, Yahowah has but one euangelion beneficial
Messenger and healing message, His Maaseyah and His Towrah. And yet while
they are one in the same, they are in wholesale conflict with Pauls preaching. As
for bear beautifully, Ill let you grapple with that one because following bear
foolishly, it doesnt make much sense to me.
This leads to another arrogant and indeed errant announcement: For I
consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles. (2
Corinthians 11:5) Pauls pride became blinding.
Incapable of being rational, he considered himself brilliant: But even if I am
unskilled in speech, yet I am not so in knowledge; in fact, in every way we have
made evident to you in all things. (2 Corinthians 11:6) By comparison to
Yahowah and thus Yahowsha, Im dumb as a stone. By comparison to Moseh and
Dowd, Im but a flickering candle in relation to a bonfire. But at least I know that
the only source of knowledge worth considering is Yahowahs testimony. If Paul
was a fraction as smart as he claimed to be, he would have educated his audience
by drawing their attention to the terms and conditions of the Covenant. He would
have explained how the Covenants benefits were enabled by Yahowshas work
during the Miqraey. But instead, he condemned the Covenant, created a new one,
and denounced the Invitations to Meet with God because they got in the way of his
faith.
If it was not so sad, the notion that Paul questioned whether I committed a
sin in humbling myself, because I preached the gospel of God to you without
charge? (2 Corinthians 11:7) would be funny. Can you imagine being so full of
yourself that youd think, or worse, write, that you might be committing a sin by
being humble, or that you ought to have charged for sharing the stream of verbal
diarrhea that he has spewed our way? And while it should be obvious, Id be remiss
if I didnt remind you that Yahowah has a Towrah not a gospel.
If you think that Im being too hard on this arrogant, errant, and delusional
wannabe apostle, since he has suggested that he shortchanged himself for not billing
the Corinthians for this beguiling message, you might want to consider: I robbed
other churches, taking wages to sever you. (2 Corinthians 11:8)
It is interesting that Shauwl tells us that for when the brethren came from
Macedonia, they supplied my need. (11:9) The Torahless one known as the
Antichrist will come from Macedonia.
Recognizing that Paul never quoted Yahowah or Yahowsha, at least not
accurately, he lied when he wrote: As the truth of Christ is in me, but not when
he concluded: this boasting of mine will not be stopped in the regions of
Achaia. (2 Corinthians 11:10) Followed by: Why? Because I do not love you?
God knows. (11:11)
Shauwl not only knew, but acknowledged, that he was competing with others
whose claims were more credible (the Disciples), and that his message was
considerably different than theirs... But what I am doing, I will continue to do,
that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be
regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. (2
Corinthians 11:12) While Yahowshas Disciples did not boast, an insecure
individual like Paul views any confident individual as an affront to his credibility.
A systematic review of the literature emanating out of the mid to late first
century reveals that the only prophets and apostles which Paul could have viewed
as being in competition with him, and whose message was opposed to his, were
Yahowshas Disciples and perhaps those who had learned from them and thus
those filled and equipped by the Spirit on Shabuwa. That makes this next statement
especially toxic. For such are false prophets, treacherous and deceitful (dolios
tricky and clever) workmen (ergates perpetrators) masquerading as
(metaschematizo converted and transformed so as to appear, disguised and
pretending to be) [the] Maaseyahs (P) Apostles (apostolos prepared
messenger who is sent out). (2 Corinthians 11:13)
At the time Paul wrote this letter to the Corinth Assembly, he alone was a false
prophet, treacherous and deceitful, masquerading as the Maaseyahs Apostle.
And history tells us that no one outside of Paul and his followers feigned
Apostleship to the Corinthians. Moreover, since there is no evidence that Paul ever
issued an accurate prophecy, there is no reason to view this as a prediction of future
events either. (Pauls lists of future human attributes in Romans and elsewhere were
already common to his day, especially in Rome. And since it has not yet occurred,
Pauls prediction that the rapture would take place during his lifetime was
untrue.)
Most every English translation ignores the inclusion of autos himself in
this next statement, because of what it implies. And of course, they arent keen on
providing a complete translation of thauma, because this sounds like a confession.
Literally, in the order Paul wrote the words, the next sentence reads: And (kai) no
(ou) wonder, himself a great object of worship (thauma autos himself a
wonderful, marvelous and miraculous vision and individual to be admired). (2
Corinthians 11:14) But before we conclude that Satan was being called great, and
a wonderful object of worship, a word of caution is in order.
There is no direct Greek equivalent to the English word do with regard to
do not, so it could be, and probably should be, supplied. This reshapes the text to
read: And do not marvel (thauma be amazed or wonder)
Also, while autos, translated himself, follows the noun thauma wonder
in the Greek text, and proceeds the conjunction gar for, which begins the next
thought or sentence, depending upon the punctuation, it is common for
conjunctions to follow pronouns if the thoughts are being combined, as opposed to
being isolated in separate sentences. But adding to the potential confusion, Paul
routinely omits pronouns in his letters, so the specific inclusion of autos, after
thauma, would normally convey himself a marvel. Moreover, there is no denying
that Paul was taken in by Satans glorious manifestation and radiant brilliance in
2 Thessalonians, a passage well review in a moment.
Yet since there is a way to avoid the problem of praising Satan here in 2
Corinthians, by adding do in front of not, and then repositioning the pronoun,
Im compelled to join the first and second halves of the 14th verse into a single
sentence. Combined, they would then read: And (kai) [do] not (ou) wonder
(thauma marvel at this miraculous vision, nor be amazed in admiration) [at this],
for indeed (gar), he (autos), the Adversary Satan (Satanas), changes his
appearance (metaschematizo masquerades, disguising himself, transforming his
image) into (eis) a spiritual, heavenly messenger (angelos divine
representative) [of] light (photos). (2 Corinthians 11:14)
And while that solves one problem, it creates another. This is exactly like Paul
experienced him. And as always, Pauls inadequate writing style remains especially
prone to misinterpretation, leaving us wondering what he actually meant to say.
Further, Satans origin and name, a malak spiritual messenger named Halal
ben Shachar, tells us that he is a spiritual, heavenly messenger radiating light,
so this is hardly news.
Pauls next line is as clear as it is telling. It is designed to deflect attention away
from him being judged a false prophet. So Paul says that, rather than evaluate him
objectively based upon his words, comparing them to Gods, he wants to be
evaluated subjectively based upon his motivation.
[It is] not (ou) surprising (megas great) therefore (oun) when (ei if) also
(kai) his (autou) servants (diakonos ministers who execute his commands)
masquerade (metaschematizo pretend to be) as (hos) ministers (diakonos
servants) of righteousness (dikaiosyne whose doctrine is acceptable to and
approved by God), of which (o on) the end result and motivation (telos their
ultimate purpose and intent) will be (estai) according to (kata) their works (ergon
deeds). (2 Corinthians 11:15) But yet judging someones motivation, their intent,
is pure speculation. So Paul would have us move from facts and reason to opinions.
That doesnt sound Godly to me.
Illuminating this problem, telos, rendered end result and motivation, is based
upon tello, and thats telling because it describes someone who sets out to achieve
a particular goal. It infers that the ultimate evaluation of these people should focus
on their motivations, as opposed to the content of their messages, and it should
take place at the end of time, as opposed to when the message is being delivered.
Further, Pauls evaluation is also predicated upon a persons deeds rather
than what they have to say. As such, Pauls means to determine whether a person
is a false prophet bears no resemblance whatsoever to Yahowahs tests. Of this, we
should not be surprised.
But this is Pauls message, Pauls test, and Pauls defense on behalf of his
spirit. It also reflects Pauls less than divine grammatical style. Furthermore
(palin also and again) I say (lego), not (oe) someone (tis) I (me) presume (dokei
be of the opinion) I am (einai) ignorant and irrational (aphron foolish, stupid,
senseless, and devoid of reason). But (de) if (ei) not (me) really (ge even) and
(kai) as (os like) foolishness (aphron ignorance and senselessness), I (me) you
will receive (dechomai believe and welcome) in order that (ina) and I (kago)
little (micron small) someone who (ti) I boast (kauchaomai brag and glory
in). (2 Corinthians 11:16)
Or if I may be so bold to reorder the words a bit and interpret them in accord
with what Paul has written, I suspect he said: Furthermore (palin also and
again) I say (lego), let no one (me) presume of me (oe tis me dokei someone
should not be of the opinion) that I am (einai) ignorant and irrational (aphron
foolish, stupid, senseless, and devoid of reason). But (de) even if actually like this
and foolish (ei me ge kai os aphron if perhaps ignorant and really senselessness),
you will receive (dechomai believe and welcome) me (me) in order that (ina) I
(kago) as someone little (to micron small) I may boast in myself (kauchaomai
might brag and glory in me). (2 Corinthians 11:16)
 Since a literal reading appears to be gibberish, lets consider what the
scholastic sources reveal. The Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear conveys:
Again I say not some me might think unthinking to be if but not indeed if also as
unthinking welcome me that also I little some might brag. That wasnt an
improvement.
Moving on to the English Standard Version Interlinear, we find that it departs
significantly from the text, ignoring and adding many words: I repeat, let no one
think me [being (omitted)] foolish. But even if [you do (added)], [not also
(omitted)] accept me as [a (added)] fool, so [that (added)] I [too may (added)] boast
a little.
The New International Version Interlinear suggests: Again I say not anyone
me think foolish to be [if (omitted)] otherwise [not really (omitted)] even if as
foolish receive you me, [in (added)] order [that (added)] I also [a (added)] little [bit
(added)] [someone (omitted)] may boast.
Moving from the most trusted interlinears to the supposedly literal New
American Standard Bible, we find: Again I say, let no one think me foolish, but if
you do, receive me even as foolish, that I also may boast a little.
No matter the interpretation, this statement is actually worse in content and
style than anything we have encountered in Galatians. And once again, we cant
blame this on scribal error. The words are the same in Papyrus 46 (from the late
first-century) as they are in the Nestle-Aland. The incomprehensible, even arrogant,
nature of the text is Pauls fault. (Of course, if you are a Christian and believe that
this verbal diarrhea was the inspired word of God, then your god is a nincompoop,
which is probably worse.)
What (o) I say (lalo) [is] not (ou) according to (kata) [the] Lord/Masters
(KN) way of speaking (laleo sayings), but to the contrary (alla) as (os) in (en)
foolishness (aphrosyne recklessness and thoughtlessness, senselessness and
folly) in (en) this (houtos) substance and nature (hypostasis essence or objective
aspect and underlying reality behind everything; a compound of hupo, under, and
histemi, standing upright) of (tes) boasting (kauchesis pride and glorifying
oneself). (2 Corinthians 11:17)
If this is correct, Paul is admitting the obvious. He was not speaking for
Yahowah or Yahowsha, but was instead speaking foolishly by bragging on his own
behalfor worse. And I say or worse because this follows an explanation of how
Satan influences false prophets.
Not to belabor the point, but the Nestle-Aland interlinear isnt any clearer:
What I say not by Master, I say but as in thoughtlessness in this the substance of
the brag.
 The NASB supports my conclusion: That which I am speaking, I am not
speaking as the Lord would, but in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting. Try
as they would to shade the meanings to protect Pauls credibility, this remains
extremely incriminating, even damning.
And Paul wasnt finished exposing himself. Because (epei since) many
(polloi) may boast (kauchaomai brag and glorify themselves) according to
(kata) [the] flesh (sarx their physical prowess), I also (kago) glorify myself and
brag (kauchaomai boast). (2 Corinthians 11:18) His personality and Satans are
beginning to morph, becoming indistinguishable. But even if you arent yet
comfortable with this assessment, surely you recognize that the man who wrote
these words was not inspired by God.
Pauls testimony has become so self centered, so braggadocios, so irrelevant,
so unlike Yahowah and His prophets, lets continue to seek verification of these
words from other translations: In that regard, the NASB wrote: Since many boast
according to the flesh, I will boast also.
For indeed (gar because), gladly (hedeos with delight and enjoyment)
you accept (anechomai bear, endure, and put up with) the senseless and foolish
(aphron ignorant and irrational) being (ontes) wise (phronimos shrewd and
intelligent). (2 Corinthians 11:19)
This was hardly the place for sarcasm, and yet that is what we find. Im
beginning to think that Paul has either become psychotic, and thus has lost touch
with reality, or that his disdain for his audience has caused him to taunt them by
pulling back the veil hiding his hideous nature. It is as if Pauls arrogance, his sense
of superiority, has led him to believe that his audience was so stupid, theyd never
figure him out, much less hold him accountable.
However, that is not how things materialized. Based upon what Shauwl wrote
Timothy in his final letter, most everyone abandoned him. You know this, that
all of those in Asia have turned away from me. (2 Timothy 1:15) But alas, with
Marcion as his future publicist and promoter, those who did not know him nearly
as well would become fooled billions of them. They are known as Christians
today.
According to the NASB, Paul wrote: For you, being so wise, bear with the
foolish gladly. While this is no better, to achieve this translation, they had to upend
Pauls arrangement of words.
This onslaught of foolishness begs the question: are we witnessing psychosis
in Paul (from the Greek psyche mind and soul and osis deranged and abnormal)?
Most every aspect of his behavior, his attitude, and his testimony fit the textbook
definition of psychotic. His letters increasingly suggest that he has lost contact with
reality. He has suffered hallucinations that he calls revelations, and his claims are
often delusional. He has been violent and his judgment is seriously impaired. In the
immediate aftermath of his interlude with Satan on the way to Damascus, he was
nearly catatonic.
Paul is displaying signs of the psychosis of schizophrenia, as well. There is a
complete breakdown of rational thought processes in his writings. His arguments,
even the best of them, are borderline insane. His emotional outbursts are atypical
and inappropriate. His speech and thinking are disorganized. His antagonism
toward Yahowshas Disciples screams paranoia its most telling symptom.
Paul is even projecting bipolar tendencies, a mood disorder characterized by
manic or prolonged periods of irritability. This manic expression of bipolar
psychosis is evidenced by his extravagant claims, by his egotistical self-esteem, and
by whats known as the pressure of speech. Here, the psychosis is present in his
frenzied style, an approach that is cluttered and often unintelligible, tangential and
unrelenting, all motivated by an urgency which is not apparent to the audience.
Therefore, when we compare what we are reading in Pauls letters to the most
common and telling symptoms of psychoses, we discover a near perfect match. It
has become evident that the founder of the Christian religion was mentally ill.
And if not psychotic, then surely nauseating. This is making my stomach turn...
Because (gar) you put up with (anechomai you accept as valid or true and
forebear) someone who and something which (ei tis whosoever and whatever
(singular masculine)) makes you subservient, completely enslaving you
(katadouloo umas imposes their unrelenting authority over you), someone who
and something which (ei tis anyone and whatever) is exploitive (katesoiei
devouring and destructive, taking complete advantage by being divisive), someone
who and something which (ei tis anyone and whosoever) is controlling
(lambano grasps hold of and acquires, possesses and takes advantage of),
someone who and something which (ei tis anyone and whatever) is exalted
(epairomai is highly regarded), even someone who or something which (ei tis)
flays the skin (dero) of your (umas) person (prosopon being and head, frontal
proximity, appearance, and presence). (2 Corinthians 11:20)
Before I share why Im especially troubled by this, lets first consider the
rendering proposed by the Nestle-Alands McReynolds Interlinear: Endure for if
some you enslaves thoroughly, if some eats up, if some receives, if some lifts up
on, if some into face you beats. The reason for the wide variation is that ei, as a
standalone concept, conveys if, but when used in conjunction with an indefinite
pronoun, ei tis becomes whoever, whatever, anyone who, or whosoever. Also,
while the verbs katadouloo makes subservient, katesoiei is exploitive and
destructive, and dero flays the skin are decidedly detrimental, anechomai
put up with, lambano grasp hold of and control, and epairomai is exalted
can be good or bad depending upon the subject and context. Also, while prosopon
means face in Greek, it also conveys person, frontal appearance, outward
presence, and a particular place in front of an individual demonstrative of a
relationship. It is a compound of pros before and with regard to and opt, a
visage or feature which allows one to be seen in a particular way.
Moving from grammar and etymology to content, Pauls statement is very
troubling for multiple reasons. It starts off suggesting that the Corinthians willingly
accepted someone who and something which enslaved them, making them
subservient. To this ill treatment the Corinthians allegedly endured, Paul added
exploitation and control mechanisms. So whats bothersome about this is when we
return to Galatians, we will discover that Paul contends that Yahowah and His
Torah are responsible for this abusive influence. He refers to them as paidagogos
a pedagogue who instructs in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using
strict, old-fashioned methods, with an overbearing demeanor as slave-trainer, being
a harsh, arcane, and enslaving, taskmaster, in Galatians 3:4. Furthermore, in the
context of history and Pauls letters, apart from Yahowah and His Torah, there are
no other candidates. None.
At this time the Greeks living in Corinth werent being enslaved, they werent
being exploited or controlled, much less flayed, by anyone. They had become
beloved and highly esteemed members of Roman society. But if you think that there
was a political, religious, economic, or military presence in Corinth between 50 to
55 CE that was actually enslaving Greeks, forcing them to be subservient, that was
exploiting and controlling them while savaging their bodies, then please share this
history with me.
Recognizing how horrendous this statement and the one which follows
becomes when we realize that Paul is calling Yahowah and His Torah enslaving,
exploitive, destructive, controlling, and mutilating, I conducted an investigation to
see if something else may have been afoot in Corinth at this time. But there was no
Roman Legion garrisoned there. In fact, Corinth enjoyed a return to prominence
during the 1st century CE. Paying homage to Poseidon, the Isthmian Games were
recommenced, second in their fan appeal only to the Olympics. The isthmus put
Corinth in control of two major harbors, both of which were booming, as well as in
command of the most popular trade route between Asia and Rome. While much of
Corinth had been torched by Rome in 146 BCE for being a member of the Achaean
League, the Romans left the old marketplace and Apollos Temple intact. And then
showing that bygones could be bygones, between 46 and 44 BCE, Julius Caesar
used Roman capital to rebuild Corinth, naming the shining new metropolis Corinth
the praise of Julius. All of the old temples were restored, even enlarged, while
new shops and public buildings were constructed. The Romans rewarded this
thriving metropolis with a grand 14,000-seat amphitheater and a combined agora
forum edifice that was larger and more beautiful than any in Rome. Even new
waterways were built to quench the growing citys thirst. The population, which
was almost entirely Greek, with a smattering of retired Romans, Phoenicians, and
Phrygians, lived in what historians consider then to be the most beautiful, modern,
and industrious community in the whole of Greece.
Further, there was a very small Jewish presence there. And they had no
political or religious authority in what was an overtly pagan place. Roman law made
it illegal for them to proselyte. So there is no rational way to attribute rabbis or their
oral law into this equation.
Therefore, recognizing that the Pauline adversary could be none other than
Yahowah and His Torah, the final atrocity becomes circumcision which Paul sees
as a cruel and counterproductive mutilation of the flesh. The symbol of the
Covenant would become his primary foe. Therefore, set in the midst of this
Corinthian lecture, and aware of what Paul has written in Galatians, the most
rational interpretation of this train of thought is that Satan is suggesting through
Paul that Yahowah is someone only a fool would accept.
The NASB published: For you bear with anyone if he enslaves you, if he
devours you, if he takes advantage of you, if he exalts himself, if he hits you in the
face. Considering the fact that Paul will soon say that his enemies are Hebrews,
Yisraelites, and descendants of Abraham who ran afoul of him by promoting the
merits of the Torah, this is clearly an attack on Yahowahs witness and witnesses.
In his next statement, Shauwl is now saying that Yahowah and His Torah are
an atimia disgrace, and that they are disparaging and dishonorable. Rather
than prescriptions for living, according to the pretend apostle, Gods guidance
astheneo weakens mankind, incapacitating people, while causing humanity
to be powerless. And the solution to this tragedy is tolmao to dare to become
extremely aphrosyne stupid, irrational and ignorant, thoughtless. If that isnt
psychotic and delusional, then Webster needs to redefine its terms.
Relative to (kata) this disgrace and shame (atimia this dishonorable
approach, this vile ignominy and disparaging way), I say (lego), in this manner
(os) that (oti) we (emeis) have been weakened and have become powerless
(astheneo we have become incapacitated and diseased, infirmed and feeble,
through corruption and perversion).
But (de) in (en) this (o), whomsoever (an tis) might dare be so extreme
(tolmao may be so bold and fearless, defiantly go so far regardless of the
opposition (present active subjunctive)) in (en) foolishness (aphrosyne
thoughtless ignorance, foolish folly without reflection or consideration, reckless
stupidity, and rash senselessness and irrationality), I say (lego), I also (kayo) am
extremely daring and bold in opposition (tolmao kago have the courage to
actually and actively defy (present active indicative)). (2 Corinthians 11:21)
If you think that the Creator of the universe, the Architect of life, the Author
of the Towrah, the Father of the Covenant, and our Savior is a disgrace, and that
the way He provided for us to approach Him is dishonorable and ignominious,
disparaging us, in addition to being enslaving, exploitive, and controlling, then
you may be aphrosyne. But better that than tolmao or if you prefer English,
psychotic and delusional.
So ladies and gentlemen, we now have Pauls answer to God: ignore Him.
Disregard His Towrah. Dont think. Ignorance is bliss. Faith indeed.
You can almost hear him saying, Sure, my opposition to God is senseless, and
you would have to be an idiot to believe that Im speaking for God when I am
constantly contradicting and demeaning Him, but if you dont think about any of
this, none of it will bother you.
To be bold and senseless, at the same time, is to be patriotic, to be resolutely
religious, or to be a political zealot. This mantra reflects Machiavellis approach to
power, where the ends justifies the means, where truth is irrelevant, and where
daring in the extreme becomes the ultimate weapon.
The Nestle-Alands McReynolds Interlinear renders Pauls words in this
fashion: By dishonor I say as that we have weakened. In what but [n/a] some might
dare in thoughtlessness I say dare also I. Also dealing with 2 Corinthians 11:21,
the New American Standard Bible ignored lego I say toward the beginning of
this rather ignorant and irrational statement, and added my, must, by
comparison, and else, as well as the parenthetical, without textual support. To
my shame I must say that we have been weak by comparison. But in whatever
respect anyone else is bold (I speak in foolishness), I am just as bold myself.
Noticing the parenthetical, I am compelled to tell you that the NASB added (I
speak as if insane) in the midst of Pauls comments in the 23rd verse of 2nd
Corinthians 11. And should you wonder, it is in the 22nd and 24th verses that Paul
lists his adversaries who, as Ive mentioned, are not-so-coincidently Satans foes:
Hebrews, Yisraelites, the descendants of Abraham, and Yahuwdym (Jews). Not
only have Yahowahs Chosen People been ensconced as Pauls enemies, there is
something very troubling about Pauls continued focus on himself, his delusions
and paranoia, rather than Yahowsha.
Before we move on, note that astheneo we have become incapacitated and
diseased, infirmed and feeble, weakened and powerless through corruption and
perversion is the verbal form of astheneia something Paul will revel in and boast
about. Here he is attributing the incapacitation borne of corruption to God and His
Torah. But soon he will ascribe this condition to himself, to Satan, and to the
Graces. It is one of the most astonishing and awkward juxtapositions ever recorded.
So now that Shauwl has openly acknowledged that he is more daring in his
pursuit of stupidity than anyone, and that he is in bold opposition to evidence and
reason, lets examine his list of those whom we must assume are his foes, and thus
irrational representatives of the truth...
Are they (eisin presently and actually existing as) Hebrews (Hebraios a
transliteration of the Hebrew Ibry a Realm Set Apart and a Place Beyond
Passover), as am I (kayo and likewise me)? Are they (eisin presently and
actually existing as) Israelites (Israelites an adaptation and transliteration of the
Hebrew Yisrael Individuals who Engage and Endure with God), as am I (kayo
and likewise me)? Are they (eisin presently and actually existing as) the seed
(sperma the descendants and offspring) of Abraam (Abraam a transliteration
of Abram Uplifting Father (from ab father and ruwm to uplift), as am I
(kayo and likewise me)? (2 Corinthians 11:22)
As is the case with most duplicitous individuals, Shauwl wants to claim every
scrap of legitimacy for himself, even when trying to undermine the very same
sources he is claiming affiliation. It is as if he wants the reader to believe that since
he is a Hebrew Yisraelite, that it is somehow appropriate for him to discredit them.
I suppose it is like some African Americans believing that it is excusable for them
to refer to their race using the N word, while it would be considered hateful for
someone outside their community to say it.
In this light, it is telling that Shauwl not only changed his Hebrew name to
Paulos, which is of Latin origin, but also has chosen to disregard the name Yahowah
gave to Abram after he responded to the terms of the Covenant: Abraham
Merciful and Enriching Father. It speaks volumes about Shauwls disrespect for
all things Yahowah and His Covenant.
There is another aspect of this statement which is indeed troubling to those
who are informed and rational. In Galatians, Pauls first letter, he initiates his
assault against the Torah by stating in 3:16 that the seed of Abraham was singular,
and that it thereby referred exclusively to Christos, thereby excluding all other
descendants of Abraham, and thus the Hebrews and Yisraelites and by
implication, the Torah. But now, he has expressly stated that he, himself, is the
seed of Abraam. This either means that Paul is presenting himself as the
Christos, and thus as the Christian Messiah, or that he is an irrational hypocrite
because by doing this he just undermined his premise for discarding the Torah.
This next are they should have been cataloged with the previous three. It is
designed to undermine Hebrews, Yisraelites, and the offspring of Abraham,
disassociating them from Yahowsha, so that their testimony can be disregarded.
 Are they (eisin presently and actually existing as) servants running
errands (diakonos helpers, attendants, and ministers) for Christou ( a
placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey
Maaseyah)? (2 Corinthians 11:23)
And here is the payoff line, proving that our diagnosis of Paul is valid. This
man who became both psychotic and delusional wrote:
Having become insane (paraphroneo having become deranged,
completely irrational, and out of my mind, being senseless and devoid of
understanding, manic and mad; from para of, with, and from, and phroneo to
hold an opinion of ones self regarding the inability to be perceptive and rational
(scribed in the present tense this is his current status, in the active voice he is doing
this to himself, in participle form he is defining himself as deranged using a verbal
adjective, in the singular masculine this pertains to Paul alone, and in the
nominative the verb should be written to be irrational or having become insane)), I
speak (lalo I currently, actively, and actually say (present active indicative)) for
the sake of, about, and beyond (hyper for, of, and above) I (ego me and
myself) in (en with) exceedingly great works and extraordinary burdens
(kopos perissoteros labors beyond compare in abundance and superiority, but also
beatings and bothersome difficulties beyond what others could bear) in (en with)
overwhelming imprisonment by an abundance of guards (phylake perissoteros
an exceedingly great number of prisons, jails, and posted guards, all beyond
compare), in (en with) extremely severe beatings and blows (plege
hyperballontos floggings and punishments beyond measure, a greater degree of
wounds and sufferings than endured by anyone else, exceedingly severe plagues
and diseases), in (en with) death (thanatos dying) many times (pollakis often,
again and again). (2 Corinthians 11:23)
The man, who will admit to being demon-possessed thirteen sentences hence
in this very letter, has now admitted to being insane to being completely out of
his mind. And to prove it, he is now hallucinating. Paul has lost all touch with
reality. He has become the very definition of psychotic.
So how is it that the ravings of this madman have become the basis of the
worlds most popular religion? How is it that billions believe him, even when he
contradicts and demeans God? Why would anyone in their right mind consider this
rubbish to be Scripture?
While Paulos will soon blame Satan for all of his foibles, including being
beaten and guarded, at this point in his narrative, he would like us to believe that it
was all the fault of those dastardly Jews. Satans enemy had become Pauls foe.
They had made him crazy and then they had excessively burdened him, constantly
imprisoning him, savagely beating him, only to kill him over and over again well,
that is if youre prone to believe Paul. However, if you prefer sanity, Yahuwdym
(Jews) did not have the authority nor the inclination to do any of these things in
Corinth, Thessalonica, Galatia, Rome, Damascus, Tarsus, or any of the other places
Paulos traveled, proving once again that the founder of the Christian religion was
now delusional. And if you would prefer simple logic over history, anyone who
claims to have been killed often, as in many times, might not be entirely sane.
While Ive had more than my share of near death experiences, having nearly
lost my life seven times, boasting about them would never occur to me. Id much
rather share the joy associated with living in Yahs Covenant. And while Ive taken
more than my fair share of lumps for opposing Muhammad and Paul, the abuse Ive
endured pales in comparison to the satisfaction associated with sharing Yahs
Word. Ive never once been anxious, not even during any of the many thousands of
radio interviews. Ive never wanted for anything that God did not provide. Ive
never felt alone. I have always recognized that Ive gained vastly more than Ive
given. So based upon my personal experience, as someone devoted to conveying
Yahowahs message, its obvious to me that there is something dreadfully wrong
with Paul.
Continuing to hallucinate, the delirious and deranged wannabe apostle wrote...
By Yahuwdym (Ioudaios a rather pathetic attempt to transliterate
Yahuwdym Related to Yah; further corrupted to Jews) five times, forty besides
one, I received. (2C11:24) Three times I was beaten with sticks, once I was
stoned, three times I was shipwrecked. A night and a day (nychthemeron for
24-hours), I was caused to drown in the depths (bythos plunge to the bottom,
sinking into the deep or abyss; from bythizo sinking, plunging, and drowning as
cause and consequence and bathos deep and depth). (2C11:25)
Many times in perilous journeys, in dangerous rivers, in threats from
bandits, from perilous kin, from dangerous races, in a threatening city, in
perilous solitude, in a dangerous body of water, by pseudo brothers, (2C11:26)
in bothersome and difficult work and in toilsome hardship, in constant
sleeplessness, in prolonged, severe hunger and thirst, in frequently going
without food, in cold and nakedness, (2C11:27) independently and by myself
(choris without help, apart, alone, disassociated, and separated, estranged without
a relationship), besides the addition of the constant stopping to quell rebellions
(o epistasis of halting to suppress attacks and upheavals, of the pressure, concern,
burden of authority, and disturbing hindrance associated with riotous mobs) of the
extent of my daily anxiety and distracting care of all of the called-out
assemblies. (2 Corinthians 11:28)
Yes, not only was Paulos killed multiple times, evidently facilitating his own
personal resurrections, he was the first to cruise in a submarine, having spent
twenty-four hours at the bottom of the sea. In that the maximum depth of the
Aegean Sea is 11,624 feet just east of Crete, its easy to see why he put this
remarkable feat on his resume.
Every reference to that which was perilous, dangerous, and threatening came
from kindynos. It was repeated after journeys, rivers, bandits, kin, races, a city,
solitude or perhaps a desert, and a body of water, which I suppose was a lake
because hed already mentioned his misfortune on the high seas. So maybe its just
me, but if in addition to all of this, I had been overburdened, severely beaten, and
killed multiple times, and had received thirty-nine lashes five times, had been
attacked by sticks and stones, even shipwrecked, I might look for a better god. I
realize that Yahowah isnt a micromanager, but He protected the Children of
Yisrael when they were in the wilderness with Him. He fed them, quenched their
thirst, and tended to their clothing. He bore their burdens, doing all of the heavy
lifting Himself. He even quelled their rebellions. So it is obvious that the God of
Yisrael and Pauloss god are remarkably different.
Pathetic as ever, the naked, emaciated, and mutilated apostle of an absentee
god was annoyed because he had to epistasis constantly stop what he was doing
to quell rebellions, to halt upheavals, and to suppress attacks from riotous mobs
which became a disturbing hindrance. So the worlds most infamous punching bag
must have simultaneously been a one-man army. And all the while there was
anxiety over the distracting care of all of those assemblies. Quite simply, in his own
mind, he was the most important and interesting man in the world. He was also
demon possessed and insane, but who of us is perfect?
Rather than explaining Yahowshas journey through Passover and Unleavened
Bread, and His suffering on these days to enable the Torahs promises to facilitate
our salvation, Paul was fixated on delineating his personal afflictions, both real and
imagined, even though they are absolutely of no value to anyone, nor do they have
any bearing on anyones salvation.
Moreover, based upon the fact that Paul described three different variations of
what happened to him on the road to Damascus, that his accounting of his time
thereafter as well as his depiction of the Yaruwshalaym Summit were all
contradictory and inaccurate, the likelihood that Paul endured any of these things
is remote. And yet it is hard to miss the intent: it appears as if Satan was auditioning
Paul for the role of his Messiah.
Problems abound in his last statement. First among them: by using parektos
in addition and choris separately and estranged in succession, we are
compelled to render choris as without any help, as in independently, apart from
any relationship, as opposed to translating it besides. In other words, Paul isnt
saying in addition besides, but instead, in addition to being beaten up, and going
to bed hungry and cold, I alone have borne the burden of suppressing riots and
caring for all of the assemblies. So now, even the pretense of representing the real
Maaseyah is gone. It is Paul against the world in addition to being against God.
It isnt often that we are afforded a window into a deranged and psychotic
mind, but Paul in addition to being insane was a megalomaniac, so he was ever
ready to share his afflictions and affinities. And now he seems to be telling us that
when he is empowered, Yahowah and His Torah are weakened, becoming
incapacitated and impotent. And that so long as he isnt shot down in flames, Gods
credibility is questioned, with His Towrah becoming unbelievable as a result of
having been slandered and scandalized.
Who is weak and incapacitated (tis astheneo what is powerless, incapable,
and impotent by being corrupted and perverted) when I am not incapacitated nor
weak (kai ouk astheneo)? Who stumbles, ceasing to be credible (tis
skandalizomai what is slandered and scandalized becoming unbelievable, even
offensive, being trapped, distrusted and deserted) when I am not (kai ouk ego)
myself destroyed in the fire (pyroomai myself consumed by flames, burning
with passion, greatly worried and distressed, tempted with desires, or aroused
sexually, incensed or indignant)? (2C11:29) So since it is necessary to brag (ei
kauchasthai dei) of my limitation and weakness (ta tes astheneia mou of this
infirmity, lack of insight, frailty, incompetence and inadequacy of mine), I will
boast (astheneia I will brag, glorifying myself). (2 Corinthians 11:30)
Commenting upon 2 Corinthians 11:21, I alerted you to the fact that Paul would
transition from attributing the process of astheneo, and thus the concept of
astheneia, from God to himself. That is beginning here. Paul is saying that the
negative aspects of astheneo / astheneia befall God when they are not attributed to
him. Therefore, it is germane for you to realize that astheneo / astheneia depict:
perversions which have made us ill, inadequacies and infirmities caused by our
corruptions, sicknesses borne of our dishonesty, weakness which results from our
tendency to defile, to profane, and to dishonor that which is set apart, and
incapacitation, weakness, and lack of insights derived from our willingness to
pollute and sully the established conditions. And while I will prove the validity of
this amplified definition, especially in the context of the work of the Maaseyah,
when we consider 2 Corinthians 12:9 in concert with Satans influence on
Shauwls life, and with the effect of the Graces, for now, just pause long enough
to consider the implications of what this man just wrote in this light.
The implication is that Paul is suggesting that even bridled by Satan, even
beaten and bruised by Jews, even starved and naked, even distracted by riotous
mobs, even fighting off pesky thieves, even fording perilous rivers and dangerous
waters, oh my, that he is still able to thwart God by perverting His testimony? And
if these afflictions are not what he is bragging about overcoming to incapacitate the
most trustworthy and noteworthy foe, then what and who is he boasting about?
The notion of glorifying oneself in association with God makes me nauseous.
When individuals mistakenly credit something Ive written with being somehow
responsible for them coming to know Yah, I cringe. All Im doing is conveying His
message. It is His testimony, not mine, and Hes doing all of the work. Im just
along for the ride. So at most, Im nothing more than a flawed implement, and I
know it. So to brag about besting God is beyond my comprehension. It is beyond
my capacity to understand why anyone would knowingly and purposefully try to
slander and undermine the most brilliant, powerful, wonderful, loving, and
generous individual in the universe. I love my Dad, and Im grateful for everything
He has done for me especially since Im so undeserving. This is therefore hard
for me to deal with. It is insane.
And speaking of psychosis, after what we have just read, Pauls next statement
borders on schizophrenic.
The God (o a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the
Septuagint to convey elohym, the Almighty) and father (pater) of the Lord (tou
a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey
edon, the Upright One, or Yahowahs name) Iesou ( a placeholder used by
Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey Yahowsha, meaning
Yahowah Saves) has known (oida has actually and completely been aware of
and has recognized and acknowledged) the one being (o on) praised and worthy
of commendation (eulogetos one being blessed; from eulogeo with
praiseworthy words and beneficial speech) throughout the universe and forever
(eis tous aion) because (hoti) I absolutely cannot lie (ou pseudomai could never
deceive or mislead by speaking falsely or conveying anything that is not true). (2
Corinthians 11:31)
While God is our Father, Yahowsha as the diminished corporeal manifestation
of Yahowah is the antithesis of the Lord. The Lord is Satans title because it
describes his ambition.
That mistake acknowledged, in the midst of this braggadocios diatribe, and
with Shauwl presenting himself as the source of universal and everlasting truth,
the most rational conclusion is that Paulos is presenting himself as commendable
and praiseworthy the source of healing words and beneficial speech. As further
affirmation, he has already told us that God knew him and chose him before he was
born. As such, this may be Shauwls most presumptions, egotistical, and
delusional statement thus far.
However, there may be a glimmer of truth in these words, especially when we
recognize that Shauwls Lord is auditioning for the role of God. Through Paulos,
Satan wants to father a different covenant by way of his new testament, thereby
causing the existing one to be considered obsolete. And as the means to this
madness, the Adversary needs to recast Yahowsha as his ally and Yahowahs
adversary. So what the Devil could not achieve by tempting Yahowsha in the
wilderness, he would accomplish by having Paul claim that he was the lone
authorized apostle for Iesou. This enabled him to change His identity, to corrupt
His testimony, and to counterfeit every aspect of His life. By claiming to be the
chosen one, the one whose words were praiseworthy and commendable, the one
whose message was universal and eternal, and as the one who could never lie, for
the gullible, it was mission accomplished. All Shauwl and his Lord had to do now
was play the cards from the hand they had dealt to themselves.
As for Yahowsha, He never seeks commendation or praise. His every
inclination was to direct our reverence and esteem toward where it is deserved,
which is toward the Father not the Son. So there is no rational way to see this as
anything other than Paul not only claiming that his every word was eternally true,
even beneficial, but also that he could never deceive nor mislead. Once those lies
are ingested, believers begin to see his testimony as Scripture. Then it is mission
accomplished. The Devil is worshipped as if he were God.
While every aspect of this premise is delusional, especially since Paul is an
egregious liar and also insane, once the poison is ingested, the antidote, which is
the Torah, is discarded. And with the remedy removed, the venom paralyzes each
victim. For example, this very statement is irrational. In the midst of discrediting
and invalidating Gods previous testimony, Paulos is claiming that this same
unreliable source can be trusted to provide him with this stellar endorsement.
Equally absurd, God whose testimony is to be forgotten is being presented as
knowing and remembering, while the newly minted source of universal and
everlasting truth is unaware and forgetful.
Only an insane man would say that he cannot lie. It is yet another telling sign
of his insecurity. Those who suffer from this infirmity habitually deceive, all while
claiming that they are truth tellers. Paul is a classic case. And few things he said
were more incriminating than what he had previously stated to this same audience:
And (kai) I became (ginomai) to the (tois) Jews (Ioudaios a crude
transliteration of Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yahowah) like (hos) Jews
(Ioudaios) in order that (hina) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage
over (kerdaino) Jews (Ioudaios).
To those (tois) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), in such a way to show a weak
relationship (hos) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), not being himself (me on
autos) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), for the purpose that (hina) those under
(tous hypo) Towrah (nomon) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage
over (kerdaino). (1C9:20)
 To those (tois) Towrahless and thus without the Towrah (anomois), in such
a way to show a weak relationship with (hos) Towrahless (anomois), not being
(me on) Towrahless (anomois) of God (theou), to the contrary and making a
contrast (alla), in the Torah (ennomos) of Christou (Christou foolishly
transliterated from the Greek as Christ and errantly used as if a name; from chrio
which speaks of the application of drugs and medicinal ointments) in order that
(hina) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage and winning over
(kerdaino) those without the Towrah (tous anomois). (1C9:21)
I came to exist (ginomai) to the (tois) unable and morally weak (asthenes),
incapacitated and inadequate (asthenes), in order that (hina) those (tous)
impotent and sick (asthenes) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage
over (kerdaino).
To everyone (tois pasin) I have become (ginomai) every kind of thing
(panta) in order that (hina) surely by all means (pantos) some (tinas) I might
save (sozo). (1 Corinthians 9:20-22)
I would be remiss if I did not tell you that when Paul admitted to being weak
and sick he used asthenes, the adjective variation of the verb astheneo and the
noun astheneia. Therefore, he was admitting to being: weak as a result of his
corruptions and sick due to his perversions.
But we dont have to turn back the clock to find a deliberate lie. What follows
is not only inaccurate, it is both irrelevant and incongruous.
In Damascus (en Damasko), the official appointed by (ethnarches the
governor with the royal authority of) King Aretas (tou basileus Areta) was posting
guards against the city (phroureo ten polis) of Damascus (Damaskenon) to
capture and arrest me (piazo me to catch and seize me). (2C11:32) But through
a small opening in a wall (kai dia thuridos and by a diminutive aperture, tiny
window, or little door) in a woven basket (en sargane with a twine hamper), I
was let down (chalao I was lowered, released gradually by slackening the line)
through a city wall (dia tou teichos) and I fled, escaping (kai ekpheugo I ran
away to avoid) the hands of him (tas cheir autou). (2 Corinthians 11:33)
In Galatians 1:18, Paul wrote that three years transpired prior to his initial visit
to Yaruwshalaim. He said that he traveled throughout Syria and Cilicia thereafter
in 1:21. Then in Galatians 2:1, Paul stated that another fourteen years passed before
he, Barnabas, and Titus went back to Yaruwshalaim for the summit with the
Disciples Yahowchanan, Shimown, and Yaaqob. That meeting took place in 50
CE. King Aretas was assigned administration of Damascus no earlier than 37 CE.
You do the math and subtract eighteen years from 50 CE and see if it doesnt place
the basket rescue in 32 CE, a year before Yahowshas fulfillment of the first four
Miqraey, and at least five years before a Damascus official could have been
appointed by Aretas. Moreover, there would be no reason that Shauwl would be
sought out for arrest by anyone, much less by a Nabataean king, within days of his
encounter with lightning bolt.
Further discrediting Shauwls testimony, in Acts 9:23-26, we were told that
Jews plotted together to do away with him, and that their plot became known to
Shauwl. These same Jews were watching the gates day and night so that they
might put him to death, which is why his disciples took him by night and let him
down through the wall, lowering him in a basket. But now the foe is King Aretas,
a Nabataean, and therefore not Jews.
Even more incriminating, Aretas would never have deployed Jewish guards.
His daughter had married Herod Antipas, but when Herod divorced Phasaelis to
take his brothers wife, Aretas, to avenge his daughters honor, invaded Yahuwdah
and defeated Herod, capturing the West Bank of the Jordan River. When Herod
complained to Emperor Tiberius, he dispatched the governor of Syria to attack
Aretas, an action which wasnt actually carried out because of the emperors death
in 37 CE. So, suffice it to say, there is no chance that Aretas had control over Syria,
and thus Damascus, prior to 37 CE, and at the time, the last people he would have
assisted would have been Jews. Therefore, by reviewing Aretass history, Pauls
evolving and conflicting stories are exposed as complete fabrications.
This means that Paul was not only a false prophet, he was unable to keep his
own history straight. So much for the myth that he wasnt able to lie.

Paul is doing such a great job incriminating himself, lets stick around a little
longer to see how this plays out. After all, this is serious business. This psychotic
megalomaniac bamboozled billions of people with this soaring rhetoric.
It is necessary to brag (kauchaomai dei), not advantageous (ou symphero
not beneficial). But now (de) as affirmation (men indeed, surely and truly), I
will go (erchomai I will come) onto supernatural visions (eis optasia to what
appears to the mind by supernatural means) and (kai) revelations (apokalypsis
revealing disclosures, uncovering and unveilings) of the Lord ( a placeholder
used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey edon, the Upright
One, or Yahowahs name). (2 Corinthians 12:1)
I stand corrected. Paul has finally conveyed something that is true. While only
an idiot would brag about doing something that is disadvantageous, Paul has
provided plenty of proof that his visions and revelations came from the Lord. And
since the Lord is Satan, that indeed is detrimental.
In that this soliloquy is condemning in the extreme, as we make our way
through it, lets also consider the Christian spin of Shauwls stunning confessions.
Here is what was scribed in the King James Authorized Version: It is not expedient
for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
Francis Bacon, the egotistical occultist and humanist who guided the publication of
the King James Bible on behalf of his pontiff, purposefully deceived Christians
with this rendering. Turns out it was an inaccurate paraphrase of the Latin Vulgate:
If I must glory (it is not expedient indeed) but I will come to visions and revelations
of the Lord.
Always ready to put lipstick on their favorite swine, the authors of the New
Living Translation published: This boasting will do no good, but I must go on. I
will reluctantly tell about visions and revelations from the Lord.
One way to avoid lying I suppose is to say that you cant remember. But when
they are allegedly transformative events in your life, encounters which provide your
authority, that wont fly. Nonetheless...
I am aware of (oida I know, recognize, recall, or acknowledge) a man
(anthropos) in (en) Christo ( a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and
in the Septuagint to convey Yahowsha, meaning Yahowah Saves) before fourteen
years (pro etos dekatessares) whether if (eite) in (en) body (soma as a physical
being) I do not know (ouk oida I am unaware and do not recall) or if (eite)
outside the body (ektos tou somatos disassociated from a physical being) I do
not recall or remember (ouk oida I do not know, I am unaware, and I will not
acknowledge).
The God ( a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the
Septuagint to convey elohym, the Almighty), He has known and has
remembered (oiden he has recognized, recalled, and acknowledged) having
been violently seized and snatched away (harpazo having been viciously
attacked, ravenously plundered, forcibly possessed, harshly controlled, carried
away, swindled, and extorted) like this (ton toioutos in this kind of way) until
(heos as far as) the third heaven (tritos ouranos). (2 Corinthians 12:2)
So if he cannot remember how he encountered this individual, whether he was
out of his body or just out of his mind, how does he know whom he met or what he
was told? And if he cant recall what happened, why did he provide three detailed,
albeit conflicting, accounts for Luke to record in Acts? Also, if God can be counted
upon to remember either, then there would be no reason for Paul to ask us to forget
what He said. Or should we consider all of this deranged musings and
hallucinations the product of an insane mind?
 While it is a minor point, Paul seems to have forgotten his prior testimony,
leaving off the three years he claims that he spent in Arabia getting his message
approved by God, and his subsequent march through Syria and Cilicia. And while
that would mean that he lied about how he claimed that God, Himself, had prepared
him for his mission, it means that he went directly from killing to preaching, one
week to the next. Also, if you are doing some recalculations, even with the passage
of only fourteen years, it still puts Paul in Damascus a year before Aretas was given
dominion over the city by Rome.
And speaking of psychotic delusions, since God is the subject of both oiden
He has known and harpazo having been violently seized and snatched away,
in the sequential application of verbs, this means that God, Himself, knows and
acknowledges that He has been viciously attacked, plundered, possessed,
controlled, swindled, and extorted in this way. And once again, it is true. Shauwl
and Satan have attacked God, snatching away that which is most dear to Him, His
Covenant, swindling Him of His Torah, and plundering Him of countless children.
Shauwl, the wolf in sheeps clothing, in a previous letter to the Thessalonians,
associated the same term with his false prophecy regarding the harpazo rapture,
the vicious snatching away that he errantly predicted would occur during his
lifetime. So he remained fixated upon the characteristics so often ascribed to
wolves: violently seizing and snatching away the most vulnerable prey, viciously
and ravenously attacking.
It is interesting here that Yahowahs description of the Taruwah Harvest of
souls known to Christians as the rapture (from Mattanyah 24:40), is transcribed
using the Greek word paralambano, which means to receive at an appointed time,
to welcome and accept, to gather individuals, bringing them together, and joining
with them. It is from para, meaning with, beside, and near, speaking of proximity
and association, and lambano, to take someone by the hand, to remove them, and
to carry them away. But speaking of this same event, Shauwl used harpazo (in 1
Thessalonians 4:17), which speaks of being seized and violently snatched away,
to attack, to gain control over, to possess, to physically harass and injure, to carry
away by force, to spoil, and to secretly steal, plunder, and loot. The verbs
paralambano and harpazo describe the difference between how the Spirit of Light
and the spirit of darkness operate.
Also relevant, there are two shamaym heavens according to Yahowah. The
first is comprised of everything from the earths atmosphere to the furthest galaxies,
and thus everything comprising the physical universe. The other is the spiritual
abode of God, also known as His home. By why let Gods testimony get in the way
of a good story?
 Once again, the KJV: I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago,
(whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God
knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven copied the LV: I know a
man in Christ: above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not, or out of
the body, I know not: God knoweth), such a one caught up to the third heaven.
NLT: I was caught up to the third heaven fourteen years ago. Whether I was in my
body or out of my body, I dont knowonly God knows.
Having invested six years of my life to studying everything which is known
about Muhammad and his formation of Islam, I realize that he made the same
pronouncement, albeit his claim to have flown upon a winged ass was more
colorful. Even Muhammads initial confrontation with Satans envoy in the cave
was described identically to harpazo. Muhammad said that he was forcibly and
violently seized by the spirit, that it attacked and controlled him, and that it
possessed him. The only difference is that Muhammad went from the third
heaven to the seventh heaven, where he met Allah, who told him that he wanted
to be mooned, 50 times a day, with repeated religious prostrations. (These parallel
stories are revealed in the With Whom Am I Speaking and Delusions of
Grandeur chapters of Prophet of Doom.)
So that is why this all reminds me of Muhammads I cannot say for sure. Allah
knows best. And along those lines, the Islamic Hadith and Quran also speak of
multiple heavens. According to the Islamic scriptures, Adam, men with camel
mouths with rocks emerging from their behinds, in addition to tortured women
hanging from their breasts, lived adjoining the first heavenalong with a damsel
with red lips who pleased Muhammad much. Issa (the Quranic Jesus) and
Yahya (the Quranic John) were relegated to the second heaven. Rising above
Yahowsha and Yahowchanan in Allahs third heaven, Shauwl would have met
Joseph, at least according to Muhammad. Climbing the prophetic ladder, the
Quran and Hadith reveal that Shauwl would have encountered Enoch and then
Aaron in the fourth and fifth heavens. According to Muhammad, the sixth heaven
was occupied by the man whose Torah Shauwl will renounce: Moseh. Then in the
seventh heaven, we find the Pen, Allahs House, angels performing prostration
prayers, a tree whose fruit resembled clay jugs, and the headwaters of the Euphrates
and Nile Rivers. Muhammads myths were more imaginative than Pauls.
Although from a stylistic perspective, the out of body experience of referring
to oneself as anthropos a man is pretty weird...
And (kai) I recall (oida I know and remember, I am aware and
acknowledge) as such (ton toioutos like this) a man (anthropos) whether if (eite)
in (en) body (soma as a physical being) I do not know (ouk oida I am unaware
and do not recall) or if (eite) without the body (choris tou somatos apart from a
physical being) I do not recall or remember (ouk oida I do not know, I am
unaware, and I will not acknowledge).
The God ( a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the
Septuagint to convey elohym, the Almighty), he has known and has remembered
(oiden he has recognized, recalled, and acknowledged) (2C12:3) because (oti) he
was viciously attacked and plundered, harshly controlled and extorted
(harpazo He was violently seized and snatched away, forcibly controlled, carried
away, and swindled) approaching (eis inside and with reference to) the paradise
(ton paradeisos a Babylonian / Persian Sanskrit word for garden enclosure and
hunting preserve) and he heard (kai akouo) words which cannot be spoken
(arretos rhema unspeakable and unsaid statements or matters which cannot be
expressed; literally the unexpressed words) which it is not permissible, possible,
or lawful (a ouk exesti which ought not be obligatory; literally out of existence)
for a man (anthropos) to speak (laleo). (2 Corinthians 12:4)
There are no physical beings in the spiritual realm. Bodies would be useless
and counterproductive. But beyond this, how is it that we are to believe someone
who cannot remember fundamental aspects of his alleged encounters with God?
From a purely grammatical perspective, there would be no reason to conclude
that there is a transition between God and man with reference to the successive
presentation of the God, he who has known, and he was viciously attacked
approaching paradise. So while Christians would tell you that it is Paul who is being
snatched away and that it is Paul who heard that which could not be spoken, there
is no justification for any of that. It is as impossible to support as is hearing words
which are unspeakable.
Not recognizing that an unspeakable word is an oxymoron, and not realizing
that Yahowsha is the Word, and thus the place Paul went is the opposite of
paradise, the KJV wrote: And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of
the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise,
and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. LV: And
I know such a man (whether in the body, or out of the body, I know not: God
knoweth): That he was caught up into paradise and heard secret words which it is
not granted to man to utter. There is nothing secret about arrhetos. It is simply
the negation of rhetoric, which speaks of the nullification of effective
communication. It is the antithesis of studying persuasive written texts such as
the Torah. NLT: Yes, only God knows whether I was in my body or outside my
body. But I do know that I was caught up to paradise and heard things so astounding
that they cannot be expressed in words, things no human is allowed to tell. They
all missed the point: Satan took Shauwl to the place where the Word does not exist,
and where its benefit has been nullified. It is the same place Paul has taken
Christians. Today they call this godless place a church.
 Loosely translated, he just told us: I cant say what I didnt hear. It reminds
me of the old line: I realize that you think that you understand what you thought I
said but Im not sure that you recognize that what you heard is not what I meant.
So why bother?
But to Paul, hearing what he didnt hear and saying what he could not say was
reason for him to brag which he did while not boasting, unless self-glorification
was in incapacitating timidity. I kid you not.
On behalf of such things like this (hyper tou toioutos), I will actually boast
(kauchaomai I will brag, engaging in self-glorification, expressing pride in
myself) for the sake of it (hyper). But myself (de emautou so on my own accord)
I will not brag (ou kauchaomai I will not engage in self-glorification) if not (ei
un) in the (en tais) incapacitating inadequacy of corruption and perversion
(astheneia infirmity and illness borne out of dishonesty, timidity and limitations
associated with fraud, weakness and sickness derived from defiling and profaning,
inadequacy and lack of insights caused by polluting and sullying the established
conditions). (2 Corinthians 12:5)
As I have promised, the transition is complete. Paul is not only associating
astheneia the incapacitation of perversion and the inadequacy of corruption to
himself, bragging about the sickening fraud he is perpetrating. But other than to say
that a person would have to be insane to trust this man, since I am unaware of any
way to make any sense of any of this, lets move on to the payoff line the reason
we took this tour through Pauls mind. So while weve considered what follows
previously, this will be the first time that weve approached Pauls astonishing
admission to have been demon-possessed from his perspective. He is on the cusp
of explaining how he became astheneia inadequate, corrupt, incompetent,
perverted, incapacitated, and defiled.
This has been a gut-wrenching journey to a place more horrible than I could
have imagined. All I can hope for at this point is to keep as many souls as possible
from following Shauwl to Satans Abyss and that is why we are continuing to
evaluate this material. KJV: Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not
glory, but in mine infirmities. LV: For though I should have a mind to glory, I
shall not be foolish: for I will say the truth. But I forbear, lest any man should think
of me above that which he seeth in me, or any thing he heareth from me. NLT:
That experience is worth boasting about, but I'm not going to do it. I will boast
only about my weaknesses.
Next we discover what incapacitated Pauls ability to glorify himself, and learn
what made him ill. Although to be fair, all attempts at the former failed, and with
regard to the latter, it made billions spiritually sick.
 Because (gar for indeed) if (ean) I might want (thelo I may decide,
desire, propose, or enjoy) to brag (dauchaomai to boast or to glorify myself)
truthfully (aletheia honestly), I would not be (ouk esomai) unjustified or
imprudent (aphron acting rashly without reason, inappropriate or foolish).
For then (gar because) I will say (ero) I am presently abstaining
(pheidomai I am currently refraining). But (de) someone (tis) not (un)
approaching (eis) me (eme) might ponder (logizomai may have reason to
logically conclude, embrace an opinion, or hold a view) beyond (hyper over and
above and because of) what (o) he sees (blepo he will be able to view and discern)
in me (me), or (e) something (ti) he hears (akouo he listens to, receives, pays
attention to) from (ek) me (emou), (12:6) and of the (kai te so with regard to the)
extraordinary superiority of the (hyperbole ton preeminence and exceedingly
great, transcendent, magnificent, and awe-inspiring aspects of the exaggerated and
overstated) revelations (apokalypsis disclosures with the appearance of
instructions concerning the unknown).
Therefore (dio it should be self evident), in order that (hina for the
purpose that) I not become overly proud and be lifted up (me hyperairomai I
not become conceited, exalting myself beyond what would be justified, so as not to
be insolent, audaciously lifting myself above the source of my inspiration), there
was given to me (didomi ego there was deposited upon me, allowing me to
experience, there was granted and entrusted to me for my advantage) a sharp goad
and troubling thorn (skolops a sharp pointed prod used to control dumb animals,
featuring poisonous scorpions stinger) in the body (te sarx incorporated into the
flesh and as an aspect of my physical, animal, and human nature), a messenger
(angelos a spiritual envoy or demonic spirit) of Satan (Satan a transliteration
of satan, Hebrew for the Adversary), in order to (hina so as to) strike and
restrain me (kolaphizo adversely harm, beat, and torment me, violently
mistreating me to painfully afflict, attack, buffet, and batter me; from kolazo to
prune, control, check, curb, and restrain me), so that as a result (hina) at the
present time there is the possibility that I might not be conceited, currently
exalting myself beyond what would be justified, lifting myself up (me
hyperairomai I may not be overly proud nor excessively exalted or lifted up,
overdoing it (scribed in the present tense, meaning at this time, in the passive voice,
affirming that this is being done to him, with the subjective mood indicating that
this outcome is a mere possibility, and in the first person singular, thereby
identifying Paulos as the one being possessed and controlled). (2 Corinthians 12:7)
Skolops a sharp pointed stick used as a prod, a stinger, and a scorpion is
akin to Pauls use of kentron a sharp pointed stick used to prod animals and
control them, the poisonous stinger of a scorpion in Acts 26:14, where Paul says
that he was told by Dionysus, in the guise of Jesus, that it would be hard to rebel
against him. And that means that Acts 26:14, which describes Pauls meeting with
the flashing light on the road to Damascus where he was told that he could not repel,
and Second Corinthians 12:7, which describes the way Satan possessed and
controlled Paul, are related. The common denominator is a false prophet and a
wannabe god.
Since this passage is so incredibly incriminating, you might be interested to
know that Greek words which are related to skolops a sharp pointed prod,
include skopeo: something dangerous to be on the lookout for, to notice by being
carefully observant, and to be very concerned about. Skopos: a goal toward which
someone is being directed, striving for a specific purpose. Skorpizo: to scatter,
disperse, and separate. Skorpois: a supernatural demonic power and stinging
scorpion. Skotia: a dark and evil realm. Skotos: the abode of evil and demonic
spirits. And skolios: to be unscrupulous and morally corrupt, to be perverse and
deceitful, and to warp a path making what was once straight crooked.
Here are the Christian interpretations of 2 Corinthians 12:6-7 for your
consideration. KJV: For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I
will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that
which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me. And lest I should be exalted
above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a
thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted
above measure. LV: For though I should have a mind to glory, I shall not be
foolish: for I will say the truth. But I forbear, lest any man should think of me above
that which he seeth in me, or any thing he heareth from me. And lest the greatness
of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel
of Satanae/Satan, to buffet me. NLT: If I wanted to boast, I would be no fool in
doing so, because I would be telling the truth. But I won't do it, because I don't want
anyone to give me credit beyond what they can see in my life or hear in my
message, even though I have received such wonderful revelations from God. So to
keep me from becoming proud, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger from
Satan to torment me and keep me from becoming proud. The most influential
Catholic translation, the Authorized Protestant translation, and the most recent
Evangelical translation, all say that a messenger from Satan was used to control
Paul. And yet not one Christian in a million associates Pauls thorn in the flesh
with Satan, or with demon possession. Their religion has blinded them.
And now speaking directly to the Lord of demons, Satan, himself, Shauwl
wrote...
Regarding this (hyper toutou because of and about this), three times (tris)
of the Lord (ton kupion of the supernatural master who controls a person, the
owner of slaves to whom someone belongs, the one who lords over and exercises
supremacy, and the power to possess), I asked (parakaleo I begged, urged, and
pleaded) in order that (ina) it might be repelled (aphistamai at some point it
might possibly leave and be kept away, departing (aorist active subjunctive)),
separated from me (apo emou out of and disassociated from me). (2
Corinthians 12:8)
I dont suspect that Paulos much liked being demon-possessed. It must have
been maddening and manipulative. So he pleaded with his spiritual accomplice,
begging Satan to aphistamai to repel the demon, not only making it leave but
also keeping it away. He knew, of course, that every messenger of Satan, and
thus every demon, served the Adversary and thus would obey its Lord. And just
as arrhetos was the negation of the Word, aphistemi is the antithesis of
Yahowshas purpose: to stand up for us so that we might stand with Him.
Therefore, to be aphistemi is to be separated from Gods purpose.
If you are looking for Gods help, if you what Him to respond to you, that will
never happen if you call Yahowah or Yahowsha, Lord. This is not only Satans
title, and the name God uses to identify the Adversary, in that the name Baal means
Lord, it is the antithesis of the way our Heavenly Father wants us to relate to Him
in the Family Covenant. This is why Yahowsha said:
Not any one saying to Me, Lord, Lord (kyrie master, owner, one who
rules over, controls, or enslaves), will actually as a result enter into the kingdom
of the heavens, but by contrast the one presently acting upon the purpose and
desire of My Father, the One in the heavens. (7:21)
Many will say to Me in that specific day, Lord, Lord, in Your name, did
we not actively speak genuinely inspired utterances, and in Your name, we
drove out demons, and in Your name, many mighty and miraculous things, we
made and did. (7:22)
And then I will profess to them that because I never at any time knew you,
you all must depart from Me, those of you who are opposed to the Towrah.
(Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:23)
Demon possession is yet another thing Paul and Muhammad had in common.
And that is relevant because the Islamic Quran and Hadith reveal that Allah was
modeled after Satan. Describing the vicious bout with Satan in a cave outside
Mecca, Muhammads Hadith report: The commencement of divine inspiration to
Allahs Messenger was in the form of dreams that came true like a bright light. The
prophet loved the seclusion of a cave near Hira. The angel came to him and asked
him to read. The Prophet replied, I do not know how to read. Then the angel
caught me forcefully and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any
more.Then the Apostle returned from that experience; the muscles between his
neck and shoulders were trembling, and his heart was beating severely. He went to
Khadija and cried: Cover me! Cover me! She did until his fear subsided. He said,
Whats wrong with me? I am afraid that something terrible has happened to me.
(Bukharis Hadith: Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3 & Volume 6, Book 60, Number
478)
The truth came upon him while he was in a cave. The first form of revelation
was a true vision in sleep. He did not see any vision but it came like the break of
dawn. The Prophet said, I had been standing, but fell to my knees and crawled
away, my shoulders trembling. When the terror had left me, he came to me and
said, You are the Messenger of Allah. Muhammad said, I had been thinking of
hurling myself off a mountain cliff I feared for my life. (Tabaris History:
Volume 1, page 67)
Aisha said that when Allah desired to honor Muhammad, the first sign of
prophethood was a vision of brightness of day shown to him. He stayed seeing
and hearing things as long as it pleased Allah. Then Gabriel came to him with the
gift of Allahs Grace. (Ishaqs Sira: page 105)
He pressed me so tightly that I was near death. When I thought that I was
nearly dead, he said: Read in the name of your Lord who created man of coagulated
blood. Read! Your Gracious Lord taught by the pen. I remained gazing at him
and that distracted me from committing suicide. I could not move. Khadija sent her
messengers in search of me and they gained the high ground above Mecca so I came
to her and sat by her thigh. I said, Woe is me. I am possessed. Im afraid Im
going out of my mind and being possessed by an evil spirit. (Ishaqs Sira: page
106)
In the beginning of the Messengers prophetic mission he used to spend a
month every year in religious retreat on Hira. This was part of the practice of
Tahannuth in which the Quraysh used to engage during the Jahiliyyah [period of
ignorance before Muhammads recitals]. Tahannuth means self-justification.
(Tabaris History: Volume 1, page 70)
Then, at the end of his life we find: Aisha, the wife of Allahs Apostle (may
peace be upon him), reported: Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him) left
my apartment during the night. Then he came and he saw me in an agitated state.
He said: Aisha, what has happened to you? Do you feel jealous? I said: How
can it be that a girl like me would not feel jealous in regard to a husband like you?
Thereupon Allahs Messenger said: It is your devil who has come to you. I said:
Allahs Messenger, is there a devil with me? He said: Yes. I said: Is there a
devil attached to everyone? He said: Yes. I said: Allahs Messenger, is there a
devil attached to you also? He said: Yes. But my Lord has helped me against my
devil and as such I am absolutely safe from his mischief. (Muslims Hadith
Chapter 14, Book 39, Number 6759)
 And by way of confirmation: Allahs Messenger said: There is none amongst
you with whom is not an attach from amongst the jinn, a devil. The Companions
said: Allahs Messenger, is there a devil with you too. Thereupon he said: Yes,
but Allah helps me against him so I am safe from his hand and he does not command
me but for good. (Muslims Hadith Chapter 14, Book 39, Number 6757)
Evidently, Muhammads and Shauwls Lord didnt trust his messengers any
more than we should, because in both case the Devil was unwilling to remove the
demon he had used to possess and control them. So now completely and forever
estranged from Yahowah, Satan offered Paulos an attractive pagan substitute...
And he has actually spoken this to me (kai eiphon moi), It is sufficient
and satisfactory for you (arkeo soi it is currently enough and presently adequate,
so you should be content to possess) my (mou) Grace (Charis the name of the
lovely and lascivious Greek goddesses of merriment, known to the Romans as the
Gratia, from which Grace is derived), because (gar) the ability and power
(dynamis the mighty miracles, supernatural capability, authority, and strength) in
(en) weakness and sickness (astheneia illness, timidity, inadequacy, infirmity,
limited insights, and incapacitation, being frail, feeble, profaned, and defiled as a
result of perversions and corruptions) is fulfilling and complete (teleo is brought
to fruition).
Gladly (hedeos with delight), therefore (oun), more willingly and readily
(mallon to a greater degree) I will boast (kauchaomai I will brag, expressing
pride in myself, glorifying myself) in the (en tais) lack of insights and inadequacy
derived from corruptions (astheneia weakness, illness, timidity, sickness,
infirmity, incapacitation, being frail, feeble, polluted, profane, and defiled through
perversions) of mine (mou) in order that (hina) it might take up residence
(episkenoo it may reside and indwell) on me (epi eme) the (e) ability and power
(dynamis the mighty miracles, supernatural capability, authority, and strength) of
the (tou) Christou ( a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the
Septuagint to convey Maaseyah). (2 Corinthians 12:9)
Translating Jeromes Latin, the King James Bible published verses 8and 9 as
saying: For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And
he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in
weakness. LV: For which thing, thrice I besought the Lord that it might depart
from me. And he said to me: My gratia/grace is sufficient for thee: for power is
made perfect in infirmity. NLT: Three different times I begged the Lord to take
it away. Each time he said, My grace is all you need. My power works best in
weakness.
Satan is a proponent of the Graces, which is why he called the Charis his own.
Cavorting naked, they were the principal pagan proponents of lust and
licentiousness, after all. And considering Pauls admission to uncontrollable
cravings in this regard in Romans 7, Satans declaration that the aphrodisiacal
Charis / Gartia were arkeo sufficient and satisfactory for Paulos, and that he
should be content with the goddesses contribution to his astheneia sickening
weakness is creepy. And the idea that he is disclosing this to us, even boasting
about it, is insane.
Shauwl has become truly and genuinely fixated with astheneia inadequacy
and infirmity, being corrupt and sick, being frail and feeble, incapacitated and
weak, lacking insights and being defiled as a result of corruptions and perversions.
This is doubly bizarre because God heals, perfects, empowers, and enriches His
Covenant children. In fact, this is the stated purpose of the Covenant. Our
imperfections and infirmities, our relative weakness and lack of insights are
resolved. So why is Paul wallowing in his? More troubling still, Paulos is writing
about his astheneia illness while simultaneously admitting that he is both insane
and demon-possessed. And even if a Christian apologist might suggest that this is
Pauls way of demonstrating humility, that becomes laughable in the midst of
constant bragging. And speaking of being hypocritical, how can a man who has the
ability to survive multiple deaths, drowning, lashings, stoning, et al, be astheneia
inadequate and weak?
The Disciple Mattanyah describes Yahowsha defining astheneia for us by
referencing Yashayah / Isaiah 53:4 in Hebrew and then having a scribe translate
choly, the word he wrote, into the Greek astheneia. So first, lets consider the
defining statement regarding the work of the Maaseyah. Yahowah, speaking
through Yashayahuw, predicted:
Surely (aken truly and indeed, emphasizing this point) our perversions
which have made us ill (choly our fraud-borne sickness and wounds; from chalah
/ chalal becoming weak through corruption, becoming sick through pollution,
becoming diseased by being sullied and defiled, and becoming grieved by
profaning and dishonoring that which is set apart, treating it as common, corrupting
the truth while violating the established conditions), He (huw) lifted up and
completely carried away (nasa endured (the qal stem encourages a literal
interpretation of actual events while the perfect conjugation addresses that which is
total and complete)), and our mental anguish and physical suffering (wa makob
our grief, sorrow, and pain), He bore and sustained them (cabal incurred
them). And yet we (wa anachnuw) assumed and considered Him (chashab
imagined, thought, calculated, determined, imputed, and devised a plan to reckon
Him) touched and struck (naga nakah reached and beaten, contacted and
destroyed) by God (elohym), even (wa and also) responding and answering
through affliction (anah replying by being distressed). (Yashayah / Salvation
is from Yahowah / Isaiah 53:4)
 So now, based upon what we just discovered, the Greek translation of
Mattanyahs testimony should read:
The purpose was to fulfill (opos pleroo the intended result was to
completely proclaim, providing meaning which prompts thinking, and to perform
as promised) the statement having been spoken (to rethen the word having been
prophetically declared in advance) through (dia) Yashayahuw (Esaiou a
transliteration of the Hebrew name Yashayahuw Salvation if from Yahowah),
the prophet and inspired spokesman (tou prophetou), saying (legontos
communicating to instruct): Himself (autos), the perversions which have made
us ill (tas astheneia emon the inadequacies and infirmities caused by our
corruptions, the sicknesses borne of our dishonesty, the weakness which results
from our tendency to defile, to profane, and to dishonor that which is set apart as
common, the incapacitation, weakness, and lack of insights derived from our
willingness to pollute and sully the established conditions), He received and took
hold of (lambano He grasped, acquired, and relationally experienced), and the
(kai tas) mental anguish and physical suffering (nosos sicknesses, diseases, and
illnesses, grief, sorrow, and pain), He removed and bore (bastazo He accepted,
endured, provided for, and carried away). (Mattanyah / Yahowahs Gift /
Matthew 8:17)
If Yahowah told the truth, if Yahowsha performed as promised, and if Shauwl
capitalized upon what God has done, why, pray tell, is he still astheneia
inadequate, infirmed, incapacitated, and weak as a result of perversions and
corruptions? If you are a Christian, if you are prone to believe Paul, dont move
on with your life until you can answer this question.
And since Paul is continually boasting about his astheneia, ought we not be
concerned that it is psychotic to be proud of being: sick as a result of ones
perversions, ill because of ones corruptions, weak due to ones dishonesty, and
inadequate as a consequence of ones willingness to defile and profane the Word
of God?
It should be noted here that Satans Gratia is said to fulfill and satisfy as a
result of incapacitating corruptions, while the same sickening perversions promoted
by Paul reside with Christou. This not only equates the Maaseyah with a pagan
deity, but also with Pauls profanity. As a result, Satans fingerprints appeared on
Pauls letter when he wrote, speaking of the Lord: And he has actually spoken
this to me (kai eiphon moi), It is sufficient and satisfactory for you, and you
should be content to possess (arkeo soi) my (mou) Charis or Grace (Charis),
because (gar) the supernatural ability and power (dynamis) in (en) weakness
and perversion, sickness and corruption (astheneia), is fulfilling and complete,
brought to fruition (teleo). Gladly (hedeos), therefore (oun), more willingly
and readily (mallon) I will boast, glorifying myself (kauchaomai) in the (en tais)
lack of insights and inadequacy derived from such perversions and
corruptions (astheneia) of mine (mou) in order that (hina) it might take up
residence (episkenoo) on me (epi eme) the (e) ability and power (dynamis) of
the (tou) Christou (). (2C12:9)
In other words, not only is Shauwls Christou a perverted corruption, he isnt
nearly as satisfying, nor are his fulfillments as relevant, as those of the Charis. And
that means Pauls Christou bears no resemblance to the actual Maaseyah.
While we have received more than we could have anticipated through this
review of Pauls correspondence with the Corinthians, lets remain a little longer.
It is not often we are invited to visit such insanity. And seldom is malignant
malfeasance so prominently displayed as it is in these words.
Therefore (dio for this reason it should be self evident), I am pleased with
and prefer, delighting in (eudokeo en I enjoy and take pleasure in, I consider
good and consent to) sickening perversions (astheneia the inadequacies and
infirmities caused by corruptions, illness borne of dishonesty, weakness which
results from the tendency to defile, to profane, and to dishonor that which is set
apart as common, incapacitation, weakness, and lack of insights derived from a
willingness to pollute and sully the established conditions), in (en) presumptuous
maltreatment and outrageously damaging insults (hybris injurious treatment
and harmful behavior, the invasion of the basic rights of others, ignominious
hardships and impudent insolence, pride and haughtiness, wanton violence, and
tempestuous wrongdoing), in (en) the necessity and inevitability of compulsion
and punishment (anagke obligatory trouble, unyielding pressure, the destiny
and advantage of distress and tribulation as well as imposed calamity), in (en)
persecution and oppression (diogmos harassment and molestation which causes
people to flee in fear, driving them away through terror), and (kai) the difficulty
of the distressing restrictiveness (stenochoria the troublesome narrowness and
resulting calamity and extreme affliction) regarding (hyper associated with and
because of) Christou ( a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in
the Septuagint to convey Maaseyah) is the reason (gar indeed, because) I am
sickened by my perversions (astheneia I am inadequate and infirmed through
my corruptions, ill as a result my dishonesty, weakened by my tendency to defile,
to profane, and to dishonor that which is set apart as common, incapacitated with a
lack of insights derived from my willingness to pollute and sully the established
conditions), and at the same time (tote) I am (eimi) empowered, competent and
capable (dynatos plausible, expert, and important, mighty, powerful, and
influential). (2 Corinthians 12:10)
If nothing else, we have Pauls stamp of approval on our working definition of
astheneia sickening perversions, and we now know that he is in favor of them,
and worse. But this is so bad, it takes your breath away... Therefore, it should be
self-evident (dio), I am pleased with and prefer, delighting in, I enjoy and take
pleasure in, even consider good and consent to (eudokeo en) sickening
perversions, the inadequacies and infirmities caused by corruptions, and
weakness borne of dishonesty (astheneia) in (en) presumptuous maltreatment
and outrageously damaging insults which are injurious and arrogant (hybris),
in (en) the necessity and inevitability of compulsion and punishment, the
advantage of obligations and unyielding pressure (anagke), in (en) persecution
and oppression, harassment and molestation (diogmos), and (kai) the difficulty
of the distressing restrictiveness and troublesome narrowness (stenochoria)
associated with (hyper) Christou () is the reason (gar) I am sickened by my
perversions and made inadequate by my corruptions (astheneia), and at the
same time (tote), I am (eimi) empowered, competent and capable, plausible,
expert, and important, mighty, powerful, and influential (dynatos). (2C12:10)
That may be the single most perverted and twisted thing Ive ever read. If this man
is your apostle, if he is a spokesman for your god, Id recommend replacing both.
At this point I am beginning to think we are witnessing the impossible, a
miracle of sorts. Paul is actually driving nails into his own coffin while burying
himself. Im surprised that he didnt list this among his achievements.
Christian apologists will claim that Paul is saying what doesnt kill me makes
me stronger, but that isnt permissible, not only because Paul claims to have been
killed multiple times, but also because our suffering is irrelevant. The message of
the Miqraey is that Yahowsha suffered so we wouldnt have to. Also, those who
speak on behalf of God should never claim that their problems empower them,
making them competent or capable, because it is Yahowshas fulfillment of Pesach,
Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuwah that accomplishes these things on behalf of the
His testimony, and thus His influence, not ours.
So by claiming these things, Paul is saying that his sacrifices and sufferings
matter, making him a more credible and capable influence in the lives of others. By
doing so, he is positioning himself as the savior of his religion.
No sane individual delights in or prefers any of the horrible things on Pauls
list. By saying that he has come to enjoy them, he is affirming the consequence of
being demon-possessed. These are the kinds of things Satan delights in.
Galatians, as we will learn, perverts and corrupts Yahowahs testimony to infer
the inadequacy of His Torah. Thus far in it, we have read Paul outrageously insult
Yahowshas Disciples, presumptuously maltreating them. Then in the manner of
all hypocrites, after besmirching Yahowahs Torah, calling it enslaving, and thus
unyielding in its obligations, Paul says that he is in favor of compulsion, calling the
threat of punishment advantageous. And I suppose this is why he favors oppression,
harassment, and molestation.
 And yet these problems pale in comparison to stenochoria the difficulty of
the distressing restrictiveness and troublesome narrowness associated with
Christou. At its root, stenochoria wouldnt be so bad if not for its associated
baggage, in that it is comprised of stenos narrow strait and chora the space
lying between two places. The path to God is indeed narrow and straight, and as
a result, few find it. But unfortunately, Shauwl uses stenochoria to speak of
anguishing tribulation coming upon the doers of evil in Romans 2:9. It is
presented as a distressful tribulation leading to persecution in Romans 8:35.
Earlier in this letter, stenochoria was deployed in 2 Corinthians 6:4 to convey
affliction. So by concluding his statement with ...the difficulty of the
distressing restrictiveness and troublesome narrowness (stenochoria)
associated with (hyper) Christou () is the reason (gar) I am sickened by my
perversions and made inadequate by my corruptions (astheneia), and at the
same time (tote), I am (eimi) empowered, competent and capable, plausible,
expert, and important, mighty, powerful, and influential (dynatos), Shauwl is
associating what he perceives to be the negative effects of Yahowahs unyielding
and unrelenting specificity regarding His Way to redemption, the way Yahowsha
lived, with his rise in influence. And while nothing is truer, nothing is more
devastating.
If we were to distill the whole of Pauline Doctrine down to one thought it would
be the negation of the narrow path Yahowah presented and Yahowsha walked by
replacing it with unspecified, unsubstantiated, and unrestricted faith. This is what
made Paul popular, and thus influential. And the more popular he became, the more
plausible and credible his letters were perceived to be. But unfortunately for those
who have bought into the myth that salvation comes to those who believe Jesus
died for their sins, the source of that deception lied as a result of being demon-
possessed and insane.
Like those watching a train wreck unfold, its hard to divert our eyes away
from what Paul is writing, even though we know that souls are dying in the carnage.
And speaking of a wreck, consider the Nestle-Alands McReynolds Interlinears
amalgamation of Pauls next statement: I have become unthinking you me
compelled I for owe by you to be commended nothing for I lacked of the very
beyond delegates if even nothing I am.
I have come to be (ginomai I have become) ignorant and irrational
(aphron senseless and foolish, stupid, acting rashly, essentially out of my mind,
lacking judgment). You (umeis), yourselves, compelled me (anagkazo me forced
this upon me, drove me to this, necessitating it). For this reason (gar), you all
(umon) are obligated to me, and under me, you owe me (opheilo upo umon you
are indebted to me and it is indispensable and obligatory that you are required) to
be commended and recommended (synistemi to be approved, established, and
legitimized). For indeed (gar because), I lacked nothing, never falling short of
(ouden hystereo I wasnt the least bit inferior to or lacking any benefit or
advantage of) the (ton) preeminent (hyperlian super and exceptional) if even (ei
kai) I am (eimi) nothing (oudeis a worthless, meaningless, nobody). (2
Corinthians 12:11)
Paul has already revealed that he had become a covetous and lustful libertine
because of the Torah. Now he says that the Corinthians have made him stupid. And
let us not forget, Satan made him humble.
It should be noted that Paul isnt paying Yahowshas Disciples a fleeting and
backhanded endorsement here by claiming to be as good or better than the
preeminent apostles, because he uses hyperlian in 2 Corinthians 11:5 ironically,
saying I suppose I was not a whit behind the super duper apostles. And here he
is so obnoxious that he says that even if he were worthless, hed still be better than
those Yahowsha chose and trained.
And in spite of being a self-admitted pervert, a murderer, insane, demon-
possessed, and now ignorant and irrational, Paul is demanding a letter of
accommodation, a recommendation from those he has deceived and demeaned. So
since he claims that we owe him, that we are in his debt and are obliged, lets all
pull out our pens and give this man who says he lacks nothing the one thing he
craves: approval. Or, on second thought, lets give him what he deserves:
condemnation.
While Im normally opposed to using English translations for any purpose
other than to incriminate them, the New Living Translation does such a wonderful
job of indicting Paul that I thought Id share it with you.
You have made me act like a foolboasting like this. You ought to be writing
commendations for me, for I am not at all inferior to these super apostles, even
though I am nothing at all. When I was with you, I certainly gave you proof that I
am an apostle. For I patiently did many signs and wonders and miracles among you.
The only thing I failed to do, which I do in the other churches, was to become a
financial burden to you. Please forgive me for this wrong! (2 Corinthians 12:11-
13)
Some of you admit I was not a burden to you. But others still think I was
sneaky and took advantage of you by trickery. But how? Did any of the men I sent
to you take advantage of you? When I urged Titus to visit you and sent our other
brother with him, did Titus take advantage of you? No! For we have the same spirit
and walk in each other's steps, doing things the same way. Perhaps you think were
saying these things just to defend ourselves. (2 Corinthians 12:16-19)
 Previously, we witness a summation of one of Shauwls most chilling
confessions. So before we press on, lets reconsider the testimony of the ultimate
chameleon and the worlds most notorious charlatan. And once again as we
approach his defense, please note that this is all about Paul trying to justify his
controversial tactics and mission before a skeptical audience. In these incriminating
words, we find Paul refusing to abide by even his own rules. As a chameleon, he
was ever ready to change his colors to take advantage of whatever audience he was
trying to beguile. And here he is admitting to this very thing (in his own pathetic
style):
And (kai) I became (ginomai I came to exist) to the (tois) Jews (Ioudaios
a crude transliteration of Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yahowah) like (hos
in such a way to show a weak relationship with) Jews (Ioudaios) in order that
(hina for the purpose that) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage
over (kerdaino I may gain financially by avoiding or winning over) Jews
(Ioudaios).
To those (tois) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon the means to become an heir
and to be nurtured by an allotment (accusative of nomos)), like (hos in such a way
to show a weak relationship) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), not being himself
(me on autos not existing self (note: on was written in the singular nominative
masculine and thus cannot be translated myself being and autos was scribed in
the third person intensive predicative and thus does not convey myself either))
under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), in order that (hina for the purpose that) those
under (tous hypo) Towrah (nomon) I might make a profit by procuring an
advantage over (kerdaino I may gain financially by avoiding or winning over).
(1C9:20)
To those (tois) Towrahless (anomois without the Towrah, devoid of an
allotment or inheritance), like (hos in such a way to show a weak relationship
with) Towrahless (anomois without the Towrah, devoid of an allotment or
inheritance), not being (me on) Towrahless (anomois without the Towrah,
devoid of an allotment or inheritance) of God (theou), to the contrary (alla
making an emphatic contrast and definitive differentiation), in the Torah (ennomos
by the allotment and inheritance) of Christou (Christou foolishly transliterated
from the Greek as Christ and errantly used as if a name; from chrio which
speaks of the application of drugs and medicinal ointments) in order that (hina
for the purpose that) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over
(kerdaino I may gain financially by avoiding or winning over) those without the
Towrah (tous anomois the Towrahless). (1C9:21)
 I became (ginomai I came to exist) to the (tois) unable and morally weak
(asthenes incapacitated and inadequate, sick and impotent), incapacitated and
inadequate (asthenes unable and morally weak, sick, powerless, and impotent),
in order that (hina for the purpose that) those (tous) impotent and sick
(asthenes incapacitated and inadequate, unable and powerless) I might make a
profit by procuring an advantage over (kerdaino I may gain financially by
avoiding or winning over).
To everyone (tois pasin literally: to the in all) I have become (ginomai I
have come to exist as) every kind of thing (panta everything) in order that (hina
for the purpose that) surely by all means (pantos in every way with certainty)
some (tinas someone important or something indefinite, anyone or anything,
everyone or a certain individual) I might save (sozo I may deliver). (1
Corinthians 9:20-22)
As Ive mentioned before, even Machiavelli, the man who postured the amoral
slogan of despots everywhere, saying in essence: the ends justify the means,
wasnt this blatant.
Turning to the ultimate authority on Shauwl, as if he were admonishing him,
Yahowsha used kerdaino, the very same verb deployed here four times, to warn
us: For what will be accomplished and who will be helped (tis gar opheleo
what value would there be and who would be benefited) by a man if (ean anthropos
on the condition an individual) the entire universe (ton holos kosmos the
totality of the whole world) he might gain, winning over, taking advantage of
and profiting from (kerdaino), but (de) his soul (autou psyche) he forfeits
(zemioomai he damages undergoing punishment)? (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift /
Matthew 16:26)
Gods insights are stunningly appropriate, especially when we consider
Shauwls elaborate justification for personal payment in 1 Corinthians 9:1-12. If
we knew where he was buried, this should be written on his tombstone.
The tactic Paul is bragging about is what we might expect from an
unscrupulous politician or businessman, who will say and do anything, no matter
how deceptive or fraudulent, to garner an unfair advantage. But from someone
claiming to speak openly and honestly on behalf of God, this is unjustifiable.
Yahowsha never pretended to be other than He was and is. But by admitting this,
Paul has just told everyone that his words, his behavior, and his claims (such as
representing the Maaseyah) cannot be trusted.
While He was also driving nails into an already sealed coffin, Yahowsha is
recorded in Mattanyah 10:8 saying: You have received without paying, give
without being paid.
 To eliminate any misunderstanding regarding the dubious tactics of this
charlatan, the primary meaning of kerdaino, translated I might make a profit by
procuring an advantage over, is related to gaining an advantage over someone in
the pursuit of wealth, influence, and acclaim. To the common man of his day,
kerdaino spoke of desiring worldly things to such an extent that a person would
cheat others while feeling no compunction against being crafty, clever, or cunning.
Metaphorically, kerdaino can be used to speak of winning someone over, but
that option is torn asunder in the context of clandestinely and deceptively
metamorphosing oneself to gain an advantage. And interestingly, the secondary
meaning of kerdaino is to avoid problems in the process of trying to spare oneself.
But that connotation is only applicable when used as part of a hypothetical situation
or an instructional parable.
Even if we were to give Paul the benefit of the doubt something he no longer
deserves and render kerdaino win, Pauls statement would remain lamentable
for the admission that he was always willing to operate under false pretenses. Its
called fraud, and in most places, fraud is a crime.
Since we have been so inundated by Pauls relentless rejection of the Torah,
we may now be somewhat callused to it, but nonetheless, the troubadour of troubled
testimony just affirmed: To those (tois) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), in such
a way to show a weak relationship (hos) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), not
being himself (me on autos) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), for the purpose that
(hina) those under (tous hypo) Towrah (nomon) I might make a profit by
procuring an advantage over (kerdaino).
I suspect that Shauwl was deploying this dubious tactic in his defense, the one
recorded in Acts 22:3, when he was trying to convince a Hebrew audience that he
was the perfect religious Jew. However, since the Towrah provides the lone means
to relationship and redemption, by the admission that he wasnt himself beholden
to Yahowahs Guidance, he has condemned his soul.
And while Shauwl earned an express ticket to Sheowl with those words, we
must ask: what did he mean by: To those (tois) Towrahless and thus without
the Towrah (anomois), in such a way to show a weak relationship with (hos)
Towrahless (anomois), not being (me on) Towrahless (anomois) of God (theou),
to the contrary and making a contrast (alla), in the Torah (ennomos) of
Christou (Christou)?
There is no Towrahless association with God, and the only Towrah the
Maaseyah referenced was the one Paul disassociated himself from in the previous
sentence. Further, to suggest that there are two different Torahs, one authored by
Yahowah and the other by Yahowsha is to contradict Gods testimony on the
matter. So this mans language was as duplicitous and misleading as were the
pretenses under which he operated.
If that were not enough, Paul specifically states that he was like the anomos
Towrah-less, a condition he explicitly associated with Satan in his previous 2
Thessalonians 2:7-9 statement. That was akin to proclaiming: I, Paul, am just like
the Antichrist. While true, its bad.
No matter how asthenes morally weak, incapacitated, inadequate, impotent,
and ill is translated, it isnt something we ought to be bragging about. This is
especially true for the Children of the Covenant who are perfected, enriched, and
empowered by God.
Even his parting salvo, To everyone (tois pasin) I have become (ginomai)
every kind of thing (panta) in order that (hina) surely by all means (pantos)
some (tinas) I might save (sozo), provides a window on this mans grotesquely
egotistical soul. Yahowah, Himself, couldnt save everyone. And Yahowsha didnt
try. And while this says tinas some, it was for pasin everyone.
For those of you who have read The Prince and are familiar with Machiavellis
infamous and immoral advice to wannabe religious and political potentates, it is
likely that Shauwls statement inspired the Princes assertion that the end justifies
the means. All manner of horror has been perpetrated on humankind as a result of
this mantra. It serves to this day as the justification for political oppression and
religious terrorism.
If Paul hadnt just wallowed in delusion and hypocrisy, not to mention deceit
and pride, I might have skipped his parting salvo. But after hearing him say that he
would impersonate anyone to save everyone, we are compelled to question what he
meant by:
But (de) all (pas everything) I do (poieomai I perform) by (dia through)
the healing messenger and beneficial message (to euangelion) in order that
(hina) joint-partner (sygkoinonos co-partner and fellow participant; from sun,
with, and koinonos, partner) of his (autou) I might become (ginomai I may exist
as). (1 Corinthians 9:23)
While you can make of this what you will, it is important to recognize there
was no common ground between Shauwls message and Yahowshas. And
Yahowsha explicitly condemned hypocrisy, so Shauwls approach isnt Godly.
Lest we forget, Yahowah has no partners. That is why Yahowsha means
Yahowah Saves. But in this pathetic plea, we once again see Shauwl pretending
to be his Lords partner, a fellow participant, and thus the co-savior.
 Since we have been comparing Shauwl and Muhammad, detailing the similar
nature of their conversion experiences and challenges with demon possession, I
thought Id share a few more interesting comparisons.
Just like Muhammad, Shauwl was a sexist. In his world, men would lord over
women: But (de), I want and propose to (thelo desire, hold the opinion, take
pleasure and delight in, and intend to impose upon) you (umas) to be aware (oida
to realize and remember) that (oti) every (pas) man (andros adult male) is of
preeminent and superior status as head (kephale uppermost). The Maaseyah
exists as (estin) the head, and thus is superior (kephale hold preeminent status).
But (de) [with] woman (gunaikos), man (aner) is of preeminent and superior
status as the head (kephale uppermost), and then (de) of the (tou) Maaseyah
God (theos). (1 Corinthians 11:3)
They would be considered shameful, and women would be forced to covered
up for fear of being abused. But (de) all (pas) women (gune) praying or
prophesying (proseuchomai e propheteuo), uncovered (akatakalyptos), the head
(te kephale) shames (kataischyno) her head (autes ten kephale). For one (gar en)
it is (eimi) also the same as (kai to auto) having been shaved (xyrao). For if (gar
ei) the woman (gyne) is not covered up (ou katakalyptomai), (kai) lets shear her
(keiro cut off her hair) but (de) on the condition (ei) the disgraceful and
shameful (aischros) woman (gyne) to be sheered (keiro) or (e) shaved (xyrao) is
covered up (katakalyptomai). (1 Corinthians 11:5-6)
Just like Muhammad, Shauwl wanted women veiled and out of sight: In (en)
you (umin plural second person, dative (speaking of indirect objects for whom
something is done) these things (autois plural masculine dative) exist which are
(estin) fitting, proper, and appropriate (prepei): Separate and judge (krino
evaluate) a woman (gunaika) who is uncovered (akatakalyptos unveiled,
literally not hidden by a veil) praying (proseuchomai) to God (theo). (1
Corinthians 11:13)
Just as in Muhammads Quran, Shauwl wanted men to lord over women. So
he wrote: The (ai) woman (guvaikes) [to her] own individual (idios) man
(andrasin adult male) like (os as) the Lord (kurio master, owner, ruler, and
supreme authority). (Ephesians 5:22)
For those who may protest, suggesting that Yahowah said something similar
to Chawah in the in Baresyth / Genesis 3:16, such claims are based upon errant
translations. God actually said: And toward your husband and man your strong
emotional feelings is why he will liken this to you and he will govern with you
(mashal ba he will make a proverb of this similarity and he will have his way
with you, he will rule with you, he will speak of himself in comparison to you).
The concluding preposition, ba, means with, not over.
 Also, just as Muhammad created a religion named Islam Submission,
Shauwl served his Lord by demanding submission: To the contrary (alla), just
as (os) the called-out assembly (ekklesia) is submissive to and controlled by
(hypotassomai is subordinate, submits and obeys, is brought under firm control,
is yoked and subdued, is subjugated and placed in submission under) the
Maaseyah in this way (houto). And the woman (gunaikes) to the (tois) man
(andrasin) in (en) everything (pas). (Ephesians 5:24)
Hypotassomai is a compound of hupo, meaning under, and tasso, an
assigned and orderly arrangement. It is the antithesis of freewill. And it should be
noted that the malak / aggelos spiritual messengers errantly known as angels
or demons, based upon their allegiance, are saba arranged as conscripts in a
command and control regimen in which they are required to fall in line and submit.
It is little wonder Pauls entire Damascus Road affair smacks of falling in line and
surrendering all of which is the antithesis of freewill. Shauwl, on behalf of Satan,
wants to completely control mankind, raping humans of their freewill, so that they
will suffer his fate. It is a destiny far worse than returning to bondage in the crucible
of Egypt.

Those who trust Yahowah, rely upon Him. There is never a reason to be
anxious. As children of the Covenant, our job isnt to quell rebellions or to stew
over the called-out assemblies. And that is because the sacrosanct nature of freewill
precludes us from hindering the choice to rebel. Moreover, the Set-Apart Spirit is
responsible for nurturing and protecting Her childrennot us and not Paul. And
Yahowah is responsible for us because He is our Heavenly Father. And yet
Shauwl, in competition with God, inappropriately put himself in that role: I do
not write this to shame you, but to warn you as my beloved children. (1
Corinthians 4:14)
Yahowah encourages us to expose lies and witness to the truth. We do this by
observing and reciting the Torah, and by following Yahowshas example. All we
are asked to do beyond this is to clear the dirt off of the table, set Yahowahs
invitation upon it, let people know that it is there, remain available to answer their
questions, and then let them make up their own minds. His is a take it or leave it
proposition. There is no debate, no negotiationand most certainly nothing for us
to contribute or worry about. We do not bear any responsibility for what happens,
good or bad.
 Further, if we are reciting Yahowahs Word, and affirming His plan, we never
have to say: know that I am not lying, as Paul does in Galatians, and then again
in the 31st verse of 2nd Corinthians. But since he was doing neither, he was actually
doing precisely what he denied.
If we say anything in the name of God which is contrary to the Torah and
Prophets, we are lying, and it is obvious to those who care. And if we convey His
Word accurately, it makes no difference whether or not we are liars. No one is saved
based upon our credibility. Other than to determine whether or not he is a false
prophet, Pauls veracity is irrelevant. And that makes his focus on himself, and his
unsupported protestations, completely inappropriate.
So you may be wondering why Satan would be this overt regarding his
relationship with Paul, and why he would encourage Paul to disparage the
Adversary elsewhere in his letters. And yet the answer is obvious. By having
Shauwl dismiss the Adversary, Satan makes it appear as if he isnt the Adversary.
This is precisely how Allah, who was modeled after Satan, positions the Devil in
the Quran. And thus while its blatantly obvious that Allah is the Adversary, this
ruse is sufficient to fool most Muslims. Satan has to shed the Adversary title to be
worshipped as God, which is why that aspect of his nature is assailed in Pauls
letters and Muhammads Quran.
But what bothers me the most about all of this is that Satan and his accomplices
are so bold in their foolishness, it is obvious that they think people are essentially
stupidtoo ignorant and irrational to figure out who they are or what they are
doing. It is as if Satan was thumbing his nose at God, saying: Why do you care
about these morons? They are complete idiots and will believe anything. Just watch,
Ill tell them exactly who I am, and with whom I work, and they will still willingly
drink the poison right out of my hand. So while the evidence in favor of Paul being
a false prophet is overwhelming, my purpose in sharing Pauls Corinthians
commentary was simply to encourage you to think about the distinct possibility that
there is more to all of this than one man foolishly speaking for himself.
And now that we are on the subject of Satan, and before we return to the book
of Acts, since I had mentioned that Paul referenced signs and wonders to affirm
his calling and to expose Satans and Torah-lessness, here is what the Devils
Advocate had to say about himself and the spirit who apparently facilitated and
empowered him. Harkening back to the confession found in Galatians 2:8, we read:
For (gar) the one (o) of mystery who is the essence of religious doctrine
(mysterion secrets concealed in the symbols, slogans, rites, and rituals of religions
which are known only to the faiths initiates and participants) is already (ede at
this present time, even right now) currently and actually functioning (energeo
presently and reliably producing, operating, effecting, and at work granting the
ability and power) of Torah-lessness (tes anomias of negating the Torah).
Only the One alone (monon o all alone, exclusively without help, a single
solitary masculine individual) currently restrains this, holding fast, actively
trying to prevent this (katecho is continuously controlling, unwilling to change
His mind, steering and holding the course) now (arti presently) until (hoes up
to the point) the One might appear, existing (ginomai the One may arrive and
could become known in the flow of human history) from out of (ek) the midst
(mesos). (2 Thessalonians 2:7)
If you recall, we discovered in Galatians 2:8, where the adjective and verb
energeo facilitate and functionality was rendered in the masculine, this meant
that the one working through Paul could not be the Set-Apart Spirit, who is
feminine. And now here, we have an even more revealing insight into the identity
of Pauls ally and enemy. In the opening sentence, the article o, which denotes the
subject as the one, was scribed in the singular neuter, which is a perfect fit for a
solitary and asexual spirit like Satan. It was also written in the nominative, as was
mysterion mysterious religious doctrine. This tells us that one who is
genderless is not only being religious, but also that religion comes from o the
one currently energeo effecting the negation of the Torah.
That is especially troubling considering Yahowahs and Yahowshas
testimony, because God tells us that the Torahless One is Satan. Also telling,
energeo functioning and producing was presented in the third person singular,
or it in English, not he because it isnt masculine. Further, by conveying
energeo in the present indicative, Paul is revealing that the one currently allied
with him to effect the negation of the Torah is actually accomplishing that mission.
This, thereby, forms an affinity between Shauwl and Satan.
Following this confession, we confront the asexual Torahless ones foe. And
this time the article, o the One, was scribed in the singular masculine, as was
the verb katecho trying to prevent this. Therefore, unlike the fallen spirit known
as Satan who is one of many, God who is the One and only was designated as
monon the only such entity in His class. Also revealing, rather than deploying
the decisive indicative form which conveys actual results, in reference to the
Restrainer, God is merely presented in the active participle form, and thus is being
characterized by His energetic effort. Worse, when speaking of His return, this verb
was written in the aorist subjunctive, and thus as a mere possibility in some point
in time unrelated to any process or plan.
Bringing these insights together, if your mind is open and if you are in tune
with the things of God and the character of Shauwl and his associate, what you
will see is Satan using Paulos to negate the Torah, replacing it with religion, while
Yahowah, alone, is attempting to thwart them. So while the axiom suggests that
confession is good for the soul, I suspect that depends upon what an individual is
admitting.
From a translation perspective, it should now be obvious that since katecho
was not written in second person, there is no justification for adding the pronoun
he that we find in many English translations. Further, as a result of its gender, the
restrainer cannot be convoluted into a metaphor for the Set-Apart Spirit, as most
English translations want us to believe.
So upon close examination, this is a treasure trove of evidence. Not since
Galatians 2:4 have we confronted so much secrecy surrounding Shauwl. Paul was,
of course, resolutely anti-Torah. He was also a huge proponent of religion. He even
personally admitted to being restrained by Satan in 2 Corinthians 12, collectively
providing the perspective required to interpret these bizarre statements.
And speaking of strange, Christian eschatologists are wont to make anomos
the man of Lawlessness, or the Lawless one, and thus serve as the name or title
of the Antichrist, but there is no reference to man or one in that portion of
the text, and anomos is an adjective, not a noun. Further, while a serves as a
negation in Greek, nomos, as we have learned, is an allotment which facilitates an
inheritance, not law.
However, by advancing this train of thought, Christians must promote a
statement written in the present tense as being prophetic, trying to make it appear
as if Paul was addressing the Tribulation. But not only were the initial verbs scribed
to depict current actions, both were reinforced by ede already and arti right
now. It follows then, if Paul was actually addressing the actions of the Man of
Lawlessness or the Torahless One, that individual could be none other than
Shauwl, himself, as he alone was presently doing what he was ascribing to this
individual. Therefore, in these words, Paul is admitting that he is not only the
founder of the Christian religion, the individual most responsible for its scheme to
replace the Torah with religious myths, but also indistinguishable from the
Antichrist.
And lets not dismiss the potential for prophetic error. If Paul was attempting
to predict what would occur during the last days, as his next statement seems to
indicate, then his timing was off by a scant nineteen and a half centuries. It is then
a second false prophecy, the other being predicting that the rapture would occur
during his lifetime. And one misfire earns this designation.
In this light, and from this perspective, please once again consider: For (gar)
the one (o) of mystery who is the essence of religious myths (mysterion) is
already (ede) currently and actually functioning, effecting (energeo)
Torahlessness by negating the Towrah (tes anomias). Only the One alone
(monon o) currently restrains this, holding fast, actively trying to prevent this
(katecho) now (arti) until (hoes) the One might appear, existing (ginomai) from
out of (ek) the midst (mesos). (2T2:7) And to further reinforce this malfeasance,
especially regarding the tenses and timing, please consider the scholarly Nestle-
Alands McReynolds Interlinears rendition: The for mystery already operates of
the lawlessness, alone the one holding down now until from middle he might
become.
But thats hardly the end of the bad news for Christians. In 1st Corinthians 9:21,
Paul will brag: To those (tois) without an inheritance from the Towrah
(anomos the Towrah-less, to those lacking the nourishment which is bestowed to
be possessed and used to become heirs, to those without the precepts which were
apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, to
those devoid of the prescriptions required to become an heir and grow; based upon
a negation of nemo that which is not provided, assigned, or distributed precluding
inheritance and nourishment), I was like (os) the Towrahless (anomos those
without an allotment, an inheritance, or the Towrah). It is yet another chilling
confession one which should never be disassociated from his statement here in
2nd Thessalonians 2:7.
Anomos, as a negation of everything Yahowahs Towrah represents, was
deployed next in Shauwls distressing letter to Thessalonica to further beguile
them. And in so doing, Paul spoke of the ongoing future consequence of his current
mission, all while demonstrating that he was oblivious to Yahowahs timing,
having no concept of how His seven-step plan of reconciliation would play out over
seven-thousand years of human history.
Lastly, remember that Yahowsha has said that He will expressly deny entry
into heaven to anyone and everyone who refers to Him as the Lord. Such
individuals, He says, have no association with Him, because He does not nor will
ever know them. And thats hard to square with Pauline professions like this one.
And then (kai tote so thereupon) the negation of the Torah (o anomos
that which becomes Torahlessness, the lack of nourishment which was bestowed to
become an heir, being without the precepts which were apportioned, established,
and received as a means to be proper and approved, being devoid of the
prescriptions required to be given an inheritance and grow) will be revealed and
disclosed (apokalypto it will be uncovered, made known, and unveiled) whom
(on pronoun relative accusative singular masculine) the Lord (o kurios the
owner, master, one who controls and possesses, ruling over slaves) Iesous (Iesous
[since the oldest witness of this passage is three centuries removed from its author,
and is highly inaccurate, it would be inappropriate to presume that Shauwl
correctly stated Yahowshas name or title]) will embrace or kill (anaireo he will
put to death and do away with, he will murder and destroy, he will take away and
abolish, or he will choose for himself, lifting up and adopting; from ana up into
the midst and haireomai to choose to take for oneself) with the (to) spirit
(pneumatic non material being (dative singular neuter)) of the (tou) mouth
(stoma often used as a metaphor for speech) of him (autou), and (kai) will put
an end to (katargeomai will invalidate and unemploy, will bring to an end and
render idle, will put a stop to and abolish, will inactivate and cause to be
inoperative) in the (te) illustrious appearance and conspicuous manifestation
(epiphaneia form or expression; from epiphanies, to be conspicuous and
illustrious) of the (tes) personal presence (parousia coming arrival or advent in
person) of him (autou) (2T2:8) whose (ou) is (eimi exists as) the presence (e
parousia the coming advent in person, the arrival) according to (kata down
from, against, and with regard to) the functional power (energeia working
energy, activity, and supernatural influence) of the Adversary (tou Satana the
Satan, the name and title of the Devil; from the Hebrew Satan Adversary) in (en)
all (pas every and the totality of) miracles (dynamis supernatural power and
ability, mighty deeds and influential activities, resources and wonders) and (kai)
signs (semeion miraculous signals and distinguishing characteristics), and (kai)
deception (pseudo fraud, a lie, and falsehood, deceit and error (dative, thereby
relating pseudo with teras)) which is wondrous and marvelous (teras given
portent, which arouses, garnering attention (genitive, thereby associating teras with
pseudo)). (2 Thessalonians 2:8-9)
Since there are more questions than answers here, lets review this same text
as it is rendered in the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear: And then will be
uncovered the lawless whom the Master Jesus will kill in the spirit of the mouth of
him and will abolish in the appearance of the presence of him whose is the presence
by operation of the adversary in all power and signs and marvels of lie.
To begin, when we connect the present activity currently underway in the last
statement with this one, it becomes obvious that Paul incorrectly presumed that he
was living in the last days just prior to Yahowshas return.
Second, the Torah will never be annulled. So while individuals like Paul can
advocate its abrogation, such pontifications are invalid and ineffectual.
Third, by deliberately referring to Yahowsha as o Kurios the Lord in a
document originally written in Greek, Paulos has disassociated himself from
Yahowsha while excluding himself from heaven. This then contradicts his claim
to being His apostle.
Fourth, Yahowsha is not going to anaireo embrace or kill Satan. No
matter how we render anaireo, Pauls statement is wrong. Spirits like Satan cannot
be killed, even by Yahowah. They are eternal, which is why Sheowl exists to
eternally separate and imprison them. Likewise, Satans spirit cannot anaireo be
abolished or destroyed. And we know from Mattanyahs testimony that
Yahowsha expressly rejected Satan, which means that He will not anaireo
choose, embrace, lift up, or adopt the Adversary. Yahowah is going to incarcerate
Satan in Sheowl temporarily and then one thousand years later, forever.
Anaireo, translated will do away with or accept, is a compound of ana,
meaning into the midst, and haireomai, to take for oneself, to choose and to
prefer. Therefore it would be presumptuous to translate it kill without also
considering the other equally valid alternatives.
Fifth, while Yahowsha can breathe out the Spirit unto a receptive audience,
Satan isnt receptive and the Word of God is what usually comes out of Yahowshas
mouth. He is going to excommunicate Satan by citing the Towrah.
Sixth, Yahowsha isnt going to katargeomai put an end to Satan. He isnt
going to unemploy the Adversary, render the Devil idle, nor inactivate or
abolish him, much less make Satan inoperative, upon His return. He is simply
going to banish him to Sheowl for one thousand years, whereupon he will be
released, both employed and operational at least for a while.
Seventh, epiphaneia, which speaks of an illustrious expression and
conspicuous manifestation, is invalid. As Shauwl knew from his personal
experience with him, Satans form is illustrious, but the Adversary is seldom if ever
conspicuous. Also, during the Tribulation, Satan will be concealing his presence,
possessing and manipulating the False Prophet and Towrahless One (a.k.a. the
Antichrist), as they attempt to fool the gullible. Instead of revealing himself for
who he actually is, Satan, as he has always done, will conceal his true identity to
fool people into worshipping him as God.
But thats not the end of the duplicity. Epiphaneia, which could be translated
glorious appearance, was used by Greeks of Pauls day to describe the brilliant
and illustrious divine manifestations of their pagan gods. It is from epiphanies, to
be conspicuous and illustrious. Epiphanies in turn is from epiphaino, meaning an
appearance which brings light and thereby enlightens. It is a compound of epi,
meaning by way of, and phaino, bringing light. As such, it serves as the basis
for the Latin name Lucifer. Along these lines, phaino means to shed light, to
shine brightly, and to have a brilliant appearance. Phaino is based upon phos, the
Greek word for light.
So Shauwl is telling us that his Lord, the one controlling him, who is Satan in
the guise of Iesou, the manufactured god who has become known as the Christian
Jesus, is going to destroy the concept of the Adversary, invalidating it, rendering
it inoperative. In this way, and therefore after shedding the Adversary moniker,
Satan will present himself as God. So speaking of his rendezvous with destiny, the
arrogant and yet brilliant, the hideous and yet beautiful, the dark and yet radiant
spirit known to the world as Satan the Adversary, will stop functioning as Gods
opponent long enough rise above the Most High at least in the hearts and souls of
the faithful. And true to his character, he will show off right to the bitter end,
performing all manner of miracles, signs and wonders, every one of which will be
crafted to deceive.
That is why in these words we find that Satan especially keen to have his
favorite witness proclaim that the clandestine fraud he will be perpetrating on the
unsuspecting will appear wondrous and marvelous especially to the Towrahless.
Thereby, the Adversary is once again displaying a condescending attitude toward
humankind, in essence saying that we are so stupid we wont recognize him even
when he tells us the truth.
Sure, Satan knows that his days are numbered, but that doesnt seem to
diminish his self image or desire to go out in a blaze of glory, extinguishing
countless souls in the process. Therefore, rather than serve as a victorious
declaration, this passage is a duplicitous lament. Its reminiscent of the Wicked
Witchs sorrowful mourning as she melts away at the end of the Wizard of Oz, only
to find that the wizard was a fraud.
Also troubling, the very signs and wonders Paul has claimed served as proof
that he was an Apostle have now been attributed to Satan. So this is rotten, no matter
where we look.
And besides associating signs and wonders with Satan while praising him,
the glorious and radiant manifestation of power and light of the beguiling
messenger, known to many as Lucifer, will perpetrate the most marvelous
deceptions the world has ever seen. It will all occur to negate the concept of the
Adversary for reasons that become clear once you come to understand the
Deceivers ultimate strategy and motivation one manifest in the title he craves:
the Lord.
Since it unlocks a treasure trove of understanding, it bears repeating, Satan
doesnt want to be known as the Adversary. The Devil wants humankind to
confuse his gloriously brilliant appearance with God. His goal is to have his
marvelous deceptions become religious doctrine. Lucifer (from Latin meaning
Light Bearer) or Halal ben Shachar (from Hebrew meaning Arrogant and Radiant
Son of the Rising Sun) inspires his messengers to promote him as God. And this is
why Paul and Muhammad alike demean Satan. This adversarial title stands in the
way of the duplicitous one becoming the Lord of religion. So by condemning the
idea of being Gods foe, Satan is delivered from this antagonist epithet.
And in (kai en) every (pas) seductive, beguiling, and deceitful delusion
(apate deception, temptation, or trickery) associated with an injustice (adikia
of unrighteousness, evil, wrongdoing, and wickedness), to the ones being
destroyed (tois apollymai those who are unaware and thus lost, those ruined and
destroyed, deprived of life) instead of (anti in place of) this (on), the love (ten
agapen the devotion and brotherly love) of the (tes) truth (aletheia) they have
not welcomed or received (ouk dechomai they have not accepted or believed)
for (eis) them (autous) to be saved (sozo to be rescued). (2T2:10)
And (kai) through (dia) this (touto), the (o) god (theos) sends to (pempo)
them (autois) a powerful and effective (energeia a working, functioning, and
operational) misleading deception (plane delusion, corruption, and perversion
which leads astray) for (eis to) them (autous) to believe (pisteuo to put their
faith in) the lie (to pseudo the deception or falsehood, the erroneous claim). (2
Thessalonians 2:10-11)
The writing quality is so poor, even intentionally duplicitous, we are all too
often forced to interpret the ravings of an insane mind. So while Im not sure what
this means, it isnt good. Not only has Paul been the worlds most prolific
distributor of seductive and beguiling delusions, no one has ever been more hostile
to the truth. But this inverted presentation of reality is childs play compared to the
hypocrisy of the man who perpetrated the most beguiling deception ever foisted on
humankind claiming that it is God who will mislead believers.
And yet, that is the nature of Shauwls Lord. He is apate seductive,
beguiling, deceitful, and delusional, using trickery and deception to tempt
unsuspecting souls. Satan is also the Lord of akikia injustice, unrighteousness,
wrongdoing, and evil. Those he and his apostle fool apollymai are unaware and
lost, and thus destroyed and ruined, ultimately deprived of life. Having been
seduced by Paul to reject Yahowahs Towrah, they ouk dechomai are adverse
to, neither welcoming nor receiving the aletheia truth. As a result, no Pauline
Christian has ever been sozo saved. Having preferred the plane misleading
corruption and deceptive delusion of the way, they have been led astray. Their
theos god, one conceived by man, has energeia perpetrated and powerful
and effective religion, the faith born out of Pauls epistles.
So when Shauwl finally tells the truth, it turns out to be even more hideous
than his lies. And that reminds me of one of Yahowshas most foreboding and
sorrowful statements: I (ego), Myself, have come (erchomai I have shown
Myself, appearing and becoming manifest) in the name (en to onoma with the
one and only name belonging to the person and reputation (dative singular)) of the
Father (tou pater the masculine archetype parent of the family) of Mine (mou),
and yet (kai) you do not receive Me (ou lambano me you do not actually accept
Me nor grasp hold of Me, you do not choose or prefer Me, and thus you do not take
hold of My hand nor take advantage of and experience Me). But when (ean on
the condition whenever) another (allos completely different individual and
entity) comes (erchomai might appear, showing himself, and coming forth,
presenting himself) in his own name (en to onoma to idio with his own
individual, unique, and distinctive, private, and personal name), that individual
(ekeinos that lone and specific man, him, then and there (the demonstrative singles
out the individual, the accusative associates this man and name, while the singular
masculine limits this to a single male individual)) you all will actually receive
(lambano you will all accept, choose, and prefer). (Yahowchanan / Yah is
Merciful / John 5:43)
Yahowsha came in His Fathers name. He was the corporeal manifestation of
everything Yahowah had said, done, promised, and predicted. His message and
mission, His character and purpose, were identical to Gods. It is as if He walked
out of the pages of the Towrah. And yet, even with all the credibility of being the
very Creator of the universe, as few as one in a million souls have chosen to accept
Him for who He is, for what He said, for what He did, and for whom He was named.
Christians changed His name, replaced His title, misrepresented His sacrifice,
and drove a wedge between Him and His Father, foolishly discarding the unity of
their message by calling one old and the other new. They even claimed that Rome
was able to kill their god. But to reject Yahowsha in this way, Christians have to
disregard most everything He said and did, which means that their faith is utterly
worthless. And that is why His quote is so painful to read.
Paulos came in a name wholly unrelated to Yahowah and His Towrah
testimony. Given the name Shauwl Question Him at birth, the worlds most
infamous charlatan deliberately changed his name to embrace the culture of Rome
the pagan empire responsible for the destruction of Yahowahs Temples and
land, Yisrael.
And as estranged as this lone individuals preferred moniker was from all
things Yahowah, his message was even more divergent. Paulos, Latin for Lowly
and Little, denied and demeaned the Towrah, preaching his own mantra in
complete opposition to God. He acknowledged being demon-possessed and insane,
being perverted and murderous. He attacked Yahowshas Disciples, demeaning
them. He equated the Lord with God. And yet billions of souls have chosen to
believe him, accepting his poorly crafted message while discarding the most
brilliant words ever written.
When it comes to Yahowsha and Shauwl, to choose one is to deny the other.
You can embrace the merciful Hand of God or the rotten hand of man. It does not
seem like a difficult choice. So why have a million men and women chosen Paul
for every one who has accepted Yahowahs hand?
 The moment Shauwl finished incriminating himself at the Yaruwshalaym
Summit with his testimony about the signs and wonders he had performed,
Yahowshas brother stood up. Yaaqob had heard more than enough. His brother,
who just happened to be the corporeal manifestation of God, had made it
abundantly clear that the Disciples were all called to share His healing and
beneficial message with the entire world. Gentiles were not Shauwls private
domain. This reality had then been further underscored when on the Invitation to
be Called Out and Meet with God of Seven Sabbaths, the Set-Apart Spirit had
equipped each of them with the ability to speak the languages of the Gentiles.
But after (de meta) their silence (to autous sigao), Yaaqob (Iakobos a
transliteration of the Hebrew Yaaqob, describing one whose walk is steadfast as a
result of digging in his heels; changed by Christians to James to honor the English
king) responded, saying (apokrinomai lego answered the question by saying),
Men, brothers (andres adelphos), listen to me (akouo mou). (15.13)
Shimown (Symeon a transliteration of Shimown, from shama, meaning He
Listens) made fully known to us (exegeomai told the whole truth, providing
detailed information, carefully describing, explaining, and teaching), in the same
way as (kathos) previously (proton earlier and formerly) God (theos) carefully
chose to care, doing what was required (episkeptomai He sought to visit, to
look after, to help, and) to receive (lambano to acquire and grasp hold of) from
(ek out of) the races and nations (ethnon different ethnicities) people (laos
ordinary individuals) in His name (to onomati autou). (Acts 15:13-14)
According to Yahowshas brother, Yaaqob, the Disciple Shimown, and God,
Himself, witnessing to the Gentiles wasnt a new marketing ploy under the new
management of Shauwl, but instead was something Yahowah had promised by
way of His prophets including Shimown. This is why Yahowahs children,
whether they be naturally born or adopted, are called YahuwdymRelated to
Yah. We are called to Yahowahs name, not Pauls.
And youll notice, rather than telling us to believe him, Yaaqob said that
Shimown, just like God, Himself, exegeomai told the whole truth, providing
detailed information, carefully describing, explaining, and teaching to make
everything fully known to us. It is in this way that we demonstrate our compassion
and concern for people the world over. Making known by teaching is what is
required for men and women to be received by God.
To prove his point, Yaaqob quoted Scripture. So, lets take this opportunity to
compare the Greek translation to the Hebrew original.
 And regarding this (kai touto), the words (oi legos) of the prophets (ton
prophetes) agree, (symphoneo are consistent, a perfect match), inasmuch as
(kathos) it has been written (grapho): (15:15)
With (meta beyond) this (houtos) I will return (anastrephomai I will
come back) and (kai) I will repair and rebuild (anoikodomeo I will reestablish)
the sheltered dwelling place (ten skene tent and tabernacle) of Dowd (Dauid
transliteration of Dowd, meaning love in Hebrew) that has fallen (ten pipto that
has prostrated itself and has been destroyed), and (kai) that which has been torn
down (ta kataskapto autes the things which have been razed and demolished,
being dug asunder). I will reestablish (anoikodomeo I will repair and renew) and
(kai) I will restore them, making them upright again (anorthoo auten I will
straighten them up from a position which is bent over). (Acts 15:15-16)
Skene, translated sheltered dwelling place, is synonymous with Sukah, which
is most accurately translated Shelters. It serves as the name of Yahowahs seventh
Called-Out Assembly, where we are invited to campout with our Heavenly Father.
As a protective covering, skene speaks of the role our Spiritual Mother plays in
our salvation. By way of Her Garment of Light, we become Yahowahs
tabernacles on earth.
The lexicons tell us that skene is related to skeuos, which is a vessel, an
implement, and a protective covering all of which are descriptive of the
Spirits purpose. Along these lines, skene is also associated with skia, which is a
lesser dimensional representation and representative of something which serves as
a foreshadowing of something bigger and better. When we are born anew from
above by way of our Spiritual Mother, we become more like God, holding onto the
promise that we will continue to grow as His adopted children. So, by using skene
in this translation of Yahowah testimony, we find acknowledgements of His Spirit
and affirmations of His love, all in concert with Shelters, His final Feast.
Yaaqob elected to quote the prophet, Amos, who spoke of the destruction of
the nation of Yisrael. Fleshing out the context of this citation, we discover that as
a result of Yisraels forming a covenant with the Lord (ha Baal in Hebrew, and
thus Satan), Yahowahs judgment had become inevitable. The Yisraelites had
separated themselves from God, so He told them that the house of Yaaqob would
be shaken. He said that those among His people who erred, and thus missed the
way, would die, and that those who remained would encounter an evil calamity
which would cause great suffering. He was speaking of the Roman invasion which
resulted from Rabbi Akibas insistence upon a false-Mashiach. It led to the
Diaspora and eventually to the Holocaust.
 But Yahuwdym would be restored in Yisrael, according to the words
Yahowah revealed to the prophet, Amos. This then is the very Word of God, the
testimony which Yaaqob quoted at the Yaruwshalaym Summit:
In (ba) that (huw) day (yowm), I will stand, rise up, and establish (quwm
will stand upright, enabling) the Sukah (sukah seventh Miqra, meaning
sheltered dwelling place and protective covering, tent and tabernacle) of Love /
Dowd (dowd the beloved), which has fallen (napal been neglected).
I will repair and restore (gadar rebuild) its (henah) cracks and breeches
(peres that which is exposed, broken, or torn, that which is foolhardy and
dissipates) and that which is in a state of disrepair (harycah is lying in ruins).
I will raise it up (quwm huw cause him to stand) and (wa) rebuild, restoring
(banah renew and reestablish) Her (hy) like (ka) days (yowm) everlasting
(olam of antiquity and forever into the future). (Amos 9:11)
This is Yahowahs promise to restore Yisrael and to establish the Millennial
Sabbath in harmony with the prophetic symbolism of the Miqra of Sukah. The
timing of this anticipated reconciliation coincides with His return on Yowm
Kippurym in Year 6,000 Yah (sunset in Yaruwshalaim on October 2nd, 2033).
Worth noting is the fact that Sukah Shelters is a feminine noun, identifying
Gods protected enclosure with our Spiritual Mother who shelters and protects
us. So by using hy Her in reference to rebuilding, restoring, renewing, and
reestablishing, we discover that Yahowah intends to renew the Sukah protective
enclosure, restoring this home to days everlasting. This is particularly
significant because Sukah is synonymous with the Gan Eden, where gan also
describes a protected garden enclosure and eden speaks of great joy.
This also suggests that during the Miqra of Sukah, the whole Earth will
resemble the Garden of Eden, making the time when we are invited to campout
with God especially enjoyable. And since the Millennial Sabbath commences on
the Called-Out Assembly of Shelters, we know that Gods plan is to restore and
renew, to repair and rebuild our world during this time, taking us back to the perfect
realm and relationship we once enjoyed. And that means that there is no New
Testament, but instead the renewal of the existing Familial Covenant Relationship.
This is something Yahowah affirms in no uncertain terms in Yirmayah / Jeremiah
31, when He speaks of the still future renewal of His Covenant.
Recognizing that the translation of this passage had to pass through three
languages, Hebrew to Aramaic, Aramaic to Greek, and then Greek to English, and
through the hands of countless scribes, Yaaqobs quotation was reasonably
accurate. And in some ways, it was akin to what is found in the Septuagint, although
not entirely. For example, Lukes interpretation of Yaaqobs quotation begins
With this ( ), while the Septuagint reads In that day (
), putting the Septuagint in accord with Yahowahs citation, but Acts in
discord.
Next, the Septuagint uses anhistemi (), to say: I will stand
upright, rise up, and establish, mirroring the Hebrew quwm in Amos 9:11, and
yet Lukes Greek transcript reads I shall return (), which is
inconsistent with Gods word, and thus errant.
From this point, the Codex Sinaiticus (our oldest witness to Acts 15:15)
jumbles the Septuagints word order. Agreeing with the Hebrew text, the Septuagint
reads: the Sukah of Dowd which has fallen, and I will rebuild her things that
are broken, as well as her things that are in a state of disrepair, (from:

). But, the Codex Sinaiticus, while conveying a similar
message, is again imprecise: And I shall rebuild the Sukah of Dowd / David
which has fallen, and her things that have fallen into a state of disrepair I shall
rebuild, (from:
). Recognizing how easy it would have been
for Luke, and the scribes responsible for the Codex Sinaiticus, to get this right
(recognizing that the Septuagint is correct), we have to ask ourselves: who was
responsible for these mistakes? And acknowledging that these errors exist, we must
deal with the fact that passages which are not found in extant first-, second-, or
third-century manuscripts are especially suspect, and thus unreliable.
But thats not the end of the disparities. The Septuagint continues with: I shall
stand up and repair her just as the days that are everlasting (from:
), which is as close to the
Hebrew text as different languages allow. But in the Codex Sinaiticus, we find
Lukes hearsay transcription of Yaaqobs quotation changed to: And I shall
straighten her ( ), which is inconsistent with the Hebrew
reads. Therefore, either Yaaqob speaking Hebrew misquoted the Hebrew verse,
Lukes source misquoted Yaaqob, Luke mistranslated his source, or subsequent
scribes were either careless or trifling.
This exercise serves to affirm that one of the most revered of all codices,
Sinaiticus, isnt reliable. One might even argue that this manuscript was written in
Rome on the order of Emperor Constantine and then sent to Egypt where it
remained in the Roman Catholic monastery named in honor of Constantines
mother, Saint Catherine, on the mythical Mount Sinai (replete with the Epistle of
Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, and Sirach)
until the goatskin hides were plucked from the trash by Leipzig archaeologist,
Constantin von Tischendorf, moments before they were burned in the ovens. Giving
further weight to its Roman origins, the chapter divisions in the Codex Sinaiticus
rendition of the book of Acts coincide only with the Codex Vaticanus and early
copies of Jeromes Vulgate, adding considerable weight to the conclusion that the
Codex Sinaiticus was politically and religiously inspired.
More recent history aside, Lukes hearsay presentation of Yaaqobs citation
of Yahowahs next revelation through the Prophet Amos, reads: So that (hopos)
then (an conveying a possibility in an uncertain time of an if-then proposition)
will diligently scrutinize and seek out (ekzeteo will search out, investigate,
pursue, and / or bring charges against) this remnant (oi kataloipos those who
remain) of mankind (ton anthropos) of the (ton) Upright Pillar of the Tabernacle
(KN a placeholder used in the Septuagint for either edon, the Upright One or for
Yahowahs name), and (kai) all (pas) of the races and nations (ta ethnos of the
ethnicities) upon (epi) whom (ous) has been called and surnamed (epikaleomai
has asked for help, appealing to a higher judge and as a result had the name put
upon them, permitting oneself to be surnamed after someone, and to be called and
summoned as a witness (in the perfect tense this describes a completed action in
the past which has current ramifications, in the passive voice, the individual is being
acted upon, and in the indicative mood, this describes an actual occurrence)) in
association with (to) My (mou) name (onoma) upon (epi) them (autous) says
(lego) Yahowah ( placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and throughout
the Septuagint for Yahowahs name using the Greek kurios), doing (poieomai
performing) this (tauta) (15:17) which was known (gnostos is that which could
be known) from (apo) world and universal history (aionos from long ago and
at all times since). (Acts 15:17-18)
Unfortunately, this wasnt an accurate citation of Amos 9:12, a fact which we
will consider in a moment. But since it is so remarkably different than what the
Hebrew prophet quoted Yahowah saying, lets verify the Greek text by way of the
Nestle-Alands McReynolds Interlinear: So that [not applicable] will seek out the
rest behind of the men the Master and all the nations on whom has been called on
the name of me on them says Master doing these known from age. The New
America Standard Bible, which erroneously claims to be a literal translation of the
oldest manuscripts, suggests: In order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord, who makes these
things known from of old.
There isnt an extant first- through third-century manuscript of this particular
citation in Greek, so scribal error may have contributed to some of the
discrepancies. Of particular issue is Edowm, usually transliterated Edom, which
is the name of a place in the Hebrew text. But since it is related linguistically to
adam, the Hebrew word for man, and because it is also associated with edon,
the basis of Yahowshas title, meaning the Upright One and the Upright Pillar of
the tabernacle and its foundation, scribes could easily have become confused.
Therefore, in place of Edowm, we find both anthropos mankind and a
placeholder for kurion lord and master.
Noting these issues, based upon the much older Hebrew witness, Amos 9:12
reads: So that (maan for the purpose and intent that) those who (asher) have
summoned (qara called out and invited) My (any) name (shem personal and
proper designation) upon (al) them may inherit (yarash receive as an heir and
possess) the remainder of (shaeryth remnant and rest of) Edowm (edowm),
every (kol) Gentile nation (gowym people from different races and places),
prophetically declares (naum announces ahead of time) Yahowah ( ),
who will engage, enacting (asah will do) this (zoth). (Amos 9:12)
Beyond the unwarranted omission of Edom, and the additions of mankind
and Master / Lord, in the Greek hearsay translation of Yaaqobs quotation of the
Hebrew passage, the Acts transcription replaced inherit with seek, and turned
another affirmation of the importance of Yahowahs name into a muddled mess. So
while weve come to expect imprecision in Pauls letters to the Galatians,
Thessalonians, and Corinthians, these mistakes were recorded in the book of Acts,
now causing Lukes historical presentation to be suspect as well.
Turning to the Septuagint as a point of reference, we find that it isnt a
particularly good match for the Hebrew text of Amos or Lukes Greek rendering of
Yaaqobs quotation. It reads: So that the remnant of men and all the nations
shall seek out, upon those whom My name is called upon them, says Yahowah,
the God who does these [things]. To this, the Codex Sinaiticus adds an it is
possible and ton KN the Lord and Master, in addition to what is now found in
Acts 15:18, which reads which was known from world and universal history.
Adding to the confusion, the oldest Greek witness of this proclamation then omitted
the placeholder for Gods title () from the Septuagints translation, albeit
elohym wasnt actually written in Amos 9:12.
Perhaps more concerning than the inaccuracy of the quotation, this passage,
while it is profoundly important in that it speaks of an inheritance and not a witness,
wasnt especially germane to the point Yaaqob was making, which means he
shouldnt have cited it to refute Shauwl. And my guess is he didnt. I say that
because our only options are to conclude that either Yaaqob was wrong for citing
it, that Luke was wrong for attributing this quotation to Yaaqob, or that a later
scribe added it because a subsequent mischaracterization of the citation seemed to
fit. If you are among those who believe that the New Testament is the inerrant
word of God, pick your poison.
On the positive side, we have another confirmation that the placeholder, ,
which was based upon the Greek kurios, was used to represent Yahowahs name.
At first blush, however, unless it was a legacy of the Septuagint, it is curious that
the Disciples would have actually chosen a placeholder which was based upon a
title, as opposed to one predicated upon YHWH. But then, recognizing that these
Divine Placeholders consistently begin and end with the first and last letter in the
title or name they are attempting to convey, and often include an internal consonant,
we discover that it would have been impossible to write an abbreviation for
Yahowahs name in Greek because the four vowels which comprise it have no
counterpart in the borrowed alphabet. There is no Y, oW, or soft aH among
Greek letters. (The capitalized characters which share a common appearance with
the English alphabets Y and H represent Upsilon and Eta, respectively, and
thus do not convey a similar sound.)
Also, Edowm is the land of Esau and his descendants. Most notably, it is the
realm of those who were related to Ishmael by way of his daughter, who became
Esaus wife (See Baresyth 25:16-18 and 28:8-9). So Yahowah may well have been
prophetically speaking about todays Muslims by referencing Edowm. Elsewhere
in Scripture, Yahowah talks of Muslims plundering Yisrael. He also addresses His
response to them, which will be to annihilate Allahs jihadists. Today, these Islamic
Edowmites covet the Promised Land, and they have demonstrated that they are
willing to kill every Jew living in Yisrael to capture it. But in the end, it will be the
Yisraelites who will be the beneficiaries of their land instead. The irony is sweet.
If Yaaqobs statement wasnt associated with Amos 9, the testimony ascribed
to him could be reordered to say: So that (hopos) if (an) the remnant (kataloipos)
of mankind (anthropos), and (kai) all (pas) the races and nations (ethnos) upon
(epi) whom (ous) My (mou) name (onoma) is summoned (epikaleomai) upon
(epi) them (autous), will diligently seek (ekzeteo) the Upright One (KN), says
(lego) Yahowah ( ), doing (poieomai) this (tauta) which is known (gnostos)
from (apo) world and universal history (aionos). (Acts 15:17-18) But alas, this
revision of the text is invalidated knowing that Yaaqob specifically said that he
was quoting Scripture, and thus there was no justification for mankind
(anthropos) or Upright One (KN).
While Yaaqob didnt cite the final three verses of Amoss prophecy, there is
no reason we shouldnt consider them. They read: Look now and see (hineh
behold, stand up, look up, and reach up to God), the day (yowm) is coming (bow),
prophetically declares (naum) Yahowah ( ), when I will return and
restore (suwb come back and reestablish) the property and that which makes
life easier and more secure for (sabuwt the fortunes, restoring that which is good
and establishing more favorable circumstances for) My (any) family (am people
and nation), Yisrael (Yisrael individuals who engage and endure with God).
(Amos 9:13-14)
This is a powerful statement. It not only affirms that Yahowah will return in
person, but also that His purpose will be to suwb reestablish His family and to
sabuwt fortuitously restore all that is good. And that is why the related title
Shabuwa, is defined as Yahowahs vow, His sworn and contractual promise
between parties in a relationship to truthfully attest to our innocence. The fact is,
the Miqraey of Shabuwa and Sukah are related, with one leading to the other. And
it is Yahowahs Ruwach/Spirit who makes us appear innocent, indeed perfect,
before our Heavenly Father.
In His closing statement, Yahowah may be describing what occurred in 1948
and thereafter: And they will rebuild (banah) their desolate (samen) cities (iyr)
and live in them (yasab inhabit). And they shall plant (nata) vineyards
(kerem) and drink (satah consume) wine (yayn fermented grape juice). And
they shall fashion (asah make) gardens (ganah) and eat (akal consume)
fruit (pary their harvest) from them. And I will root them (nata humah firmly
embed and plant them, establishing their encampment) upon (al) their (humah)
soil (adamah earth and land). And they shall never (lo) be uprooted (natas
pulled up and expelled) again (owd) from (min) upon (al) their land (adamah
soil) which relationally and beneficially (asher) I gave (natan) to (la) them
(humah), says (amar) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym). (Amos 9:14-15)
Those who are careful observers of Yahowahs Word recognize that God does
not always present future history sequentially, so it would not be unusual for Him
to discuss His return prior to presenting the conditions which will precede it. He
isnt doing this to be evasive, but instead because He doesnt want His prophecies
to influence, and thus change, future events. So long as His reports regarding future
history are challenging to unravel, then only those devoted to Yahowahs Word,
and thus to Him, appreciate them, keeping the disingenuous from trying to sabotage
His predictions.
In this prophetic declaration, Yahowah said He would personally see to it that
following an evil calamity, He would reestablish Yisrael. But also, that once His
people returned, they would never be uprooted again. Therefore, there is no reason
to worry about another Islamic invasion, nor an Iranian nuclear attack. After the
Roman Diaspora and German Holocaust, Yisraelites are home for good. Islamic
terrorists are not going to prevail, try as they might.
Returning to the book of Acts, according to Lukes hearsay testimony, after
citing Yahowahs prophecy in Amos, Yaaqob said: Therefore (dio) I (ego)
conclude (krino decide and judge by way of separating fact from fiction, right
from wrong, exercising judgment), not (ue) to make it more difficult (parenochleo
cause trouble for, excite, annoy, or disturb), by separating (apo) the races and
nations (ethnos) who are returning (epistrepho who are changing their
perspectives, attitudes, thinking, and ways). (Acts 15:19)
 The Nestle-Alands Interlinear reads: Wherefore I judge not to annoy along
the ones from the nations returning on the God. As was the case with the first nine
verses of the fifteenth chapter of Acts, starting with the nineteenth, we again benefit
from the witness provided by Papyrus 45, a third-century manuscript. In it we
discover that the phrase epi ton theon on the God was added by a fourth-century
scribe at the end of this passage and thus should not be considered.
I suppose that had the reference to Edom been retained, and with nomos
conveying the inheritance aspects of the Towrahs instructions, the fact that the
Amos prophecy reveals that Yahuwdym would have influence over Gowym for
thousands of years to come, its entirely possible that this combination of things led
to Yaaqobs conclusion that he and others be excluded from witnessing to different
ethnicities.
In the next verse, the phrase tes porneias kai the perversion, corruption, or
sexual immorality is not found in Papyrus 45, and may have been added by a scribe
to harmonize Yaaqobs statement with the subsequent letter memorializing this
compromise. So while the Nestle-Alands McReynolds Interlinear reports, But to
write letter to them the to hold off the pollutions of the idols and of the sexual
immorality and the choked and the blood, the oldest manuscript of this passage
reads:
To the contrary (alla nonetheless and notwithstanding), to write to them
a letter (episteilai autois to send them an epistle) for the (tou) sufficiency of
receiving in full or holding separate (apechesthai the primary meaning is to
receive, the secondary connotation is to be enough or sufficient, the tertiary
definition is to be away from, the fourth implication is to experience, the fifth is to
avoid or abstain, and the sixth is to close an account) of the (ton) polluted and
defiled (alisgema condemned religious rituals which corrupt and make impure)
of the (ton) idols and objects of worship (eidolon the overt or outward
appearance of religious worship, imagery, likenesses, idolatry, and false gods), and
the (kai tou) strangled (pniktos choked to death or suffocated as part of a
bloodless religious ritual), and the (kai tou) blood (haima). (Acts 15:20)
Apechesthai, which is the present middle infinitive of apechei is an awkward
term because it is based upon an internal contradiction. It is a compound of apo,
which speaks of separation, and echo to have and to hold. Most English
translations, therefore, ignore its primary definitions, and render the verb abstain.
Also telling, since there is no Hebrew word associated with abstaining of abstinence
this admonition is not based upon Gods Word.
Confusion aside and duplicity aside, the first item on this list has merit, in that
it is a derivative of the Second of Three Statements God etched in stone on the First
of the Two Tablets. Yahowah specifically asked us to avoid being religious.
However, the reference to pniktos strangled (which will be discussed in
reference to the 29th verse) is a subset of Rabbinical Law, and thus does not come
from the Torah. It is not appropriate. Further, while Yahowah asks us not to drink
blood (thereby undermining the Catholic Eucharist), in conjunction with
strangulation, this reference to blood would only serve to enrich Kosher butchers.
So if this list was deemed sufficient, it makes you wonder why God bothered to
write the Torah or inspire the Prophets.
Considering that these largely inappropriate conclusions were attributed to
Yaaqob, for his sake I hope that they were a product of scribal error. Yahowsha
made no attempt to summarize His Scriptural instructions, only His Ten Statements
and this bears no resemblance to His recap. Also, while Yahowah did provide a
synopsis of some of His Instructions by writing the Ten Statements, only one aspect
of one of the statements memorialized on His Tablets of Stone was reflected in this
list.
But alas, at least there was one worthy contender among the three prohibitions.
Alisgema, translated polluted and defiled and describing something which has
become corrupt and impure by way of a religious ritual, is often associated with
sacrificial meat and drink offerings made to pagan deities. A portion was usually
taken by the priests, but the remainder was either sold in the marketplace by the
donor or eaten by the religious practitioner. So, by including it in his brief list,
Yaaqob was suggesting that we should avoid all contact with anything associated
with religion, its imagery, rituals, and sacrifices.
However, when a similar list reappears in the Apostles letter (documented
in Acts 15:29), the one thing which changes is the reference to idols, objects of
worship, and polluted and defiled religious rituals which corrupt. The more
ubiquitous prohibition was replaced by saying that it is only necessary to avoid
meats which have been sacrificed to idols. As such, the letter was a step backwards
from an already impoverished position.
Yaaqobs next comment, however, was manna from heaven. Because (gar
for indeed) Moseh (Mouses a transliteration of the Hebrew Moseh, meaning to
draw out, the scribe of the Towrah), from (ek) generations (genea ancestors from
the same ethnic group) ancient (archaios antiquity, therefore existing for a long
time), the ones announcing Him (tous kerysso auton those who proclaimed Him
and made Him known), is actually and actively held (echei is genuinely grasped
hold of, possessed and experienced) in (en) the synagogues (tais synagoge a
transliteration of the Greek word meaning assembly meetings). In accordance
with (kata) every (pas) Sabbath (sabbaton a transliteration of the Hebrew
shabat, meaning rest, promise, and seven), it is being read (anaginosko it is
publicly recited aloud so that it might be known and understood). (Acts 15:21)
 Before we dissect this fabulous verse, please note that Papyrus 45 omits
[throughout / accordingly (kata) their towns and cities (polis)]. Also, echei is
actually and actively held, shown as in the third person, singular, present,
active, indicative in the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition, was scribed as ekei (),
meaning there, in that place, in Papyrus 45. But since most early manuscripts
reflect the later form, which also works better within the flow of the sentence,
methinks the oldest witness reflected a scribal error which is why I have neglected
it. However, tous the ones should have been written in the singular as the one
making Him known.
The bookkeeping behind us, understand that Yaaqob referenced Moseh to
say Torah the same way we would designate the books of Yashayahuw,
Zakaryah, or Malaky. By doing so, he eliminated the potential confusion between
Yahowahs Towrah and Rabbinical Traditions.
There are three revealing verbs in this passage, all of which manage to convey
an aspect of Yahowahs intent regarding His Towrah. The first, kerysso, translated
announcing, means: to proclaim a message publicly with the intent of
encouraging people, urging and warning them to acknowledge the instructions.
The Towrah is Yahowahs message to mankind. It is comprised of His prescriptions
for living. He wants His guidance proclaimed publicly in hopes that people decide
to listen to His advice. This is the reason Yahowah dispatched Yahowsha.
It is written: The entire (kol the whole and every, the totality of the) Word
(imrah the promise and the prescription) of God (elowha) is pure, tested, and
true (tsaraph refined, precious, and worthy), a shield for (magen an enclosure
which surrounds, defends, and saves) those who put their trust in (chacah those
who seek salvation through reliance upon) Him. (Marsal / Word Pictures /
Proverbs 30:5)
The second verb describing the intent of the Torah is echei, a variation on echo,
which was rendered actually and actively held in association with unfurling the
scroll of the Towrah so that it can be read and recited aloud in the synagogue on
the Sabbath. Echos primary meaning is to grasp hold of something and then hang
on to it. In relational terms, it speaks of embracing someone whom or something
which you care deeply about. Secondarily, echo speaks of being clothed in
something or of wielding it as a tool or implement. Echos tertiary connotation
is to figuratively and literally accept something [in this case the Torah] so that it
keeps you safe, preserving you. Other definitions of echo are also germane relative
to the Torah and include: coming to possess something, owning it, carefully
considering it, respecting and regarding it favorably, revering and enjoying it.
These are the most appropriate responses to the Towrah.
 It is written: Yahowahs ( ) Towrah (towrah teaching, instruction,
direction, and guidance) is complete and entirely perfect (tamym without defect,
lacking nothing, correct, sound, genuine, right, helpful, beneficial, and true),
returning, restoring, and transforming (suwb turning around and bringing
back) the soul (nepesh consciousness). Yahowahs ( ) enduring testimony
(eduwth restoring witness) is trustworthy and reliable (aman verifiable,
confirming, supportive, and establishing), making understanding and obtaining
wisdom (hakam educating and enlightening oneself to the point of
comprehension) simple for the open-minded (pethy). (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm
19:7)
This all echoes Yahowahs consistent advice, whereby God continually
encourages us to read His Towrah Instructions, especially in our homes and to our
children. He has asked us to take His Towrah Guidance with us when we travel, to
have it with us when we go to bed at night, and to embrace it when we wake up in
the morning. God advises us to place His Towrah between our eyes, on our hands,
upon our doorposts, and on our front gates so that it provides the proper perspective,
guides our actions, and defines our relationship with Him and others. Yahowah
wants us to clothe ourselves in the Torah, and to wear and wield its promises as if
they were shields and tools. Yahowah wants us to closely examine and carefully
consider what He has to say in His Towrah, so that we come to know Him and
appreciate what He is offering. He would like us to respect His Word, and as a
result to revere and enjoy the Torahs Author, grasping hold, and hanging onto Him
as if our life depended upon it. Just imagine what the world would be like if
everyone echoed the Torah.
Many speak of loving God, but few understand the way to achieve this: Love
Yahowah, your God, with all your mind and heart, with all your soul and
consciousness, and with all your might and strength. The Word (dabar) exists
to be a prescription for living upon mind and heart. Repeat these prescriptions
so as to teach them by rote to your children, and speak the Word (dabar)
among them where you live (yasab and where you are joined in marriage), in
your house and home (beyth family and household), during your travels (halak
your walk) on the way (derek the path), and when you lie down and when
you stand up (quwm). Bind them as a sign on your hand and as a sign between
your eyes. And write them on the doorframe of your home and the gate to your
community. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 6:6-8)
The third verb in this translation of Yaaqobs statement before those who had
gathered to judge Paul was also directed at the Towrah. Anaginosko, which was
translated it is being read affirms that Yahs Teaching was being recited in
order to reveal Gods instructions. Listeners were coming to know the Torah, its
Author and plan, as a result of it being publically proclaimed. While anaginosko
is most often used to describe an open and unrestricted presentation of a written
document, its literal meaning is represented by its parts. Anaginosko is a
compound of ana, meaning in the midst of, and ginosko, which means to learn
and to know, to perceive and to understand, to become acquainted with, and to
acknowledge. So the verb conveys the idea of publicly reciting [the Torah] in a
way that those who listen to it come to accurately recognize and acknowledge its
message. This is akin to Yahowahs repeated instructions to shama listen to
and shamar observe the Torah.
It is written: Gather together and assemble (qahal summon people to a
central place for a particular purpose, uniting and congregating) the family (am
people), the men (iysh), the women (ishah), and the little children (tap), and
the people from different races and places (ger strangers and foreigners from
different cultural, ethnic, or geographical communities who are visiting, even just
passing through, temporarily living in your midst (i.e., Gentiles) who (asher) are
within (ba) your gates and doorways (saar your property, towns, cities, and
communities) so that (maan for the intended purpose that) they can listen
(shama hear the message and receive the information), and so that (maan for
this intended purpose) they are instructed and learn (lamad so that they gain
access to the information which is required to be properly guided and respond
appropriately) and respect and revere (yare) Yahowah, your God (elohym),
observing (shamar closely examining and carefully considering) and acting
upon (asah engaging in, celebrating, and profiting from) all (kol) the words
(dabar) of this (zoth) Towrah (towrah teaching, direction, guidance, and
instruction. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 31:12)
Now (atah) write (katab) for all of you the words (dabar) of this (zot) song
(sirah these lyrics with an emphasis on instruction), and teach this to (lamad
provide information, guidance, instruction, and training for) the Children of
Yisrael (ben Yisrael children who engage and endure with God). Put them in
her mouth (peh), so that they will exist (hayah) with (eth) Me, these lyrics
(sirah) serving as an everlasting witness (ed as eternal evidence and restoring
testimony) amongst (ba within) the Children who Engage and Endure with
God (ben Yisrael). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 31:19)
By affirming Gods instruction on the Towrahs role in our lives, Yaaqobs
declaration not only negated Pauls position, it changed the nature of the debate. It
was no longer the wannabe apostle against Yahowshas chosen Disciples. It was
now Shauwl v. Yahowah.
If you are still a Christian, or if you are trying to liberate a Christian from their
faith, consider this conundrum: to side with Paul against Yahowshas hand-picked
and personally-trained Disciples in this debate over the role of the role of
Yahowahs Towrah in our lives is to conclude that Yahowsha was incompetent,
failing on both accounts. This undeniable conclusion mirrors another even more
profound realization: if the Towrah, which was authored by God and is arguably
the most important and brilliant document ever written, is incapable of saving
anyone, how is it then that letters written by a man claiming to be inspired by the
Author of the Towrah he discredits are believable relative to mankinds salvation?
This has to be the single most irrational position that has come to be widely held.
Beyond the three insights provided by the verbs Luke deployed when trying to
convey Yaaqobs declaration, there was another treasure in the Disciples
statement. The Torah was read aloud and became known in the synagogues in
accordance with every Sabbath. The Christian fixation on Sunday Worship, the
Lords Day, even Easter Sunday, is unjustifiable in every respect.
It is written: Remember and recall (zakar recognize, memorialize, and be
earnestly mindful of) that the Sabbath (shabat the seventh day, the time of
observance, of rest, and of ceasing and desisting from ordinary labor) day is set
apart (qodesh separated unto God). Six days you shall work (abad) and do
(asah) all your service of representing the Messenger and proclaiming the
message (malakah Godly duties and heavenly labor). The seventh (shabiyiy
seven; from shaba, meaning solemn promise and oath, and shaber meaning to
interpret and explain the meaning or significance of a communication) day, the
Sabbath (shabat the time of promise to reflect) of Yahowah ( ), your God
(elohym), you shall not do (asah) any part of the work of Gods Representative
and Messenger (malakah from malak, the ministry and mission of the heavenly
envoy and dispatch; the labor of Gods corporeal manifestation), not your son, not
your daughter, not your servants and employees, not your means of
production, nor those visitors in your home or property. (Shemowth / Names /
Exodus 20:8-10)
Preachers lie when they say that the first Christians went to church on Sunday
to worship the Lord by proclaiming the Gospel. They werent Christians, but
instead were called Chrestucians. Christian means drugged, and Chrestucian
means upright servant and useful implement. The first to accept Yahowsha were
Towrah observant referred to themselves as Followers of the Way. As a result,
they gathered on the Sabbath, in accordance with Yahowahs Torah instructions
and Yahowshas example. And they met in synagogues, not churches. There were
no Gospels. They listened to Yahowahs Torah being recited to them.
In the presence of Yahowchanan (John), Shimown Kephas (Peter), and all of
the other Disciples and elders of the Yaruwshalaim (Jerusalem) Ekklesia (Called
Out), Yaaqob (Yahowshas brother who has become known as James),
admonished Shauwl (Paul) and warned subsequent believers in the religion
predicated upon his writings that nothing is more important than observing the
Torah coming to know it, understand it, and share it, because it is the source from
which all good things flow, including our relationship with God and our salvation.
This next line suggests that Yahowshas Disciples did not trust Shauwl.
Then (tote at that time) the Apostles (apostolos those who were prepared and
sent out) and the elders (presbyteros the community leaders), along with (syn
in association and together with) the entire (holos and complete) Called-Out
Assembly (ekklesia from ek, called out and kaleo, to call), concluded that it
would be appropriate to (edoze after consideration and thinking they were
disposed to) themselves select spokesmen (eklegomai andras choose men to
speak out, from lego, to speak and affirm and ek out and andras man) from (ek)
among them (auton) to send (pempo dispatching messengers with the Word) to
(eis) Antioch (Antiocheia the capitol of Syria based upon a transliteration of King
Antiochus) with (syn) the Little and Lowly (to Paulos the Paulos (of Latin origin
following the definite article meaning the insignificant)) and (kai) Barnabas
(Barnabas a transliteration of the Aramaic bar, son of, and naby, a prophet)
Yahuwdah (Ioudas a transliteration of the Hebrew Yahuwdah meaning Related
to Yah), called (ton kaloemenon the person named) Barsabbas (son of Sabbas)
(Barsabbas a transliteration of the Aramaic bar, son of, and saba meaning
military conscript) and (kai) Silas (Silas of Latin origin meaning woody), [who
were] leading men (hegeomai andras highly regarded men with the authority to
provide direction and leadership) among (en) the brethren (adelpois). (Acts
15:22)
It was the unanimous conclusion of Yahowshas Apostles, the elders, and the
entire Yaruwshalaym Ekklesia that Shauwl required supervision. Yahuwdah and
Silas were given the authority to act on behalf of the Apostles to control the Lowly
one. It is a shame they did not prevail.
While this all blew up in Shauwls face in Antioch, if we flip back through
the pages of Acts, we find that Paul had previously been in Lycaonia, which was
just north of Cilicia, before traveling south through Syria. Thats relevant because
of the addressees listed on the Apostolic letter. Through (dia) having written
(grapho) by their hand (auton cheir), the Apostles (oi apostolos those who were
prepared and sent out) and the elders (presbyteros the community leaders)
amongst (kata) the brethren (adelpos) to the (tois) Antiocheia (Antiochian),
Suria (Syrian), and Kilikia (Cilician) brothers (adelphos), to the ones (tois) from
(ek) the ethnicites (ethnos different races, nations, and places): Joyful Greetings
(chairo a happy hello)! (Acts 15:23)
Youll notice, and these facts are significant, this meeting had been called to
confront Pauloss contrarian testimony, but upon its conclusion the letter which was
drafted wasnt from Paul and that it was addressed to the places the man being
judged had previously spoken. The real Apostles were leaving nothing to chance.
Far too much was at stake to allow Pauls attack on the Torah to prevail.
But that is not to say that they werent in a horrible predicament. Paul had
positioned himself as Gods messenger to the nations and had traveled the world
preaching his perverted Gospel. He was a Roman citizen, and they were not, giving
Paul an enormous advantage. Paul was smarter, better educated, far more
ambitious, and a much more prolific writer.
The Apostles could have silenced Paul, but that would have required killing or
imprisoning him, for which they had no legal authority. They could have openly
opposed him, but that would have created an aurora of distrust between the
Disciples and the people this charlatan had been soliciting. Or they could have tried
to work with himbut that required compromise, something wholly unacceptable
to God. And frankly, what was to be gained by negotiating with a self-proclaimed
murderer and pervert, with a man who would soon admit to being both insane and
demon-possessed? It would be akin to making concessions with a Muslim
regarding peace in Israel.
What follows suggests that Yahowshas Disciples improperly chose the latter
in direct opposition to Yahowahs instructions and Yahowshas example. They
would try to control Paul by working out an accommodation with him. It was the
mothers milk of politics. Whenever you compromise on essential values, you
weaken them, weaken yourself, and postpone the inevitable, ultimately paying a
much higher price.
While the Yaruwshalaym Summit had begun and had ended referring to the
Torah, the Torah would not be mentioned in their letter. Christianity is the
consequence.
And considering the fact that the perpetrator of the contrarian view used
tarasso intimidation, perplexing his audience by confusing them, this next
statement provides a chilling summation of the meeting held to judge Pauline
Doctrine. In that God made Himself known to facilitate trust, his adversary
instilled doubts to necessitate faith. Knowing that the Spirit he was opposing
brought peace though reconciliation, Shauwl had used fear tactics to terrorize
his audience into submission. And all of the perplexing and unanswerable
questions which arose from his rhetoric, through tarasso we learn the troubling
statements were born out of a complete lack of scruples.
Here then is the Apostles written declaration to the nations...
Since (epeide seeing and recognizing that) we heard (akouo we received
news) that (oti) someone (tis) from (ek) us (emon) [went out (exerchomai)
(excluded from Papyrus 45)] stirred up trouble by confusing (tarasso
distressing, disturbing, and agitating, without scruples perplexing by causing
doubts, frightening and terrorizing so as to intimidate) you (umas) with statements
(logos with words, speech, a message, acquisition, or treatise) with unsettling
and troubling words (anakeuazo logos with distressful and upsetting speech,
with destructive and ravaging statements, with mindless and irrational reasoning,
with a treatise designed to overthrow, upend, and subvert by being terrifying) for
your souls (tas psyche umon for your psyche) which (ois) we did not authorize
(ou diastellomai we did not arrange, prepare, set into place, or send out), (Acts
15:24)
Keep in mind, this was written by Yahowshas Disciples, by the hand of the
witnesses God had personally trained, to the communities in which Shauwl had
preached regarding the merits of the self-proclaimed apostles message. And that is
indeed tarasso disturbing and anakeuazo distressing. These are especially
condescending terms and they were spoken of Paul.
Unfortunately, while everything Paul had promised was now suspect, nothing
specifically was repudiated. All the Disciples said was that Pauls message was
confusing, perplexing, troubling, and unsettling, and that they had not authorized
the logos statements Pauls audiences had heard.
To be fair, Yahowshas Disciples did not know even one percent as much about
Paul as we do today. At the time this meeting took place, Pauls first epistle,
Galatians, which would be written as a hostile rebuttal to his censure at this
meeting, was still months away. Pauls next four letters, the two anti-Semitic rants
to the Thessalonians and the pair of schizophrenic tomes to the Corinthians were
three to five years off. As a result, no one knew that Shauwl would admit to being
insane or demon-possessed. And Lukes portrayal of this mans life wouldnt be
compiled for a decade or more. Therefore, it would be some time before the world
was made aware of Pauls preposterous conversion experience or his duplicitous
and conflicting testimony. So all Shauwl had to do at this meeting to appear
credible was to lie. And that is what he did best.
Having been in their position in business, where information was sketchy and
incomplete, and where the participants are naturally prone to give every party the
benefit of the doubt, the strategy deployed by the Disciples is obvious. They would
never disavow the Torah because it would put them in direct opposition to God.
But they didnt know enough about Pauline Doctrine to categorically state that it
was entirely wrong. So victimized by Pauls misleading testimony, the last thing
they wanted was to form a conclusion that would place them in direct opposition to
the many thousands, and soon millions, who found Pauls preaching to their liking.
So they deployed a tactic called the art of emphasis. The Disciples told the truth
as clearly as they knew it, but they did not confront the lies because they were
unaware of the vast majority of them. And yet as a result, those unwilling to
carefully scrutinize Pauls letters, systematically comparing his testimony to
Yahowahs, were left to wonder who was telling the truth.
While the art of emphasis may be an effective marketing strategy, it isnt
remotely appropriate in association with God. So I recommend Yahowahs
approach, which is to be clear, consistent, uncompromising, and blunt, while
offering as complete an explanation as can be compiled, no matter how many words
that requires. Yada Yah is long because of this approach, as is An Introduction to
God.
We do not have an answer to every question, and there are many things that
we are still learning, but there are some things that can be known. First among them
is that we cannot go wrong when we convey Yahowahs Word accurately, or when
we advocate and condemn those things which He advocates and condemns.
Yahowah has asked that we circumcise our sons as our sign that we want to be part
of His Covenant. And He has told us that we should observe His Towrah and listen
to Him. Thats good enough for me.
Based upon Yahowahs Word, unity with Yahowah is essential, while unity
among men is only advisable when those men and women share a common and
accurate understanding of the Towrah and its Covenant. In fact, God would prefer
that we distance ourselves from the thinking, approach, and institutions of men.
Therefore, the Disciples may have erred when they wrote:
...it occurred (edozen a derivative of dokei, presumed and supposed) to us
(emin) to come to exist (ginomai) with one purpose or passion (homothymadon
common accord emotionally and temperamentally, being similarly angry; from
homou, together, and thumos, expressing passion), having ourselves selected a
spokesmen (eklegomai andras choosing men among ourselves to speak out, from
lego, to speak and affirm and ek out) to send (pempo dispatching messengers with
the Word) to (pros) you (emas) with (syn) the dear (tois agapetos the beloved;
from agapao speaking of persons who have been welcomed, even entertained) of
us (emon), Barnabas and also Paulo (Barnaba kai Paulo). (Acts 15:25)
By using a derivative of dokei, Yahowshas Disciples were limited to their
personal opinions and suppositions regarding the troubling message Paul had
been conveying. They simply didnt know enough to be certain. And as such, they
could not have been speaking for God.
Homothymadon does not mean that they were of one mind, but instead that
their passions and desires were similar. The Greek word for mind is dianoia, not
thumos which addresses strong emotions, and in particular, being angry. It is
also used to convey being inflamed by sufficient wine to cause the drinker to be
mad or kill himself.
 Further, the Disciples were hedging their bets by calling the spokesmen
eklegomai ones who speaks out, proclaiming and affirming the Word. When
the context is God, the legos Word is the Torah and Prophets Psalms in
addition to, Yahowsha, Himself.
Lastly, it is interesting that Barnabas name was listed first in this letter,
suggesting that he, along with those the Disciples were dispatching, were tois
agapetos the beloved. With Paul being second, and following kia and also,
he was separated from the potentially endearing term. Elsewhere, it is always the
other way around, with Paul receiving top billing. And in that light, it is telling that
Barnabas and Paul would soon split up, with Barnabas disagreeing with Paul.
Further, the root of agapetos, agapao, simply means that the Disciples welcomed
the man to their meeting and entertained his story.
Men (anthropos) having given over (paradidomi having delivered and
instructed; a compound of para, from, and didomi, to give) their (auton) souls
(psyche consciousnesses) for the sake of (hyper) the name (tou onoma) of the
Upright One (tou ), our Maaseyah () Yahowsha ( ). (Acts 15:26)
At this juncture, it is not clear whether Yahuwdah and Silas were being
described or if this affirmation pertained to Barnabas and Paul. But, even if the
identity of those being offered for the sake of Yahowshas name wasnt quickly
resolved by what comes next, unlike Paul and Barnabas, most of the Called Out in
Yaruwshalaim knew Him personally. And Yahuwdah, in and of itself, is a testament
to Yahowahs name.
Therefore (oun wherefore and indeed) we have delegated, prepared, and
sent the Apostles (apostello we have equipped and dispatched for this particular
purpose messengers conveying the Word), Yahuwdah (Ioudas a transliteration
of the Hebrew Yahuwdah meaning Related to Yah) and (kai) Silas (Silas), and
(kai) through (dia) their (autous) speech (logos word and statements) reporting
and proclaiming the same message (apangello ta auta announcing; from apo,
separation and aggelos, message and messenger). (Acts 15:27) Therefore, the ones
referred to as Apostles, the ones who were prepared and equipped to speak on
behalf of Yahowsha and His Disciples, the ones proclaiming the same message,
were Yahuwdah and Silas, not Paulos or Barnabas.
Before you consider the next codicil, a word of caution is in order. Many
people say that their thoughts are inspired by the Spirit. And some may be right
some of the time. For example, the accurate revelations found in Yada Yah and An
Introduction to God were inspired by either the Spirit or the Word, while all of the
errors are a result of a flawed and inadequate implement processing their guidance.
I am incapable of being a perfect conduit, and although vastly superior, so were the
Disciples.
 Unfortunately, the following statement is wrong. I base this conclusion not
upon my standards, but instead upon Yahowahs teaching, His guidance, and the
instructions He established in the Torah. That which is in complete accord with the
Torah is right, that which conflicts with the Torah is wrong, and that which cannot
be affirmed or rejected based upon the Torah is suspect. By that standard, this is
not true:
For (gar) the Set-Apart (hagios set apart for Gods purpose, dedicated and
consecrated, separated from the profane and purifying; a Greek variation on the
Hebrew qodesh set apart) Spirit ( a Divine Placeholder representing the
feminine ruwach spirit from the Greek neuter noun pneuma) seemed to be of the
opinion (dokei supposed and presumed), and also (kai) to us (emin), nothing
(medeis) more (pleion) of a burden or hardship (baros of a weight or trouble,
suffering or difficult duty) to be placed upon you (epitithemai emin should you
be subjected to) except (plen) these (toeton), the indispensable requirements (ton
epanagkes things which are absolutely essential and necessary): (Acts 15:28)
Before we pass final judgment, please consider the Nestle-Alands
McReynolds Interlinears presentation: It thought for to the spirit the holy and to
us nothing more to be set on to you burden except these the necessary. Beyond
more accurately rendering thought and holy, the reason that the word order
differs in these presentations of Acts is that, in addition to translating the meaning
of the words from Greek to English, Ive also tried to transition from Greek to
English grammar, where in English subjects precede verbs and nouns follow
adjectives.
To begin, the ruwach Spirit of Yahowah is not holy nor is She neuter.
Few things are as essential to understanding Yahowahs nature and approach than
the realization of what it means to be qodesh set apart, and that in a family such
as the Covenant, a Father and Mother are required for children to live and grow.
Because the Ruwach Qodesh Set-Apart Spirit is a part of Yahowah, set
apart from Him to serve us, She does not dokei presume or suppose anything.
She is devoid of opinions. As part of God, set apart from Him, the Set-Apart
Spirit has complete access to all pertinent information and Her judgment is
impeccable. In Greek, you would say that She epiginosko has evaluated all of
the evidence and has come to know and understand without any hint of
uncertainty. So to suggest that the Set-Apart Spirit seemed to be of the opinion,
regarding Yahowahs message generally, and the Torah specifically, is to say that
they either didnt receive Her directions or they didnt process them appropriately.
Baros, in the accusative case, translated of a burden or hardship, speaks of
something which is a tremendous weight or a difficult duty which leads to
suffering and sorrow and is oppressive. Its inclusion in this translation of the
Disciples letter strongly suggests that this report is fraudulent. While there are five
requirements which have to be known, understood, accepted, and acted upon to
engage in the Covenant, and thus to be saved by the benefits of the Covenant, these
are not difficult duties, but are instead easy, and rather than being oppressive
and leading to suffering and sorrow, they are not only liberating, nothing is more
rewarding or enjoyable than being adopted into our Heavenly Fathers Family. Not
one of the five requirements is a burden. They are not a hardship. This
burdensome view of Yahowah, His Towrah, and His Covenant is Pauline.
While I would encourage you to read the Covenant chapter of An Introduction
to God (free at www.IntroToGod.org) for a complete and contextual presentation
of the Covenants requirements and benefits in Yahowahs own words, suffice it to
say for now, the conditions are as follows: 1) Walk away from your country,
including all things Babylon which means disassociating from religion and politics.
2) Come to trust and rely upon Yahowah instead, which means that you will have
to come to know Him and understand what He is offering. 3) Walk to God to
become perfect, a path which is laid out by Yahowah and a result which is
facilitated by Yahowsha via the seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with
God. 4) Closely examine and carefully consider the family-oriented Covenant
relationship, so that once you understand its provisions you can respond to Gods
offer. And 5) Parents should demonstrate their acceptance of the Covenant and their
willingness to raise their children to become Gods children by circumcising their
sons.
The benefits of doing these five things are: 1) The Covenants children become
immortal on Passover. 2) The Covenants children become perfect from Gods
perspective on Un-Yeasted Bread, their flaws no longer seen or known. 3) The
Covenants children are adopted into Gods Family on FirstFruits, inheriting
everything Yahowah has to offer. Then 4 & 5) The Covenants children are
enriched with Gods teaching and empowered by Gods Spirit on Seven Sabbaths.
If youre wondering, its true. Yahowah, through Yahowsha and the Set-Apart
Spirit, enabled each of these benefits by fulfilling the promises He had made
regarding the Covenant in succession, on the precise days of these Mowed
Miqraey, in year 4000 Yah (33 CE on our pagan calendars). And it is in this way
that we come to the Father through Yahowsha.
As for the rest of the Towrah, once you embrace these extraordinarily
rewarding requirements, the benefits are entirely liberating. There are no other
requirements, no burdens, no hurdles, no difficult duties. At this point, like Dowd /
David, a person is able to sin without eternal consequence. Ignoring the rest of
Yahowahs guidance is inadvisable and counterproductive, but as Dowd reveals, a
child of the Covenant remains righteous and vindicated, immortal and enriched, not
because he or she obeys every rule, but because Yahowah honors His promises.
 In this light, it is interesting to note, there is no Hebrew word for obey. And
as you now know, Towrah means teaching, guidance, direction, and instruction,
not law. So the whole notion of baros difficult duties and oppressive burdens
is wholly inconsistent with Gods approach to life.
The intent of the Torah is to free us from oppression, which is why Yahowah
engaged to free His children from slavery. Its purpose is to remove our burdens
by way of the Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God. Properly observed,
the Torah liberates us from suffering and sorrow by bringing us into a familial
covenant relationship with our Heavenly Father. Yahowah says as much in the
Towrah:
Indeed (ky), you should consistently and genuinely listen to (shama) the
voice (ba qowl) of Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), to approach by (la)
diligently observing, closely examining, and carefully considering (shamar) His
terms and conditions (mitswah His authorized directions and instructions
regarding His Covenant contract) and (wa) His inscribed prescriptions for living
(chuqah His engraved advice regarding being cut into the relationship) in this
specific (ba ha zeh) written scroll (cepher written document) of the Towrah (ha
Towrah the teaching and direction, the instruction and guidance) if (ky) you want
to actually and eternally return (shuwb you want to be genuinely and always
restored, forever changing your attitude, direction, and thinking) to (el) Yahowah
( ), your God (elohym), with all of your heart (ba kol leb) and with all of
your soul (wa ba kol nepesh). Indeed (ky), these (ha zeth) terms and conditions
(mitswah authorized instructions regarding the covenant contract) which
relationally and beneficially (asher) I am (anky) instructing you (tsawah
directing and guiding you by sharing with you) this day (ha yowm) are not
difficult or challenging (lo pala are not hard, troublesome, or a burden). This
is not beyond your reach (hw min wa lo rachowq). (Dabarym / Words /
Deuteronomy 30:10-11)
If circumcision was a considerable hardship causing great suffering and
sorrow, then it would have been barbaric for Yahowah to ask parents to do this on
behalf of their sons eight days after they are born. As for adult circumcision, all that
is required is the removal of a small amount of skin. And if we are unwilling to do
this, what does it say about our appreciation for the sacrifice Yahowah made on our
behalf, where most of His skin was ripped from His body by metal-studded Roman
flagellum, where He suffered excruciating pain by being nailed to the upright pole,
and where He endured the separation of His soul from God, allowing Himself to be
tortured in Sheowl on our behalf?
Said another way, Yahowsha is the Torah made flesh, and His Way is easy,
because He does all of the hard work, performing the heavy lifting, carrying away
our burdens, so that we can walk with Him to approach the Father.
 The use of plen except in this context, infers by way of translation that the
Disciples were saying that the items on the following list were baros tremendous
burdens. And also, that these represented the only epanagkes indispensible
requirements of the Torahneither of which is accurate.
The totality of the list was then comprised of: to stay away from
(apechomai to separate and keep a distance from, thereby avoiding and abstaining
from) sacrificial meats (eidolothyton animal flesh offered to pagan idols), and
(kai) blood (haima), and (kai) strangled (pniktos choked to death and suffocated
as part of a bloodless religious ritual), and (kai) sexual immorality (porneia
fornication, prostitution, or illegal intercourse), from (ek) which (hos) avoiding
(diatereo keeping or abstaining from) yourselves (eautous) beneficial (eu
healthy and prosperous, good and correct) you do (prasso you practice, carry out,
and accomplish). Farewell (rhonnymai goodbye, be strong, healthy, and
prosperous). (Acts 15:29)
As a summation of the Torah, this is inaccurate, grossly inappropriate, and
stunningly deficient. Moreover, it is wholly inconsistent with Yahowshas
statements recorded in Mattanyah 5 through 7 from His Instruction on the Mount.
Furthermore, not one of these edicts was sufficiently important to make an
appearance in the Ten Statements Yahowah etched in stone. So since this wasnt
Gods list, whose do you suppose it might have been?
Eidolothyton is a compound of eidolon, meaning images and likenesses, and
thuo, which conveys the idea of sacrificial slaughter. It is but a subset of the
earlier admonition in Acts 15:20, from which the Gentiles were asked to stay away
from condemned (alisgema religious rituals and impure) idols and false gods
(eidolon). This diminishment in scope, and distancing of the message from the
Second Statement Yahowah etched in stone, is interesting because apart from the
addition of porneia sexual immorality, the rest of the list was identical with
Yaaqobs previous declaration.
Diatereo, rendered avoid, is most often translated continually and carefully
keep. It is from dia, through, and tereo, to observe and attend to, to guard and
to keep. The author of this text first used diatereo in Luke 2:51, where Yahowsha
returned to Nazareth with his parents and was subordinate to them. And His
mother always remembered and treasured (diatereo kept and preserved) these
words in her heart. So there is considerable room for confusion here.
However, it is true, albeit an afterthought: according to the Torah we should
not consume things offered as a sacrifice to a god or goddess. We find this
instruction in Shemowth / Names / Exodus 34:12-15, where Yahowah asks us to
avoid any association with any religious activity. But as you read though this, please
notice that it was Shauwl who established and boldly proclaimed a new covenant
in association with the inhabitants of the nations he claimed as his own. It became
a trap, ensnaring those who came to favor the alters and religious shrines that grew
out of his letters especially his association with the Graces. And Shauwls
religious pronouncements were always focused on an additional and very different
god, one whose name was unassociated with Yahowah.
To approach you should be observant (shamar la to come near closely
examine and carefully consider [Yahowahs tsawah instructions and directions
which was the focus of the 11th verse]) lest (pen) you cut a covenant (karat beryth
you establish a familial relationship) in association with the inhabitants of the
land (la yashab ha erets) which beneficially (asher) you are coming upon
(atah bow al), so that it does not (pen) become (hayah exist as) the onset of
a snare in your midst (la mowqesh ba qereb). (34:12)
But rather accordingly (ky eth), their altars (mizbeah their construction
of places where gifts and sacrifices are offered during rituals to their deities) you
should choose to actually and consistently tear down and shatter (nathats you
should elect to demolish) and with regard to (ba eth) their religious pillars and
sacred memorials (matsebah), you should, of your own volition, destroy
(shabar). And with regard to his association with Asherah (ba eth Asherah
merciful blessings; the name of the Babylonian and Canaanite goddess of good
fortune and merriment (this goddess is the equivalent of the Greek Charis
Charities and Roman Gratia Graces, from whom the Christian Gospel of
Grace was named and derived)), you should choose to actually and continually
sever, cut off, and uproot (karat banish). (34:13)
Indeed (ky because) you should not act in such a way that you continually
speak (lo chawah you should not make pronouncements with a verbal display
of words explaining about or worshipping) with regard to another different god
(la el acher to approach an additional El, the chief deity of the Canaanites
whereby ha Baal the Lord was the son and nemesis of El god, something
remarkably similar to the Christian Lord Jesus replacing Yahowahs Towrah with
his Gospel of Grace), because (ky) Yahowah ( ), His name (shem He is
known as), is jealous regarding exclusivity in the relationship (qana pertains
to zeal, passion, and devotion). He is (huw) a zealous, passionate, and devoted
(qana jealous regarding relational exclusivity) God (el). (34:14)
You should not ever make (pen karat you should not cut, create, or
establish) a covenant (beryth a family-oriented relationship or marriage vow) to
approach or with regard to the inhabitants of the land (la yashab ha erets) and
(wa) follow after (achar) their prostitution to solicitation on behalf of (zanah
their disloyal and adulterous acts designed to profit by offering favors to) their
gods (elohym).
 And (wa) they elect to actually offer a sacrifice (zabach) to approach their
gods (la elohym), and he will choose to make an announcement to you (wa
qara la then he will elect to summon you, he will of his own volition call out to
you with his proclamation, he will ask you to read and recite his calling, inviting
you to meet with and welcome him with regard to you accepting his appointment
and calling) and (wa) you decide to actually partake in and consume (akal
you elect to eat, feed upon, imbibe, and ingest) as part of (min by means of and
because of) his sacrificial offering (zebah his propitiation or expiation as an act
of worship toward a deity). (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 34:12-15)
It is telling, of course, that in light of what we know, its hard not to see
Shauwl cast as the adversary throughout this presentation. He did everything God
has asked us to avoid. He even claimed to have, himself, made a sufficient sacrifice
to save believers. Moreover, in 1st Corinthians 8, Paulos not only rejects the
Disciples letter, renouncing it, but in addition, refutes God. Listen to this
duplicitous man renounce knowledge as he preys on the unsuspecting while
contradicting himself...
Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have
knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. If anyone supposes
that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know, but if any
one loves god, he is known by him. Therefore, concerning the eating of things
sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world,
and that there is no god but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether
in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for
us there is one god, the father from whom are all things, and we for him.
However not all men have this knowledge, but some being accustomed to the
idol until now eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience
being weak is defiled. But food will not commend us to god, we are neither the
worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. But take care lest this liberty
of yours somehow becomes a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees
you who has knowledge dining in an idols temple, will not his conscience, if
he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your
knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died.
Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again,
that I might not cause my brother to stumble. (1 Corinthians 8:1-13 as
presented in the New American Standard Bible)
For those who value consistency, Paul consistently contradicts himself, the
Disciples, Yahowsha, and Yahowah. And his rhetoric continues to be irrational,
and perhaps insane. So rather than devote more time to correct all of the errant
statements found throughout this diatribe, since the point was to show that Paul was
being duplicitous with regard to food sacrificed to idols, lets move on.
 Noting that the first burden was only indirectly valid, and totally irrelevant
apart from religion, the admonition not to drink blood is legitimate. The Torah asks
us not to consume blood in Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis 9:4, Qara /
Called Out / Leviticus 3:17 and 17:12-4, as well as in Dabarym / Words /
Deuteronomy 12:16 and 23. However, these five statements pale by comparison to
the many times Yahowah speaks to us about when and why we are to eat
unleavened bread in celebration of Pesach and Matsah, and none of that was even
mentioned. Doing one is sickening, while ignoring the other is deadly.
Particularly troubling, is that there is absolutely no instruction from Yahowah
in the Torah regarding animals which are strangled. This edict comes instead from
Rabbinic Law. Kashrut, the Jewish dietary rules pertaining to how an animal is to
be slaughtered for consumption, requires that the jugular artery in the neck be slit
while the animal is still alive so that the heart pumps the majority of blood out prior
to butchering. While the Torah instructs us not to drink blood, there are much more
humane, practical, and effective ways to drain blood from a carcass. So, by
including strangling in the short list of four things to be avoided, this
horrendously shortchanges the Torah, while at the same time endorsing Rabbinical
Law (which Yahowsha condemned). Further, if Gentiles took this list to be a
summation of the essential elements of the Torah, they would enrich Rabbis, as the
only place they could purchase meat and be assured that an animal wasnt strangled
was from a Kosher Jewish butcher with a Rabbinical endorsement.
The heart of the Towrahs story is the Covenant, and yet not one of its codicils
nor its sign were mentioned. At the heart of the Towrah, we find Yahowahs Ten
Statements, yet not one of them found their way into this list. Nothing was said
about Yahowah, His Word, His Name, His Teaching, His Covenant, His
Instructions, His Invitations, or His Way and those represent the seven things
which are the most important to God.
Qara / Called Out / Leviticus sits in the middle of the Towrah, and yet not one
of the seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God delineated therein was
described as essentialeven though they provide the lone path to God, the means
to the Covenant, and the method of salvation. Not even the Great Instruction: to
love Yahowah, your God, with all of your mind, soul, and might was found among
the indispensible requirements. So to say this list of four items (one of which was
based in Rabbinical Law) was inspired by the Spirit is to demean God and His
Spirit.
If this list is accurate, and I suspect that it is not, in trying to compromise with
Paul, the Apostles became like Paul: Oblivious. This wasnt worth the papyrus it
was written on.
 Pathetic as it was, the letter was sent and read, first in Antioch and then in the
other places Paul had been. The audiences cheered, we are told. And we learn that
Yahuwdah and Silas shared their lengthy message with the Called-Out
Assemblies, but not a word of what they conveyed was recorded for our benefit.
It was then just four sentences later that a new rift emerged, this one between
Paul and his traveling companion, Barnabas.
But now (de), there emerged (ginomai came to be) an intense argument
(paroxysmos a severe disagreement leading to exasperation). As a result (hoste),
they separated from one another and parted company (apochorizomai autous
apo allelon they definitely severed their relationship with each other).
And so (ton te) Barnabas (Barnaban), having brought along with him
(paralambano) Mark (Markos the Latin surname used for the Hebrew man who
was named Yahowchanan to distinguish him from the Disciple; Yahowchanan
Markos became Shimowns translator and compiled the historical portrait of
Yahowshas life that now bears his name (Mark) based upon Shimowns personal
eyewitness testimony and recollections), sailed (ekpleo) to Cyprus (eis Kypros).
(15:39)
But (de) Paulos (Paulos of Latin origin meaning Lowly and Little), having
chosen the name (epilegomai), Silas (Silas of Latin origin meaning Woody),
went away (exerchomai literally: out of existence), having been given over to
(paradidomi having been betrayed and handed over to the authority of) the Grace
(te Chariti the Greek goddesses of favors, merriment, and licentiousness known
as the Gratia, or Graces in Roman mythology) of the Lord (tou kurios the Master
who owns, possesses, and controls, the title God uses in reference to Satan) by the
brothers (hupo ton adelphon). (Acts 15:39-40) They had chosen sides, different
sides. And they would tell an entirely different story about entirely different gods
one real, the other His adversary.
Then, in the oddest twist of irony and with a large dash of twisted humor,
Paulos, after having chosen Woody, circumcised Timothy, the next Greek man
who desired him.
This one (touton) wanted and desired (thelo enjoyed and took pleasure in,
consented to and wanted to have, was inclined to and ready for, aiming at) the
Lowly and Little (o Paulos the insignificant and tiny in Latin), together with
him (oun auto) coming out (exerchomai).
And so (kai) he having grasp hold (lambano) circumcised him (peritemno
auton) on behalf of (dia) the Yahuwdym (Ioudaious an inaccurate transliteration
of Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yah, errantly called Jews today), the ones
being in the places (tous ontas en tois topos) those had known (ekeinois edeisan
 the ones having awareness), for (gar) entirely (hapas all) that (oti) Greek
(Hellen) the father (o pater) of him (autou) was existing (hyparcho identically
belonged to). (Acts 16:3)
Make of that what you will, but I got a chuckle out of it, especially in the
beginning. I suspect Luke did as well. You just cant make stuff like this up.
The Apostolic Council was over. And in its wake, Pauls letter to the Galatians
was crafted as his rebuttal so that he could more easily establish and promote the
precepts of Pauline Doctrine. This is the best explanation of why Paul so
vociferously detailed his credentials and background, why he referenced and
misrepresented what was said during the meeting, why he spoke so derogatorily of
the Disciples, especially Shimown and Yaaqob (the two men who spoke against
him), and why he focused his epistle on discrediting the Torah and disparaging
circumcision.
As a result, we can now discard Galatians, Corinthians, Thessalonians, and
Romans recognizing that much if not most of what Shauwl wrote in them is
unreliable. And with regard to Pauls other letters, when he affirms something
which is written in the Torah, rely on the Torah. When Paul contradicts the Torah,
ignore him. And when Paul waxes poetic on a subject not covered in the Torah, be
careful.

LE: 06-30-2013
 Questioning Paul
Volume 1: The Great Galatians Debate
Is Christianity Right or Wrong?

5
Kataginosko Convicted and Condemned

Judging Paul by Judging Peter

What follows isnt pleasant. But we find it written nonetheless. It shows
Shauwl attacking Shimown unmercifully. This diatribe is one of many reasons
why the presumed and supposed pillars perspective Shauwl articulated with
respect to Shimown, Yaaqob, and Yahowchanan was an accurate reflection of
his derogatory attitude toward Yahowshas Disciples.
Having spent much of my life building businesses, I recognize that this all
smacks of a turf warof one individual trying to expand his territory, his area of
responsibility if you will, vying for the jurisdiction of others. Additionally, the
arrogant statements which preceded this upcoming bout of character
assassination, the repeated attempts to seek the approval of others only to tear
them down, as well as the name-calling that ensues at the opening of the third
chapter of Galatians, suggests that Paul was masking his insecurity with
arrogance. I have witnessed its divisive influence on multiple occasions, all with
devastating consequenceswhich is why I am attune to its telltale signs.
While I am admittedly over-sensitized when it comes to any manifestation of
insecurity, having seen it destroy everything in its wake, there can be, at least in
rare instances, a silver lining. If mild insecurity, or more accurately, inadequacy,
is mediated by reliance upon Yahowah, where He fills the void, then human
insufficiency becomes an opportunity for God to demonstrate His power through
a flawed implement. Moseh / Moses had a speech impediment. Dowd / David
battled with adultery. Solomon was gluttonous. Shimown was impulsive. They
are all testaments to the fact that Yahowah does His best work through people
who recognize that they are useless without Him. That, however, was not the case
with Shauwl.
Those who have not experienced the insanity of this cancer may be confused,
thinking that insecurity would make someone shy, which flies in the face of Paul
being an egomaniac (by his own admission in Colossians 1:24: now rejoice in
my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in Christs
afflictions and elsewhere). But those who suffer from deep seated insecurity
compensate with conceit, because it masks their infirmity and fills the void. They
are aggressive, even conniving, tearing others down to lift themselves up. And
knowing that they are vulnerable, they constantly tout their own truthfulness,
while at the same time proactively and dishonestly besmirching the reputations of
all those they perceive may be a threat. But more than anything, an insecure
individual comes to view himself or herself as being imminently important, even
indispensible, so much so they will accept no rivals. Paul was a textbook case, as
was Muhammad even Stalin and Hitler. The malady of insecurity makes an
individual particularly vulnerable to the wiles of Satan.
In that an entire chapter has passed before us since we last contemplated a
Galatians passage, before we continue, here is a quick review of what Paulos has
written up through the first ten statements of the second chapter:
Paulos, an apostle or delegate, not separating men, not even by the
means of man, but to the contrary and emphatically on behalf of Iesou
Christou and God, Father of the one having roused and awakened Him for
public debate, raising Him out of a dead corpse, (1:1) and all the brothers
with me to the called out of the Galatias, (1:2) Grace to you and peace from
God, Father of us and Lord Iesou Christou, (1:3)
the one having produced and given Himself on account of the sins and
errors of us, so that somehow, through indefinite means, He might possibly
gouge or tear out, pluck or uproot us from the past circumstances and old
system which had been in place which is disadvantageous and harmful,
corrupt and worthless, malicious and malignant extended downward from
and in opposition to the desire and will, the inclination and intent of God and
Father of us, (1:4)
to whom the assessment of the brilliant splendor, the opinion regarding
the glorious radiance and appearance of the shining light, the
characterization of a manifestation of Gods reputation, by means of the old
and the new systems, Amen, let it be so. (1:5)
I marvel, am amazed and astonished, wondering and surprised that
namely in this way quickly and in haste you change, desert, and depart,
becoming disloyal apostates and traitors away from your calling in the name
of Grace to a different healing message and beneficial messenger, (1:6)
which does not exist differently, if not conditionally or hypothetically
negated because perhaps some are the ones stirring you up, confusing you,
and also wanting and proposing to change and pervert the beneficial
messenger and healing message of the Christou, (1:7)
 but to the contrary, if we or a messenger out of heaven conveys a healing
messenger or beneficial message to you which is approximate or contrary to,
beyond, or positioned alongside what we delivered as a beneficial messenger
and announced as a healing message to you then a curse with a dreadful
consequence exists. (1:8)
As we have said already, and even just now, immediately thereafter,
repetitively, I say, if under the condition someone delivers a helpful
messenger or communicates a useful message to you contrary or in
opposition to, close or approximate to, even greater than that which you
received, it shall be (in fact I command and want it to exist as) a curse with a
dreadful consequence. (1:9)
For because currently and simultaneously, men I persuade, I presently,
actively, and actually use words to win the favor of, seducing, misleading,
coaxing, convincing, appeasing, and placating, or alternatively, the God? Or
by comparison and contrast, I seek and desire to please and accommodate
humans? Yet nevertheless, if men, I was pleasing and accommodating,
exciting the emotions of and lifting up a slave of Christou, certainly not was
me. (1:10)
But nevertheless, I profess and reveal to you brothers of the beneficial
message which having been communicated advantageously by and through
myself, because it is not in accord with man. (1:11) But neither because I by
man associating myself with it. Nor was I taught or instructed as a disciple.
But to the contrary, by way of a revelation, an appearance serving to uncover
and unveil Iesou Christou. (1:12)
For because indeed you heard of my wayward behavior in some time and
place in the practice of Judaism, namely that because throughout, showing
superiority, surpassing any measure of restraint, to an extraordinary degree,
and better than anyone else, I was aggressively and intensely pursuing,
persecuting, oppressing, and harassing the Called Out of God, and I was and
am devastating her, continuing to undermine, overthrow, and annihilate her.
(1:13)
And so I was and continue to progress, accomplishing a great deal, and I
persist moving forward in the practice of Judaism, over and beyond many
contemporaries among my race, excessively and over abundantly
enthusiastic, zealous and excited, devoted and burning with passion,
vehemently adherent to belong to the traditions and teachings handed down
by my forefathers. (1:14)
But at a point in time when it pleased and was chosen enjoyable and
better for God, the one having appointed me, setting me aside out of the
womb of my mother (1:15) to reveal and disclose, uncovering and unveiling
the Son of Him in order that I could announce the healing message among
the races, immediately. I did not ask the advice of or consult with flesh or
blood. (1:16)
I did not ascend into Yaruwshalaim toward the goal of being with or
against the Apostles before me, but to the contrary I went away, withdrawing
to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. (1:17) Then later in the sequence
of events, after three years time, I ascended up to Yaruwshalaim to visit and
get acquainted with Kephas and remained against / with him fifteen days.
(1:18) But other of the Apostles, I did not see, I did not pay attention to, or
concern myself with except Yaaqob, the brother of the Lord. (1:19)
But now what I write to you, you must pay especially close attention in
the presence of God, because I cannot lie. (1:20) Thereafter, I came to the
regions of Syria and also of Cilicia. (1:21) But I was not known and was
disregarded, I was either ignored or ignorant, not recognized or understood,
personally by appearance as an individual by the Called Out of Yahuwdah in
Christo. (1:22)
But then only they were constantly hearing that the one presently
pursuing and persecuting, systematically, hastily, and intensely approaching,
oppressing and harassing us at various times now he presently proclaims a
healing message of faith which once or now at some unspecified period he
was attacking and continues to annihilate, he was consistently ravaging and
destroying and he is devastating and overthrowing. (1:23)
And so they were praising and glorifying, attributing an exceptionally
high value and status, considering illustrious and magnificent, holding the
opinion of an especially high rank, thereby supposing to honor, extol,
celebrate, dignify, and magnify in me for the God. (1:24)
Later, through fourteen years also, I went up to Yaruwshalaim along
with Barnabas, having taken along also Titus. (2:1)
I went up, but then downward from uncovering an unveiling revelation
which lays bare, laying down to them the beneficial messenger which I
preach among the races down from my own, uniquely and separately, but
then to the opinions, presumptions, and suppositions, not somehow perhaps
into foolishness and stupidity, without purpose or falsely, I might run or I
ran (2:2) to the contrary, not even Titus, a Greek being, was compelled,
forced or pressured, to be circumcised (2:3) but then on account of the
impersonators who faked their relationship brought in surreptitiously under
false pretenses, who sneaked into the group to secretly spy upon and
clandestinely plot against the freedom from conscience and liberation from
the constraints of morality that we possess in Christo Iesou in order that us
they will actually make subservient, controlling for their own ends, (2:4) to
whom neither to a moment we yielded, surrendered, or submitted in order
that the truth of the God may continue to be associated among you. (2:5)
But now from the ones currently reputed, presumed, and supposed to be
someone important based upon some sort of unspecified past, they were
actually and continue to be nothing, completely meaningless and totally
worthless, to me. It carries through and bears differently the face of the God
of man not take hold of, acquire, or receive, because to me, the ones currently
presuming and supposing, presently dispensing opinions based upon reputed
appearances, of no account, utterly meaningless and worthless, was their
advice and counsel, their cause and contribution in the past. (2:6)
Contrariwise, nevertheless notwithstanding the objection, exception, or
restriction, having seen and perceived that because namely I have been
believed entrusted with the healing message and beneficial messenger of the
uncircumcised inasmuch as Petros / Rock of the circumcised. (2:7)
Because then namely, the one having previously functioned in Petro to
an apostle for the circumcision, it actually functioned also in me to the
nations and ethnicities. (2:8)
And having known and having recognized, becoming familiar with the
Grace of the one having been given to me, Yaaqob, and Kephas, and also
Yahowchanan, the ones presently presumed, regarded, and supposed to be
pillars, and thus leaders, the right place of honor and authority they granted
to me, and to Barnabas fellowship as a result. We to the nations and
ethnicities, but they to the circumcision. (2:9)
Only alone by itself the lowly and poor, the worthless beggars of little
value that we might remember and possibly think about which also I was
eager and quick same this to do. (Galatians 2:10)
If you are scratching your head wondering how anyone in their right mind
could possibly consider this disjointed, jaundiced, self-serving, and egotistical
rant to be inspired Scripture, you are not alone. But nonetheless, you are up to
speed with Pauls race against Yahowah, Yahowsha, their prophets and disciples.
Even though the Rock is credited for having welcomed and listened to
Shauwl in Yaruwshalaym, when Shimown went to Syria, the niceties were not
reciprocated...
But (de) when (hote) Kephas (Kephas the Rock) came (erchomai) to
(eis) Antioch (Antiocheia then the capital of Syria, but now in the southern tip
of Turkey; derived from a transliteration of Antiochus, which was the name of a
Syrian king, meaning to drive against), I was opposed to and against (kata) his
(autos) presence (prosopon face, person, and appearance). I stood in hostile
opposition (anthistemi I took a firm stand, resisting; from anti, against and
opposed to, and histemi stand and presence) because (hoti) he was (eimi)
convicted and condemned (kataginosko judged to be guilty, to lack accurate
information and to be devoid of understanding; from kata, opposed to and against,
and ginosko, knowing, and thus ignorant). (Galatians 2:11)
Shimown was seen as a threat to Shauwls authority overall and his
dominion over every nation in particular. It is as simple as that. This has nothing
to do with what Peter was doing, but instead with what Paul craved.
If we were to consider the entirety of the Greek lexicon, it would be difficult
to find words more condemning than anthistemi and kataginosko. Bereft of the
negation, histemi speaks of Yahowsha standing up for us so that we could stand
with Him, established upright at His side. Therefore, to be anti-histemi is to be
opposed to Yahowsha and His purpose. Since Shimown Kephas was not anti-
histemi, it was not appropriate for Shauwl to confront him this way.
Ginosko is the Greek equivalent of yada, the operative aspect of name of the
book Yada Yah, meaning to know Yah. Therefore to be kata / against ginosko /
knowing is to be opposed to recognizing and acknowledging God.
One of the most telling traits of chronically insecure individuals is that they
are sufficiently cunning to ascribe their own flaws to their perceived foes. So by
doing this to Shimown, he is compelled to respond and defend himself,
demonstrating that he isnt against knowing God. Then by inciting this
response, Shauwl has effectively deflected attention away from himself, while at
the same time blurring the issue in peoples minds. This strategy makes it more
difficult for Shimown / Peter to demonstrate that Shauwl / Paul is actually the
one who is opposed to knowing Yahowah, because the audience is at the very
least confused by the name calling, the labels, and the subsequent smoke.
If you pay close attention to political campaigns, you will notice that this
approach is as ubiquitous as it is disingenuous. It is also the way powerful
conspirators behave towards those attempting to expose their schemes. The one
trying to alert others so that they dont become victims of those actually plotting
against them are discredited and labeled kooks, thereby forcing them to defend
themselves. In so doing, the audience is distracted, often confused, and the truth is
lost in the midst of the slanderous attacks and accusations. An ocean of evidence
is tossed aside by a single mocking sound-bite. It is a clever, albeit immoral,
tactic.
For Shauwl, this was personal. Paulos was against the very presence of the
Rock in Antioch. He went out of his way to demonstrate his hostility. He
publicly declared his opposition to one of Yahowshas closest and most beloved
Disciples. And then he judged him, saying that Shimown was convicted and
condemned, even ignorant and irrational. Save overtly besmirching Yahowah,
denouncing the Torah, and denying Yahowshas purpose, there was nothing
Shimown / Peter, of all people, could say or do which would justify this level of
attack. And of course, Shauwl was guilty of each of these things.
Shimown may have been wrong about something, and if he was, it wouldnt
have been the first time. But, as passionate as Kephas was, he never bothered to
defend himself personally. He turned the other cheek, and left Syria. Shauwl,
however, would press his case against this amazingly important individual. And
in the process, he would incriminate Yaaqob, Yahowshas brother, as well.
The Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear by inadequately translating the
two most telling verbs, rendered the Pauline declaration: When but came Cephas
into Antioch by face to him I stood against because having known against himself
he was. In the King James, this passage reads: But when Peter was come to
Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Their
rendering, which is inadequate, was derived from the Latin Vulgate: But when
Cephas had arrived at Antiochiam, I stood against him to his face, because he was
blameworthy. Uncomfortable conveying the inflammatory nature of kataginosko
and anthistemi, the New Living Translation followed in the footsteps of their
predecessors. But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face,
for what he did was very wrong.
To put this in perspective from a geographic perspective, Antioch is less than
one-hundred miles from Shauwls hometown, Tarsus, and that may have been
part of the problem. It is nearly 400 miles, due north, along the coast road, from
Jerusalem. Peter was a long way from home.
As we turn to the next accusation, we find another conflict between the late
first-century manuscript of this passage and modern renderings, whereby
multiple individuals instead of one certain individual arrived while Shimown
was eating. Therefore, following Shimown Kephas long journey, we find
Shauwl saying:
Because (gar), before (pro) a certain individual (tina someone) came
(erchomai) from (apo) Yaaqob (Iakobos), he [Shimown] was eating together
(synesthio consuming a meal in association) with (meta) the (tov) people of
different races (ethnos a group of individuals from many ethnicities and
nations), but (de) when (hote) he came (erchomai), he was withdrawing
(hupostello he was timidly hesitating and cowering, keeping silent while trying
to avoid contact) and (kai) was separating (aphorize) himself (heautou), out of
(ek) fear (phobeomai frightened and afraid) of the circumcised (peritome
read Yahuwd, or Jew). (Galatians 2:12)
By saying that Shimown / Peter hupostelo withdrew, Shauwl / Paul was
announcing to anyone familiar with Greek, that Shimown should no longer be
considered an apostello Apostle (one who prepared to be sent off). And as
such, we can be assured the Paulos meant for us to render dokei presumed and
supposed in the most negative light.
Shimown Kephas was doing what Yahowsha had asked of him. He had left
home to bring Yahowahs redemptive message to the world. He was breaking
bread in fellowship with brothers whom we can only assume had been called out,
and thus were children of the Covenant. Then, we are told that a Yahuwd / Jew
arrived. And even though Shauwl would have had no way of knowing if he had
been sent out by Yaaqob, its certain that Shimown wouldnt have been afraid of
him if that had been the case. Also, if the crime of which the Rock was guilty,
was timidity, if it was withdrawing rather than engaging, and if that was what
constituted Shimowns conviction and condemnation, no one could ever be
saved.
While I understand that Peter wasnt perfect, its perfectly clear that this
onerous rant against him wasnt godly. The problem is no longer just the message,
its the attitude. And its also Pauls style. Given his previous propensity for spin,
its likely that Shimown had a valid reason to leave (like being allergic to
Shauwl), but Paul left this reason out in order to make the man Yahowsha
named Kephas the Rock, appear as if he had crumbled.
Rather than recognize Shimowns enormous liberty with respect to the
Towrah and its Covenant, Shauwl was cleverly trying to infer that Kephas was
compelled to leave because of the crushing control mechanisms of Rabbinical
Judaism. He then was positioning himself as the brave Paladin of God, standing in
the gap for the benefit of all mankind. None of it was true, but that didnt seem to
matter.
In the context of Pauloss offensive assault on Yahowshas handpicked
Disciple, we are compelled to consider Shauwls behavior in light of what he
called the deeds of the flesh and the fruit of the spirit, both of which are
delineated in Galatians 5. While I wont repeat those attributes here, when the
time comes, juxtapose these accusations to that presentation, and you will
conclude that either Paulos wasnt, himself, imbued with the Spirit or he was a
complete hypocrite.
Of this unfortunate incident, the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear
conveyed: Before the for the to come some from Jacob with the nations he was
eating with when but they came he was withdrawing and was separating himself
fearing the ones from circumcision. The KJV published: For before that certain
came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he
withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Jeromes Latin Vulgate reported: For before certain ones arrived from Iakob, he
ate with the Gentibus. But when they had arrived, he drew apart and separated
himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
Feeling at liberty to adlib, the liberated NLT scribed: When he first arrived,
he ate with the Gentile Christians, who were not circumcised. But afterward,
when some friends of James came, Peter wouldnt eat with the Gentiles anymore.
He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of
circumcision. Shauwl never wrote the word Christian. The name cannot be
found in any Greek manuscript attributed to him. Further, there was absolutely no
indication in the text that the issue was an insistence on the necessity of
circumcision. To the contrary, this point had already been vetted.
Shauwl continued his assault: And (kai) they (autos) were hypocritical
(synypokrinomai pretending to join in the hypocrisy, acting falsely), and also
(kai) the remaining (oi loipos) Yahuwdym (Ioudaios transliteration of the
Hebrew Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yah). As a result (hoste therefore)
even (kai) Barnabas (Barnabas) was led away (apago he was led astray) with
them (auton) in the duplicitous hypocrisy (to hypokrisis in the insincere
pretence). (Galatians 2:13)
This is yet another affirmation that Galatians was written after the
Yaruwshalaym Summit in 50 CE, but before Barnabas and Shauwl split up the
following year. And based upon what we read in Acts, this may well have been
the disagreement which led to their less-than-amicable parting. As such, and
considering all of the internal evidence, we can be certain that this was Pauloss
first epistle.
Yahowah, and thus Yahowsha, encourages us to be critical of false teaching,
telling us to expose and condemn lies and liars, but the Rock was neither a false
teacher nor a liar. If he was either of these things, his acknowledgement that
Yahowsha is the Maaseyah, the Son of the Living God, would have to be
stricken from the record. And the books of First and Second Peter would have to
be expunged from the canon.
If this were the case, it would have dire consequences for Christian theology.
The lone, thin, truncated, misquoted, and misunderstood pretext for considering
Pauls letters Scripture is allegedly found in 2 Peter 3:12-17. But if Shimown is
guilty of what Shauwl is accusing him, if he was a man who was convicted and
condemned, judged to be guilty, devoid of understanding, and thus ignorant, then
Peters letter would not be credible. Moreover, considering what Shauwl just
wrote, and what had been said earlier this year in Yaruwshalaim, it isnt even
remotely plausible that Shimown would have written a ringing endorsement of
Shauwl.
Constructively criticizing the way Shimown had left a meal might well have
been appropriate if it engendered a conversation on how Pauls and Peters
interpretations of the Torah might have differed in this regard. But all we have
been offered is a personal condemnation and name-callingdevoid of
enlightenment. So while my feelings are irrelevant in this matter, this makes me
nauseous.
But once again, the problem isnt with the fidelity of the Greek manuscripts,
but with the words Shauwl dictated. The Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear
reported: And they were hypocritical together to him [and] the remaining
Judeans so that even Barnabas was led off together of them in the hypocrisy.
This known, its hard to be critical of the KJV: And the other Jews dissembled
likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their
dissimulation. The LV is reasonably accurate as well: And the other Iudi
consented to his pretense, so that even Barnabas was led by them into that
falseness. The NLT, however, created a conversation to suit their constituency.
As a result, other Jewish Christians followed Peters hypocrisy, and even
Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.
While it pains me to ponder the consequence of these words, we must.
Collectively, Paulos has written:
But when Kephas came to Antioch, I was opposed to and against his
presence. I stood in hostile opposition because he was convicted and
condemned, even ignorant. (2:11)
Because, before a certain individual came from Yaaqob, he was eating
together with the different races, but when he came, he was withdrawing and
was separating himself, out of fear of the circumcised. (2:12)
So they were hypocritical, and also the remaining Yahuwdym. As a
result even Barnabas was led away and astray with them in the duplicitous
hypocrisy. (Galatians 2:13)

In that it is especially germane to our discussion, lets pause here in the midst
of Shauwls vicious attack on Yahowshas Disciple Shimown Kephas to
consider what the victim had to say about his accuser. For that, we must turn to
Second Peter 3:12-17.
By way of introduction, Pauline devotees and Christian apologists alike cite
errant translations of a portion of Second Peter 3:16 completely out of context to
justify affording Scriptural status to Pauls letters specifically, and to the whole
corpus of their New Testament generally. It is ironic, however, albeit not
surprising, that Peter, the man Paul condemned in Galatians for being wrong
in opposing him, is somehow right when he is construed to be providing an
endorsement. Also paradoxical, when Shimowns evaluation of Shauwls
veracity is considered in the context of this presentation, rather than endorsing the
wannabe apostles letters, the Disciple is seen trashing them.
The damage Peter inflicts on Pauls credibility is so devastating, Eusebius
and Jerome claimed that Peter wasnt the author of this epistle. And Calvin
wrote: I do not here recognize the language of Peter. He postured the notion
that the letter may have been compromised by mental atrophy: now that he was
in extreme old age...and near his end. Then, demonstrating religious duplicity,
Calvin said that the criticism of Pauls letters in Second Peter, where they are
called, hard to understand, suggests that the Apostle Peter could not have
written that work. The patriarch of the Christian reformation in his commentary
on 2nd Peter 3:15, wrote: And yet, when I examine all things more narrowly, it
seems to me more probable that this Epistle was composed by another according
to what Peter communicated, than that it was written by himself, for Peter,
himself, would have never spoken thus.
And while it would be impossible to prove that Shimown did or did not
write either or both of the letters ascribed to him, it does not actually matter. If
Yahowshas Disciple authored them, and if he was inspired, all of Pauls letters
have to be discarded as misleading, because Shimown wrote this of them. And
if Second Peter is fraudulent, then there is no justification whatsoever for
considering Pauls epistles Scripture.
The reason Christian theologians like Eusebius and Jerome, and later Calvin,
want Second Peter expunged from their New Testament is because it accurately
and effectively denounces Pauls letters, calling them nonsensical. Their religion,
and thus their livelihood, was predicated upon those epistles. Should they, along
with Hebrews and Lukes account of Paul in Acts, be stricken from the canon,
nothing of Christianity would remain.
And yet, no informed and rational person disputes the fact that Pauls letters
are poorly crafted and are thus difficult to understand. And thats indeed strange,
because when Paul convolutes and contradicts Yahowahs Torah and Yahowshas
testimony throughout his letters, Christians universally believe Paul rather than
God.
Turning to the text of the letter, itself, we find Shimown conveying:
Waiting expectantly (prosdokao looking forward to the future) and (kai)
having been eager regarding the suddenness (pseudo having urged the
hastening) of the (ten) presence of the coming day of Yahowah (parousia tes
tou hemera arrival of the day of Almighty God) on account of (dia
because) which (en), the sky (ouranos the heavens) will be ablaze (pyroomai
being on fire, fiery, flaming, consumed, and burning in distress), with the
elements (stoicheion the substance and power of nature, its most basic
principles and materials) being released (luo they being untied and loosened,
breaking apart), even (kai) becoming molten (tekomai melting and dissolving,
turning from solid to liquid) as a result of becoming intensely hot (kausoomai
being consumed by fire and heat while appearing to burn feverishly). (2
Shimown / He Listens / Peter 3:12)
This statement can be construed conveying one or both of the following
ideas. Yahowahs return will be so spectacular, and He will be so brilliant, the sky
itself will be ablaze. This is akin to what Yahowsha had told His Disciples on the
Mount of Olives. The inference was, appearing more like the stars in the heavens
than a man, the whole world would simultaneously witness the glory of God.
The second option seems to suggest, at least as clearly as a first-century
lexicon would allow, that a nuclear holocaust will precede His arrival. While
Yahowah will return as the sun sets in Yaruwshalaim on the commencement of
Yowm Kippurym in year 6000 Yah (6.22 PM October 2nd, 2033), those alive
during this time will be pleading with God to come quickly, before man destroys
this planet and extinguishes all life on it. If this is so, at least regarding the nuclear
exchange during the waning days of the tribulation, then this prophecy is one of
the most exacting and specific recorded by one of Yahowshas Disciples. The
depiction of the inherent power of the elements being released in accordance with
the principles of nature generating heat so intense solid objects become molten, is
apt even by todays standards.
Beyond this, by saying that Yahowshas return is still future, and that the
occasion will be so brilliant the sky will appear to be on fire, Shimown is refuting
Shauwl. The wannabe apostle has already claimed to have seen Him as a flash of
light, an encounter not witness by anyone else on earth.
If you think Im extrapolating here, please hold that conclusion. Shimown
will soon warn us specifically about Shauwl. But first, Yahowshas Disciple
wants to reassure the Covenants children. While the sky ablaze and elements
liquefying is a frightening vision, Shimown knew that it was not the end of the
story. The testimony Yahowsha shared as part of His Revelation to
Yahowchanan, He evidently conveyed to this man as well...
However (de), a new (kainos recently created, fresh, and previously
unknown) universe and spiritual realm (ouranos heavens) and (kai) a new
(kainos freshly created and previously unknown) earth (ges material realm)
according to (kata) the promise (to epangelma) of Him (autou) we await and
expect (prosdokao we look forward to with great expectations, favorably
anticipating). In which (en ois) the righteous and vindicated (dikaiosyne
upright and approved in the correct relationship as a result of being observant and
acceptable) will live (katoikeo will reside and dwell as a result of being
settled). (2 Shimown / He Listens / Peter 3:13)
A combination of factors, including the realization that Shimown relied on
Yahowchanan Marcus as a translator, and that the Qumran Scrolls are rife with
ordinary letters written in Hebrew, lend credence to the notion that this epistle
was translated out of Shimowns native tongue into Greek. The reason I share
this with you is because I took liberty with the tenses. Since it is obvious that
Kephas was speaking about the future, something he makes abundantly clear at
the opening of this very chapter, and realizing that in Hebrew there is no past,
present, or future tense, I rendered his statements appropriately in English.
Shimown is looking forward to eternity. He knows, because Yahowsha told
him, that the Maaseyahs fulfillment of the Towrahs promises regarding
Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread, and FirstFruits will vindicate the Covenants
children, enabling those who have embraced His Towrah to live forever in the
new heaven and earth God will create on behalf of His family. Few realizations
are as enticing.
The operative word in this prophetic proclamation is dikaiosyne, which was
conveyed righteous and vindicated, but could just as easily be translated
acceptable, correct, and approved. It is the opposite of anthistemi hostile
opposition and the antithesis of kataginosko convicted and condemned, the
terms Paul used against Peter. Dikaiosyne is focused upon the manner in which
souls are approved by God. It speaks of being observant and thinking correctly
so as to become acceptable. It is based upon dikaios, which is defined as
becoming upright by observing Gods instructions.
Dikaiosyne is, therefore, the fulcrum upon which Peters evaluation of Paul
will pivot in this circumstance, especially since Shauwl is seen opposing the
Torah. In this regard, it is also instructional to know that dikaios is based upon
dike and deiknuo which convey the idea of exposing the evidence to determine if
something is consistent with that which is authorized.
 Continuing to speak of becoming acceptable so that we are prepared to live in
heaven with God, Shimown wrote:
Therefore (dio for this reason), loved ones (agapetos dear friends, those
who are unique and welcomed), those eagerly anticipating (prosdokao
confidently look forward to) this (tauta), earnestly make every effort to become
(spoudazo engage, diligently endeavoring to do your best to be ready) pure and
spotless, without blemish or defect (aspilos undefiled without fault) and (kai)
blameless (amometos beyond reproach, without fault, avoiding judgment) for
Him (auto), learning to be found with (heuriskomai en discovering how to
attain) reconciliation leading to salvation (eirene the closest Greek analog to
shalowm being united in a harmonious relationship which brings restoration and
salvation). (2 Shimown / He Listens / Peter 3:14)
Those who earnestly make every effort to observe the Torah can expect to
experience Yahowah in a purified state. The Covenants children avoid judgment
because the benefit associated with responding to this relationships third codicil,
which is to walk to Yahowah to become perfect, makes us immortal and
blameless in Gods eyes.
As an interesting aside, in two verses we have already benefited infinitely
more from Shimown than we have gained in two Pauline chapters. Kephas wrote
about how we can be made right with God while Paul has written about how he is
right.
Thus far, Shimown has predicted the sky being ablaze upon Yahowahs
return perhaps even to thwart the devastation of a nuclear exchange. He has said
that God is going to create a new universe for those His promises have saved. As
a result, he has encouraged us to be observant so that we learn how God
vindicates, thereby becoming perfected and righteous, reconciled in the
relationship. Therefore, Yahowshas Disciple realizes that the Covenants
children are not judged and should eagerly anticipate entrance into heaven.
Having listened to Yahowsha, he knows that God perfects those who actively
observe His Guidance, those act upon the terms of His Covenant, those who
capitalize upon the Torahs promises. And to these insights, and in the context of
being observant regarding Yahowahs testimony, Shimown adds this warning:
Also (kai) this regarding (ten tou of, about, and in association with in the
accusative feminine addressing reconciliation and genitive masculine addressing)
our (emon) Upright One, Yahowah (KY a Divine Placeholder used by
Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey Upright Pillar of the
Tabernacle and Yahowahs name): steadfast endurance and constraint
(makrothymia show restraint under trial, always analyzing while expressing
righteous indignation toward the adversary, being hostile, even exasperated,
willing to wage war with great passion) considering forming opinions
(hegeomai thinking in matters pertaining to an directions and guidance,
influence, authority, and counsel) regarding the process of salvation (soteria
when the object is being saved) inasmuch as it pertains (kathos just as
accordingly in the manner) then (kai) to this (o), our (emon) esteemed (ho
agapetos unique and dear, welcoming and entertaining) countryman (adelphos
brother and / or fellow Yahuwd / Jew [and thus not afforded the title Apostle
title he craved]), Paulos (Paulos Latin for Little and Lowly), throughout (kata
pertaining to and in accordance with) the (ho) clever use of human philosophy
(sophia wisdom and insights gleaned and capacity to understand derived from
mans knowledge, intelligence, and experience [and thus not Godly inspiration])
having been produced (didomai having been given, granted, entrusted, and
appointed) by him (auto) in writing (grapho) to you (umin). (2 Shimown / He
Listens / Peter 3:15)
Shimown Kephas is saying, make every effort to become blameless
learning about and finding reconciliation, because he wants us focused on the
testimony regarding our Upright One, Yahowah, so that we are properly
prepared to show steadfast endurance and constraint concerning forming
opinions regarding the process of salvation inasmuch as Yahowahs approach
differs so dramatically from his countryman, Paulos. So after undermining the
veracity of Pauls alleged conversion experience, the man Yahowsha called, the
Rock, is now prepared to provide a life and death contrast between this man and
God.
The Rock has established that salvation is a steadfast and unwavering
process, neither instant nor capricious. No one stumbles into Gods lap. Those
who find their relationship with Yahowah shalowm reconciled and restored
are observant and engaged, traveling to Him along the path He has articulated.
Even this is in sharp contrast to Shauwl, who has promoted the myth that faith
rather than thinking provides access to salvation.
The first of many intriguing words, makrothymia, is from makrothumos. It
was translated steadfast endurance and constraint because of the words from
which it was comprised. Macros, meaning lengthy and for a long time, is
defined by Strongs as longanimity, a Latin compound of longus long and
animus reasoning. It speaks of calmly suffering through an adversarys
injurious attack. The second aspect of makrothymia is from thumos, meaning to
be hostile, inflamed with righteous indignation. It is used to convey being
exasperated with someone and of waging a war with great passion against them,
overtly showing animosity and anger. Thumos, itself, is derived from thuo,
which speaks of a sacrifice whereby the victim dies, so it is a very serious
concept.
 Therefore, the English translations which render makrothymia as patience,
which is often the lack of a response, or as forbearance, which suggests
acceptance, grossly shortchange and misrepresent the words etymology.
Shimown, as we should be, is inflamed with righteous indignation, he is
exasperated and angered by what Shauwl has written. And, therefore, he wants
everyone to be steadfast and circumspect, to calmly and methodically examine
the evidence so that we are neither swayed nor capricious, showing constraint.
Paul is sacrificing lives and injuring souls by representing the adversary,
and Peter passionately disapproves. That is a lot to convey in a single word, and
yet every facet is revealing.
Hegeomai also presents a challenge to communicate properly within the
construct of a single sentence. While it was rendered considering forming
opinions, it specifically addresses the idea of thinking diligently regarding
matters pertaining to the directions, guidance, and influence of those in positions
of leadership who claim that their counsel has been authorized. Based upon ago,
the emphasis is on being led, and thus misled, succumbing to the wrong
influence. Rather than believe Paul, rather than follow Paul, Peter wants us to
think so that we arent mislead.
Recognizing that there are few things as vital to our wellbeing than soteria
the process of salvation, since there is nothing controversial about the term, lets
move on to Shimowns curious depiction of Shauwl. To the great dismay of
Christians, he does not refer to him as an Apostle, the title Paul not only craves
but has bequeathed upon himself. He is simply an adelphos brother which is
used to identify someone from the same race or nation. It is akin to
acknowledging that Shauwl, now Paulos, was still a Jew.
At first blush, agapetos, is awkward in this derogatory evaluation. But it does
not always mean beloved, or even dear, rather esteemed, unique,
welcoming, and entertaining. And at the time this letter was written, for some,
Paul was all of those things. Many adored him then as now as they were and
continue to be mesmerized by his bold assertions. And few men have ever been as
esteemed, even venerated. But Paul was most of all, unique. From the beginning,
it has been Paul against everyone, including God. He stood with no man. And his
message was his own. Yet in a way, even through his hostility and hatred, he was
welcoming, because in his faith, believers didnt need to know or do anything.
And as the subject of countless books and bible studies, it would be hard to find
something more entertaining.
However, based upon how Shauwl treated Shimown, and based upon the
fact that he vociferously condemned him in the very letter Peter was now
referencing, it strains credulity to believe that that Yahowshas Disciple penned
the word agapetos dear and esteemedunless the esteemed connotation
was a tongue-in-cheek reference to Pauls notorious ego. It is, to my mind, much
more likely that second- or third-century scribes operating under Marcions
influence augmented the text to serve their religious masters. It is the most
reasonable explanation. But, more on this in a moment.
So, since the status Paul craved most was not afforded him, and since Peter
has now associated Paul with the race the wannabe apostle has been opposing, we
would be wise to see Shimowns tongue planted firmly in his cheek, and his
eyebrows raised mockingly, regarding the notion of esteemed. And realizing
that Paul was now virtually unknown as Shauwl, Shimown addressed the man
now identified with the letters that have become the bulk of the Christian New
Testament by his chosen name: Paulos. I suspect he did so in light of
Yahowshas foreboding warning: I, Myself, have come in the name of My
Father, and yet you do not receive Me. But when another comes in his own
name, that individual you all will actually receive. (Yahowchanan 5:43)
The next phrase, kata sophia didomai auto grapho umin, contains this
passages most controversial terms. This begins with kata, whose primary
connotation is downward and against, but can also convey throughout, among,
opposed, with regard to, or in accordance with, even in the name of. I selected
throughout, but any of these options, so long as they can be worked into the
sentence, could be justified.
Sophia, usually translated wisdom was also chosen to the chagrin of
Christians. They would have preferred inspiration. And while sophia can
describe any form of wisdom, most every lexicon identifies it first and foremost
as the wisdom of menthe synthesis of education and experience, of philosophy
and science. For example, in Acts 7:22, sophia was used by Luke to convey:
Moses was learned in all the wisdom (sophia) of the Egyptians.
In this light, consider the difference between Shimown and his adversary,
Shauwl. The Disciple was a fisherman with no formal education. He had learned
everything he knew from walking in the footsteps of Yahowsha. Shauwl, by
contrast, had been born into a wealthy family. He was a Roman citizen. He was
educated in Tarsus of Cilicia, the home of what was then a most prestigious
university. And Shauwl studied Judaism in Jerusalem at the feet of the worlds
leading religious scholar. From Peters perspective, Paul was steeped in human
understanding.
Since it implies insights gleaned from mans knowledge, the statement
throughout the clever use of human philosophy having been produced by him in
writing to you should not be construed as a compliment, much less an
endorsement of Pauls messageespecially as presented in the Galatians epistle.
Considering Pauls over the top protestation in Galatians, one he contradicted in
Acts, that he was inspired by God and not taught by men, this was written to
rebuke those claims. It was a punch to the gut, an attempt to knock the wind out
of the man.
You may have noticed that the final clause of 2 Peter 3:15 speaks of a
specific letter which had been written by Paul to a common audience. So to
understand which letter Peter was referring to we have to conduct a little
investigation. In 2 Peter 3:1, Shimown says that this is the second letter I am
writing to you. And in 1 Peter 1:1, we learn that Shimowns first epistle was
addressed to those who reside as foreigners scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia,
Cappodocia, Asia, and Bithynia. The lone point of intersection between Pauls
letters and Peters recipients is Galatia. And not so coincidently, this is the letter
in which Peter was openly condemned by Paul.
Before we press on, remember that Paul continually insisted that Peters
ministry was limited to Jews, while the wannabe and self-proclaimed apostles
realm was comprised of the rest of the world. Obviously Shimown didnt agree.
Last time I checked, foreigners scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia,
Cappodocia, Asia, and Bithynia, could not have been Jews in Judea. Therefore,
when Paul implied that Shimown, Yaaqob, and Yahowchanan had agreed with
him that their ministries were limited to the circumcised, he was either
misinformed or lying.
This known, Peters next line reads: And even (kai also) as (hos like
and in a similar way, when and because) in (en throughout) all (pas) letters
(epistole epistles), inside (en) them (autais they) speak (laleo proclaim and
convey a message) all around and on the other side of (peri about,
encompassing the proximity or sides concerning an account, with regard to or
remotely about; from peran beyond the extremity to the other side, and heteros,
that which is different and opposed to) this (touton). (2 Shimown / He Listens /
Second Peter 3:16)
Yahowshas Disciple is announcing to all who will listen that there is a
common and universal theme in all of Pauls letters: throughout they proclaim
the message of the other side meaning that they speak for the Adversary. Sure,
they talk all around God and His plan of salvation, but just as circular reasoning is
designed to mislead, and just as going around someone never gets you to them,
Pauls letters have this effect.
The subject has been and remains diligently observing and acting upon
Yahowahs unwavering nature and unchanging plan in order to live with Him. In
contrast, Pauls epistles were penned to speak all around this subject. That is to
say that circular reasoning was deployed to convey a view which is opposed and
different. So if Yahowahs message is from God, if His message is truthful and
reliable, if His message saves, what might we reasonable conclude about a
different message which is opposed to His?
And so now you know the reason Christian theologians want Peters epistle
expunged from their New Testament. They dont want you to consider these
questions.
To fully appreciate Shimowns next line, it behooves us to contemplate the
meaning of dusnoetos, which will be translated difficult to understand, below.
As a compound of dus difficult, injurious, detrimental and in opposition and
noeo thinking, perception, consideration, and understanding, the word
literally means: opposed to understanding and detrimental to thinking. And that
would make what follows considerably worse than it already appears to be.
Within (en) which (ais) there are (hos eimi there is the existence and
presence of) some things (tina a considerable number of important issues)
difficult to understand (dusnoetos hard to comprehend, detrimental to
thinking, and injurious to comprehension), which (tina) the (ho) uneducated
(amathes unlearned and ignorant who have not been properly taught) and (kai)
malleable (asteriktos the unstable and poorly established with flexible and
wavering views, perspectives, and attitudes) misinterpret and distort, turning
away (strebloo pervert and twist deriving a false meaning which turns people
away, tormented and suffering as a result), (2 Peter 3:16)
Strebloo is an especially undesirable term, so unpleasant that it is often
translated torture and torment, including the wrenching limbs on a rack
designed to inflict anguishing pain and suffering to the point of agony. Its root,
trope, speaks of turning way from heaven. It is about distortions which lead
away from God, about perversions which prompt many to turn away from the
Torah, about the undue suffering caused by misinterpreting and then twisting
Yahs testimony.
Having studied Yahowahs testimony and Shauwls letters, I unequivocally
agree with the Rocks assessment. As a result of the writing quality and
ambiguity, as a result of circular reasoning and his irrational approach, as a result
of his affinity for self-promotion and his tendency to contradict himself, Pauls
letters are at the very least difficult to understand, especially in light of his
propensity to twist the truth and misquote Scripture. And because of their
deficiencies, the Pauline epistles are remarkably easy to misinterpret and distort,
especially among those who are unaware of what the Torah actually reveals, in
addition to by those who ignore most of what Yahowsha said and did. And that is
why Pauls letters have become a stumbling block for so many.
And while that is reprehensible and inexcusable, this represents the least
condemning interpretation of dusnoetos and strebloo. More literally rendered,
Pauls epistles are torturous and agonizing to those who know and love Yahs
Torah because they are detrimental to understanding a genuine hindrance when
it comes to knowing Yah. Precluding this is the one thing even worse than
misleading someone. Its the very reason Yahowah condemned Shauwl by name,
speaking through the prophet Chabaquwq / Habakkuk, calling the author of half
of the Christian New Testament the plague of death. By replacing knowing with
faith, by denouncing and obsolescing the Torah, Gods primary source of
answers, by misrepresenting the purpose of Yahowsha, Shauwl created a
scenario where is becomes difficult, if not impossible, for those who ingest his
poison to find Gods remedy. The one place they should look is the last place
theyd consider.
In the six-thousand years Satan has been given to come up with a scheme to
undermine Yahowahs Towrah testimony and to negate Yahowshas life, this is
his crowning achievement. And even the combination of Yahowahs prophetic
warning, Yahowshas Instruction on the Mount, and the Disciple Shimowns
written condemnation were collectively insufficient to keep a lone insane,
irrational, perverted, ruthless, and demon-possessed megalomaniac from luring
billions of souls away from God.
One of the reasons that Shauwls letters are so prone to misinterpretation is
the window dressing that accompanies them. He claims to be an Apostle, although
he was not appointed as such. He claims to speak for God, and yet he consistently
misquotes Him. He claims to represent the Maaseyah and yet by separating
Yahowsha from the Torah, Shauwl, not the Rabbis nor Romans, wielded the
most deadly and devastating blow against Him. He claims that he cannot lie, and
yet that is all he has done. These things combined with the placement of his letters
in the Bible, as if they were Scripture, work to enhance the credibility of the
worlds most egregious deceiver. This mans twisted rhetoric became the recipe
for religious perversions of monstrous proportions.
Even here, steeped in Pauline Doctrine, Christian apologists will claim that I
am misinterpreting Peters testimony to impugn Paul. And yet all Im actually
doing is presenting the Disciples words as accurately as is possible in the hope
that a few more people will be saved from Paul. And of course, I am trying to
relate to you what Yahowah had to say of him so that all who will listen with an
open mind might choose to trust God rather than believe Shauwl.
If you recall, Yahowah said: Moreover, because the intoxicating wine and
inebriating spirit of the man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal
who tries to influence and control others without justification through
trickery and deceit is a high-minded moral failure, an arrogant and meritless
man of presumption, so he will not rest, find peace, nor live, whoever is open
to the broad path, the opportunistic, duplicitous, and improper way
associated with Shauwl. He and his soul are like the plague of death. And so
those who are brought together by him, receiving him, those who associate
with and join him, those who are removed and withdrawn from the company
of God, assembling with him, will not be satisfied. All of the Gentiles, the
people from different races, nations, and places, will gather together unto
him, all of the people from different ethnicities in different places.
They do not ask questions, any of them, about him. Terse references to
the word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, with clichs becoming bywords
with implied associations to mock and counterfeit, along with allusive sayings
with derisive words (malytsah mocking interpretations wrapped in enigmas
arrogantly spoken). There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be
asked of him (chydah la there are difficult queries to be solved, dark and
hidden secrets, and double dealings to be known regarding him). And they
should say, Woe to the one who claims to be great and increases his
offspring, to the one who thrives on numbers and who considers himself
exceedingly important, even as a rabbi, none of which apply to him. For how
long will they make pledges and be in debt based upon his significance,
pursuant to the weight and burden of his testimony and the grievous honor
afforded him? (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:5-6)
Yahowah and Shimown view Shauwl and his writing similarly if not
identically. I agree with them. How about you?
Ignoring the overt criticisms Shimown Kephas has leveled at Shauwls
initial letter, and disregarding what he will say about the remaining epistles
Shauwl had written by this time, the following sentence fragment is commonly
misquoted and removed from its context to serve as substantiation, the lone
proof Christians deploy to suggest that Pauls letters specifically, and their
New Testament generally, should be considered Scripture.
The concluding clause of the Disciples statement reads...
as (hos approximating in a somewhat similar way) also (kai then
even) with the (tas) remaining (loipos inferior, residue, left over, or other)
writings (graphas letters; from grapho to write (expressed here in the plural,
thus addressing multiple written documents or letters), pertaining (pros as a
consequence with regard) to their (ten) own individual (idian ones distinct
and unique) destruction and annihilation (apoleia complete and utter ruin and
obliteration) of themselves (auton). (2 Shimown / He Listens / Peter 3:16)
Considering the lofty role these words are said to play in the lore of
Christendom, and recognizing that there are several potential obstacles to
understanding that should be resolved to be certain that we have captured
Shimowns intent, before we work through the list of potential pitfalls, lets
reestablish our bearings by reviewing where Shimown has taken us thus far.
Waiting expectantly and looking forward to the future knowing what is
coming, and being eager regarding the hastening of the presence of the
coming day of Yahowah, on account of which the sky will be ablaze with the
elements being released, even becoming molten, as a result of becoming
intensely hot. (3:12)
Therefore, we await a new universe and a previously unknown spiritual
realm, and a freshly created earth according to His promise, expecting in
which that the righteous and vindicated will live. (3:13)
So dear friends, those eagerly anticipating this, earnestly make every
effort to become pure, without blemish or defect, blameless, avoiding
judgment for Him, learning to be found with reconciliation leading to
salvation. (3:14)
Also this regarding our Upright One, Yahowah: steadfast endurance and
constraint, always analyzing while expressing righteous indignation toward
the adversary, even being exasperated, considering forming opinions
regarding the process of salvation inasmuch as it pertains then to this, our
esteemed countryman, Paulos, through the clever use of human philosophy
having been produced by him in writing to you. (3:15)
And even as in all epistles, inside them they speak and convey a message
which encompasses the other side, deploying circular reasoning, which is
different and opposed to this, within which there are some things difficult to
understand, hard to comprehend, and detrimental to comprehension, which
the uneducated and improperly taught as well as the malleable misinterpret
and distort, turning away, as also with the remaining inferior writings,
pertaining to their own individual destruction and annihilation of
themselves. (2P3:16)
Dealing with the individual words, themselves, through the deployment of
hos kai as also, the concluding statement is unquestionably connected to
analyzing and opposing the formation of opinions regarding the process of
salvation as it pertains to Paul, as well as to the clever use of human philosophy
produced by him in his letters. This comparative approach also associates the
realization that all of the epistles convey a message which through circular
reasoning is different, difficult to comprehend and detrimental to understanding
which is subject to misinterpretation, causing the improperly educated to turn
away with the comments which follow as also.... And for those who are
rational, this is among the most serious problems we have encountered thus far.
 In the extremely unlikely event that Shimowns intent was to suggest that
the letters he has criticized thus far should be afforded Scriptural status, in the
sense of writings which are considered divinely inspired, the status of Gods
Word must inevitably be demeaned. By association then, it would not only be
Pauls contradictory, sometimes insane, and often irrational epistles, which are to
be seen as misleading, difficult to comprehend, and a hindrance to
understanding, but everything from Genesis to Revelation. The Christian ploy is
therefore suicidal. Nothing can be gained. Everything is lost. To cite the Disciple,
doing this is to their own individual destruction and annihilation.
In reality, there is no basis for the Christian assertion that Peter is
conferring a Scriptural designation to the corpus of Pauline epistles. And that is
because, while the Greek word graphe is often convoluted to designate
Scripture throughout the Christian New Testament, all it actually means is
writing. Literally, it depicts any representation by means of lines, a drawing, or
a portrayal by way of a picture. And here, the Greek word was written in the
plural as graphas, thus conveying a collection of illustrations, writings,
documents, or letters.
Neither Yahowah, Yahowsha, nor His Disciples ever used the word
scripture. It is a transliteration of the Late Latin, scriptura, the act of writing,
which in turn was derived from scriptus, the past participle of scriber, meaning
to write. Therefore, while scriber and grapho conveyed similar concepts,
neither was understood to mean Scripture in the sense of a text being divinely
authorized by God. This Christian extrapolation is wholly unfounded
etymologically ultimately negating any benefit the religion seeks to derive from
misappropriating Shimowns statement.
Further, the Christian religious interpretation cannot be salvaged by
association with Yahowsha, because He neither spoke Greek nor Latin. And the
few times His words were translated using graphas, Yahowsha was citing the
Psalms, which even today are called the Writings. Affirming this, the acronym,
Tanakh, is based upon Towrah (Teachings), Nabaym (Prophets), and Kathabym
(Writings inclusive of the historical books, Proverbs, and Psalms). That is why
His citation of Psalm 118:22 in Mattanyah 21:42 was appropriately translated the
Writings from graphas. The same is true in Mark 12:10.
Simply stated, there is no linguistic or textual justification for rendering
graphas scriptures. Transliterating the Latin word for writing, scriptura, rather
than translating Greek for writing, graphe, into English as Scripture instead of
writing, is inappropriate. This is nothing more than an unsupported leap of
faith.
 Beyond this, Yahowshas Disciple has already stated that the graphas
writings he was addressing were comprised of the epistole letters written by
Paulos. So this sentence fragment is merely stating that the rest of the letters
Shauwl wrote after Galatians were comparable. They were similarly destructive
and misleading. Shimown is simply expanding his critical evaluation of
Galatians to include everything Paul had written.
Yahowshas Disciple recognized, expressly because Yahowsha told him,
and through him all of us, that those who do not learn from the Torah, those who
misinterpret and distort Yahowahs enduring testimony, lose their souls.
Separated from the source of life, they will cease to exist. Such individuals dont
know God, and God doesnt know them. The same fate awaits the malleable,
because they are easily swayed by religious rhetoric.
If, as reason dictates, Peter was addressing the rest of Pauls letters, then
once again he would be accurate. Those who approach Shauwls epistles from a
perspective other than that presented in the Torah, the one affirmed by
Yahowsha, will find their souls annihilated. It is the consequence of rejecting
Yahowahs invitations and failing to meet with Him during the Miqraey.
Shimown is thereby warning Christians about the consequence of Pauline
Doctrinecalling it deadly and destructive.
While Peter stubbed his toe from time to time, he never wavered from the
path. When it came time to stand up and boldly declare the truth, the Disciple led
the way. This is but one of many reasons that it is ridiculous to suggest, as
Christians do, that Peter meant the remaining writings to be a reference to
something they call Scripture, as opposed to the rest of Pauls letters. And they
do so, of course, without thinking, because if the reference was to other
Scripture, then Yahowshas Disciple would be categorically stating that
Yahowah and Yahowsha were poor communicators, that their offer of
relationship and message of salvation was convoluted. And if so, then Shimown
Kephas could not have been inspired and speaking for God, because God says:
Yahowahs Towrah (towrah teaching, instruction, guidance, and
direction) is complete and entirely perfect (tamym without defect, lacking
nothing, correct, sound, genuine, right, helpful, beneficial, and true), returning,
restoring, and transforming the soul. Yahowahs enduring testimony and
restoring witness is trustworthy and reliable, making understanding (hakam
educating and enlightening to the point of comprehension) simple for the open-
minded and receptive. (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:7)
Since the Author of the Towrah and the Inspiration of these Writings is also
the Architect of life, having actually designed us, youd have to be ignorant,
irrational, and or insane to suspect that His conclusion regarding His testimony
was errant. So where does that leave you with Paul?
Yahowahs Towrah Teaching is only difficult to understand when viewed
from the perspective of Pauline Doctrine, when it is disassociated from
Yahowsha, when its instructions are taken out of context or errantly translated.
Those whose thinking and attitude have been corrupted by Judaism, Christianity,
or Islam, who have been beguiled into believing that the Torah is comprised of
laws to be obeyed as opposed to guidance to be observed, are easily misled by
those who misrepresent testimony they, themselves, neither know nor understand.
That is not to say that knowledge comes without effort or that understanding
occurs in a vacuum. To know what Yahowah has said, you have to be willing to
listen to Him. To understand what Yahowah is offering, you have to closely
examine and carefully consider what He has written on our behalf.
It is because Shauwl claims that the Torah is no longer relevant that
Christians no longer observe it. And in this way, Pauls letters have become the
ultimate hindrance to understanding. As a result, it is the New Testament which
is distorted and discredited by the inclusion of Pauls letters.
So while reason dictates that the Christian interpretation of this passage is
invalid, the question may remain for some: what besides Pauls letters could have
been meant by the use of the Greek word loipos? Providing a religious
perspective, most every English translation wants us to believe that it means
other. They do this to infer that Pauls letters are Scripture, having also
misrepresented graphas. But there are many irresolvable issues associated with
this assessment.
First among them is that the primary Greek word for other is allos, not
loipos. Allos is translated other or another 143 of the 160 times it appears in
the Greek text. Allos, not loipos, is defined as another person or thing of the
same kind. Therefore, allos, not loipos, would have been the perfect word to
deploy here if such an association were actually intended. The very fact that it
wasnt tells us most of what we need to know.
Second, while loipos can be translated others when speaking of people and
things, loipos is a plural feminine adjective. In this context, it appears to be
modifying the feminine plural noun, graphas, so it would have to be written
others writings, not other scripture. But there is only one Divine revelation
referred to by Yahowsha, He, Himself translated referring to the Torah and
Prophets as a single entity. Therefore, it is only when Peter is seen referring to
Pauls remaining writings that everything fits.
 Third, along these lines, the primary definition of loipos is remaining, not
others, which is why it was rendered as such. Loipos is derived from leipo,
meaning: that which is left. By way of confirmation, in Mattanyah / Matthew
25:11, loipos was used for the first time in these Greek manuscripts. There it was
deployed in a translation to describe the remaining bridesmaids who were
denied entry to the wedding for lack of oil, a metaphor for the Spirit, making them
inadequate. Loipos was used in Acts 2:37 as a reference to the remaining eleven
Disciples who witnessed Shimowns speech on the Invitation to be Called Out
and Meet with God of Seven Sabbaths.
Fourth, as suggested above, leipo carries the derogatory connotations of
forsaken, inadequate, and inferior, which in this context affirms that Peter is
saying that Pauls writings were inferior and inadequate, even disassociated
from God, in essence turning the tables on his tormentor.
And fifth, its worth noting that in Greek, adjectives, which is how loipos was
deployed, usually follow the nouns they are modifying. But in this case, loipos
precedes graphas, which is sufficiently unusual to mention.
It is also worth noting that many people consider Galatians to be Pauls worst
letterthus invalidating the notion that other epistles were inferior. But their
criterion is typically biased upon the horrible writing quality rather than being
predicated upon the message itself. So when the criterion is based upon the
magnitude of the deception, every one of Pauls subsequent letters are inferior
including: First and Second Thessalonians, First and Second Corinthians, and
Romans. We have and will continue to explore the justifications for this
conclusion.
Therefore, the other Scripture connotation required to infer that Pauls
letters were inspired isnt remotely plausible. Moreover, there is no textual basis
for the continuous adding of he and his in English bibles, which is also
required to make the connection between Paul, his letters, and the Writings. The
ESV, for example, adds he does, his letters, and he speaks, all without
textual support.
In summary, by writing the following words, Shimown Kephas was alerting
us to the fact that the Pauline epistles were poison.
Therefore, we await a new universe and a previously unknown spiritual
realm, and a freshly created earth according to His promise, expecting in
which that the righteous and vindicated will live. (3:13) So dear friends, those
eagerly anticipating this, earnestly make every effort to become pure,
without blemish or defect, blameless, avoiding judgment for Him, learning to
be found with reconciliation leading to salvation. (3:14) Also this regarding
our Upright One, Yahowah: steadfast endurance and constraint, always
analyzing while expressing righteous indignation toward the adversary, even
being exasperated, considering forming opinions regarding the process of
salvation inasmuch as it pertains then to this, our esteemed countryman,
Paulos, through the clever use of human philosophy having been produced
by him in writing to you. (3:15) And even as in all epistles, inside them they
speak and convey a message which encompasses the other side, deploying
circular reasoning, which is different and opposed to this, within which there
are some things difficult to understand, hard to comprehend, and
detrimental to comprehension, which the uneducated and improperly taught
as well as the malleable misinterpret and distort, turning away, as also with
the remaining inferior writings, pertaining to their own individual
destruction and annihilation of themselves. (2P3:16)
Shimowns view of Shauwls letters is consistent with Yahowahs
observations, especially as they were prophetically presented in the second
chapter of Chabaquwq / Habakkuk. But they also mirror Yahowshas assessment,
as He prophetically presented His sentiments in the second half of His Instruction
on the Mount. So while we considered Yahowshas pronouncement in the first
chapter, it is especially relevant here, especially since it concludes by referencing
the name Shimown was given: the Rock.
At the present time you all should be especially alert, being on guard by
closely examining and carefully considering, thereby turning away from
(prosechete apo) the false prophets deceptively pretending to be divinely
inspired spokesmen (ton pseudoprophetes) who (hostis) come to you, currently
appearing before you making public pronouncements (erchomai pros umas) as
if they belonged (esothen) by (en) dressing up in sheeps clothing (endyma
probaton), yet (de) they actually are (eisin) exceptionally self-promoting, self-
serving, and swindling, vicious and destructive (harpax) wolves (lykos). (7:15)
From (apo) their (autos) fruit (karpos), by conducting a careful, thorough,
and competent inquiry in the future, you all will be able to use evidence and
reason to genuinely comprehend (epiginosko) them (autos). Is it even
rationally possible (meti) to collect (syllego) a bunch of grapes (staphyle) from
(apo) a thorn (akantha), or from (e apo) a thistle (tribolos), figs (suka)? (7:16)
In this way (houto), every (pas) good and useful (agathos) fruit tree (dendron)
produces (poieomai) exceptionally suitable and commendable (kalos) fruit
(karpos). But (de) a tree (dendron) which is corrupt, rotten, and harmful
(sapros) bears (poieomai) diseased and worthless, seriously flawed and faulty,
annoying and perilous (poneros) results (karpos). (7:17)
It is not possible (ou dynamai) for a good and useful (agathos) fruit tree
(dendron) to produce (poieomai) seriously flawed or disadvantageous
(poneros) fruit (karpos), nor (oude) a tree (dendron) which is corrupt,
unsuitable, and destructive (sapros) to make (poieomai) suitable or
commendable, genuine, approved (kalos), fruit (karpos). (7:18) Any and every
(pas) tree (dendron) not (me) producing (poieomai) suitable, fitting, genuine,
approved, and advantageous (kalos) results (karpos) shall actually be cut off
and done away with, eliminated and removed (ekkopto), and toward (kai eis)
the fire (pyr), it is thrown (ballo). (7:19)
So then indeed (ara ge), by (apo) their (autos) production (karpos), you
will be able through careful observation and studious contemplation to
actually know and understand them (epiginosko autos). (7:20)
Not (ou) any (pas) one saying (legon) to Me (moi), Lord (kyrie) Lord
(kyrie), will actually as a result enter into (eiserchomai eis) the kingdom of
the heavens (ten basileian ton ouranon), but by contrast (alla) the one
presently acting upon (o poieomai) the purpose and desire (thelema) of (tou)
My (mou) Father (patros), the One (tou) in the heavens (en tois ouranois).
(7:21)
Many (polys) will say (erousin) to Me (moi) in that specific day (en ekeinos
te hemera), Lord (kyrie) Lord (kyrie), in Your (to so) name (onoma) did we
not actively speak genuinely inspired utterances (ou propheteuo)? Also (kai) in
Your (to so) name (onoma), we drove out (ekballo) demons (daimonion), and
(kai) in Your (to so) name (onoma), many mighty and miraculous things
(pollas dynamis), we made and did (poieomai). (7:22) And then (kai tote) I will
profess to them (homologeo autois) that because (oti) I never at any time knew
you (oudepote ginosko umas), you all must depart from Me (apochoreo apo
emou) those (oi) of you involved in (ergazomai ten) Torahlessness, who are in
opposition to and have attempted to negate the Towrah, thereby, those of you
without the Towrah (anomia). (7:23)
Everyone (pas), therefore then (oun) who (ostis) presently and actively
listens to (akouo) these (toutous) statements (logos) of Mine (mou), and (kai) he
or she genuinely acts upon them (poieomai autous), will be likened to
(homoioo) a wise, intelligent and astute, a prudent and sensible (phronimos)
individual (andros) who (ostis) edifies and strengthens (oikodomeo) his or her
(autos) house (oikia) upon the (epi ten) rock (petra). (7:24) And even when
(kai) the rain (e broche) descends (katabaino), (kai) the rivers (oi potamos)
come (erchomai), and the rapidly shifting winds (anemos) blow (pneo),
descending upon (prospipto) this specific (te ekeine) home and household (te
oikia), then (kai) it shall not fail (ouk pipto) because (gar) the foundation was
previously established and is enduring (themelioo) upon (epi) the rock
(petra). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:25)
 Yahowah and Yahowsha are of one mind, affirming the same testimony.
Yahowshas Disciples universally concur. The only one with bellowing a
different story in an effort to shift our attention is Paul.
Although the Rock (duly noting the connection between Yahowshas chosen
moniker for one man and His assessment of another) has made his point in this
regard, I would be remiss if I didnt share the last two lines of Shimowns epistle.
In the context of Pauls remaining letters being twisted and misunderstood, even
inferior and destructive, what he wrote next is especially relevant.
You, therefore (gmeis oun), beloved (agapetos dear esteemed ones, those
set apart and welcomed), now knowing this in advance (proginosko currently
possessing this foreknowledge), you should be observant, on guard, keeping
your distance (phylassomai you should choose to keep away and abstain by
being especially watchful and protective, isolating yourself from this, completely
disassociating to be safe) in order that (hima) not (me) in or of this (te ton) un-
appointed, unprincipled, and irreverent (athesmon unrighteous and
licentious, unjust and Torahless, self-gratifying) deceptive delusion (plane
perversion and corruption), you are forsaken, having been led astray (ekpipto
synapagomai you yield and fall, you are carried away, drifting off course, and
you are judged, being held accountable, submitting to an improper association
with the lowly and inadequate (the meaning of paulos), perishing) from the
steadfast and dependable One (tou sterigmos idiou from the firm and
unchanging guarantee of the One who saves). (2 Shimown / He Listens / Peter
3:17)
Shimown Kephas warned the Galatians to be on their guard, to be especially
observant, keeping their distance from Paulos, so as not to be led astray into
deception or delusion by the un-appointed one, the unprincipled one, who sought
to gratify himself by annulling the Towrah. The only thing worse than being
forsaken by Yahowah is to be judged by Him. And the best way to prevent that
from happening to you is to recognize that Gods guidance is dependable, serving
as a never changing guarantee of salvation. But for you to do that, you will first
have to reject Paul.
Its little wonder that Christians disassociate Peters last statement from the
preceding one. This one line undermines most of what Paul will say in the
remainder of his Galatians epistle, because the Disciple is establishing the fact
that Gods message is dependable because it never changes, in effect affirming
Yahowshas statement that the Torah was and will always be the source of life.
The Galatians, and also us based upon the public distribution of the
Disciples letter, have been made aware that Pauls epistles would lead countless
people astray, into deception and delusion, causing many to forego salvation. In
this regard, dikaiosune remains Shimowns fulcrum term. As you recall, it speaks
of thinking correctly so as to become acceptable, of becoming upright by
observing Gods directions, and of exposing the evidence required to teach and
prove something is consistent and authorized.
Therefore, those who twist Peters words relative to Pauls epistles, and thus
misinterpret the Disciples overwhelmingly critical assessment of Pauline
Doctrine, convoluting a condemnation into a glowing endorsement, must ignore
or reject everything that was written before and after the supposed
characterization.
If an endorsement, why would Shimown tell those he loves to be wary of
Pauls epistles, to be on their guard lest they be led astray into the delusion of the
un-appointed one and thus lose their hope of salvation? After all, if he isnt
advising us to be wary of Pauls letters, then the Rock would be suggesting that
the Torah itself is a hindrance to understanding. And since thats ridiculous in the
context of Shimowns Discipleship, the Rocks conclusion affirms he was
condemning Shauwls epistles, not commending them.
The purpose of the Covenant, in fact the purpose of the entirety of the
Towrah, is for us to become our Heavenly Fathers children and grow as a result.
Shimown Kephas says as much...So grow in mercy and knowledge of
Yahowah, our Upright One and Savior, the Maaseyah Yahowsha. To Him
the splendor, brilliance, and greatness, now and throughout all time. This is
truthful and reliable. (2 Shimown / He Listens / Peter 3:18) Knowledge and
understanding leads to trust and reliance upon the eternal Light of the universe.
Notwithstanding the last two statements, if 2 Shimown 3:16 represents the
lone Christian affirmation that Pauls letters were Scriptureword for word
inspired by Godthen they are out on a limb of their own making. The Rock
gave no such assurances. And these were his last words.

Before we move on, its past time we consider another ugly underpinning of
Christianity: Marcion of Sinope. His influence is especially relevant here because
Papyrus 72, the oldest extant manuscript containing Peters epistles, was likely
influenced by his scribes. Suffice it to say for now that Marcion played a pivotal
role in the formation of the New Testament canon, especially with regard to
textual liberty (inaccuracy), and the inclusion of Pauls contradictory epistles.
Born to a bishop in Sinope around 85 CE, Marcion, a wealthy ship owner, fled to
Rome during Rabbi Akibas Bar Kokhba revolt in 133 CE. There, he studied
under Cerdo, an influential Gnostic.
In the process, Marcion became a raging anti-Semite who rejected Yahowah
and the entirety of His Torah and Prophets, and Psalms. He saw Paulos of Tarsus
as the only true Apostle, and he sought to elevate his thirteen epistles, as well as
his own significantly edited version of Luke and Acts (which were written under
Pauls influence), elevating their status, while at the same time rejecting all other
books. In his view, one which shaped Christendom in the second and third
centuries (and on to this day), Yahowah was a lesser, wrathful, tyrant and evil
demiurge when compared to the all-forgiving, loving, and gracious god, Ieosus
Christos, found in Pauls epistles. Ironically, his dualistic view was both Gnostic
in nature and shared by the Jewish theologian, Moses Maimonides blending the
worst of Greek philosophy and rabbinical thinking, not unlike Paul, himself.
Had it not been for Marcion, in all likelihood, all of Pauls letters would have
been rejected as apocrypha and ultimately disassociated from the eyewitness and
historical texts. They would not have been canonized. And had this occurred, the
Christian religion would not exist.
Christians are universally ignorant of the influence Marcion had on their faith
because Marcionism was ultimately denounced as heresy in 144 CE, not so much
because he was wrong, but because he became a competitor of the emerging
Church, threatening their desired exclusivity over establishing doctrine and
manuscript production. He was, therefore, bad for business. But that didnt stop
Marcion from preaching to large crowds and forever altering the mindset of the
religious community.
Foremost among his influences, Marcion was the first to capitalize on Pauls
categorization in Galatians 1:4, where he claimed that what Yahowah had
revealed represented the aionos old system of past circumstances which
Yahowsha was exaireo tearing out because it was poneros
disadvantageous ineffective, thereby coining the term Old Testament, in the
sense of being the obsolete will of a now retired and out of touch deity. In its
place, and as a replacement, he promoted Pauls New Testament, a canon
comprised of the Pauline epistles, and his heavily edited versions of Luke and
Actswhere all things Jewish were demeaned. In the process, Marcion
promoted the division Shauwl had established, one which had not previously
existed. Capitalizing on Pauls letters to the Galatians and Romans, he advanced
the notion that the Torah was now obsolete, having been replaced by the Gospel
of Grace. Anything which didnt support this view was either erased or ignored.
It was a transition in perspective that would influence and haunt Christianity
forevermore.
 And while these teachings and titles continue to permeate Christian doctrine,
Marcions most haunting legacy was his propensity to edit the text so that it could
be interpreted to support the religious views he shared with Paul. Over time,
Marcion became the father of whats called the Western, Popular, or Free
text of the Christian New Testament. Under his influence, scribes were
encouraged to harmonize the accounts, improve their readability, and add popular
traditions and beliefs as they saw fit. Marcion not only made copious copies of his
Gospel and Bible, his followers became prolific copyists, and using
Marcions considerable wealth, they flooded the empire with their versions of
Luke, Acts, and the Pauline epistles. As a result of the sheer quantity, immense
popularity, and appealing anti-Semitic tone of their manuscripts, much of what
now appears in todays Majority Texts of the Christian New Testament is
suspect because it has all been heavily edited. Proof of this is the realization that
there are more than three-hundred thousand known discrepancies between the
oldest manuscripts nearly twice as many variations as there are words in these
codices.
Papyrus 72, the late third-century manuscript we were unfortunately required
to use in our rendering of Second Shimown / Peter (in that it is the oldest
surviving witness to the Disciples letters), is the most Free, and thus least
reliable, of the seventy manuscripts which predate Constantine. It was written by
someone who was neither a professional scribe, nor interested in accurately
conveying what had previously been written. And as such, Marcions fingerprints
are all over it. Therefore, we need to be sensitized to anything and everything
which artificially elevates Paulespecially when derived from the hand of
Shauwls most outspoken critics, the Disciples Shimown, Yaaqob, and
Yahowchanan.

Yahowsha made yet another prediction regarding Shauwl. And just as

Shimowns last words warned us about this man, the following prophetic
admonition was the last Yahowsha would make before returning home.
As was His custom, Gods preamble provided the information we need to
understand His prediction, so lets begin where this specific conversation began.
But keep in mind, this is actually a translation of what Yahowsha said in Hebrew
into Greek and then into English. Also, with the exception of portions of seven
words from a tattered one by three inch fragment of the 18th and 19th verses on
P109 dating from the late second century, nothing prior to the wholesale
corruption of the text under Constantines Roman Catholicism in the mid 4th
century exists from which to verify the authenticity of this translation. So while
the fragment from the 2nd century affirms that this conversation took place, and
that Yahowchanan recorded it, we must be careful reading too much into the
words themselves as they were subject to translation and copyedit.
This conversation followed a theme which completely undermines
Christianity and its bogus notion of bodily resurrection. Yahowchanan, who
recorded these words as an eyewitness, was with Shimown Kephas (meaning: He
Listens to the Rock), Taowm (known as Thomas today but called Didumos, with
both names suggesting that he was a twin), Nathanel (meaning: the Gift of God),
the sons of Zabdy (meaning: Endowment and transliterated Zebedee), and two
other unnamed Disciples, had gathered together on the shores of the Sea of
Tiberias to go fishing. And as was the case with every prior meeting with
Yahowsha after His fulfillment of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym, not even
those who knew Him best, and who had recently seen Him, could recognize Him.
That is the antithesis of what we would expect to read if bodily resurrection
occurred, again negating the preeminent claim of the Christian religion.
These things known, please note the change from agapas showing and
taking pleasure in love to phileo engaging in a loving familial relationship as
Yahowshas conversation with Shimown progresses.
This was already the third time (outos ede tritos) Yahowsha ( a
placeholder used by the Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey Yahowsha
Yahowah Saves) was seen (phaneroo was disclosed and displayed, made
known and revealed) with the Disciples who were Learners (tois mathetes to
the followers who were students being educated regarding the relationship),
having been aroused and equipped to stand up (egertheis having been caused
to be recalled, restored, and appear; from agora assembling His facilities and
collecting His capabilities for the purpose of being seen, debated, and chosen in a
public place) out of lifelessness (ek nekron out of breathing His last breath,
being spiritually deficient in a state of ineffectiveness and powerlessness, unable
to respond, departed and separated). (21:14)
Therefore (oun as a result), while (hote when) they ate breakfast
(aristao they consumed food early in the morning), He says (lego He speaks)
to (to) Shimown Kephas (Simoni Petro an awkward transliteration of the
Hebrew Shimown, meaning He Listens, combined with a translation of the
Aramaic Kephas to the Greek word Rock) being Yahowsha / Yahowah
Saving (o a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint
to convey following the article o in the nominative: being Yahowsha, meaning
being Yahowah Saving), Shimown of Yahowchanan / He who listens to
Yahowahs Mercy (Simon Ioannou crude transliterations of Shimown He
Listens to Yahowchanan Yahowahs Mercy), do you show your love for Me
more than these (agapas me pleon do you take pleasure in, desire, and express
your love for Me to a greater degree than these)?
He says to Him (legei auto), Yes (vai verily acknowledging agreement),
Yahowah ( a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the
Septuagint to convey edon, the Upright One, or Yahowahs name), You are
aware (ou oieda You realize, know, acknowledge, and appreciate) that I am
engaged in a loving relationship with You (oti phileo de that I have great
affection for You based upon our friendly and familial association; from philos
to engage in a close, family-oriented relationship as a companion similar to a
marriage).
He says to him (legei auto), Feed (boskomai tend to, caringly guide, and
nourish) My sheep (ta arnia mou the young lambs of Mine). (21:15)
He says to him (legei autos) again, a second time (palin deuteros),
Shimown, of Yahowchanan / He who listens to Yahowahs Mercy (Simon
Ioannou transliterations of Shimown He Listens to Yahowchanan Yahs
Mercy), do you love Me (agapas me do you revere and respect Me)?
He says to Him (legei auto), Yes (vai verily acknowledging agreement),
Yahowah ( a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the
Septuagint to convey edon, the Upright One, or Yahowahs name), You are
aware (ou oieda You realize, know, acknowledge, and appreciate) that I am
engaged in a loving relationship with You (oti phileo de that I love You
fondly as my close friend and that I have great affection for You based upon our
family-oriented relationship).
He says to him (legei auto), Shepherd (poimaino acting as a shepherd
guide, care for, feed, protect, tend to, and assist) My sheep (ta probate mou My
adult flock). (21:16)
He says to him (legei autos) a third time (to tritos), Shimown, of
Yahowchanan / He who listens to Yahowahs Mercy (Simon Ioannou
transliterations of Shimown He Listens to Yahowchanan Yahs Mercy), are
you engaged in a loving, family-oriented relationship with Me (phileo me are
you My companion and friend; from philos to engage in a close, familial
relationship akin to a marriage)?
The Rock (o Petros a translation of Kephas, the Aramaic word for rock)
was saddened (lypeomai was grieved and distressed) because (oti) He said to
him a third time (eipen auto to triton) Are you engaged in a covenant
relationship with Me (philies me are you participating in a close, friendly, and
family-oriented association with Me consistent with the vows of a marriage)?
 So he says to Him (kai legei auto), Yahowah ( a placeholder used by
Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey edon, the Upright One, or
Yahowahs name), You are aware (oidas su You perceive and realize, know
and recognize) of everything (panta of all of this). You (ou) know and
understand (ginosko through examining the evidence and evaluating it
recognize and realize) that I am engaged in the loving, family-oriented,
covenant relationship with You (oti pilo de that I have great affection my
association with You, see You as friend and family).
Says to him (legei auto) Yahowsha / Yahowah Saving (o a
placeholder used by the Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey Yahowsha
Yahowah Saves), Nurture and tend to (boskomai feed and nourish, care for
and guide) My sheep (probaton mou My adult flock). (Yahowchanan /
Yahowah is Merciful / John 21:14-17)
Yahowsha, whom it appears Shimown Kephas of Yahowchanan
thoughtfully and appropriately addressed as Yahowah in His post Bikuwrym
state based upon the Divine Placeholder, wasnt talking to His pupil about
grazing, about sheep, or about animal husbandry. The sheep were a reference to
Yahowahs Covenant children. It is why Yahowah is called My Shepherd in
the 24th Psalm, and is credited with guiding, nurturing, and protecting His flock.
Their food is the Towrah. As a shepherd, Yahowah through Yahowsha
was asking His Disciple to guide and protect His flock, keeping His sheep out
of harms way, while keeping the wolves at bay. And never forget, they were and
remain His sheep, not Peters, and especially not Pauls, not a popes or a
pastors.
Tending to Yahowahs Covenant children requires a shepherd to be
properly prepared, which means Shimown would have to diligently study
Yahowahs Towrah while comparing Yahowshas words and deeds to it, so that
he would be able to teach our Heavenly Fathers children what they need to know
to survive and grow, and to be properly nourished and guided.
To tend the most highly valued sheep in the universe, the Rock would have
to remain observant, which is to say that he must be vigilant, never letting his
guard down, lest a diseased or vicious predator, unfit food, improper guidance, or
an unauthorized shepherd mislead Gods flock. And the best way to do that would
be to nurture Yahs children on the merits of the Torah, so that they would be
equipped to care for their children for generations to come.
Agapao, the verb meaning to love, and agape, the noun for love, express
the ideas of showing love, expressing love, and enjoying love. Agapao is from
agan, meaning much, thus emphasizing quantity versus quality. And while the
verb phileo can also be rendered love, its etymology, based as it is on philos
friendly and familial association akin to a marriage relationship, is more focused
upon the nature of the relationship than the feelings associated with it. Phileo
was, therefore, being deployed in translation to ask Shimown whether or not he
was engaged in the family-oriented covenant relationship Yahowah established
in His Towrah. While our response to our Heavenly Father saving us may be
agapao, this emotional retort, while appropriate, isnt as important as whether or
not we phileo have engaged in the Covenant.
Cognizant that Yahowah was telling Shimown Kephas to fend off false
prophets by properly feeding, directing, and protecting His children, regardless of
place or race, Yahowsha provided this prophecy to Shimown regarding Shauwl
before returning to Yahowah
Truly (amen), truly (amen this is certain and reliable), I say (lego) to you
(soi), when you were younger (ote es neoteros), you were girding yourself
(ezonnues seauton you were fastening the ties of your own garments, preparing
yourself for work, clothing yourself in protective armor (second person singular
imperfect active indicative of zonnymi)), and you were walking (peripateo you
were living, traveling around, conducting, and directing your life) wherever you
were intending and whenever you decided (hotan thelo otan as often as you
were proposing and as long as you wanted, desire, and determined).
But (de) when you grow older (gerasko when you age), you will extend
(ekteneis as a gesture you will hold out, stretching forth) your hands (tas
cheipas sou) and another (kai allos and a different kind of person) will gird
you, placing a yoke on you to control you (se zosei will fasten a strap around
your midst; from zugos imposing a yoke of bondage to manipulate and control,
used to depict the burden of troublesome religious laws and commands (future
active indicative third person singular)) and he will move (kai oisei he will
bring, manipulate, and drive (future active indicative third person singular)) you
to a place where you do not presently intend or desire (hopou ou thelo you
do not currently want, wish, propose, or determine (present active indicative
second person singular)). (21:18)
And then this (touto de in addition, therefore this is what), He said (eipen
but now this He shared, providing meaning) making the future clear,
signifying (semaino intentionally producing an insight to indicate, make known,
and foretell) what kind of (poios to answer questions regarding the manner,
nature, and whereabouts) deadly plague (thanatos pandemic death and physical
demise, judgment separating dying and diseased souls) he will attribute to
Yahowah (doxasei ton N he will impart and extol as being supposedly worthy
regarding his opinion and estimate on how to properly judge, value, and view
God).
 And this (kai touto) having been conveyed (eipon having been
communicated), He said to him (lego auto), You should choose to follow Me
(akoloutheo moi you should decide to actively accompany Me and engage as
My Disciple, learning from Me and electing to side with Me on My path; from a
to be unified and one with keleuthos the Way (present active imperative)).
(Yahowchanan / Yahowah is Merciful / John 21:18-19)
Since this follows God asking Shimown to shepherd His children, to feed
them, to protect them, and to guide them, wherever they may be, when He speaks
of the Disciples current liberty to accomplish this mission being constrained in
the future by another person, we should be looking to identify the man (third
person masculine singular in the text) who openly sought to limit Shimowns
ability to influence individuals outside of Yisrael. The second clue that we were
given to identify this villain is that he attributed a deadly plague to God, in
essence killing millions of people with his words. Third, since this advisory
concludes with Yahowsha encouraging Shimown to follow His Way instead of
the path proposed by his future adversary, and recognizing that Yahowsha was
the living manifestation of the Torah, we should be on the lookout for someone
whose philosophy differed from Gods, someone who was demonstrably opposed
to the Torah, its Covenant, and its Invitations to Meet with God. And fourth, since
this is a prophecy, for it to have merit, this heinous man would have to be known
to history, he would have to appear on the scene within a reasonable number of
years, and he would have to caustically interact with Shimown during that time,
limiting the Disciples audience, while attempting to thwart his ability to negate
this foes contrarian message.
I know such a man, and so do you. Shauwl is a perfect fit in every regard.
And I dare anyone reading this material to suggest any other viable candidate.
Youll notice that this begins and ends with freedom. And that is because the
children of the Covenant, like Shimown and all of those who follow Yahowsha,
are liberated by the Towrah. It is the great irony of religion, the putrid misnomer
of Christianity. Beguiled by Paul into believing that they are emancipated from
the Law by believing Jesus Gospel of Grace, in reality by rejecting the
Towrahs guidance and therefore Yahowshas path, Christians are controlled by
the religion that claimed to free them. Moreover, all who follow Yahowsha are
Torah observant because He was Torah observant. It is nonsensical to believe that
one can reject the former without also denying the latter.
The Towrahs prescriptions for living, and its means to resolve disputes,
when approached by those embracing the terms of the Covenant, not only free us
from all forms of human oppression, they bequeath Yahowahs promised benefits:
eternal life, vindication, adoption, enrichment, and empowerment. This is the
Way of Yahowsha, the path He not only followed, but also encouraged
Shimown and all of us to walk along with Him, learning from Him along the
way.
This explains why Yahowsha encouraged Shimown of Yahowahs Mercy to
be wary of the man who would try to put his own yoke upon him. It would lead
not to life, as Paul would promise, but instead to the death of billions to the
greatest pandemic the world would ever know: Pauline Christianity. And this is
why Yahowah said Sheowl is the plague of death.
The Hebrew equivalent of the Greek thanatos that Yahowsha almost
assuredly communicated to Shimown is deber. It speaks of diseased
statements, of words which plague, of pandemic death resulting from a
spoken or written message. Deber is not only associated with divine judgment,
but it is also a thorn and a sharp pointed stick, also known as a goad
things which are directly associated with Shauwl and his poison pen. Further
cementing debers place in this discussion, it depicts a pasture where flocks of
sheep are grazed. Therefore, Yahowsha was not predicting Shimowns ultimate
demise, but instead the deadly plague that would be unleashed upon the world by
his rival Shauwl.
Unfortunately, as was the case with much of what Yahowsha told His
Disciples, Yahowchanan, the eyewitness who chronicled this conversation, may
not have understood its prophetic intent. If he actually wrote the commentary
which was added much later, then he incorrectly assumed, especially with
Yahowshas crucifixion vivid in his mind, that the reference to ekteneis tas
cheipas sou you will extend your hands was a prophetic portrayal of the nature
of Shimowns death. But in context, its obvious that this isnt possible because
those who are nailed to a wooden beam become immovable, and thus cannot be
taken to a place they do not intend. Moreover, since we dont actually know how
Shimown died, its likely that the commentary was added much later by a scribe
to keep the prediction from appearing irrelevant. And since I dont suppose
Yahowsha squandered His last opportunity to talk directly to His Disciples by
conveying an immaterial message, Im inclined to do as we have done, and
ascertain exactly what He was predicting. And in this regard, we were given many
useful clues some of which we have already deployed to identify our villain.
The most compelling words which lead us to the perpetrator are: zosei, oisei,
semaino, doxasei, and akoloutheo. On the surface they mean gird, move,
clearly predict, opinion attributed, and follow, respectively. But to fully
appreciate the prophecy, we will have to dig a little deeper just as we did with
thanatos.
Zosei, translated will gird you, placing a yoke on you to control you, is
from zugos, which means to tie together so as to yoke, to apply a burden, or to
enslave. Those who are zosei and zugos will find a strap fastened around their
midst by someone who is trying to control and manipulate them. Yahowsha is
translated using the term to depict the burden of troublesome religious laws and
commands which were imposed by man. It was also used by Shimown in his
debate against Shauwl during the Yaruwshalaim Summit.
Remember Acts 15:10: Now, therefore, why do you test and tempt
(peirazo do you (speaking to Shauwl and Barnabas) look for mistakes and try
to exploit and trap) God, to place upon and impose a yoke (zugos a
mechanism for controlling the movement of animals) upon the neck of the
Disciples which neither our fathers nor we were given the authority to
accept, support, put up with, or endure in our walk? (Acts 15:10) I suspect
that Shimown used zugos expressly because of Yahowshas warning seventeen
years earlier.
He will move, was transcribed in the third person singular, affirming that
there is one solitary male individual in the Disciples future who would attempt to
manipulate the Rock, dragging Yahowshas Apostle to a place he had not
intended. And we find this occurrence bluntly conveyed in Galatians with
Shauwl condemning Shimown and pushing the Disciple out of Antioch, driving
him back to Yaruwshalaym. Shauwls rhetoric and force of personality,
especially the devotion he seemed to garner initially with his followers, caused
Shimown to cower as he had before on Passover, and even retreat, leaving
Yahowshas flock to be devoured by a wolf in sheeps clothing. Keep in mind,
Yahowsha, as He had before, let Shimown know that this would occur.
Adding fuel to the fire, as we shall soon witness in Ephesus, in Acts 19, Paul
admits to setting boundaries for Yahowshas Disciples, notably Shimown and
Yahowchanan. And even Kephass comments regarding Pauls epistles were used
in a way the Rock never intended. Rather than being seen correctly, as a
warning to Gods sheep, telling them to be on their guard lest Pauls epistles
confuse them and lead them to their own demise, Christendom twisted what
Peter wrote to infer that Pauls letters were Scripture. The Disciple had been
taken to a place he did not intend to go.
Beyond the fact that these words came from the mouth of God, beyond the
fact that this was His last prophecy prior to returning to heaven, Yahowsha is
translated using semaino, a word which affirms that this was a prophetic
prediction, one which was designed to clearly communicate a future event,
making it known to us. As such, only a fool would ignore its implications, one
focused upon the most deadly plague ever foisted upon human kind. And in this
light, there is only one possible perpetrator, the man who did this very thing.
 We have already examined thanatos, associating it with the Hebrew deber, so
we recognize that the revelation Yahowsha wanted to make perfectly clear was
the demise of billions of diseased souls, all separated from their Shepherd, from
life, nourishment, protection, and guidance, as a result of the words one man
would write while doxasei ton N attributing his opinions to God. And that,
more than anything else, was the problem. Had Shauwl not claimed that his
message was inspired, he would have been summarily rejected for being insane,
for being arrogant, presumptuous, and delusional. But Paul provided a new,
entirely different way to view God, one that made salvation as simple as
believing. There was nothing to know, nothing to do, and the saved were at liberty
to sin. All that was required was to believe Paul while ignoring God, His
prophets, and His disciples.
As a compound of a, signifying unity and being part of, and keleuthos, the
Way, Yahowsha used akoloutheo to tell Shimown to Follow the Waythe
narrow path to God continually described by Yahowsha as being accurately and
completely delineated within the Towrah. This is especially relevant when
considered adjacent to Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:5:
Moreover, because the intoxicating wine and inebriating spirit of the
man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal who tries to influence
and control others without justification through trickery and deceit is a high-
minded moral failure, an arrogant and meritless man of presumption, so he
will not rest, find peace, nor live, whoever is open to the broad path, the
duplicitous and improper way associated with Shauwl. He and his soul are
like the plague of death. And so those who are brought together by him,
receiving him, those who associate with and join him, those who are removed
and withdrawn from the company of God, assembling with him, will not be
satisfied. All of the Gentiles will gather together unto him, all of the people
from different races and places.
Written as akolouoei, it was rendered in the present active imperative tense.
The use of the present active tense indicates that He wanted the man He had
trained to follow The Way right now, at this very instant, and never stop. The
imperative mood was deployed to express that this instruction was subject to the
exercise of freewill, and yet it was expressing an earnest desire. This was
supportive advice upon which a choice should be made, and thus in full
recognition that Shimowns volition was in play.
Yahowsha wanted the Rock to Follow His Way to the Fathernot
Pauls way of faith which was different (by his own admission) and led in the
opposite direction.
 Should you want additional proof that it was appropriate to refer to Shauwl
as a wolf in sheeps clothing, lets turn our attention to Baresyth / Genesis
49:27. There, Yahowah spoke about Shauwl, the man who has become the most
infamous member of Benjamins tribe.
But first, lets affirm that Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin. The wolf in
sheeps clothing wrote, notably and admittedly communicating his own personal
mantra, wrote: I say (lego I speak and I provide meaning), therefore (oun
indeed as a result), not (ue) pushed away, rejected, or repudiated (apotheomai
cast aside, thrust or driven away) the God (o ) the people of Him (laos
autou the nation of Him). Not may it be (ue genoito). And yet (kai so then)
indeed (gar), I, myself, am (ego eimi) an Israelite (Israelites transliteration of
Hebrew Yisrael), from (ek out of) the seed (sperma semen singular) of
Abraam (Abraam a transliteration of the Hebrew Abram), the tribe (phyle) of
Benjamin (Beniamin a transliteration of the Hebrew Benyamyn). (Romans
11:1)
While the connection to Benjamin was all we were looking for, Id be remiss
if I didnt correct Pauls erroneous statements. God temporarily rejected Yisrael
in Howsha / He Saves / Hosea, divorcing them for infidelity because they, like
Paul, embraced the religions of the Gentiles. And He has repudiated their political
and religious leaders countless times for their false teachings. So while Yisrael
and Yahuwdym will be reconciled with Yahowah on the Day of Reconciliations
in 2033, Pauls not may it be is in direct conflict with Gods testimony. Further,
Yisrael and Yahuwdym were supposed to be a people set apart unto Yahowah,
making them the antithesis of laos common.
However, since Shauwl has shown his utter disregard for Abraham,
consistently referring to him by his pre-Covenant name, Abram, and will profess
in his letter to the Galatians that the Covenant he formed with Yahowah enslaved
and thus had to be replaced, its Shauwl who has rejected Yisrael. He also
repudiated Moseh and the Torah, Dowd and his songs he wrote to the Torah, and
all of the Hebrew prophets, including the most Hebrew of prophets, Yahowsha,
even pushing His Disciples, all of whom were Yisraelites, away.
Since we know that Paul has a propensity to twist Gods Word, it is
incumbent upon us to determine why. And in this case, the reason is obvious.
Pauls theory is that, since God has not rejected all of His people (at least
according to Paul), it serves to reason that He has not repudiated me, for
indeed I, myself, am an Israelite. Simply stated, Paul was bad to the bone.
Also, there was a twinge of Shauwls messianic complex being revealed
here because Paul said that he is from the seed (singular) of Abram, a
distinction that would otherwise be redundant to being an Israelite. The notion
that there was only one seed of Abram will be twisted in the third and fourth
chapters of Galatians to jump from Abraham to Yahowsha, bypassing the
Towrah. But now according to Shauwl, he, himself, is that seed.
Before we consider Yahowahs prediction regarding Shauwl, the Benjamite,
remember that in the Chabaquwq / Habakkuk prophecy which calls Shauwl out
by name, we find a reference to a later time: So therefore the expectation and
subsequent realization of this revelation from God is for the appointed
meeting time. It provides a witness to and speaks in the end. Whatever
extended period of time is required for this question to be resolved this shall
not be proven false. Expect him in this regard because indeed he will
absolutely come, neither being delayed nor lingering. (Chabaquwq / Embrace
This / Habakkuk 2:3) With this in mind, the preamble to Yahowahs next
indictment is found in Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis 49:1, where we
read: And Yaaqob called his sons and said, Gather together so that I may
declare to you what is to befall you in the last days.
Then, speaking of this Benjamite, and his animosity toward the Maaseyah
(who was presented coming from Yahuwdah in verses 8-12), the Towrah reveals
that at the time of the Maaseyah: Benjamin (Benyamyn) is a wolf (zaeb a
predatory animal) viciously tearing apart, continually mangling and actually
killing (taraph tearing and plucking the life out of his victims) in (ba) the
morning (boqer early part of the day), consistently devouring (akal actually
feeding upon) his prey (ad), and in the evening (ereb during the dark of night
at the end of the day), he divides and destroys (halaq he apportions, assigns,
and distributes that which they have harmed and ruined) that which has been
spoiled (shalal possessions of value, plunder, and prey). (Baresyth / In the
Beginning / Genesis 49:27)
The horrible crime perpetrated by this wolf from the tribe of Benjamin would
occur during the very period of time Yahowsha predicted. In the tenth verse of
this same discussion, we were told: And the tribe and scepter (shebet the
family and authority) shall not depart (lo bow) from (min) Yahuwdah
(Yahuwdah those who are related to Yahowah), or the staff of the leader with
the authority to inscribe instructions (wa mahoqeq the power to lead and to
write authorized prescriptions for living; from chaqaq to cut in and cut out, to
inscribe and engrave, and to establish guidance (scribed in the rare poel stem,
whereby the object receives the benefits of the verbs action)) for understanding
(min byn) His footsteps (regel), until (ad) indeed (ky) the arrival (bow) of
Shyloh (Shyloh to Him whom these things belong and from whom
reconciliation flows (the home of the Ark of the Covenant and the Tabernacle of
the Witness which is used in reference to the Maaseyah)).
 At the close of the fourth millennia, every tribe except Yahuwdah and
Benyamyn were lost and thus unknown, this being the legacy of the Assyrian
conquest of the Northern Kingdom six hundred years earlier. And immediately
after Shauwl penned his last letter, it became impossible for either of the two
remaining tribes to demonstrate affiliation because Rome razed the Temple where
all of their genealogical records were stored. As such, the time marked from the
arrival of Shyloh to the destruction of Temple is so constrained, there really is no
other viable candidate for this dire prophecy other than Shauwl.
Hebrew lexicons affirm that Benyamyn is a compound of ben, meaning son,
and yamyn, conveying either right, right hand, or south. As such, we might see
this connotation reflected in Shauwls attempt to take the upper hand and
position himself as Gods right hand man, thereby replacing Yahowsha and
His Disciples. Or perhaps, this could be a reference to Paul leading his flock
Christianssouth, and therefore back into the wilderness. Also interesting,
Shauwl has already spoken of the right hand being offered to him. And it has
become obvious that Shauwl, a man whose name is indistinguishable from
Sheowl, served at Satans right hand.
Perhaps also we should look at yam in the names root. Yam is the Hebrew
word for sea, and it is symbolic of Gowym, distinct from Yahuwdym who are
associated with the erets land. It is hard to miss Pauls repetitive and
braggadocios claim of dominion over Gentiles.
As we examine Yahowahs Towrah prediction, we find that taraph
plucking the life out of his victims is an accurate prophetic portrayal of what
Shauwl would do to Christians in addition to being a rather precise match for
thanatos in Yahowshas statement to Shimown. Written in the qal imperfect, as
was akal consistently devouring, taraph viciously killing reveals that the
wolf actually tore them apart, continually mangling what God had promised,
consistently ripping the life out of the Torah which ultimately led to the
ongoing and unfolding death of countless Christian souls. Shauwl continually
devoured the truth, leaving nothing but a rotting and neglected carcass in his
wake.
Shauwl was indeed cunning as a zaeb wolf. He was a predator
masquerading as the Shepherds right hand while dressed as one of His sheep,
all to pluck souls away from the flock.
Boqer in the morning, meaning the first part of the day, is also
insightful. To begin, Paul was the first to mangle Yahowshas message. As
Thomas Jefferson wrote: Paul was the great Coryphaeus (voice and leader of the
chorus), and the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. (From Jeffersons
letter to W. Short (Published in The Great Thoughts by George Seldes (Ballantine
Books, 1985, page 208)))
Second, Pauls treachery occurred at the very onset of the fifth day of human
history, at least as measured from the fall of Adam. So this timing is indicative of
his arrival. According to the Baresyth / Genesis account, and history, this is the
time of confusion when new religions would and now have ravaged the world.
Third, the morning reference adroitly connects Yahowshas breakfast
conversation in which the prophecy warning about Pauls predatory practices was
revealed. It makes an otherwise extraneous comment relevant.
And fourth, Shauwl began his career murdering those who came to know
and trust Yahowsha. (Acts 7:58, 8:1-3, and 9:1) And then in Galatians 2:9, he
claims Gentiles has his exclusive territory, thereby marking his prey. His constant
wrangling for money, or plunder, would then dominate his later writings, and thus
represent the evening of his career all in keeping with the prophecy.
Akal, rendered devouring, and meaning to eat and feed upon, in addition
to to consume, ruin, and destroy something valuable, is an even more exacting
fit for Yahowshas prediction. While Shimown was feeding Gods sheep,
Shauwl viciously savaged and devoured him. Likewise, Yahowah is not speaking
of wolves and their prey in a literal sense, but instead, of predators and their
victims, with the prey representing the souls of the sheep He is offering to
protect. Therefore, the wolf and sheep references adroitly connect these two
predictions.
Ereb, translated evening, is indistinguishable in the Hebrew text from
arab, which means desolate and lifeless in addition to making a pledge which
exchanges one thing for another. Pauls promise was that belief in his Gospel of
Grace replaced trusting the Torah. And lest we forget, Shauwls credibility
was derived from his encounter on the road to Damascus and his subsequent
imagined journey to Arabia.
Halaq doesnt just mean divides and destroys. It also speaks of someone
who is a smooth talker, and a slick operator, as well as of the slippery slope
they lead their victims down to their ruin. Halaq is flattery, words that reflect
illegitimate praise. And it describes the use of seductive words which are
deployed to persuade people in a suggestive manner. Paul was the poster child
for halaq.
Additionally, halaq is a smooth stone used as an impromptu religious altar,
and as a stand-in for an imaginary god. Grace, Gratia, and Charis fit this bogus
bill.
 And that leaves us with shalal the spoils, the victims and their
possessions. At the end of the day, under the cover of darkness, Pauls legacy, the
Christian Church, divvies up what they have been able to confiscate from the lives
of those they have destroyed.
So it is hard to miss the connections between Paul and Benjamin, and
between Yahowahs predictive description and Yahowshas prophetic warning.
Benjamin was not only the last name on Yahowahs list, and the last prophecy in
Baresyth / Genesis, the prophetic reference to Shauwl was the last prediction
Yahowsha would make before He returned to heaven.
Once again, there is but one man in all of human history who fits Yahowahs
and Yahowshas prophecies: Shauwl.
Before we move on, it should also be noted that Yahowah provided other
Benjamites a better option: Concerning (la) Benyamyn, he said (amar he
accurately and completely declared (qal stem and perfect conjugation meaning
literally and totally)), The beloved (yadyd those who are attractive to and
loved) of Yahowah ( ) choose to consistently and genuinely live (shakan
elect of their own volition to continually dwell, actually campout, and always
remain (qal stem, imperfect conjugation, jussive meaning collectively conveying
a reality which is an ongoing choice)) by approaching with (la) absolute
confidence through complete trust (betach reliance which is proven and bold,
leading to salvation) upon His, the Almightys (al), protective covering
(chophaph shelter, enclosure, and shield, keeping the beneficiary safe from
harm) over and around him (al) each and every day (kol ha yowm). And by
understanding (wa byn so by comprehending) His supportive garment and
His outstretched arm (katheph His willingness to adorn us by shouldering our
burdens, reaching out His arm while at our side), he lives (shakan he dwells,
camping out, inhabiting His home). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 33:12)
Absolute confidence is the antithesis of faith, putting Yahowahs declaration
in irreconcilable opposition to the fulcrum of Pauline Doctrine, which is salvation
through faith. Diligent and disciplined observation of the prevailing evidence,
followed by careful and discerning consideration of it, leads to knowing and
understanding, which in turn, facilitate trust, and thus engender complete
confidence. And remember, Yahowsha is the outstretched arm and hand of
Yahowah.
 Yahowshas prophetic warning to Shimown was the last He would make
before returning home, but some thirty-nine years later, Yahowsha warned
Yahowchanan about the same wannabe Apostle and those who had now
leagued with him. He said to His beloved Disciple: To the messenger of those
Called Out in Ephesus write.... This was one place where Yahowchanans and
Shauwls footsteps and writings crossed paths. Therefore, the Maaseyah
revealed the following regarding those Yahowchanan had shepherded and the
wolf and his self-proclaimed apostles had tried to snatch away:
I am aware of and recognize (oida) your (sou) works and undertakings
(ergon the things you have responded to and have engaged in), the difficult and
exhausting encounters (kai ton kopos the bothersome trouble burdens
encountered), and your (sou) unswerving and enduring perseverance (kai ten
hypomone continual steadfastness and unwavering dependability, fortitude
under circumstances where others would succumb) and that (kai oti) you cannot
possibly accept, tolerate, support, nor endure (ou dynamai bastazo you
havent the will, desire, ability, or state of mind to take up with, walk along side
of, lift up, or carry forward, advance, sustain, or promote) that which is
incorrect, immoral, injurious, pernicious, destructive, or baneful (kakos
errant, wicked, wrong, evil, harmful, noisome, morally corrupt, diseased,
culpable, mischievous, demonic, or hurtful having an ill effect, a bad nature which
is not as it ought to be, and a mode of thinking, feeling or acting which is invalid).
And you have observed, examined, and objectively tested (kai peirazo
you have scrutinized, coming to learn the nature and character of others through
enquiry, judging them and catching the mistakes of) those who claim and
maintain (tous phasko those who say, affirm, profess, declare, promise, or
preach) of themselves (eautous) that they are (eimi) apostles (apostolos
special messengers who are prepared and sent forth) but are not (kai ouk eisin).
And (kai) you have found them (heurisko autos you have examined and
scrutinized them, you have come to understand, discovering and learning through
closely observing them that they are) false, deceitful, and deliberate liars
(pseudes are pretending to be something they are not, they are erroneous
deceivers). (Revelation 2:2)
It is especially relevant to this statement that Ephesus was the only city listed
among the seven described in Yahowshas Revelation letters where Paul and his
pals were known to have preached. And it is the only one with a warning against
false Apostles. Surely this is not a coincidence.
While Revelation is a prophetic book, Yahowshas commendation was
written in the present and past tense. And that is significant because
Yahowchanan scribed Revelation in 69 CE, seven years after Shauwl wrote his
letter to the Ephesians, and two years after the self-proclaimed apostles death. So
considering the fact that Paul and his traveling companions were the only men
who claimed to be Apostles in Ephesus during this short span of time, Yahowsha
was calling Shauwl an errant, demonic, deceitful, charlatan. We are without
excuse. Christians cannot claim that they were not warned about this horrible
man.
Even Yahowshas parting comments paralleled things we have read
pertaining to the distinction between Yahowahs Way and Pauls way. And you
have loyal steadfastness and enduring consistency (hupomone) and have
endured (bastazo) through My name. You have worked hard (kopiao) and
have not grown tired. (Revelation 2:3)
Since Ive made the claim that Paul and comrades preached in Ephesus, that
they presented a contrarian view to that of Yahowshas Disciples, notably,
Yahowchanan, and thus singled themselves out as being the deceitful liars who
were falsely claiming to be apostles, lets consider the evidence. Ill be providing
this testimony largely based upon the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th
Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear to be as accurate and fair as
possible. This is Pauls personal testimony as recorded by Luke, and so as we
have come to expect, much of what he said is difficult to comprehend.
But it became in the Apollos [Pauls most acclaimed disciple still bore the
name of the Greek god Apollo] to be in Corinth [the Greek city where Paul
preached for the longest period of time and to which he wrote two early letters],
Paulos, having gone through the uppermost parts, came down to Ephesus so
as to find some Disciples. (19:1) But he said against and regarding them, If
conditionally, spirit holy you received having trusted the ones but not him,
then not spirit holy there is we heard. (19:2) He said, But into what then
were you immersed? And they said, Into Yahowchanans immersion.
(19:3) But Paulos said, Yahowchanan immersed immersion of change mind
to the people, saying to the coming after him that they might believe this is in
the Iesous. (19:4) So having heard, they were immersed into the name of the
Lord Iesou. (19:5) And having set on them the hands of Paulou, it came, the
spirit of the holy on them. They were speaking but in tongues and were
uttering prophecy. Were but the all men as twelve. (Acts 19:1-7)
While it is impossible based upon the writing quality to know for certain
what actually happened, it appears that Paul was threatened by the information he
received from Apollos in Corinth. He knew that his message was vastly different
than Yahowshas Disciples, and he was convinced that one or more of them was
treading upon his turf by speaking to these Gentiles. So he headed south, arriving
in Ephesus to find the Disciples who had challenged him. When he arrived, rather
than meeting with Shimown or Yahowchanan, Shauwl sought to undermine
them, suggesting that the Spirit they received as a result of responding to
Yahowchanan was not the right spirit substituting one of his own.
Then this dialogue gets a bit murky because Pauls next sentence has two
hypothetical conditions, three buts, and a negation in the original Greek text.
Navigating through them, it appears that Paul was troubled by the idea that the
Ephesians had been immersed in Yahowchanans message. So Paul immediately
claimed that Yahowchanan had instituted unauthorized changes. He then
questioned the nature of the spirit they had received. So after listening to Pauls
contrarian view, a dozen Ephesians were re-baptized by Paul, with Paul laying his
hands on them. This then imbued these men with an entirely different spirit, one
which caused them to blather on in tongues, believing that they were inspired
prophets. But whatever they were saying, the twelve were now Shauwls
disciples, just as Yahowsha had chosen twelve.
It is telling, however, that Yahowsha never once immersed or baptized
anyone, so there is no need for it and no established way to do it. Therefore, it was
absurd to suggest that Yahowchanans technique was wrong and Shauwls was
right. Further, baptism is not the means Yahowah or Yahowsha designated to
receive the Set-Apart Spirit. There is no mention of it anywhere in the Towrah.
And adding insult to injury, when the Spirit came upon those who were set apart
in Yaruwshalaim on Seven Sabbaths, they were empowered to speak the
languages of the nations surrounding Yisrael. They were not baptized, there was
no laying on of hands, they knew nothing of Shauwl, they did not speak in
tongues, and they did not prophesize.
Unfortunately, Paul was just warming up. But having gone into the
synagogue he was preaching fearlessly (paresiazomai) for three months,
disputing (dialegomai arguing and contending) and persuading (peitho to
coax followers to become disciples and to seduce them to obey) about the
kingdom of the god. (Acts 19:8)
Here, preaching fearlessly was from parhesiazomai, which means that he
was using the freedom to speak in a daring manner. It is a compound of pas,
which means individually, and rheo, meaning to pour forth. So let there be no
mistake: this was Shauwls message and his alone. And equally insightful,
disputing was from dialegomai, which means to argue against someone using
different thinking. It is to contend with and convince through discourse.
Even peitho is telling. It could have been rendered seducing, because it
means to win the favor of others by misleading and coaxing them, even to
conciliate and strive to please. Peitho speaks of tranquilizing those who listen,
inducing them through words to believe, persuading them to favor one individual
over another and to join with them. So it is hard to miss the fact that Paul is
confessing to the crime Yahowsha addressed in His letter to Ephesus through
Yahowchanan.
Also, the order of the verbs is revealing. The message and spirit of
Yahowchanan had to be dialegomai disputed, even argued against by
presenting a different message prior to Paul peitho persuading others to obey
him, winning them over and seducing them to become his followers.
Next we find Shauwls hypocrisy in full bloom. He presented his Gospel of
Grace as the alternative to obeying Gods Torah, which he presents as an
onerous set of laws. And while there is no Hebrew word for obey, and while
Torah does not mean law, Shauwl routinely demanded that his audience obey
him...
But as some were being stubborn (sklerynomai were being hard headed
and obstinate, even offensive and intolerable, refusing to listen) and they were
disobedient (apeitheo they were disobeying, refusing to believe, rejecting faith,
being noncompliant, rebellious, and insubordinate), speaking abusively of and
maligning (kakologeo cursing and maligning, insulting and denouncing) the
way before the crowd. Having revolted against, forsaken, and alienated them
(aphistamai abandoned, avoiding association with them), he appointed and
marked off boundaries, separating (aphorize he set aside and excluded in an
attempt to get rid of) the Disciples (tous mathetes those who had been taught by
and followed Yahowsha) through daily (kata hemera) disputes (dialegomai
arguments and speeches presenting a different message) in the lecture hall of
Tyrannus. (19:9) And this took place for two years so that everyone residing
the Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Judeans and Greeks. (Acts 19:9-
10) (We are continuing to rely on the Nestle-Alands McReynolds English
Interlinear to recount Pauls testimony, while augmenting and clarifying it using
the most highly regarded lexicons.)
If you recall, Yahowsha specifically stated that there were some in Ephesus
who did not believe the false apostle, a reality which has been resoundingly born
out in Pauls own words. And while Yahowsha praised the Ephesians for
rejecting the liar and his lies, Shauwl saw them differently. The very people
Yahowsha commended, Shauwl condemned, calling them sklerynomai
stubborn, hardheaded, and obstinate, even offensive and intolerable, for refusing
to listen. Based upon skleros, Paul viewed those he could not beguile as hard,
harsh, and rough men who were stern, intolerant, offensive, and violent. Thats
almost funny considering the source.
Shauwl went on say that his rivals were apeitheo, which means that he saw
the Disciples as being insubordinate because they disobeyed him and rejected
his faith. If that doesnt take your breath away, considering whom he was
rebelling against, you may want to check your pulse. One of the most egotistical
and presumptuous men to ever purport to speak for God called the Disciples God
had chosen apeitheo disobedient, and that was because they apeitheo
refused to believe him when his message differed from the one God had
conveyed to them in word and deed.
Paul was laying down the law, his law, to which everyone had to obey or
suffer the consequences. There was a new Lord in town.
The next verb in Pauls intolerant diatribe was translated speaking abusively
of and maligning as a rendering of kakologeo, which is to curse and to revile,
denouncing through evil and insulting speech. The verb is a compound of kakos,
which describes that which is of a bad nature and is an inappropriate mode of
thinking, feeling, or acting which is troublesome, pernicious, baneful, and
wicked, and logos, the spoken word. Paul, like all insecure individuals, was
ever ready to curse his perceived opponents, but would not tolerate reciprocation.
Yahowsha and His Disciples are often translated using histemi to convey
that God stood up for us so that we could stand with Him. But Pauls twist on this
is markedly different. Aphistamai, rendered having revolted against, forsaken,
alienated, and separated from them, is colored by apo, which speaks of
separation, even of abandonment. It tells us that Paul caused the rebellion and
then avoided association, forsaking and abandoning, misleading and
withdrawing from the Disciples. It was and continues to be, Paul against
everyone, from Yahowah and Yahowsha, to Abraham, Moseh, and the Disciples.
Aphorize, rendered he appointed and marked off boundaries, separating the
Disciples, means that Shauwl did exactly what Yahowsha warned Shimown
and Yahowchanan would occur. Paul set aside and excluded them in an attempt
to get rid of the Disciples, severing the relationship while excommunicating
them in an attempt to drive them out of Asia. By selecting this word, Paul was
admitting to excluding the Disciples because he claimed that they were
disreputable. Aphorize is also from apo, to separate, but then shaped by horizo,
meaning to define, setting boundaries and limits, determining and appointing
territory.
Aphorizos primary connotation is therefore: to determine, to define, and to
mark off boundaries for those who are disreputable, to separate them by
establishing limits which they may not transgress, excluding them. And since the
objects of these constraints were Yahowshas Disciples, Paul was admitting to the
very crime Yahowsha warned the Ephesians about.
Contentious to the bitter end, Paul once again bragged of dialegomai
arguing against and disputing the Disciples because their thinking was
markedly different. But this time, Paul was not to be found in the synagogue in
the place where those seeking to learn about Yahowah considered His Towrah.
Shauwl turned instead to the Tyrannos Schole, where Tyrannos denote the
Lord is a Tyrant. There should be no mistaking that Pauls Lord was indeed a
despot seeking supremacy. And Paul was lecturing on his behalf.
It is a fact little known, but if Pauls preaching is reflected in his letters, he
never accurately conveyed anything Yahowsha said. In just one of his thirteen
letters he made a brief passing attempt, citing a few words Yahowsha spoke
about Passover, albeit taking His testimony completely out of context while
misquoting Him. So rest assured, when Shauwl claims that everyone in Asia
heard him preach the word of the Lord, he was preaching Satans mantra.
Reinforcing this reality, Yahowah consistently refers to the Adversary as baal
lord because Satan craves supremacy, mastery, control, obedience,
subordination, enslavement, and ownership. Shauwls predilection for these
very same things is revealing.
Yahowah and Yahowsha routinely tell us that dunamis ability, inherent
power, miracles, signs, and wonders typify braggadocios false prophets. But
since Christians dont listen to either, they typically associate such things with
God. And yet here, Paul is saying that God had nothing to do with them. His
supernatural power and his extraordinary mastery and skill were the work of his
hands, conceived, fashioned, and brought forth without Gods assistance.
Miraculous miracles and wondrous supernatural powers (dynamis the
ability to perform miracles and wonders) and not having obtained in association
with the god (te ou tas tygchano o theos having disclaimed an experience with,
having disavowed happening upon or meeting with, even relationship with God)
were performed through the hands of (dia ton cheiron by way of the person,
authority, control, and power of) Paulou. (Acts 19:11)
I realize that this sounds too incriminating to be true, not unlike Paul
admitting to being both insane and demon-possessed. So I encourage skeptics to
verify the meaning of te (likewise and corresponding to, serving as the marker of
a relationship), ou (constituting a negation and denial), tas (the definite article in
the accusative form), and especially tygchano for yourself. It was negated in this
statement by ou not in any way and precedes tas theos of God, and in this
context denotes having disclaimed an experience with God, having disavowed
happening upon or meeting with God, and of not having a relationship with God.
And while thats indicting, by turning to tygchanos secondary connotation we
find Paul admitting to not hitting the mark regarding extraordinary and
unexpected performances which require uncommon skill. Therefore, it appears
that the very attitude which got Satan expelled from heaven was now afflicting
Paulou.
 And his legend grew with these fanciful claims... Also that (kai hoste and
as a result) upon the weak (epi tous astheneo upon the being incapacitated and
ill) was to be carried away (apophero to be led off and taken away) from the
skin of him (apo tou chrotos autou separated from the surface of his body)
handkerchiefs (soudarion napkins or pieces of cloth often used for wiping
perspiration, blowing ones nose, or during preparation for burial) or aprons (e
simikinthion or workers smocks) and to be settled upon them (kai
apallassomai apo auton so to be set free, separated from them) the illnesses (tas
nosous the sicknesses and diseases) the and (ta te denoting a closely related
association with) annoying spirits (pneumata ta poneros worthless, morally
corrupt, seriously faulty, toilsome, and wicked spirits) to depart out
(ekporeuesthai to come forth, go out, and leave). (Acts 19:12)
Handkerchiefs is from soudarion, which also means pieces of cloth,
towels, or napkins which may or may not be used as burial cloths over the face of
the deceased, to blow ones nose, to wipe perspiration for ones face, or to dry
ones hands. It is of Latin origin. Aprons was rendered from simikinthion,
another Latin word, which is a bib-apron worn by common workers and servants
to protect their clothing. Therefore, what Paul is claiming is that napkins or
aprons were placed upon his skin and then carried to those who were sick, and
that as a result annoying spirits were exorcised from the diseased. This is creepy
in the extreme, not unlike todays charlatans who fleece their flock by pretending
to heal the sick during religious spectacles. It is another case of Paul claiming to
be divine. But this time he was also incriminating himself by suggesting that evil
spirits cause disease and must be exorcised to heal the sick.
The term Paul chose to infer that his handkerchiefs were healing the sick,
apallassomai, means to be set free, separated from them, as if a piece of cloth
that has made contact with his skin would exorcise demons. And while that is
obviously untrue, this terms secondary connotation, to change, to settle with,
and to reconcile, infers that the feeble may have simply come to accept their
maladies. It is derived from allasso, which denotes exchanging one thing for
another. So perhaps the blind became lame and the deaf became dumb?
The spirits to depart out were called poneros annoying, burdensome,
harassing, troublesome, wicked, corrupt, worthless, faulty, and criminal. It is the
same revolting word Paul associated with the old system which he later
identified as the Torah. And here, the Spirit associated with Yahowchanan,
Yahowshas most beloved Disciple, was the one rejected by Shauwl and replaced
by another of his choosing during the rebaptism. So I suspect that the reason Paul
saw the Set-Apart Spirit as annoying is that She was opposed to everything he
said and did.
 Pauls account gets stranger by the moment. Consider what he claimed next
(again as reported the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with
McReynolds English Interlinear and corrected by the Dictionary of Biblical
Languages with Semantic Domains in an effort to be as accurate as possible)...
But (de) were attempting to put our hands on (epicheireo with the
assistance of anyone were trying to promote an undertaking upon) some (tines),
and the (kai ton) circuitous wanderers (perierchomai the traveling about and
roving around) of the Judeans (Ioudaion an errant transliteration of the Hebrew
Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yah), exorcists (exorkistes those who drive out
evil spirits; from exorkizo to extract using an oath or force to adjure) to be
known (onomazomai to name or designate) for the (epi tous) possessing (echo
having and holding on to) the evil and annoying spirits (pneumata ta poneros
the worthless, morally corrupt, seriously faulty, toilsome, and wicked spirits)
the name of (to onoma) the Lord (tou kuriou the master who owns, controls,
subjugates, and possesses (a Satanic title)) Iesou (Iesou an errant misnomer
without any semblance to Yahowsha), saying (legontes) put under oath
(horkizo implore and swear) you the (umas ton) Iesoun (Iesoun) whom (on)
Paulos (Paulos of Latin derivation meaning Lowly and Little) announces
(kerysso preaches in his official capacity). (Acts 19:13)
Recognizing that the Interlinear version, even amplified, is at best confusing,
lets consider the New American Standard Bible which claims to be literal: But
also some of the Jewish exorcists, who went from place to place, attempted to
name over those who had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying I
adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.
There is no discussion of exorcism in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, nor in
the Talmud or the Oral Law of Yahuwdym, and there is no such thing as a Jewish
exorcist. So this is a complete fabrication. More damning still, Paul, in his
testimony to Luke, actually admits the obvious: there is a difference between the
Iesous whom Paulos proclaimed and the actual individual who was proclaimed
by Yahowshas Disciples, Yahowchanan and Shimown.
While I cannot attest to the veracity of the following scholarship, I found it
both credible and interesting relative to the origins of Shauwls Iesou. Since you
may as well, in the Gospel History and Doctrinal Teaching Critically Examined
by Arthur Dyott Thomson, which was written and published in London by
Longmans, Green, and Company in 1873, under the heading Derivation of the
Name of Jesus, on page 247, we find:
The whole system is developed in the Mithraic monuments, but it is only
necessary to observe here that the seven fires, stars, or flames which are on the
bas-reliefs which represent this myth, and which are always placed between the
sun and the moon, refer to the Pleiades, which correspond to the constellation of
the Bull.
When Christianity arose, the Jews had thronged Alexandria, and had acquired
by means of bribes many of the privileges reserved to the companions of
Alexander (Jos. Cont. Apion, 1. Ii. C. 4). The Ptolemies being patrons of literature
and of science, learned men of all nations resorted to Alexandria, which soon
became the theatre of religious disputes, and each party in turn appealed to the
Egyptian monuments, on which the secretes of the mysteries were preserved in
the symbolic characters. Contact with Paganism produced the same effect on the
Jews as it had done previously when the Asmonean princes had been compelled
to issue an edict forbidding the Jews to read Greek books. Sects were formed, the
Jewish sacred books were translated, and commentaries were written upon them.
The Caraites wished to keep to the literal meaning of the Scriptures, but the
majority addicted themselves to the allegorical interpretation of them, and
Aristobulus went so far as to write a commentary on the Mosaic text in favour of
Ptolemy Philometer.
At this time some of the Alexandrian astrologers ascertained that it was the
blood of Aries, not that of the Bull, to the commencement of which the Iesou
corresponded in the zodiacs. Iesou in the sacred language signifies the divine
power of the heavens, or the winter solstice, because it is at that period that the
sun resumes his strength in order to return towards the north.... The Iesou, or
winter solstice, always corresponded in the zodiacs to the first degree of Aries.
This Iesou, which was symbolically represented by a child sucking its finger, was
placed over the interval between Aries and Pisces, and as Virgo, the symbol of the
summer solstice, had to come to the primitive Iesou, in order to determine when
the reign of God should commence, by means of the precession of the equinoxes,
this Iesou was called the sacred, or anointed one, which the Greeks have correctly
translated Christos, but which does not in the least correspond to the Hebrew
mashyach / Messiah....
The Alexandrian astrologers conceived the error into which the followers of
Mithras had fallen, and either through ignorance or design, took Virgo, who
marked the commencement of the year (Hor. Apollo, Hierog. Iii.) for the symbol
of the vernal equinox, at which period the Alexandrine year used to commence.
They announced, therefore, that the end of the world would take place when the
vernal equinox corresponded to the star alpha of Pisces. In the mystic language
they would have said: The blood of the Ram has just been shed; the union of
Virgo and Aries has just been brought about; Virgo has just given birth to Aries;
Virgo has just given birth to Iesou; Virgo has just crushed the head of the serpent
[the spirit of death and darkness]; the reign of God is at hand.
 We know that the names of Jesus, John, and Mary are found on the
monuments long anterior to Christianity. On the Zodiac of Denderah the Celestial
Virgin holding Horus, symbols which the Egyptians called Marim and Iesou in
the mystic language, have been so mutilated by the Christians that only the heads
of them remain. This was probably done because there were hieroglyphs which
might have revealed the mystery. Iesu, that is, the divine power of the world,
was the sacred name of the Word, or Demiurgus, and was therefore easily
confounded with the Iesou of the Zodiacs. The Iesu whom the Virgin carried in
her arms was to be put to death at the end of the world, in order to rise again, or
give place to another Iesu. This mystery is represented in the sanctuary of the
temple of Hermonthis (see Atlas de la Commiss. DEgypte, A, Vol. I.).
Returning to the book which latched onto and promoted the myths ascribed to
Iesou, we find the McReynolds Interlinear interpretation of the Nestle-Aland:
But were of some, Skeva, a Jewish ruler priest, seven sons this doing.
(Acts 19:14) From this, the New American Standard Bible published: And seven
sons of one Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. Skeuas is of Latin
origin, not Hebrew, and it means mind reader. But that is not the worst of Pauls
misstatements. No Jewish priest, much less a high or chief priest, by that name,
or any other name remotely akin to Skeva / Sceva, ever existed. Furthermore,
there never were any Jewish high priests living in Ephesus. As such, this too is
a complete fabrication a fairytale in the midst of the Christian New Testament.
But having answered, the evil and annoying spirit said to them, Indeed,
Iesoun I know (ginosko) and this Paulon, I understand (epistamai), but who
are you? (Acts 19:15) Here, the New American Standard Bible reports: And
the evil spirit answered and said to them, I recognize Jesus, and I know about
Paul, but who are you?
According to Shauwl, Satans demon only ginosko recognized and was
generally aware of Yahowsha, while said demon epistamai knew everything
there was to know, was completely acquainted with and totally understood Paul.
An individuals choice of words, especially when making a distinction, reveals so
much about them. Such is the case with Shauwl, who like Satan, wants to be seen
as having a higher status than God. And when we recognize that Shauwl
fabricated this whole story for the express purpose of elevating his status and
acclaim, it is especially devastating.
Now it appears as if spiritual beings have legs and are leapers, that they have
dominion over the sons of imaginary Jewish high priests, and that they have the
power, authority, and inclination to disrobe and wound them... And having
leaped upon the man on them in whom there was the annoying and evil
spirit, having dominion and mastered over, overpowering and lording over
both (katakyrieuo amphoteroi ruled over the two), was strong against them so
that naked and having been wounded to flee out from that house. (Acts
19:16) This tall tale as chronicled in the NASB reads: And the man in whom was
the evil spirit leaped on them and subdued both of them and overpowered them,
so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.
While we should not be surprised, the New American Standard Bible edited
Pauls testimony to correct an obvious contradiction. The seven sons became
amphoteroi a total of exactly two in the Greek text. Moreover, the point Paul
is trying to make here is that Jews were incapable of doing what he did routinely.
Paul claims to have influence over the demonic spirits which overpower and lord
over Jews. And while there is no indication that demons plague Jews more than
any other race, the reason they responded to Paul was because he was working for
the Lord of Demons.
So this became (ginomai) known (gnostos) to all Judeans both and
Greeks, the ones residing in Ephesus. And pressing against, falling upon, and
embracing fear and terror on (phobos epi) all of them. And was being made
great the name of the Lord Iesou. (Acts 19:17) Or from the NASB: And this
became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, who lived in Ephesus; and fear fell
upon them all and the name of the Lord Jesus was being magnified.
So that there is no confusion, here the verb is ginomai came to exist, and
gnostos, the basis of Gnostic, was used as an adjective to convey what is known
and what can be known. Therefore, Shauwl was terrifying his audience by
saying that those who rely on the testimony and ability of Jews will become
demon-possessed and it was only by believing him and his Lord that one could be
saved from this horrible fate. And mind you, the Disciples Shimown, Yaaqob,
and Yahowchanan were Yahuwdym. So this entire fabrication was conceived to
make this point. It is not unlike a Christian threatening damnation and hell fire on
those who dont submit.
While the point has been made, and its obvious that Paul was the false, self-
proclaimed, and dishonest apostle who Yahowsha warned us against in His letter
to the Ephesians, there is a bit more to this incredulous story. So many of those
who believed (pisteuo) were coming, agreeing, consenting, confessing, and
professing allegiance (exomologeomai giving thanks and offering praise) and
declaring their deeds (praxis actions, functions, and practices). (Acts 19:18)
Shauwl is therefore saying that he and his pals won, that the people of
Ephesus believed him, consenting, confessing, and professing their allegiance en
mass to him, praising and thanking the self-proclaimed apostles in opposition to
Yahowshas Disciples.
 Now that Shauwl has denounced and marginalized Yahowshas Disciples,
starting a precedent that would haunt the world for centuries to come, the
paranoid preacher promoted the burning of books.
So enough (de hikanos) of the ones who were busybodies and meddlers
with their superfluous, impertinent, and trifling information and interference
(ton ta periergos of the one who overstepped their authority and were fixated on
the details, neglecting what actually matters, the ones intrigued by conspiracy
theories while overemphasizing the satanic influences).
Having received and experienced (prasso), having gathered together
(symphero) documents consisting of scrolls and books (biblos), burning them
(katakaio) in front of everyone (enopion pas). And they calculated, computing
(kai sympsephizo) a monetary values, price, and worth (time) of them and
(autos kai) discovered (heuriskomai) fifty-thousand pieces of silver money
(arguion myrias pente). (Acts 19:19) Too bad they didnt burn his letters instead.
While I dont suspect that it can be proven, especially since there are no
pronouns associated with the verbs or nouns in the first or second sentence,
making it difficult to ascertain who was doing what to whom, based upon
Yahowshas letter to the Ephesians regarding Shauwl and Shauwls testimony to
Luke as it is recorded here in Acts, the scrolls and books which were burned were
most likely comprised of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms along with the
eyewitness accounts of Yahowshas words and deeds as they were recorded in
Mattanyah and Yahowchanan. They were in irreconcilable conflict with Pauls
message and they proved that he was lying. And with Paul now providing the
sermons, scripture, sacrifice, and salvation, there was no room or need for anyone
or anything else.
Burning books shortchanges knowledge and impoverishes us. It seldom if
ever produces anything of value, especially money. And by putting this in a
favorable light, the founder of the Christian religion legitimized a horrid practice.
By way of example, rather than burning Qurans, I collected them, studied them,
and then, in light of what I learned from the Islamic Sirah / Biography, Tarikh /
History, and Hadith / Oral Reports, I was able to help many Muslims the world
over reject their overtly Satanic religion.
And while Pauls message is as incomprehensible and incomplete as ever,
there are some things we can reasonably discern. For example, with periergos,
which in the plural speaks of those who overstep their authority, who are overly
fixated on the details while neglecting what actually matters, the ones intrigued by
conspiracy theories while overemphasizing satanic influences, and thus from
Pauls perspective: irrelevant and superfluous meddlers interfering in his affairs
while fussing over other peoples business in a disrespectful and unnecessary
way. So Shauwl is taking one last swipe at Yahowshas Disciples, the men and
message he went to Ephesus to refute and repress. Insecure men are not only
intolerant of rivals, real or imagined, they are compelled to tear them down,
trashing their reputations. Paul would never forgive them for not endorsing his
message nor respecting his dominion over the Greek and Roman world.
In that this will become especially relevant in a moment, it is helpful to know
that periergos is a compound of peri, which expresses concern about an act
while noting the point from which it proceeds, and ergon, the Greek word for
works, speaking of actions, attempts, and undertakings. Paul uses ergon
repeatedly to besmirch Gods Word, saying that no one can be saved by ergon
nomos works of the Torah. So he is trying to smear Yahowshas Disciples and
Yahowahs Towrah with the same brush.
Also relevant to our understanding of what and whom Paul wanted
eliminated from consideration, this tormented troubadour deployed periergos a
second time in his letter to Timothy, the only other occasion it appears in the
Christian New Testament, and in that context, he defined it for us:
But (de) at the same time (hama) also (kai), they learned (manthano
they came to realize) that these thoughtless and useless ones (argos the
inconsiderate and indifferent) were going around to the houses (perierchomai
tas oikias), not alone (ou monon), but the thoughtless and useless ones (de
argos) to the contrary (alla) were foolish gossips and babblers, disrespectful
tattlers uttering vain and stupid things (phluaros snitches rambling on with
condescending hearsay) and also (kai) overstepping their bounds with their
superfluous and trifling interference (periergos busybodies and meddlers
overdoing it, fixated on the details and neglecting what actually matters while
intrigued by conspiracy theories and overemphasizing the occult) speaking that
which (laleo ta) was not necessary or beneficial (me dei not binding or
proper). (1Timothy 5:13)
While Paul was actually demeaning women in this portion of his letter to his
lover, Timothy, he left no doubt as to the meaning of periergos. And considering
the fact that he applied all of its decidedly negative connotations to Yahowshas
Disciples, Shauwl indirectly revealed that they were trying to rein him in, to
contest his appeal, to emphasize what really matters, while exposing the Satanic
overtures found throughout Pauls preaching.
Recognizing that what Paul was devastating for their business, the authors of
the New American Standard Bible took great liberty with their rendering of the
Greek. And many of those who practiced magic brought their books together and
began burning them in the sight of all; and they counted up the price of them and
found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.
 The etymology of periegos does not support the practicing magic rendering
found in the NASB, nor in any other popular translation. But desperate to justify
Pauls decision to burn books, simply calling them gossipy or meddlesome
was woefully insufficient. So it was Pauls unjustifiable decision which led to the
unjustifiable definition.
That is not to say that you wont find magic buried in the definitions of
periergos in the lexicons compiled by Christian publishers. It is there to make the
founder of their religion appear sane. In affirmation of this, when the same word
appears in the same authors letter to Timothy, there is no reference to magic in
any popular bible translation, including the NASB, KJV, NIV, or NLT.
Based upon this testimony, no informed or rational person would refute the
fact that the individual Yahowsha referred to as a wolf in sheeps clothing during
His first public declaration is the same individual He has called a false apostle and
deceitful liar in His final public statement. Remember, He said:
I am aware of and recognize (oida) your (sou) works and undertakings
(ergon the things you have responded to and have engaged in), the difficult and
exhausting encounters (kai ton kopos the bothersome trouble burdens
encountered), and your (sou) unswerving and enduring perseverance (kai ten
hypomone continual steadfastness and unwavering dependability, fortitude
under circumstances where others would succumb) and that (kai oti) you cannot
possibly accept, tolerate, support, nor endure (ou dynamai bastazo you
havent the will, desire, ability, or state of mind to take up with, walk along side
of, lift up, or carry forward, advance, sustain, or promote) that which is
incorrect, immoral, injurious, pernicious, destructive, or baneful (kakos
errant, wicked, wrong, evil, harmful, noisome, morally corrupt, diseased,
culpable, mischievous, demonic, or hurtful having an ill effect, a bad nature which
is not as it ought to be, and a mode of thinking, feeling or acting which is invalid).
And you have observed, examined, and objectively tested (kai peirazo
you have scrutinized, coming to learn the nature and character of others through
enquiry, judging them and catching the mistakes of) those who claim and
maintain (tous phasko those who say, affirm, profess, declare, promise, or
preach) of themselves (eautous) that they are (eimi) apostles (apostolos
special messengers who are prepared and sent forth) but are not (kai ouk eisin).
And (kai) you have found them (heurisko autos you have examined and
scrutinized them, you have come to understand, discovering and learning through
closely observing them that they are) false, deceitful, and deliberate liars
(pseudes are pretending to be something they are not, they are erroneous
deceivers). And you have loyal steadfastness and enduring consistency
(hupomone) and have endured (bastazo) through My name. You have worked
hard (kopiao) and have not grown tired. (Revelation 2:2-3)
 So now that we have matched the crime with the perpetrator, the only
unresolved issue is whether Paul had accomplices working with him in Ephesus
so as to justify the plural deployment of apostolous. And that issue is resolved by
Paul, himself, later in this same chapter of Acts, because he admits to returning to
Ephesus with Gaius and Aristarchus to meet Timothy and Erastus in order to
resolve a controversy. Incriminating himself further, Paul bragged, I have fought
with beasts at Ephesus, in 1 Colossians 15:32.
And then in 1 Timothy 1:3, Paul told Timothy to remain in Ephesus, as an
legitimate agent of his apostleship, to issue a command prohibiting the
presentation of any doctrine different than his own. That letter begins so
presumptuously and inaccurately, I thought Id share it with you. It is particularly
germane because Paul not only claims to be an apostle, he admits to trying to
influence the Ephesians by his deputy, Timothy, making him the accomplice
Yahowsha was referencing. It is a very short list of men who made these claims
in this place at this time. And none were as famous, influential, argumentative, or
deceitful as Shauwl and Timothy.
Once again, to make quick work of this, Ill be citing the McReynolds
English Interlinear due to its association with the Nestle-Aland, correcting it only
when a name as it is presented in the text is altered or its rendering veers away
from a words primary connotation.
Paulos (Paulos), Apostle (Apostolos) of Christou Iesou (Christou Iesou)
by mandate, command, and direct order (epitage ordinance and authority) of
God (theou), deliverer (soter rescuer) of us (emon), and (kai) Christou Iesou
(Christou Iesou), the hope of us (tes elpis emon), (1:1) to Timothy (Timotheo
meaning Putting a Price on God; from time determining and establishing the
price and theos god), genuine and legitimate (gnesios lawful, true, sincere,
and loyal) child (teknon) in (en) faith (pistis belief), grace (charis the name
of the Greek goddesses of charity, licentiousness, and merriment, known as the
Gratia in Rome, and thus the Graces), mercy (eleos), peace (eirene) from (apo
speaking of separation, departing, and fleeing) god (theou), father (patros), and
Christou Iesou (Christou Iesou), the Lord (tou kuriou the master who
subjugates and controls, possesses and lords over, and owner) of us (emon). (1:2)
Accordingly (kathos in as much as) I pleaded (parakaleo I begged) with
you (se) to remain longer (prosmeno to stay on and continue) in Ephesus (en
Ephesos) [while I was] traveling (poreumai proceeding) to Macedonia (eis
Makedonin) in order that (hina) you might command (parangello you may
order and instruct) certain individuals (tisin those considered important and
everyone else) not to teach a different doctrine (me heterodidaskaleo not to
teach heresy)... (1 Timothy 1:1-3)
 Confessing to the crime Yahowsha told Yahowchanan had been committed,
Paul admitted that Ephesus was the primary battleground in his war against
Yahowahs Torah (and its Covenant genealogies) and Yahowshas Disciples.
Having fought for years against both, he would deploy every resource to keep his
adversaries at bay.
Now seeking to undermine the Torah with its long genealogies whereby the
beneficiaries of the Covenant are documented, Paul writes: ...nor (mede
neither) carefully consider (prosecho turn to or give oneself over to) myths
and fables (mythos tales and legends) or (kai) endless genealogies (aperantos
genealogia unlimited family lineages), or whatever (hostis) worthless
speculation and aimless arguments (ekzetesis questioning and debate,
imagined controversy, or idle disputes; from ek from and zeteo seeking,
thinking, and reasoning) they maintain (parecho they hold and cling to),
instead of (mallon), as the alternative (e it is better), the administration
(oikonomia the management, trusteeship, and stewardship of the household
affairs and oversight) of god (theou) in the faith (ten en pistis according to the
belief system). (1 Timothy 1:4)
Since we know from the historical accounts published by Luke in Acts that
Paul was targeting Yahowshas Disciples, its their presentation of Yahowshas
words and deeds, especially as they were explained and foretold in the Torah and
Prophets, which represents the myths, fables, endless genealogies, and worthless
speculations that Paul wanted Timothy to curtail and condemn. In their place, he
wanted the alternative: the administration of god in the faith. He is thereby
advocating his new religion, prioritizing it over following Yahowshas example,
above Yahowahs teaching, over the Disciples witness, above the Covenant, and
over the Word of God. He was now managing God, just as Christians have done
throughout the ages. In this regard, Paul was also demanding that pistis faith
in his oikonomia theou oversight and stewardship of the affairs of God take
precedence over ekzetesis seeking knowledge, thinking, and reasoning.
It was a religious trifecta: Gods testimony was suppressed, religion trumped
God, and evidence and reason were now foes. Is it any wonder Yahowah and
Yahowsha expressly condemned this man and his message?
According to Paul, his flock can dispense with the Torah, because all you
need is love and a clean heart. And sadly, to their own demise, Christians the
world over believe him. So (de) the end (to telos the result and entirety) of the
command (tes paragelia of the proclamation, announcement, order, or
instruction) is (estin exists as) love (agape) from (ek) a clean (katharos) heart
(kardias), (kai) a good conscience (agathos syneidesis a moral awareness,
worthy psychology, or useful sensitivity), and (kai) non-hypocritical and
unquestioning faith (anypokritos pisteos sincere and genuine belief; from a
not as a form of negation and hupokrinomai accepting anothers statements
based upon what they have decided for themselves)..., (1 Timothy 1:5)
The Towrah never speaks of having a clean heart, so Pauls claim that it is
the end and result of the command cannot be true. The only place we find a
reference to a leb tahowr clean heart in the totality of Gods Word is in Psalm
51:12, where the entire Mizmowr / Song is devoted to asking Yahowah to cleanse
and perfect every aspect of our nature of corruption. It speaks of bones rejoicing
and lips singing but they didnt make Pauls list.
Since we can always learn something from the Architect of life, lets read
what Yahowah inspired Dowd / David to write. And while we are at it, see if you
can condense these six stanzas of his song, much less the entirety of the Torah and
Prophets into a trio of platitudes.
Hide (cathar conceal) Your face (paneh Your appearance and presence)
from (min) my sin (chet guilt for having gone astray), and all of (wa kol) my
corruption (awon wrongdoing, distortions, and perversions) blot out and
destroy (machah wash off and wipe away so that they no longer exist and are
no longer known). (11)
Create (bara) for me to approach (la), O God (elohym), a clean (tahowr)
heart (leb), with (wa) the Spirit (ruwach) established and renewing (kuwn
chadash preparing, supporting, restoring, and reaffirming) in my inner nature
(ba qereb in my midst). (12)
Please do not cast me away from (al shalak min la) Your presence
(paneh), and therefore (wa) the Set-Apart Spirit (ruwach qodesh) do not take
away (laqach) from me (min). (13)
I want to be restored (suwb la please return me) to the joy (sasown
happiness) of Your salvation (yasha), and so with (wa) the Spirit (ruwach)
who is worthy of respect (nadybah who is willing and generous) sustain and
uphold me (camak). (14)
I will choose to consistently teach (lamad) the rebellious (pasha those
who transgress by stepping away) Your ways (derek Your path through life)
and (wa) sinners (chata those who miss the way) will return to You (el
shuwb will change their mind, attitude, and direction regarding You, God). (15)
Deliver me (natsal save me) from dying dumb (min damym from being
cut off, silenced, unable to respond, and destroyed (note: damym is from
damam)), O God (elohym), the God (elohym) of my salvation (tashuwaah of
my deliverance). My tongue (lashown) will sing for joy (ranan) of Your
righteous vindication (tsadaqah of Your justice which exonerates and
establishes upright). (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 51:11-16)
 While we could linger here and immerse ourselves in the beauty and merit of
these lyrics, alas, since our mission is to question Paul, lets return to his
summation of tes paragelia the command. And in this regard, while we are
encouraged to use our nesamah conscience to distinguish between truth and
lies, having agathos syneidesis a moral awareness is going to preclude an
informed and rational individual from embracing Pauline Doctrine.
The last of Pauls triumphant trio of virtues is a bit of an odd duck. Since
faith fills the void when we do not understand, how can it be genuine? Since
believing is the result of not knowing, how can it be sincere and non-
hypocritical? Therefore, it is only by searching anypokritos etymological roots
that we can make any sense of this. As a compound of a do not and
hupokrinomai accept anothers statements based upon what they have decided
for themselves, we have Paul suggesting that the virtuous reject the testimony of
those who opposed his mantra. And in this regard, unquestioning faith may be
the most accurate rendering of Shauwls inaccurate and unsupported conclusion.
But I must ask: if the following is true, why was Paul the antithesis of what
he claimed was virtuous? So the end and result of the command and
proclamation is love from a clean heart, a good conscience with moral
awareness, worthy psychology, or useful sensitivity, and unquestioning
faith,... Why was Shauwl so argumentative, condemning everyone who didnt
capitulate, and why was he deliberately duplicitous, if all that matters is a loving
and pure heart?
If that was the case, why wasnt Yahowsha loving, even nice, when He
lashed out so viciously at most all of those who opposed Him? By Pauls
standard, Yahowsha should be condemned.
Mind you, Yahowah does not agree with Shauwl either. According to God,
those who ignore His seven annual invitations to meet with Him, either die with
their souls ceasing to exist, or they are eternally separated from Him in Sheowl.
If a clean heart, good conscience, and unquestioning faith were all that was
required for salvation, Pauls claim that some deviated and strayed based upon
idle discussions would be impossible, because evidence and reason are irrelevant
to feelings and faith.
...of which (on tines), some deviated and erred (astocheo abandoned
these goals, wandering away and deviating from the proper aim). They were
disabled through avoidance (ektrepomai they strayed, turning aside, and were
becoming dislocated) by (eis) meaningless conversations (mataiologia idle
and empty talk, senseless and vain words). (1:6)
 Deciding and desirous of (thelo proposing, wanting, and enjoying, even
delighting in) being (einai of presently and actively existing as) teachers of the
Towrah (nomodidaskalos a compound of nomos an allotment for an
inheritance (the Greek substitute for towrah throughout the Septuagint) and
didaskalos teacher), not ever giving though or understanding (me voeo not
considering, comprehending, or recognizing), neither (mete) what they say (a
lego) nor (mete) concerned about (peri) what they state with such confidence
(tinon diabebaioomai what they insist upon, maintain, and proclaim so
assuredly). (1 Timothy 1:7)
No matter where one turns in Pauls writings, the argument is most always
the same. It is Pauls teachings against the Towrahs teachings. And yet Paul
wants everyone to believe that the God of the Towrah chose him, a rude, arrogant,
often enraged, murderous, perverted, anti-Semitic, always duplicitous, and usually
disingenuous man to undermine and contradict everything He had said and
promised. And lets not mince words: Paul is accusing Yahowshas Disciples, and
notably Shimown and Yahowchanan in Ephesus, of thoughtlessly teaching the
Torah without considering or comprehending it.
Since the God Shauwl claims authorized his mission also authored the
Torah, how can that Torah only be good under the conditions he imposes on it?
But before you answer that question, and before I attempt a translation of what
appears to be a nearly incomprehensible string of words, lets use the Nestle-
Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds Interlinear as a guide:
We know but that good the law if some it lawfully might use (8) knowing this
that to right law not is set to lawless but and unsubmitting irreverent and sinners
unholy ones and desecrators, father killers, mother killers, men murderers, (9)
sexually immoral ones, male bed partners, man trappers, liars, perjurers, and if
some other in the being healthy teaching lies against (10) by the good message of
the splendor of the fortunate God which was trusted I. (11)
Now if I may, please note that what you are about to read is not only untrue,
it is insane. But nonetheless, this is what Shauwl wrote to Timothy in support of
his open war against Yahowahs Towrah and those who observe it and teach it.
When I consider the words Shauwl claimed were inspired by God, it is hard to
fathom how someone this irrational, this jaundiced, this pathetically hostile to
Yahowahs testimony and teaching found one person to believe him, much less
billions. He and his message are beyond reprehensible. This is repulsive...
But (de) we have come to be somewhat aware (oida we previously
acknowledged, albeit vaguely, the possibility (representing the weakest form of
knowing in Greek which was further weakened by the indicative mood and then
put into the past by the perfect tense)) that (oti) good (kalos moral and
advantageous, sound and fit) the Towrah (o nomos the nourishing allotment
which provides an inheritance (nomos is universally used in the Greek Septuagint
rendering of the Hebrew Towrah to translate towrah)) if conditionally (ean if
ever with the implication of a reduced probability) someone (tis an individual)
might deal with it (chraomai auto might possibly treat it a certain way, perhaps
currently and passively using it (present passive subjunctive)) correctly in
accordance to the rules (nomimos properly). (8)
Having realized this (oida touto having become aware of this (perfect
active participle)), that (oti because) the Towrah (nomos) is not in place
(keitai is not appointed, set, or situated) for the righteous (dikaios the upright
or innocent) but for the Towrahless (de anomos those without an allocation or
an inheritance, for those without the Towrah), (kai) for the disobedient who are
not subject to religious beliefs (anypotaktos asebes the independent,
uncontrollable, and insubordinate, who are not subdued, refusing to worship,
lacking regard for religious practices), (kai) for unholy sinners (anosios
unreligious and not obedient outcasts who are mistaken), (kai) the who are
accessible and open-minded (bebelos the approachable and receptive who are
irreligious and worldly willing to step up and walk across the threshold) who kill
their own fathers (patroloas) and (kai) for murders their mothers (metroloas),
those slaughtering mankind (androphonos slaying humankind), (9)
...for the sexually immoral and perverted (pornos fornicators and
marketers), homosexual pedophiles and sodomites (arsenokoites), slave traders
and kidnappers (andrapodistes), liars (pseustes), perjurers (epiorkos who
provide false witness), and also (kai) if (ei) some other, different, or alternative
(ti eteron) thing be opposed to (antikeimai thing hostile and adversarial to) the
accurate (te hygiaino the sound) doctrine (didaskalia teaching and
instruction) (10) in accord with (kata) the beneficial message (to euangelion
the healing messenger) of the brilliant and glorious (tes doxa the great and
mighty), the blessed and fortunate (makarios the blissful and lucky) god
(theou) which (o) was entrusted to me (pisteuo have faith place in me (aorist
passive indicative first person singular)), myself (ego I (scribed in the
nominative, thereby renaming the subject, which in this sentence was the lucky
god)). (1 Timothy 1:8-11)
While they have mistranslated nomos as law, and feature some antiquated
phrasing, the King James Version proudly presents Shauwls ungodly rant just as
the wannabe apostle intended: But we know that the law is good, if a man use it
lawfully; (8) knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for
the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and
profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (9)
for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers,
for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to
sound doctrine; (10) according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which
was committed to my trust. (11)
Collectively, Paul and Timothy have become aware that good the Towrah,
but only if as a condition someone deals with it in accordance with the rules.
But those rules arent found in the Towrah, because on Pauls planet the Torah is
for those without the Torah. Of course, that means that the Torah cant be for
anyone because the moment those without the Torah grasp hold of it, they would
cease to be Torahless, thereby disqualifying themselves. Paul may have been
schooled in religion, but not in logic.
Also according to Paul, as professed at the end of this rant, everything
regarding God has been entrusted to him. So therefore, his blissful god is
fortunate, even blessed, to have someone with Pauls credentials conveying this
healing message. But it does cause one to wonder why God bothered providing
humankind with His Torah and Prophets, especially now that they have been
replaced by Pauls letters. I mean it has to be embarrassing for God to have failed
so miserably, only to have to rely on this man to fix all of the problems He
couldnt resolve. And its either that, or someone was lying.
If you are prone to ignorant and irrational rants, Shauwl has reinforced the
central plank of his argument against the Towrah by stating: the Towrah is not in
place, appointed, nor suited for the righteous, upright, or good. It is a
backhanded way of saying the Torah cannot save which was the primary
premise of his Galatians letter. But here he takes this point way beyond
incapability to corruptibility. From Pauls perspective, one he initially articulated
in his letter to the Romans, the Towrah, rather than discouraging bad behavior,
actually encourages it. And I suppose that reflects Satans view, because it most
certainly isnt Gods.
I do find Shauwls listing of Torah-prone behaviors, revealing. The Torah
does not ask us to obey anything or anyone, and in fact there is no Hebrew word
for obey, completely eliminating this possibility. And yet the first thing Shauwl
says of those who prefer Gods instruction to his own is that they are
anypotaktos disobedient. That can only mean that Shauwl is demanding
obedience, which is to say that he is now reflecting his Lords persona.
Claiming to free souls from having to be obedient to a set of arcane laws by
way of faith in the Gospel of Grace, Pauline Christianity takes its devotees in the
opposite direction. While Yahowahs Towrah liberates, Pauls religion calls for
obedience, while denouncing those who do not readily comply.
Those who are anypotaktos reject religious beliefs and are averse to
worshiping their gods, just as the Towrah implores. Therefore, once again we see
Paul demeaning what Yahowah encourages. Their messages are the antithesis of
one another. Similarly, while lords and their political institutions subordinate and
subjugate in a quest to control, our Heavenly Fathers Covenant resolves these
human tendencies.
Asebes, the second supposedly unsavory term on the Pauline list of
despicable behaviors is defined as an aversion to religious beliefs and practices.
And while Paul considers this to be ungodly and irreverent, even wicked,
Yahowah is overtly opposed to all aspects of religion and views our willingness to
walk away from such beliefs and practices as being Godly and reverent. Once
again, God loves what Paul hates.
Not that it was Shauwls intent, but the Towrah is for anosios unholy
sinners, for societal outcasts, the disobedient, and the unreligious.
Yahowahs guidance was specifically designed to save sinners who by disobeying
religious and political edits become societal outcasts. It is these souls who are
invited into His home.
Likewise, Yahowahs Towrah Teaching only appeals to those who are
bebelos open-minded and accessible. Those interested in approaching God
along the path that He has provided, those who are receptive to and respond to His
invitations to meet with Him, are saved. Interesting in this regard is that bebelos
literally speaks of being willing to step up and walk across a threshold, and
therefore expresses a willingness to approach God by walking through Passovers
life-giving door and across the redemptive threshold of Un-Yeasted Bread which
collectively prepare us for adoption into the Covenant family.
The fourth item on Pauls list, patroloas father killers, is a twist on the
Second of the Three Statements Yahowah etched on the First of Two Tablets,
where God told us that one of the reasons He is opposed to religion is that by
twisting His testimony fathers corrupt their own children, and their childrens
children, precluding their salvation. And then when we add metroloas mother
murderers to the list, we have an upheaval of the Second of Seven Instructions
Yahowah etched on the Second of the Two Tablets whereby God encouraged us
to value our Heavenly Father and Spiritual Mother. And by embracing the
Towrah, we demonstrate our respect for God in this way.
The Third of Seven Instructions listed in the Towrah asks us not to make a
habit of killing, and yet Shauwl would like his religious, and thus ignorant and
irrational, audience to believe that the Towrah inspires killing. It is ironic, without
the Towrah, all men and women die, their souls ceasing to exist. But with the
Towrah, a way is provided to life eternal. It is the path Yahowsha followed; His
very purpose.
Beyond discouraging incest, homosexuality, bestiality, and especially
adultery, the Towrah has very little to say about human sexuality. It is Shauwl,
not Yahowah, who is fixated on pornos fornication. And while homosexual
pedophilia made Pauls list, it is interesting that he omitted adultery, the lone
sexual act to make it onto Yahowahs top ten list. And of course it is telling that
Pauls lone love was the boy to whom this letter was written.
Kidnapping and slave trading are forms of theft, and are thus opposed by
God. In fact, for the victims of such crimes, He has a remedy one known to
those who read the central book of the Towrah and consider the purpose of the
Yowbel. And even in the First Statement Yahowah etched in stone, God states
that His purpose is to free us from slavery. Therefore, here again we find
Yahowah and Shauwl at cross purposes.
The same thing can be said of pseustes liars and epiorkos perjurers,
in that both behaviors are discouraged by the same Instruction: You should not
make a habit of being a false witness. So there is no affinity between the Towrah
and lying.
And then there was the broad net, the catchall phrase: and also if some
other, different, or alternative thing be opposed to the accurate doctrine in
accordance with the beneficial message...entrusted to me. Anything in opposition
to Pauline Doctrine was thereby defined as a crime akin to murder. And that is
perhaps why the Roman Catholic Church for better part of a thousand years
exterminated everyone who wouldnt capitulate.
The idea that God would cease to speak for Himself through His Towrah and
Prophets, would repudiate that testimony, would abdicate the thing He was best at
doing, to hand the single most important job in the universe to a stunningly
flawed, admittedly insane and demon-possessed individual who was an abject
failure at rational communication, is ludicrous. And here, Paul wasnt just
claiming the world apart from Yisrael for himself, he was claiming that the
beneficial message...of god was entrusted to him. So why did Yahowah bother
with Yahowsha? Why did Yahowsha select and train twelve Disciples? Why
was Yahowshas and Pauls message so different? How can Pauls god be trusted
if his previous attempt to deal with humankind was a complete failure?
This statement from Paul to Timothy highlights the place that these wannabe
apostles differed most from Yahowah and Yahowsha. The humans positioned
Gods Torah as a set of laws which condemned mankind. God, however, presents
His Towrah as a set of instructions which guide His children toward a relationship
with Him so that by way of its promises, He can save His children, empower, and
enrich them. Since it is His Towrah, and since Yahowah and Yahowsha are of
like mind on its merit and purpose, who do you suppose is right?
It is Gods position that His Towrah guides individuals who are seriously
flawed, directing them to the provisions He has provided to make His Covenant
children righteous. Therefore, His Towrah is the only book for righteous
individuals, because it was written expressly written to teach imperfect men and
women how to become perfect, and thus vindicated and innocent. But Shauwl
wants to associate the Towrah, not with divine righteousness, but instead with the
worst of human behavior.
Since God says that there is one Towah for everyone, that its purpose is to
make men righteous, that it is guidance to be followed not laws to be obeyed, that
it makes us Godly by curing us of our sin, and that it clearly instructs us not to
murder, methinks Paul is completely wrong. But nonetheless, since Paul despised
those who were Torah observant, he continued to equate the Torah with the very
things it opposed.
Those trying to exonerate Paul, might protest, saying that the Torah isnt
needed by righteous men because they are already perfect, and that Paul was
actually suggesting instead that it was designed for faulty individuals. But such
justifications are absurd. First, there is no mention of righteous men. Paul wrote
to righteousness the Torah is not appointed, which is to say that, according to
Paul, it isnt the Torahs purpose to perfect us.
Second, since the only means to righteousness is by observing the Torahs
instructions, the Torah is the one and only book every righteous man and woman
has in common. Third, while the Torah can save a disobedient sinner, even a
murderer, fornicator, homosexual, and lying slave trader, if these behaviors define
an individual, as they are presented here, then such people would be adverse to
the Torah because it is adverse to these behaviors.
Fourth, this ridiculous justification requires us to ignore everything Paul has
written up to this point and to believe that the Torah he has been assailing is
actually the means to salvation when in fact he had made the exact opposite
claim. And fifth, Paul just told Timothy that accurate instruction and beneficial
doctrine is opposed to it, with it representing the Towrah.
Paul is so consistently arrogant, disingenuous, and duplicitous, I am seldom
surprised by anything he says. But on occasion, something he writes is so evil it
takes my breath away. Such is the case with his concluding line, where he infers
that God is somehow blessed and happier, blissful, fortunate, and lucky to have
him on the job. Shauwl not only claims that his convoluted and contradictory
diatribe is hygiaino accurate, even that he was a euangelion good, healing,
and beneficial messenger, but that Gods purpose was in Pauls voice: pisteuo
ego entrusted to me. The God Paul claimed was impotent and could not save
anyone was now moot. Paul would do the talking and saving from now on.
Shauwl no doubt realized that his Lord, especially with the godlike mystique
he invented for him, was pleased. As a result, he would be less tormented by his
goad. And also he no doubt believed that his new and improved message would
be much more popular than his adversarys, ultimately making Paul the most
influential individual in human history.
But Ive had enough of him. So now that Ive have demonstrated that Paul
and Timothy were the deceitful apostles immortalized in Revelation, lets turn the
page and press on. We still have a lot of nasty ground to cover.

Since we have not yet dealt with the fourth chapter of Galatians, and Pauls
Two Covenant Theory, had we not considered Pauls testimony in Acts and
First Timothy, you might have been left wondering what it was about this man
that caused Yahowah and Yahowsha to be so adverse to him. After all, he was
just one guy sharing his opinion. But there was there more to Paul than this.
Returning to the portion of the book of Acts that we considered briefly in the
first chapter, we discover that Paul deliberately put a pagan proverb into his gods
mouth in the third of his three depictions of his lightning conversion
experience. In Acts 26:14, with Shauwl defending himself before King Agrippa,
we read:
And everyone (te pas) of us (emon) having fallen down (katapipto
having descended from one level to another, lower one) to the earth (eis ten ge),
I heard (akouo I paid attention, listening, comprehending, and obeying) a voice
(phone a sound, crying out) saying to me (lego pros ego speaking according
to me) in the (te) Hebrew (Hebrais) language (dialektos), Shauwl, Shauwl
(Saoul, Saoul a transliteration of the Hebrew name, Shauwl, meaning
Question Him, a designation synonymous with Sheowl the pit of the dead),
why (tis) are you actually pursuing me (dioko me are you following me, really
striving with such intense effort to reach me, hastening and zealously running
toward me)? Its hard (skleros its demanding and difficult, even rough, harsh,
violent, and cruel, especially offensive and intolerable) for you (soi) to resist
(laktizo to kick, to strike with the heel) against (pros) the goad (kentron a
pointed sharp stick used to prick and prod and thus control animals featuring the
stinger of a deadly scorpion with the power to ruin and kill, making resistance
vain or perilous). (Acts 26:14)
While it is absurd to suggest that Yahowsha would choose to say its
difficult for you to kick against or resist a goad stinger on this occasion, if those
who are prone to give credence to Pauls claim of a godly encounter do a little
homework, they will discover that this citation was actually derived from pagan
literature. Youll find the phrase cited on line 790 of Euripidess play, The
Bacchae, where kicking against the goad was used to describe the consequence
of trying to resist Bacchus or Dionysus (the Roman and Greek god who was
considered the son of the sun). Rebelling against popular religious beliefs is
difficult because the prevailing religious establishment is typically hostile to a
persons refusal to worship their god or gods. This insight from Euripides,
therefore, became a common Greek idiom.
The Bacchae was named after Bacchus maenadsor female followers.
Euripides story pictures the pagan god intoxicating those who believe him. In
that the play was written centuries after the Towrah, the faithful are shown
striking rocks in Mosaic fashion with Dionysus staff, such that water and wine
gushed forth from the earth. Honey trickles down from this thyrsus, just as manna
came down from heaven. In Euripides play, the maenads had King Pentheus
cousin betray him, luring the king into the woods so they could murder him,
literally tearing him apart, after he banned the worship of Dionysus. It was all
reminiscent of the Babylonian Tammuz, for whom Christmas, Lent, Easter,
Sunday Worship, and the Christian cross first originated.
So, we are left with three less-than-ideal choices: 1) Yahowsha revealed
Himself to Shauwl in the same way He witnessed Satan falling from heaven and
then cited a pagan proverb because He couldnt think of anything better to say. 2)
Satan revealed himself to Shauwl in his natural form and quoted a pagan proverb
from Dionysius because there was no better counterfeit upon which to base
Pauline Doctrine or the religion of Christianity. 3) Paul was struck by lightning
and made up the rest of the story, citing the line from The Bacchae because he
thought that King Agrippa would be impressed by his grasp of Greek and Roman
literature. Paul may also have hoped that King Agrippa would equate the Pauline
god with Dionysius or Bacchus, with whom he would have been familiar.
Dionysius (known as Bacchus in Roman mythology, Osiris in Egypt, and
Tammuz in Babylon) was chosen by Shauwl (or Satan) as a model for his god,
because the Son of the Sun in pagan literature provided the closest Greek and
Roman counterfeit of Yahowsha. As the most recent of the twelve Olympian
gods, Dionysius represented change: a new and different kind relationship with
the gods. And unlike the vengeful gods of old, Dionysius was fun, even
forgivingforeshadowing the Christian distinction between Yahowah and
Yahowsha. Very few, if any, religions have created their gods out of whole cloth,
but have instead woven the strands of earlier tapestries into their own. The names
and locals tend to change, but not much else.
Dionysius was considered an epiphany the manifestation of god who
mysteriously arrives on the scene to occasionally interact with humankind. His
appearance was said to illuminate his followers and change the meaning and
essential nature of what had come beforein perfect harmony with Pauline
Doctrine. Even today, January 6th is observed as the Epiphany, commemorating
the Magi, or Gentile recognition of gods appearance in keeping with the
Dionysian Mysteries. And considering Pauls affinity for being both a divine
messenger to be heeded and a divine example to be emulated, Dionysus constant
companion was Hermesthe messenger of the gods.
Just as blood is represented by wine in the Torah, and therefore became
associated with Yahowshas fulfillment of Passover, Dionysius was the god of
wine. Just as Yahowsha had a divine father (Yahowah) and a mortal virgin
mother (Mary), Dionysius had a divine father (Zeus (the father of the gods)) and a
mortal virgin mother (Semele). Just as Yahowshas Heavenly Father told
Yowceph to carry the newborn child to Egypt, as soon as Dionysus was born,
Zeus carried him away to Egypt to protect him from the envy of rival gods. And
up to this point, these traits associated with Dionysus came long after they were
predicted of Yahowsha in Yahowahs Towrah.
But now as we press forward, deeper into the mythology, we find that the
following aspects of the pagan gods existence foreshadowed their adaptation into
Christianity. By his death and resurrection, Dionysius was responsible for
liberating his believers and thereby providing the faithful with eternal salvation, in
complete harmony with being saved by way of faith in Pauls Gospel. So
Dionysius was not only killed and then resurrected each spring; his holy week
mirrors the week-long Christian observance of Easter. The annual resurrection of
Dionysius, on the Sunday closest to the Vernal Equinox, celebrated the promise of
resurrection from the dead. As such, Dionysius, and thus Bacchus, was known as
the Eleutherios Liberator, mirroring the central thrust of Pauls letters where
believers were freed from being slaves to the Law. The very mission of
Dionysus was to bring an end to burdens and worries. According to Greek
mythology, Dionysus was the first to open communications between the living
and the dead, paving the way for prayers to Mary and the Christian saints. Even
the Roman Catholic Eucharist myth of transubstantiation, where priests allegedly
turn wine into blood, was first practiced in the Dionysian religion.
Dionysus was a hermaphrodite, blurring the lines between male and female,
and thus contributed to the corruption of Yahowahs Covenant symbols of father
and mother, husband and wife. And he was sexually confused, as was Shauwl.
Known as the god who inspired religious rituals, Dionysius holy week was
celebrated over the course of five days each Spring. And it was the Dionysia
which set the stage for the Christian replacement of Passover, Unleavened Bread,
and FirstFruits, with Palm Sunday (Passion Sunday), Maundy Thursday
(institution of Communion), Good Friday (death and burial of Jesus Christ),
Holy Saturday (where Jesus rested in the grave), and Easter Sunday occurring
during the last week of the Babylonian festival of Lent.
Just as the Christian Jesus Christ is bereft of his Hebrew heritage, Dionysus
was considered an alien among the godsdistanced from his Olympian birth.
And consistent with the Lord Baal manifestation of Satan, the bull, satyrs, and
the serpent became the enduring symbols of the Dionysian religion. He is often
shown as a mighty hunter, wearing leopard skin, and standing in a chariot drawn
by black panthersall of which is symbolic of Nimrod, the father of the
Babylonian religion. The thyrsus staff he is often depicted holding is
distinguished by the adornment of a large pineconea phallic symbol
representing coming forth from the seed, and thereby foreshadowing Pauls
animosity to circumcision and his devotion to the seed of Abraham. By way of
this seed, the uninitiated were miraculously purified and enabled to dwell with
the gods so long as they believed the words of their messengers.
Especially troubling, considering Shauwls affinity for the Greek Charis and
Roman Gratia, Dionysus was their father. They were the love children of his
affair with Aphroditethe goddess of love.
Two-hundred and fifty years before Shauwl associated Dionysus testimony
with his conversion experience, Greeks living in what is now southern Italy, as
born-again maenads, began celebrating the Bacchanalia, a drunken festival replete
with grotesque debaucheries in which the faithful rebelled against all forms of
authority, foreshadowing the Catholic celebration of Mardi Gras.
And troubling as all of this is to the credibility of the Christian religion, there
is more to the Dionysus line than first meets the eye. Satan used it to warn
Shauwl that he would not be able to rebel against him. The Adversary had a way
of controlling the man. Pauls ego would be his vulnerability, and demon-
possession would be the implement. This confession is found in 2 Corinthians 12,
the ego-laden demonic encounter weve considered previously.

By way of review, Paulos wrote: But when Kephas came to Antioch, I

was opposed to and against his presence. I stood in hostile opposition because
he was convicted and condemned, even ignorant. (2:11)
Because, before a certain individual came from Yaaqob, he was eating
together with the different races, but when he came, he was withdrawing and
was separating himself, out of fear of the circumcised. (2:12)
 So they were hypocritical, and also the remaining Yahuwdym. As a
result even Barnabas was led away and astray with them in the duplicitous
hypocrisy. (Galatians 2:13)
Beyond what Yahowsha and Shimown had to say about Shauwl and his
letters, there are additional ways to ascertain the merits of his epistles. One way
would be to examine the writing quality. For that, I present Exhibit A: Galatians
2:14. But before we ponder this incomprehensible verse, please note that Papyrus
46, dated to as early as 85 CE, and no later than 125 CE, omits kai ouchi zao
Ioudaikos, from the end of this passage. Translated, the extra-textual phrase
means and do not live Yahuwdym.
Therefore, with the scribal additions in brackets, along with the omitted
words, Shauwl evidently recited: Nevertheless (alla by contrast and to the
contrary), when (hote) I saw (horao perceived as a result of seeing with my
own eyes) that (hoti because) they were not walking through life rightly (ou
orthopodeo they were not behaving as they should; literally straight or upright
foot) with (pros) the (o) truth (aletheia that which is in accord with reality) of
the healing messenger and beneficial message (euangelion), I said (eipon) to
(to) Kephas (Kephas a transliteration of the Aramaic word for Rock) in front of
(emprosthen) all (pas): If (ei) you (sy) Yahuwdym (Ioudaios an inaccurate
transliteration of the Hebrew Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yah, commonly
known today as Jews) actively being (hyparcho existing as (present active))
ethnic (ethnikos races or ethnicities; a derivation of ethnos ethnicity; while
only used this once as an adverb, as a noun Paul uses it to infer Gentile) [and (kai)
do not (ouchi) live (zao) Yahuwdym (Ioudaikos)], how (pos in what way) the
ethnicities (ta ethnos people from different races and places) you compel and
force (anagkazo you necessitate by compulsion) (being/acting) Yahuwdym
(Ioudaizein Paul concocted a Greek verb out of the Hebrew proper noun,
Yahuwdym Related to Yah (verb present active infinitive))? (Galatians 2:14)
In the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds
English Interlinear, we find this same amalgamation of words, albeit inclusive of
the extraneous clause, rendered: But when I saw that not they walk straight to the
truth of the good message, I said to the Cephas in front of all if you Judean
existing nationally and not Judaically live how the nations you compel to
judaize? This was written so poorly, these scholars had to make up two words,
Judaically and judaize, in their attempt to translate Paul.
If we are to believe Paul when he protests that faith alone saves, then a
persons walk through life should be irrelevant. And who appointed Paul judge
the one who determines who is right and who is wrong? Moreover, what was the
basis of his verdict?
 While poorly worded, the opening clause is at least comprehensible:
Nevertheless, by contrast, when I perceived that they were not walking
rightly, behaving as they should, with the truth of the beneficial message,....
Shauwl claimed in his letter to Timothy that his euangelion beneficial
message had been entrusted exclusively to him, and to him alone, by God, so
anyone who didnt capitulate regarding his mandate and agree with his doctrine
was behaving improperly. And since both claims were in conflict with Yahowsha
and the Towrah, Shimowns actions, as His Disciple, would have consistently
been inconsistent with the truth according to Shauwl. Further, the reason
Shauwl didnt explain why he believed the Rock was wrong, is that according
to God, Shimown was probably right.
For the record, Shimown would have been in violation of Rabbinical Law
for sharing a meal with Gentiles, and in compliance with the Talmud when he left.
And while that is interesting, it is also irrelevant because the Disciples did not
adhere to rabbinical teaching. Since nothing else was mentioned, any other
conclusion would be speculation. The menu wasnt described. All that we know is
that the participants were mixed with regard to their ethnicity.
The second clause, especially without the scribal addition, makes no sense: I
said to Kephas in front of all: If you Yahuwdym actively being ethnic, how
the ethnicities you compel and force (being/acting) Yahuwdym? The first
problem is that, as an adverb, ethnikos ethnic is modifying the verb,
hyparcho existing as, making it existing ethnically I suppose. And since
Shauwl typically uses ethnos to address races other than Yahuwdym, by
extrapolation he may be saying that the Disciples were acting like Gentiles. But
that notion is torn asunder by the realization that Paulos preferred the Gentile
ways to those of his brethren, which would have received an accommodation
from Paul, not condemnation. And from a logical perspective, the Disciples could
not have been Judaizers if they were adapting to the Gentile customs.
The second issue is that Ioudaizein isnt a word. It begins by attempting to
transliterate the plural of Yahuwdah which is Yahuwdym, but then ends in an
attempt to make the proper noun a verb. So if we were to play along, Ioudaizein in
the modern vernacular it would convey being or acting Jewish. But then
Shauwls argument falls apart, because he is opposed to what he is proposing.
Moreover, neither Yahowah, Yahowsha, the Towrah, nor the Disciples ask
Yahuwdym to convert Gowym. While we are offered the same advice and
guidance, and the same opportunity and benefits, Gowym do not become
Yahuwdym.
Third, with God, freewill is sacrosanct, and thus compulsion is abhorrent to
Yahowah, as is any form of oppression or submission. Therefore, this is pointless,
and likely errant.
 Further, Shauwl has it all wrong. God never asks Gowym to act like
Yahuwdym, but instead asks Yahuwdym not to act like Gowym. And that is
because of the Babylonian influence on Gentile nations. Their religions shaped
the world as we know it, a world that Yahowah wants us to disassociate ourselves
from. Therefore, Yahowah does not want Yahuwdym to adopt the cultures and
traditions of the Gentile nations, ostensibly because they are pagan. But by the
same token, Yahowsha made it clear that the societal customs and traditions of
religious Jews were errant, hypocritical, and even Satanic.
While the Talmud, Oral Law, and Rabbinical traditions are Jewish customs,
and unworthy of our attention, the Torah isnt comprised of Jewish law or Jewish
traditions. The Torah is replete with Yahowahs instructions for living in this
world and in addition to guidance to the next. So since Jewish customs and
traditions are inconsistent with the truth, at least according to God, Shauwl, by
inferring that Shimown as a Jew wanted to force people to submit to Jewish
traditions, committed one of the greatest crimes ever perpetrated on humanity.
Regarding this highly charged and nearly incomprehensible statement, the
KJV elected to write: But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to
the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew,
livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou
the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Trying to make sense of this, more than a thousand years earlier, Jerome
crafted the following in his Latin Vulgate for his pope: But when I had seen that
they were not walking correctly, by the truth of the evangelii, I said to Cephas in
front of everyone: If you, while you are a Jew, are living like the Gentiles and
not the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to keep the customs of the
Iudaizare?
While the NLT reads more smoothly, it is a flight of fancy: When I saw that
they were not following the truth of the gospel message, I said to Peter in front of
all the others, "Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the Jewish laws and are
living like a Gentile, why are you now trying to make these Gentiles follow the
Jewish traditions?
As a result of this statement, and others Shauwl will make like it, Christians
have been beguiled into believing that being Jewish, being Torah observant, and
the religion of Judaism are synonymous. That is what Shauwl meant to convey
with his use of Ioudaizein Judaizers. But while the race and the religion often
share a nexus, most Jews today are not religious. Further, while there are many
Jews who are Torah observant, religious Jews, those practicing Judaism,
universally reject the Torah because they favor their Talmud, not unlike
Christians prioritizing their New Testament over the Old Testament. When they
differ, which is often, those who are religious believe and apply the human
instructions.
The reason this crime has been so catastrophic is that now, as a result of the
mythical Judaizers, when someone who is actually Torah observant teaches
others what God revealed, Yahowahs instructions and invitations are summarily
dismissed by Gentiles because they are perceived to be Jewish. They reject
Yahowahs Invitation to attend Passover for racial and religious reasons, even
though it represents the lone doorway to life, even though Yahowsha observed it.
Similarly, they reject Yahowahs encouragement to make the Shabat a special part
of our relationship Him, discarding it because they wrongly think that it is
Jewish, preferring instead to embrace the Gentile religious custom of Sunday
worship. The Old Covenant in the Christian religion was replaced by a New
Covenant because Paul led them to believe that the former was for the Jews and
the latter was for Gentiles. And as a result, Christians have universally rejected
Yahowahs one and only Covenant, precluding them from forming a relationship
with God and forestalling any opportunity for their salvation.
In this regard, Yahowsha, not Shauwl, provided a compelling example of
how the Pharisees, the ultra-religious Jews who were devoted to their traditions
and Oral Law, tried to impose their ill-conceived rules on Yahowahs children.
He said to them (kai lego autos), You have a finely-crafted way to reject
and invalidate (kalos atheteo you have finely tuned the means to nullify and
dispute the validity of) the instruction (entole precept and prescription) of (tou)
Yahowah () in order (hina) to establish (histamai to propose, maintain,
and uphold) your (sy) tradition (paradosis way and narrative that has been
handed down over time, given to one person after another). (9)
For (gar) Moseh (Mouses) revealed (eipon), Recognize and respect
(timao highly value, honor, and revere) your Father (ton sou) and (kai)
your Mother (ten MTA sou), and also (kai), The one maligning (o kakologeo
the one reviling, cursing, and speaking badly about using unjustified and
abusive language so as to denounce and insult) the Heavenly Father () or
(e) Spiritual Mother (MTA) is the plague of death (thanatos in the separation
of the soul from the body as a result of this pandemic disease) let him die,
terminating his existence (teluuueutao let this be the end of his life). (Mark
7:9-10)
Yahowsha recognized and stated that Rabbinical Law was inconsistent with
the Torah, and thus destructive. Beyond this, the realization that Father and
Mother were presented by Mattanyah using Divine Placeholders affirms that they
represent our Heavenly Father and our Spiritual Mother. After all, the one
unforgivable sin in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms is to insult and demean
Yahowah, our Heavenly Father, and the one unforgivable sin presented in the
eyewitness accounts is to insult and demean the Set-Apart Spirit, our Spiritual
Mother. Without Her, we cannot become Gods Covenant children. That is what
Yahowsha is inferring here.
In this regard, kokologeo is especially telling. Comprised of kakos and logos,
it speaks of those whose words convey a bad attitude because they view things
from the wrong perspective, as their mode of thinking is errant, and thus their
speech is troublesome, injurious, pernicious, and destructive.
The Maaseyahs teaching in opposition to Rabbinical traditions continued
with:
But (de by contrast), you, yourselves, say (umeis lego you attest and
imply), If (ean conditionally) a man (anthropos an individual) may tell,
speaking (eiphe may say) to the father or to the mother (to patri e te metri),
Korban (korban a Hebrew word designating a gift offering used to approach
and come near God), which (o) is (estin) a gift (doron an offering) that (o)
conditionally (ean) you might receive as a provision and assistance (opheleo
you may benefit) from Me (ek ego), (11) therefore, you no longer permit
(ouketi aphiemi accordingly, then, you negate any additional credit or
opportunity) for him (auton) to perform or provide (poieo) for the father or
for the mother (to patri e te metri), (12) invalidating the authority of (akyroo
nullifying and voiding) the Word (Logos) of Yahowah (tou ) through your
traditions (te paradosis umon by your teachings and instructions) which you
have handed down as if it were an authorized (e paradidomi that you have
granted, bestowed, supplied, and controlled in an act of betrayal). And (kai)
many (polys) very similar (paromoios) such things (toioutos) you do
(poieomai). (Mark 7:11-13)
The Rabbis had devised a wealth preservation scheme which, according to
their oral law, allowed religious Jews to shirk their responsibilities, in direct
defiance of the Spirit of the Towrah teaching. Corrupting and perverting the
Towrah has become a game to religious Jews, as it has to Shauwl. And that is
why Yahowah said through the prophet, Howsha: My people are destroyed for
lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject
you from being ministers for Me; because you have forgotten the Towrah of
your God, I also will forget your children. (Howsha / He Saves / Hosea 4:6)
Rather than nailing Martin Luthers thesis against indulgences on the doors of a
Catholic cathedral, affixing Yahowahs testimony to the door of every Christian
church might actually open some eyes.
At this point, Shauwl contradicts himself. The Jewish activities and
religion he has been condemning, he says makes Jews superior to heathen Gentile
outcasts, in spite of the fact that he has catered to their sensibilities. While it
proves that Paul cannot be trusted, there was a reason for his duplicity. Within the
context of an irrational argument like this one, a disingenuous individual can
feign allegiance and sympathy toward Jews, for example, thereby forestalling the
charge of being an anti-Semite, while not risking the loss of his devotees because
it would never dawn on them to question him.
We (emeis) Yahuwdym (Ioudaios Judeans) by nature (physis in origin
and character) and (kai) not (ou) from (ek) sinful (hamartolos social outcasts
avoiding the way and thus heathen) races (ethnos ethnicities). (Galatians 2:15)
Hamartolos was commonly used by the Pharisees to describe and demean a Jew
who was not religious and who did not adhere to rabbinical rules and traditions.
From the perspective of a rabbi, it is akin to using the N word.
This verse was comprised of a pronoun (ego), two nouns (physis and
ethnos), two adjectives (Ioudaios and amartolos), a conjunction (kai), a negative
particle (ou), and a preposition (ek), all manner of speech except a verb. It was
therefore rendered as follows by the Nestle-Alands Interlinear: We in nature
Judeans and not from nations sinners...
Yahowah doesnt want His children to emulate the pagan ways of the Gentile
nations, and says so regularly in the Torah and Prophets. But He is equally
condemning when it comes to the religious and political conduct of Yisraelites.
Therefore, being Yahuwdym by nature does not exclude them from being
sinful. In other words, Pauls comments continue to conflict with Gods
testimony.
Also, by stating this in conjunction with his concocted Ioudaizein acting
Jewish / Judaizer commentary, Shauwl seems to be suggesting that it is
appropriate to follow Jewish traditions, and its not, at least it isnt according to
Yahowah and Yahowsha. Even worse, in the next chapter, we find Shauwl
awkwardly and immediately transitioning to a denunciation of the Towrah,
claiming that it cannot save, putting his preamble in conflict with his conclusion.
While the Greek text was grammatically inadequate, 17th-century English
bible translators stood ready to make the founder of their religion appear literate.
The KJV published: We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the
Gentiles, Jerome in his LV tried: By nature, we are Iudi, and not of the
Gentibus, sinners. Even the NLT played along: You and I are Jews by birth,
not sinners like the Gentiles.
Paul just used a dreadful pejorative to demean those he was asking to believe
him and yet it didnt faze them. But why should we be surprised? He told them
that he was insane and demon-possessed, and that didnt cause them to question
him either.
LE: 08-02-2013
 Questioning Paul
Volume 1: The Great Galatians Debate
Is Christianity Right or Wrong?

Pistis The Birth of Faith

Whom Do You Trust?

At long last the Galatians epistle has moved beyond Paul. So let the Great
Debate begin. Should we believe his Gospel of Grace or should we trust
Yahowahs Torah?
Since the last thing Shauwl scribed was a sentence fragment, and since his
next sentence has an unspecified subject, lets transition into the debate by
restating the previous verse. We (emeis) Yahuwdym (Ioudaios Judeans) by
nature (physis in origin and character) and (kai) not (ou) from (ek) sinful
(hamartolos social outcasts avoiding the way and thus heathen) races (ethnos
ethnicities).... (Galatians 2:15)
Then, in the order of their appearance, and rendered as correctly and
completely as his words allow, this is what comes next...
[And now (de but then by contrast, not extant in the oldest manuscripts)]
having come to realize without investigation or evidence (oida having
intuitively appreciated without doing any research, having perceived and become
acquainted, having acknowledged without observation (deployed as the weakest
form of knowing)) that (hoti because) by no means whatsoever (ou not at all
and never) is made right, is vindicated, or made righteous (dikaioo is
justified, acquitted, put right, or shown to be in compliance, is judged innocent,
removed from guilt, or set free, is in the right relationship) man (anthropos a
human being) out of (ek by means of) tasks and activities associated with
(ergon works someone undertakes, engages in, or acts upon, anything that is
done, including actions or accomplishments associated with) the Towrah (nomou
being nourished by that which is bestowed to become heirs, precepts which
were apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and
approved, and prescriptions for an inheritance; from nemo that which is
provided, assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them) if (ean a marker of
a condition with the implication of a reduced probability) not (me) by (dia
through) belief and faith in (pistis originally meant trust but evolved to faith or
belief as a result of Shauwls usage in these letters) Iesou ( a placeholder
for Yahowsha) Christou (XPN a placeholder for Maaseyah),.... (Galatians
2:16)
The realization that we cannot work for our salvation, and that no one can
earn a trip to heaven, is firmly established throughout the Towrah. Salvation is the
byproduct of the Covenant and is Gods merciful gift to His children. But also
explicit in the Towrah is the realization that salvation only comes to those who,
having closely and carefully observed Yahowahs Towrah Guidance, have
come to know, understand, and accept the terms and conditions of Covenant, and
to those who have answered Yahowahs Invitations to Meet, thereby walking to
God along the path that He has provided. The Towrah alone provides the Divine
Instructions required to be adopted into our Heavenly Fathers family and to be
saved by Him. Exposing this reality was the entire purpose of Yahowshas life.
Said another way, the Towrah, its God, Covenant, and Invitations to Meet,
saved Yahowahs children long before Yahowsha walked into Yaruwshalaim on
Passover to fulfill its promises. Yahowah etched this truth in stone. And apart
from His promises, apart from accepting His Covenants terms and answering His
Towrahs Invitations, Yahowshas life becomes irrelevant. Believing in Him
wont do anyone any good if they dont come to know who He is, what He did,
when He did it, why He did it, and then follow His example. And none of these
things can be know or understood apart from Yahowahs Towrah Teaching.
Yahowsha was not only Towrah observant, He was the living embodiment
of the Word of Yahowah, and thus He was and is the corporeal manifestation of
the Towrah. If you know the Towrah, you know Him. If you dont understand the
Towrah, there is no possible way to understand Him or benefit from Him.
Paul is therefore making a distinction where none exists, and thereby
attempting to make belief in Iesou Christou the solution to his proposition that
the Towrah cannot save. But the Towrah not only can save, and is Gods lone
means to save, it is only by responding to the Towrahs Guidance that we benefit
from what Yahowsha has done.
Since Shauwls proposition that the Towrah cannot save is untrue, it follows
that his remedy, if not by belief and faith in Iesou Christou, is without merit.
However, even if his preamble was accurate, and it is not, his conditional proposal
is invalid on its own. Our belief in Iesou Christou is beside the point. What
matters is that the Towrah is true, reliable, and dependable. Yahowsha affirmed
this many times. Therefore, Yahowshas reliance on the Towrah is important, as
was His insistence that it is truthful and dependable, because without this He
would not have followed it nor fulfilled it.
 Taking this one step further, Yahowsha, a name which means Yahowah
Saves, is not an independent being. He is a diminished corporeal manifestation
of Yahowah, set apart from Yahowah. This makes Yahowah and Yahowsha one
in and the same, identical in every way except intensity, or magnitude if you
prefer. And since Yahowah authored the Towrah, so did Yahowsha. It then
follows that if His Towrah cannot save, then nor can He. And this brings us back
to the realization that Shauwl created a distinction where none actually exists.
But by doing so, by trying to resolve a problem which does not exist by way of
faith in a false assertion, Shauwl negated Yahowshas life, His example, His
testimony, His nature, His purpose, and His sacrifice. It is all for naught.
To be saved, we have to walk to Yahowah the way He has provided, along
the path Yahowsha did, which begins with the life-giving doorway labeled
Passover, across the cleaning threshold called Unleavened Bread, and into the
loving the loving arms of God on Bikuwrym, where the Covenants children are
born anew into the foremost family. All of this then requires us to know, to
understand, to act and rely upon the Seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet
with Yahowah a path which is presented exclusively in the Towrah. This is not
just the Way to God; it is the only Way. So therefore, Pauls proposition that the
Towrah cannot save is in direct opposition to Yahowahs and Yahowshas
testimony and example.
If what Shauwl wrote was true, Adam and Chawah, Noah and His family,
Abraham and Sarah, Yitschaq and Yaaqob, Moseh and Aharown, Yahowsha
ben Nuwn and King Dowd (David), Enoch and Elyah (Elijah), Shamowel
(Samuel) and all of the prophets from Yashayah (Isaiah) to Yirmayah (Jeremiah),
from Zakaryah (Zechariah) to Malaky (Malachi) were all subjected to a cruel
hoax by a God who lied about their salvation, thereby dooming all of them to
eternal damnation in Sheowl. And if He couldnt be trusted then, why would He
be reliable now?
Since Shauwls assertion is irrefutably irreconcilable with Yahowahs
testimony throughout the Torah and Prophets, lets not rely on my translation of
his letter. Please consider the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition
with McReynolds English Interlinear presentation of the first half of Galatians
2:16: Having known but that not is made right man from works of law except
[not applicable] through trust of Jesus Christ... (In its raw and unedited form
there is no confusing this with the Torah or Prophets.)
So now for the housekeeping issues. For those following along using an
interlinear, the de, meaning yet or but found in modern-Greek manuscripts, and
thus in our translations, isnt found in Papyrus 46, the oldest codex containing this
letter, but the rest of the words are accurately attested. So, while Ive included it,
it may be a scribal addition.
 Next, you should be aware that of the three Greek words which can be
rendered know, oida, which was translated come to realize without
investigation or evidence, is the weakest and least thoughtful. In a culture that
valued knowing above all else, oida was the most focused on perceptions and
opinions. It cannot be used in reference to a conclusion that has been predicated
upon a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence.
I suspect Shauwl chose it because a close examination of the Torah
consistently undermines Pauline Doctrine. Had Shauwl written ginosko know
relationally, or even epiginosko know for certain based upon a thorough
evaluation of the facts, it would have required his readers to observe the Towrah,
closely examining and carefully considering it. Doing so would have turned
everyone enriched by Gods teaching against him. And its not as if he didnt
understand the relative difference between the words. Elsewhere in Galatians, he
will use ginosko. Therefore, Shauwl is appealing to ignorance.
Oida was scribed in the perfect plural which suggests that the unspecified
subjects, which can be either Paul and his source of inspiration or presumptuously
and inconsistently, we Yahuwdym from the preceding clause, have previously
come to a realization without due consideration which should influence current
perceptions. In the active voice, the undisclosed subjects have been responsible
for the opinions which follow. As a participle, oida is a verbal adjective, letting us
know that in this way the perceptions of Pauls audience are being modified.
Further, the participle can function as an imperative, inferring that this is a
command.
And as I have mentioned, oida was scribed in the plural, which is the
antithesis of Gods style, because He is one. And finally, oida was scribed in the
nominative, which reveals that Pauls audience is being compelled to accept this
unsupported and unidentified opinion.
Ou is a harsh, uncompromising, and unequivocal form of negation, which sits
in stark contrast to the fuzzy, opinionated nature of oida come to acknowledge
without evidence. But such is the nature of religious positions. While their
precepts are based upon faith, which is the antithesis of actually knowing, the
evidence and conclusions of those suspected of causing suspicion amongst
believers is all too often brushed away by believers protesting, without evidence
or reason, that irrefutable facts and unassailable logic ou by no means at all
could ever be true. This is somewhat analogous to not only being entitled to
ones opinions, but also demanding that others respect them.
Next we find dikaioo, which was translated is made right, is vindicated, or
made righteous. In that it has been negated by ou, Shauwl is saying that no one
is justified or vindicated, acquitted and shown to be in compliance, that no one is
ever determined innocent or set free, that no one is declared righteous, nor is it
possible for anyone to participate in a rightly guided relationship with God, and
thus no one can engage in the Covenant based upon the Towrah the lone place
that same Covenant is presented.
This verb was written in the present tense, which presents an action which is
currently in progress with no assessment of when it will be completed if ever.
This is to say that no person is currently vindicated and that no person may ever
become righteous based upon the Torah. In the passive voice, the unidentified
subjects who have formed this unsupported conclusion receive the action of the
verb. That means that they can do nothing that makes them right with God,
because they are being acted upon as opposed to engaging themselves. Further
shaded by the indicative mood, dikaioo reveals that Paul is claiming that his
statement, and in actuality, his commandment, is authentic. This is the voice of
assertion, where the writer is portraying the inability to be saved as being actual
and unequivocal, without any possibility of a contingency or the intervention or
intent of another. So Shauwl is saying that God, Himself, cannot save anyone
under the conditions He, Himself, laid out. But with the indicative, depending
upon the context, the writer may not actually believe that what he is stating is
truthful, but is nonetheless presenting it as genuine. Lastly, dikaioo was suffixed
in the third person, singular, which makes the path away from God single file,
once again upending Yahowahs teaching where the path to Him is singular and
the paths away from Him crowded.
This brings us to ergon, which was translated tasks and activities associated
with, but could have been just as accurately rendered by acting upon or
engaging in that which follows, even works someone undertakes, engages in, or
acts upon, anything that is done, including actions or accomplishments associated
with the Towrah. Ergon, which describes anything someone does, whatsoever
they undertake to do, and whatever activities they choose to participate in was
scribed in the genitive. This restricts this noun to a specific characterization of the
next noun, which is nomou, used here to indicate Yahowahs Towrah.
Now to the meat of the issue: how did Shauwl intend for his audience to
view nomou? Is it Torah or Law, or both? There is every reason to suspect
that he wants uninitiated readers to see these adverse terms as if they were one
and the same.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, based upon whose side you may be on in this
debate, Yahowahs or Shauwls, the context which follows provides the answer.
Nomou and nomo, the genitive and dative forms of nomos, are used throughout
this section of Galatians to demonstrate that according to Shauwl Yahowahs
Towrah is a set of laws which cannot be obeyed and thus condemn rather than
save. And Paul, himself, translates the Hebrew word towrah in his Galatians 3:10
citation from the Towrah using nomou, forever rendering this debate moot. And
by doing so, anyone cognizant of the fact that towrah means teaching and
guidance in Hebrew is being disingenuous when they replace the Greek nomos
with Law in their bible translations of Pauls letters.
For those willing to ignore the basis of nomos, which is nemo, they will find
lexicons slavishly supporting existing bible translations, willing to state that
nomos can be rendered law, and even Law as the Torah is often
misrepresented in these same English bibles. According to Strongs, nomos is
rendered law all 197 times that it is used in the King James Version of the so-
called Christian New Testament. And yet they, themselves, define nomos as:
anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, or a
command. They go on to say that nomos describes a rule producing a state
approved of God by the observance of which is approved of God, even an
action prescribed by reason.
Unwilling to acknowledge the fact that the Hebrew word towrah does not
mean law and that Yahowah, not Moseh, was the Towrahs Author, Strongs
defines nomos as Mosaic law referring to the context, either to the volume of
the law or to its contents. Adding insult to injury, this Christian publication
claims that nemos describes the Christian religion: the law demanding faith, the
moral instruction given by Christ, especially the precept concerning love.
Upending this, Strongs concludes their innovative and convoluted definition
with: the name of the more important part (the Pentateuch) is put for the entire
collection of the sacred books of the OT.
So while much of what Strongs provided for our consideration was
demonstrably inaccurate, the first thing they wrote, which is missed by most, was
actually accurate: nomos, masculine noun. From a primary nemo (to parcel out,
especially food or grazing). Sadly, however, Strongs does not bother to define
nemo further or reference its use elsewhere in the Greek text. Fortunately, there
are better lexicons.
The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament reports: Etymologically,
nomos derives from nemo assign. Nomos was therefore originally that which has
been assigned. In Hesiod Philo (Op. 276ff), nomos is the objective order
assigned to a group of beings. In addition, they write: In translating nomos in
the NT one should not resort immediately to the OT understanding of tora.
Rather, that a shift in meaning has occurred from tora to nomos should be taken
into account (of the approximately 220 OT occurrences of tora the LXX translates
approximately 200 with nomos). That is to say, while nomos was used
ubiquitously in the Septuagint from 200 BCE to 200 CE to represent the Hebrew
word, towrah, meaning teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance,
throughout the Greek translation of the Torah and Prophets, its original meaning
was altered. I wonder by whom.
Buried in their analysis, the EDNT recognizes that: the Torah is,
therefore,...the instruction of Israel found already in the covenant. And: from
the very beginning the Torah was not understood legally. Therefore, the
translation law (instead of teaching) does not imply a legal understanding.
Which is to say that those Yahowah initially shared His Towrah Teaching
with realized that it represented, not a list of laws, but instead: guidance,
instructions, and directions from their Heavenly Father. Of the subsequent
misinterpretation, one initiated by infighting amongst rabbis vying for power, the
EDNT wrote: It is open to question whether in the course of the postexilic era
[after the return from Babylonian captivity when a compilation of oral traditions
was established as a rival to the Towrah] the first traces of a legal understanding
of the Torah are evident.
The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament goes on to share the
findings of Monsegwo Pasinya, who wrote: nomos does not signify Law in the
legal and juridical sense of classical Greek, but rather Instruction, Teaching,
Doctrine, in accordance with the original sense of the corresponding Hebrew
term tora.
Taking a step backwards, the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament
published: nomos has a basic meaning law, i.e., what is assigned or proper.
Generally any law in the judicial sphere, as a rule governing ones conduct, a
principle, or more specifically in the NT of the Mosaic system of legislation as
revealing the divine will (the Torah) or (Law of Moses). While errantly
representing Yahowahs Towrah as law, at least these folks seem to know that
nomos conveyed what is assigned and proper, that it communicated rules
governing conduct, and that in the NT, nomos describes the Mosaic system of
legislation as revealing the divine will (the Torah) or (Law of Moses). So since
Pauls letter to the Galatians is found in the NT, nomos was intended to read
Torah. But since this concept conveys the divine will, it follows then, that
according to Paul, it must be Gods will to condemn everyone.
The Complete Word Study Dictionary, at least in the case of nomos, is
especially helpful. It begins by telling us that nomos, genitive nomou, masculine
noun from nemo (see aponemo [6320]) to divide among, to parcel out, to allot.
Etymologically something parceled out, allotted, what one has in use and in
possession; hence, usage. Then doing as they suggest, and turning to 6320,
aponemo, we find: from apo, meaning from, and nemo, meaning to give, to
attribute, to allot, to apportion, to assign, and to bestow, a derivative of dianemo:
to distribute throughout and kleronomos: to become an heir, distributing an
inheritance, something parceled out to restore.
 Enriched by this precisely accurate appraisal, lets consider the Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, where we find: The concept that nomos means
law is religious in origin and plays a central role in these cultures. They go on to
state that Rabbinic Judaism and Roman Catholicism were to blame for this
corruption of nomos.
In the TDNT, the original meaning of nomos is defined. It isnt law, but
instead, its implications were derived from nemo, a word which speaks of
being nourished by that which is bestowed to become heirs, of precepts which
were apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and
approved, and of prescriptions for an inheritance, that which is provided,
assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them. Our Heavenly Father is
therefore nourishing His childrens minds with His instructions and teaching us
how to live as members of His Covenant family, all while inheriting all that He is
offering.
And yet, it is apparent that while Paul was referring to Yahowahs Towrah,
the original meaning of towrah and nomos was not what he intended to convey,
because someone who benefitted from nourishment, becoming an heir and
receiving His inheritance, would be right with God, growing, healthy, vindicated,
and acquitted. Shauwl instead wanted his audience to read nomos as Law,
something both oppressive and restraining, restricting ones liberty, while at the
same time associating these things with the Torah. Nomo and nomou are almost
always deployed in the singular and directed at the one and only Torah.
Therefore, while Paul meant his audience to read nomou as Law, and think
Torah, this requires those who believe him to be ignorant of the fact that
Towrah actually means: the source from which teaching, direction, instruction,
and guidance flow. It even requires ignorance of the etymology of nomou,
because properly translated, Yahowahs Towrah is actually a source of
nourishment that has been bestowed so that we can become heirs, inheriting and
receiving prescriptions which cause us to be proper and approved. It also
requires readers to be unaware that ninety percent of the time Towrah appeared in
the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, nomos was deployed in the Septuagints Greek
translation of Gods Hebrew terminology.
Furthermore, Shauwl cannot possibly be proposing that by no means
whatsoever is made right, is justified or vindicated, man out of engaging in or
acting upon that which is nourishing, providing us with an inheritance which
makes us proper and approved. Sure, Paul is prone to double talk, circular
reasoning, and contradicting himself, but this would be too overtly duplicitous.
These things considered, the remainder of this epistle will serve to affirm that
the nomos / nomou / nomo Paul is attempting to mischaracterize as law, to
demean as incompetent, and to annul as antiquated is Yahowahs Towrah. And
that means that this debate is between Yahowahs Towrah and Shauwls Epistles.
It is the word of God versus the letters of a man.
Realizing this, the conditional conjunction in Galatians 2:16, if not by,
from ean me dia, means that, according to Shauwl, the remedy for the Towrahs
inability to save those who act upon it ean me dia pistis IHN XPN could be, but
probably isnt, faith in Iesou Christou. I say could be because ean is a marker
of a condition with the implication of a reduced probability, and thus is not a
certainty faith never is.
As we make our way through Shauwls jarring announcement, we next have
to determine how to render pistis a word which originally conveyed trust and
reliance. Written here in the genitive feminine form, I decided to translate it
belief and faith, because Pauls letters, which comprise half of the Christian
New Testament, leave no other informed or rational option. Paul never provides
sufficient information to know Yahowsha, to trust Yahowah, or to rely on His
Torah, precluding these connotations. Moreover, Paul consistently positions
faith as being preferred to knowing and understanding, which are required for
trust. In fact, sharing the Torah, and thus learning what it says, is strongly
discouraged in favor of simply believing Paul. This is the intended goal of his
letters.
So while pistis is almost always, and correctly, rendered faith or belief in
English bibles when penned by Shauwl, when spoken by Yahowsha and His
Disciples, we should remain cognizant of the fact that the Greek word originally
conveyed confidence and assurance in what is known. It spoke of reliability
and proof, as well as persuasion based upon a thoughtful evaluation of the
evidence.
Therefore, at the time this epistle was written, pistis was about conviction in
the veracity of the truth. Pistis was that which evoked trust and that which
could be relied upon as being dependable. And as such, pistis was once the
opposite of faith and belief, because when evidence is sufficient to know and
understand, faith becomes irrelevanteven counterproductive because it tends to
stall inquiry.
However, languages evolve. Influential individuals shape the meanings of
words. And pistis is the lever upon which Pauline Doctrine pivots. It is therefore
likely that his epistles changed the lexicon and caused pistis to evolve from
trust to belief, from reliance to faith. I say this because Paul and his lies
have influenced more people than anyone else in human history. And twisting
words and their meanings was the means to his madness.
 Moreover, it bears repeating: Paul never provides the kind of evidence which
would be required for someone to know Yahowah or understand His plan of
salvation sufficiently to trust God or rely upon His plan. So in the context of
Galatians, trust is a fish out of water, while faith survives swimmingly. And
so we should not be surprised that the founder of the worlds most popular
religion transformed the concept of faith so that it is now synonymous with his
religion, or that believers are often equated with Pauline Christians.
In this particular context, it is actually impossible to credibly translate pistis
trust in or reliance upon because those who know enough about Yahowsha to
trust and rely upon Him understand that there can be no condition which
differentiates between Him and the Towrah. Said another way, since Yahowsha
was Torah observant, if the Torah cannot save, then neither can He. More to the
point, a person cannot rely upon and thus benefit from Yahowshas participation
in Passover, Unleavened Bread, or FirstFruits before they understand what these
Invitations to Meet with God accomplish on our behalf and how they enable the
Covenants benefits.
Paul never explains the purpose of these Meetings, and thus his audience was
never provided the information required to trust in or rely upon Yahowshas
fulfillment of them. And that may be why he chose oida as his opening verb,
hoping that no one would do the research necessary to question the dichotomy he
foolishly purports exists between the Towrah, Yahowsha, the Covenant, and our
salvation through responding to Yahowahs seven Invitations to Meet with Him.
Gods consistent, unwavering, and dependable guidance and example on one hand
and Pauls faith-based religion on the other.
The integration of if not by belief in Iesou Christou is completely
misdirected. Even if the Towrah had been properly presented and even if
Yahowshas name had been accurately conveyed, its His perceptions of the
Towah that matter, not our perceptions of Him. So to have any hope of being
appropriate, rather than us placing our faith in Him, we should be celebrating
the fact that Yahowshas reliance was upon the Towrah and that He trusted it,
observed it, affirmed it, lived it, and fulfilled it.
Speaking of Yahowsha, it is entirely possible that Paul never actually
deployed the placeholders we now find in subsequent copies of his letters. He
would have had no reason for using them. His audience was not familiar with His
Hebrew name or with the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms so they would not have
known what the placeholders represented nor have any way to look them up. They
would not have recognized the name, Yahowsha, nor realized that it meant
Yahowah Saves. In fact, using placeholders would have been counterproductive
to Shauwls mission, which was to present his caricature of Iesou Christou as
the Savior, not Yahowah. And contributing to this realization, based upon Greek
grammar rules, Yahowsha was a girls name and Iesous was sufficiently similar
to Zeus name in Greek mythology to facilitate attributing their attributes to one
another. Therefore, considering these factors, it is likely that Paul wrote and said
Iesou, Iesous, and Iesoun in his appeal to Greeks.
So while Papyrus 46, the oldest extant manuscript of these epistles, uses
Divine Placeholders normally reserved for the title and name the Maaseyah
Yahowsha, reason dictates that a scribe in Alexandria, Egypt added them in an
effort to harmonize Pauls letters with the popular eyewitness accounts published
by the Disciples Mattanyah and Yahowchanan.
As further evidence for this, had Shauwl intended to write ha Maaseyah
Yahowsha, accurately conveying Gods name and title, he would have
contradicted his proposition. If the Savior is the Maaseyah the Work of
Yahowah, then Galatians 2:16 is an outright lie. Since the Maaseyah is the work
of the Towrah, He cannot both save and not save at the same time. Simply stated,
the Maaseyah is a tool designed and wielded by Yahowah to fulfill the Torahs
promises and plans, something Shauwl is refuting.
Similarly, since Yahowsha means Yahowah Saves, Yahowah is our
Savior, not Iesou Christou. When the name and title are properly communicated,
Yahowsha cannot be separated from Yahowah and the Maaseyah becomes the
Torah in action, concepts which negate Pauline Doctrine.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Divine Placeholders were
added by scribes one or more generations after Paul penned his epistles so that
they would correspond to the same standard found throughout the more highly
revered eyewitness accounts. Or at the very least, Shauwl deployed them
realizing that his animosity toward the Torah would conceal their actual meaning.
Lastly in this regard, even if the placeholders were correctly replaced by
Yahowshas title and name, they cannot be ordered as Paul has them: Yahowsha
Maaseyah, much less Iesou Christou or Jesus Christ. Maaseyah, Christos,
and Christ are not last names. Maaseyah, as a title, when presented in
conjunction with a name, must read ha Maaseyah Yahowsha, replete with the
definite article, and in that order. So Shauwl was either unaware, which bodes
poorly for inspiration, or he was attempting to make Iesou Christou read like his
gods first and last name. And if the later is true, he succeeded in fooling most
everyone.
The moment we acquiesce to the inevitable, and adjust our rendering of pistis
in Shauwls epistles to faith, which is what he obviously intended, and then
convey Iesou Christou, as Paul most likely said it and wrote it, the few things
Paul conveyed which could be construed positively, become as deceptive as the
rest of his agenda. Consider this proclamation as a prime example: We
Yahuwdym by nature and not from the social outcasts of sinful and heathen
races (2:15) having come to realize without investigation or evidence that by
no means whatsoever is made right, is vindicated, or made righteous man by
means of tasks and activities associated with the Towrah if not by belief and
faith in Iesou Christou,.... (Galatians 2:15-16)
This changes the paradigm from being an affirmation that we cannot save
ourselves to a referendum on religion. And it is a devastating one for Christians
because Iesou Christou is a mythical moniker for a savior who is unrelated to
Yahowah, one made in the image of a man, one who was killed by men and then
resurrected like the pagan gods of the heathen races.
The sum and substance of most religious systems is embodied in the means
its members deploy to earn salvation. Depending upon the religion, the faithful
either obey religious edicts, make significant monetary contributions, lead a good
life, advance the common good, deny themselves, or engage in jihad. In Judaism,
for example, one achieves righteousness by complying with Rabbinical Law.
Becoming liberated from this works-based salvation scheme would have been
cathartic for Shauwl, literally turning the world of this former rabbi upside down.
Right would be wrong. Wrong would be right. Good would be bad and bad would
be good. To develop a relationship with Yahowah, everything he had been told,
everything he had experienced, everything he had believed, and everything his
family and friends held dear had to be rejected. And sadly, based upon what Paul
told his detractors in Acts, he was never able to take this step.
This internal turmoil may have led to Pauls crusade against legalism. And
while he would have been right to expose and condemn the religious myth of
works-based salvation, he was wrong in not saying that the set of laws he was
impugning were conceived by rabbis. But in all likelihood, that was by design. It
wasnt Rabbinical Law that he speaking about. Unlike the Torah, Shauwl never
cites the Yaruwshalaim Talmud. And yet, by never making the distinction clear,
he diminished his susceptibility to criticism.
During the time Galatians was written in 50 CE, Yahuwdym represented the
overwhelming preponderance of the followers of The Way. As a result, most
everyone understood the relationship between Yahowsha and the Torah. And yet,
some may have been unable to remove religious traditions from their lives as they
were ingrained in their culture. For example, even though I know that Christmas
is based on pagan myths, it is such a pervasive part of our society, that its
difficult to completely eliminate its influence.
Shauwl was equally conflicted. As a student of Gamaliel, he had a working
knowledge of the Torah and Prophets, but he would have been far more devoted
to Jewish Oral Law. As a Pharisee in training, he would have known it better than
he knew the Word of God.
And therein lies one of the biggest challenges with Shauwls epistles. For
him, and for the preponderance of religious Jews, then and today, the Law was
not the Torah, but instead Rabbinical Law derived from Oral Traditions known
as Halakhah. Meaning the path that one walks, Halakhah is Jewish Law, a
complete set of rules and practices that Jews are compelled to follow, including
commandments instituted by Rabbis and other binding customs. While the Torah
is credited as being one of many sources of Jewish Law, the overwhelming
preponderance of the rules which comprise Halakhah were either conceived or
modified by men. Pauls ubiquitous But I say statements are remarkably similar
in style and format to what we find throughout the Talmud.
Rabbi Maimonides referenced the Torah to usurp its credibility for his
religion (as did Paul, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith). Corrupted and truncated
paraphrases of Gods testimony served as the launching point from which he
conceived the list of 613 Mitzvot he compiled in his Mishneh. The Talmud is
similar in that it was comprised of Rabbinical arguments on how to interpret the
Torah. And in that way, the Talmud reads like Pauls epistles. And also similar is
the Quran, which Talmud readings also inspired. Likewise, Rabbinical Law
referenced the Torah simply to give Rabbis the pretence of authenticity. It is being
used the same way by Paul. Akibas rantings, like Pauls, and like Muhammads
after them, claimed that the Torah was inspired by God and yet they had no
compunction against misrepresenting it to make it appear as if it was the source of
their twisted religious ideas.
The reason I have brought this to your attention is to let you know that one of
the many failings of Pauls letters is that they purposefully blur the enormous
distinction between the Oral Law of the Jews and the Towrah Teaching of
Yahowah. The result of this is that the Torah is deliberately and deceitfully
miscast as being both Jewish and as being comprised of a set of Laws. Therefore,
when a Christian steeped in Pauline mythology hears that someone is Torah
observant, rather than correctly concluding that such individuals are interested in
knowing what God had to say, they falsely assume that they are either Jewish or
have converted to Judaism. For this alone, Pauls letters are an abomination.
When trying to make a distinction between these things, Yahowsha removed
all potential confusion by adding Prophets and/or Psalms to His Towrah
references, thereby making it obvious that He was speaking of His testimony
which begins with His Towrah followed by His Psalms, or Writings, and
Prophets. But unfortunately, Shauwl didnt follow Gods examplein this or any
other way. When Yahowsha criticized the inappropriateness of Jewish Law, He
always did so in the context of its authors, the Rabbis. But Shauwl only makes
this distinction once, leaving those unwilling to consider his declaration in
Galatians 3:10, where he actually translates towrah using nomou, guessing which
set of instructions he was talking about: Jewish Law or Yahowahs Torah.
However, the answer screams out of Pauls letters. If Galatians 2:16 through
5:15 is viewed as a cohesive argument, then every reference to nomos / nomo /
nomou must be translated: Torah. There isnt a single verse referencing
Rabbinical Law, and there are many which explicitly reference the Torah.
Moreover, as Paul builds to the climax of his argument in the fourth chapter of
Galatians, any doubt that he was assailing the Torah vanishes. He references the
site the Torah was revealed to demean its Covenant.
In this light, Id like you to consider the opening statement of Galatians 2:16
once again now that you are aware that its message is hopelessly twisted.
Having come to realize without investigation or evidence that by no means
whatsoever is made right, is vindicated, or made righteous man by means of
tasks and activities associated with the Towrah if not by belief and faith in
Iesou Christou,....
Therefore, faith in Iesou Christou Jesus Christ is Pauls solution to his
preposterous notion that Yahowahs Towrah, His Covenant, and His Seven
Invitations are incapable of performing as promised. But if that is true, why did
the Maaseyah Yahowsha observe them and fulfill them?
So it is now Yahowahs Torah versus Pauls Gospel. It is trust in Yahowah
versus belief in Paul. So tell me, since this is such an obvious choice, why have as
few as one in a million chosen God over this man?
And who is Yahowsha if He is not Yahowah? If the Torah isnt
trustworthy, how can the corporeal manifestation of it be reliable? If the Torahs
Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God on Passover and Unleavened
Bread were incapable of producing vindication, then why did Yahowah
continuously claim that they were responsible for saving the Children of Yisrael
from religious and political persecution in Egypt? If the Torah wasnt the
solution, why did the Maaseyah Yahowsha refer to it to answer most every
question?
As we shall discover, Paul is committed to negating the Torahs purpose, to
severing the connection between the Torah and Yahowsha, and to pitting the
Maaseyah against the testimony of Yahowah. But when any of these things are
done, Yahowshas life becomes immaterial, His words lose their meaning, and
His sacrifice is nullified. There is no salvation, and life under these circumstances
is for naught.
 Considering this background, we should not be surprised that Paul repeats
himself, creating a darkened mirror image of this diabolical message in the second
half of Galatians 2:16. Here it is as he intended (that is to say, translated
consistently with the rest of this epistle)...
...and (kai) we (ego) to (eis into and on) Christon Iesoun (
divine placeholders for the Maaseyah (Work of Yahowah) Yahowsha,
(Yahowah Saves), however, since this epistle has disassociated Yahowsha from
Yahowah and the Maaseyah from the Towrah, its misleading to connect that
which the author has severed), ourselves believed (pisteuo we have had faith
(scribed in the aorist tense to portray a snapshot in time without any consideration
of the process which may have brought it about, in the active voice revealing that
whoever we represents was providing the faith, and in the indicative mood
indicating that belief is being presented as valid even though the writer may not,
himself, concur)) in order for (hina) us to have become righteous, to have been
acquitted and vindicated (dikaioo for us to put right or to be set free, to be
justified or acquitted, to be shown to be in compliance, to be judged innocent and
declared righteous, and to be right in the relationship (scribed in the aorist,
passive, subjunctive collectively conveying a current condition without prescient
or promise of being acted upon which is probable)) out of (ek) faith in (pisteuo
belief in) Christou (Y a placeholder for the Maaseyah (without the definite
article), and (kai) not (ou) out of (ek by means of) acting upon or engaging in
(ergon works someone undertakes, works which are done, including actions,
tasks, accomplishments, or activities associated with) the Towrah (nomou the
allotment which is parceled out, the inheritance which is given, the nourishment
which is bestowed to be possessed and which is used to grow, the precepts which
are apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved,
and the prescription to become an heir (singular genitive, and thus restricted to a
singular specific and unique characterization)), because (hoti) out of (ek) works
of (ergon things someone undertakes, engaging in and acting upon) the Towrah
(nomou the nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and used by heirs to
be proper and approved) not will be acquitted, vindicated, nor made righteous
(ou dikaioo not will be justified nor set free, not be declared innocent nor be in
compliance, not will be in a proper relationship) any (pas all) flesh (sarx
corporeal mass of humans and animals). (Galatians 2:16)
Its a significantly more sinister version of the same errant and lifeless
message, this time in reverse order. The reason that the inverse is worse is that
this time Shauwl eliminates any possibility of absolving him of the crime of
denouncing Yahowahs Towrah. He goes beyond erroneously and unequivocally
stating that salvation is entirely the result of Christon Iesoun believing, but also
that it is absolutely impossible for anyone to be saved by responding to
Yahowahs Towrah.
While the difference may appear subtle, it is an enormous and deadly step
from having come to realize without evidence that by no means whatsoever
is vindicated or made righteous man by means of acting upon the Towrah if
not by belief in Iesou Christou, to we on Christon Iesoun, ourselves
believed in order for us to have become righteous and to have been acquitted
and vindicated out of faith in Christou, and not by means of acting upon or
engaging in the Towrah, because by means of engaging in and acting upon
the Towrah not any flesh will be acquitted nor made righteous. If you are not
careful, the initial statement may seem plausible, especially if Yahowsha and the
Towrah are combined to render salvation, but that cannot be done with the inverse
iteration because belief in Iesoun and acting upon the Towrah are distinct, with
one prevailing and the other failing.
While it is not the biggest problem in this pile of rubbish, it bears mentioning,
our sarx flesh is irrelevant. Yahowsha constantly encourages us to value our
nepesh soul sufficiently to observe His Towrah. There will be no physical
bodies in heaven. Pauls animosity toward and fixation upon the flesh is a
derivative of his Gnostic leanings.
As a master communicator, Yahowah presents His story from every
imaginable perspective, using a wide array of characters, word pictures, and
symbols. Throughout it all, regardless of the perspective or occasion, God is
always consistent and consistently correct. But more often than not, man simply
repeats his mistakes. That is what Shauwl has done in Galatians 2:16 as a prime
example:
Since close and careful observation requires effort, since relationships require
both parties to engage, since an invitation must be answered, since a path
necessitates walking along it to get to wherever it leads, it is a mistake to refrain
from acting upon the Torah. By doing so, an individual forestalls all of
Yahowahs guidance. And in this regard, in the fourth chapter of Galatians, Paul
would have us believe that no man is saved by observing the Torah. That of
course, would be news to God.
Knowing that there is no such thing as the faith of Jesus Christ, why do you
suppose the authors of the King James Version said that there was? Knowing
that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ,
even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of
Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh
be justified. The notion that God would have faith is absurd in the extreme.
 And it appears as if we have Jerome and his Latin Vulgate to blame for the
anomaly of reason: And we know that man is not justified by the works of the
legis/law, but only by the fidem/faith of Iesu Christi. And so we believe in Christo
Iesu, in order that we may be justified by the fide/faith of Christi, and not by the
works of the legis/law. For no flesh will be justified by the works of the law.
Not that it is difficult, Galatians must be twisted for Christianity to survive,
so the always entertaining New Living Translation makes their faithful
contribution with: Yet we know that a person is made right with God by faith in
Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so
that we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not because
we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying
the law.
In their novel enterprise, each of the following words were added without
textual justification all to satisfy the whims of the religious: yet, we know, a
person, is made right, with God, faith, Jesus Christ, obeying, the, law, we have,
believed, Christ Jesus, so that, we might, be made, with God, because, our faith,
in Christ, we have obeyed, the, for, no one, will ever, be made right, with God, by
obeying, the, law, law. But they were on solid footing with that, by, in, not, by,
and, in, right, because. Yet in fairness, the NLT can be credited with accurately
conveying Pauls intended message. Too bad what he wrote wasnt true.
This is the essence of the Christian religion as it was conceived and promoted
by Paul. The Torah, although positioned as the Word of God, was rejected,
considered inept and pass. The fact that Yahowsha observed it, affirmed it, and
lived it, was ignored. Inexplicably then, faith in Him was established as the means
to salvation, even though Yahowshas testimony and example undermined the
premise. The proposition was as insane as the mind of the man who devised it.
Altogether, it reflects poorly on the will of men and women to think.
In Gods attack on the Scribes and Rabbis in Mattanyah 23, Yahowsha
clearly identifies His foes. He explains what they have done to earn this
condemnation. And then, He reveals why it would be inappropriate for any of us
to be similarly religious. Therefore, while this is a translation two times over,
from Hebrew to Greek and then to English, to the degree that the tenses, voices,
and moods capture Yahowshas attitude toward political and religious leaders,
there is much we can learn from His testimony...
Then, at that time (tote), Yahowsha spoke to (laleo) large crowds of
common people (tois ochlos many, excluding political or religious leaders) and
also (kai) to His Disciples (tois mathetes autos followers, those in a close
personal relationship, and students who were learning), (23:1) saying (lego): The
Scribes (oi Grammateus the political leaders, experts, scholars, government
officials, public servants, clerks, teachers, and the media) and the Pharisees (oi
Pharisaios the rabbis devoted to the Oral Law and Talmud, fundamentalist
clerics engaged in the public acceptance and expression of perfunctory religious
rites, those who claimed Gods authority for themselves) have appointed
themselves, trying to seat themselves with the influence and authority to
interpret (kathizo kathedra have attempted to put themselves in an exalted seat
as judges and teachers along with (aorist active indicative)) Moseh. (23:2)
Therefore consequently (oun accordingly, these things being so),
individually (pas or collectively) if (ean when if ever, and in the unlikely
case, presented as a condition which has a low probability of occurring) and to
the degree that (hosos so long as, as much as, and as far as) they might of
their own initiative convey, perhaps possibly sometime communicating (lego
they acting on their own perhaps say, maintain, or intentionally imply at some
point in time (aorist active subjunctive)) to you (sy), you may choose to engage
(poieomai you have the option to act, or even carry out or perform the assigned
task (aorist (irrespective of time) active imperative (possibly acting of your own
volition))) or (kai also on the other hand) you can choose to be observant
(tereo you may presently elect to be on your guard, eyes open and focused,
beholding and contemplating to learn by looking; from theoreo attentively
viewing, closely surveying, and carefully considering everything that can be
perceived and discerned with your eyes, scrutinizing everything within your view
(the present tense indicates action which is current and ongoing, the active voice
denotes the fact that the observant are themselves acting and engaging in this way,
and the imperative mood suggests that this was a polite request which as an
expression of freewill, may or may not be accepted)) accordingly (kata).
But (de) the (ta) assigned tasks (ergon works, acts, pursuits, and
undertakings, business, actions, deeds, and things acted upon or engaged in)
associated with them, you should refrain from, choosing not to do them ever
again (autos me poieomai these things you should question and be adverse to
doing them, regarding them you should want to be hesitant, aware of the negative
purpose and consequences of these assigned tasks, choosing of your own volition
to no longer or ever again, act this way, in denial of the ideas behind these
behaviors, negating their assumptions (third person personal plural masculine
pronoun, negative particle, present active imperative verb)).
For indeed (gar because), they choose to speak (lego they try to
attribute and imply), but (kai) they never actually act (ou poieomai they do not
desire to genuinely engage nor elect to really perform the assigned tasks on an
ongoing basis (present active indicative)). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew
23:3)
 To begin, Yahowsha was warning common people to be wary of, even to
suspect and to be critical of the nations leadership questioning those in
positions of political, academic, and religious authority to the point of
disassociating from them. In essence, He called those with the most influence
hypocrites. Unlike Yahowah and therefore Yahowsha, who personally follows
His own advice, doing what He says, political and religious leaders say one thing
while doing another. In opposition to them, God revealed the means to their
madness, saying that they had appointed themselves, personally claiming the
authority to influence the nation by usurping the Towrahs authority. But contrary
to their claims, as was the case with Shauwl, neither their authority, their
interpretations, or their instructions came from God something wed be wise to
consider today.
But what is especially relevant here is that Yahowsha is as equivocal as
words allow relative to the chance possibility that a nations leaders might
actually say something useful relative to the Towrah. He is translated using oun
these things being so, pas individually or collectively, ean in the
unlikely event with a low probability of occurring, and hosos as far as or to
the degree, that lego (in the aorist subjunctive) they might possibly at some
time convey something sy to us, we then can take it under advisement. He
said poieomai (in the aorist imperative) we could chose the proper response,
which might be to engage and act, or not, in recognition of the fact that the most
influential deceivers make their lies appear credible through counterfeit, where
some of the strokes are genuine. Consistent with Yahowahs guidance in the
Towrah, Yahowsha is tereo (in the present active imperative) encouraging us
to be observant, to keep our eyes open and be on our guard, so that we can survey
and assess the situation, gathering information, and then contemplate what we
have learned so that we can make an informed and rational decision.
In complete discord with most English bibles, Yahowsha did not ask us to
observe, in the religious sense of keeping or obeying, what they say. He was
instead asking us to be wary of clerics, so as to scrutinize their words, and thereby
determine whether they are in concert with the Towrah or out of tune with it.
The best part of all, however, is Gods conclusion. He is no longer even
remotely unequivocal. Yahowsha did a great deal more than simply encourage us
not to participate in the pursuits of political and religious leaders. The phrase
autos me poieomai, when scribed in the present imperative, tells us that we
should not only refrain from religious and political behavior, but that we should
attempt to thwart the political and religious agenda, bringing it to an end
stopping it here, now, and always. God said: Dont do it, recognizing that while
this was His desire for us, refraining from engaging in religion or politics is our
decision. This particular variation of negation expressly encourages us not to get
into the habit of participating in national customs, societal traditions, political
parties, or religious rites. In other words, dont follow the example or the
behavior, and do not act upon the stipulations, of government employees, the
media, scholars, ones political leadership, or clerics, especially fundamentalist
religious leaders who attempt to assert their authority and who claim to speak for
God. Yahowsha wants us to question them, to be adverse to them, to be hesitant
to follow them. He wants us to consider the negative consequences of their
agenda. Recognizing the fact that His Guidance is the antidote for the plague of
religion, Yahowah repeatedly encourages His children to listen to Him while
closely and carefully observing His Towrah.
In that Yahowsha had more to tell us about the hypocrisy and negative
influence of societal leaders, both religious and political, lets listen in a moment
longer. It is as if God sees people in positions of authority as parasites, burdening
their citizens so that they are compelled to serve them. So they tie up heavy
burdens and lay them on mens shoulders, but they, themselves, are
unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. They do all their deeds to
be noticed by men, to be watched and to be seen; for they broaden their
phylacteries (read: religious quotes, pontifications, and outward
appearances) and lengthen the tassels of their garments (read: decorated
uniforms, clerical robes, and distinguished suits and trappings). They love
the place of honor at banquets, the most valued seats in the synagogues, and
respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi (meaning
exalted) by men. (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 23:4-7)
Yahowsha was blunt when He exposed and condemned the Scribes and
Pharisees. He was not only rebuking their hypocrisy, He demonstrated how we,
ourselves, should respond to all religious and political proclamations. We ought to
be wary of Rabbinical Law, of the Talmud, and of religious and political parties.
His advice was clear: scrutinize everything they say and dont do anything they
do. And in this context, it is worth noting that Shauwl has told us that he was
trained to be a Rabbi. He was and remains one of them. He acts and sounds
remarkably similar to those Yahowsha scorned and warned us about.
But there was more to Yahowshas instruction. Under the surface, He was
contrasting mans legalistic religious schemes with His perspective on the
Covenant relationship. Men place burdens on people, oppressing them. Religions
are works based, and thus ones salvation is predicated upon what they do. By
contrast, while God wants us to engage in a relationship with Him, He gives
infinitely more than we provide. And when it comes to our salvation, God
requires nothing of us, except that we answer His Invitations, walk along the path
He has provided, and reach up and grasp His hand. Said another way, God lifted
the burden of sin from us, taking it upon Himself.
 These insights, one superficial, the other lingering right beneath the surface,
are what is missing in Pauls writings. On the surface, his communication skills
are deplorable. And the deeper one looks, the more obvious it becomes that he
was weaving a web to ensnare his victims.
There is no more devilish or diabolical act than misrepresenting Yahowahs
testimony, and yet this is what Shauwl has done by denouncing His ability to
save His children. It renders everything Yahowsha said and did invalid.
And dont be confused by the notion that Shauwl repetitively claims to be
authorized by God. Muhammad did the same thing, and in his religion, Allah is
Satan. Both did it to satiate their lust for unchallenged power and to neuter their
critics.
Shauwl neither met, spoke with, nor knows Yahowah. He never once
explains the meaning behind Yahowshas name or His title, both of which are
essential to knowing who He is and what He did. He never once explains the
terms and conditions of the Covenant, which is the only way to engage in a
relationship with God. He never speaks of Yahowahs seven annual Meetings, or
mentions that they represent the narrow path to God and thus to our salvation.
There isnt a single reference in his letters to Yahowshas Instruction on the
Mount, where Yahowsha conveyed the enduring nature of His Torah to all who
would listen. Not once does Shauwl present Yahowsha as the diminished
corporeal manifestation of Yahowah, and twice he lies, promoting the
preposterous myth that the completeness of the godhead resided on him bodily.
Most of what Paul has written is untrue. And while we have not yet seen an
example, should one arise, the occasional accurate statement will only serve to
distract those who are easily confused. He was an extraordinarily evil man. And
with his last statement, he has removed the veil hiding his hideous nature.

There would be no point to Yahowshas willingness to acquit us if we were

not sinners. So if that was the intended purpose of Shauwls next statement, it is
superfluous:
But (de) if (ei) seeking and finding (zeteo desiring and looking for,
asking or demanding, and trying to obtain) to be made righteous (dikaioo to be
vindicated and innocent, to be right) in (en) Christo ( the Maaseyah (but
without the definite article, the errant Christou used as a name is a better
grammatical fit than the appropriate title the Work of Yahowah), we were
found (heuriskomai we were discovered and were experiencing), also (kai)
ourselves (autos) sinners (hamartolos social outcasts devoted to sin and
estranged by missing the way), should not we be anxious (ara an interrogative
implying impatience, anxiety, and distress over a question with a negative
response) Christos becomes ( placeholder for the Maaseyah (scribed in the
nominative whereby the subject of the noun is renamed, inferring to be) a
guilty, errant, and misled sin (hamartia an evil, mistaken, and estranged)
servant (diakonos)? Not (me) may it exist (ginomai may it be, become, or
happen (scribed in the aorist (a snippet in time without respect to a process or a
plan), middle (saying that the subject, which is implied to be Christos, is being
affected, and thus is becoming misled and mistaken, by His own action), and
optative (whereby the writer is portraying this as being possible and
desirable)))? (Galatians 2:17) We remain mired in the realm of poor writing and
errant ideas.
Before discussing this rather odd statement, lets consider how Christian
publications rendered it. The scholastically acclaimed Nestle-Aland Greek New
Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear, the NA for brevity
henceforth, attests: If but seeking to be made right in Christ, we were found also
ourselves sinners, then Christ of sin servant. Not may it become. The KJV
proposed: But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are
found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. LV: But if,
while seeking to be justified in Christo, we ourselves are also found to be sinners,
would then Christus be the minister of sin? Let it not be so! If this was Scripture,
and Divinely inspired, why was it necessary for Paul to answer his question?
While some may applaud the NLT for attempting to make sense of the
senseless, the arrogance of independently authoring something they have the
audacity to pass off as Scripture is appallingeven reprehensible. But suppose
we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then we are found
guilty because we have abandoned the law. Would that mean Christ has led us
into sin? Absolutely not! A-Paul-ing indeed.
First and foremost, according to Yahowahs Towrah Teaching, our first
priority shouldnt be our salvation. We should instead seek to know Yahowah
first. Second, through careful observation of the Towrah, we should come
understand the terms and benefits of His Covenant so that we can participate in
this relationship by embracing all five of Yahs conditions, thereby becoming
children in our Heavenly Fathers family. And then fourth, during this process, we
are invited to walk to God along the path He has provided to make us perfect and
thus righteous, in addition to immortal, enriched, and empowered. Therefore, seek
Yahowah first, inclusion in His Covenant, next, because only then can we be
vindicated.
 It would be irrational and counterproductive for God to save those who
neither know Him nor enjoy His company. Heaven, filled with the same kind of
souls who populate the Earth, would cause it to be no less horrific than the mess
we have made for ourselves here only then the problems would be everlasting,
turning heaven into hell. God is smart enough to populate His home with those
who find His guidance worthy and His teaching edifying, even enjoyable. This
then, as a result of Pauls letters, excludes all Christians.
Therefore Paul, as is the case with Christians, have this all wrong. It is as if
they are desirous of being saved by a God they do not know and whose plans they
do not respect. They are unwilling to consider the fact that a sane God would have
no interest in spending eternity with such misled and self-centered individuals.
Second, it is the Miqra of Matsah which makes us perfect, not Christo.
Yahowah promised to remove the fungus of sin from the souls of those who
answered His Invitation to be Called Out and Meet on Unleavened Bread.
Through separation, Yahowshas soul paid the price to ransom those who avail
themselves of this promise. Moreover, Yahowshas name means Yahowah
Saves, revealing to us that Yahowah is our Savior, not Christo.
Especially telling, heuriskomai we were found was written in the aorist
indicative which denotes past tense. It was also scribed in the passive,
suggesting that the condition of being sinners was placed upon us. Reason dictates
that this was done was to infer that the Torah makes people sinners, when in
actuality, it is the Torah which resolves the issue of our sin. Also, based upon the
tenses, this cannot inferring that by continuing to sin after being saved that we are
somehow disrespecting the Maaseyahs sacrifice. From Pauls warped
perspective, it is the Torah which causes everyone to be evil and misled.
Mind you, Im not extrapolating here. As we discovered previously, Paul
says that the Torah is the source of sin and death in his letter to the Romans: For
when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins through the Torah were
working in our members to bear fruit unto death. But now that we have been
released from the Torah, having died to what we were held by, so that we
should serve in the newness of spirit and not in the oldness of letter. What
shall we say? Is the Torah sin? Not may it be. However, I did not know sin
except through the Torah.... For apart from the Torah, sin is dead. And I was
alive apart from the Torah once, but when the command came, the sin
revived, and I died. And the command which was to result in life, this I found
to result in death. For sin, having taken the occasion through the command,
deceived me, and through it, killed me. (Romans 7:5-11)
 Third, there is no ara anxiousness when, as a result of knowing and
understanding who Yahowah is and what He is offering, we come to trust and rely
upon Him. Distressful inquiry is an irresolvable product of faith.
Fourth, the Maaseyah Yahowsha, as the diminished manifestation of
Yahowah, set apart from God to do the work of Yahowah, which is to save His
Covenants children, was innocent, correct, and properly led because He was
Torah observant. Since He lived and affirmed Yahowahs Towrah without
reservation or exception, there is no condition whatsoever whereby He could have
been considered evil or mistaken. But since Shauwl wants to infer that the Torah
condemns rather than saves, his perverted incarnation of Christos would also have
been misled by this very same Torah.
Fifth, since Shauwl presents the Torah as an implement of sin, a Torah-
observant Maaseyah would, from this perspective, have to be a servant of sin.
That is why Paul was required to remake his Christos in his image
disassociating Yahowsha from the Torah while ascribing his warped Romans 7
interpretation to Him. This is not only wrong; it is repugnant.
And this leads us to Shauwls parting comment. Me ginomai not may it
exist was scribed in the aorist, which represents a snippet in time without respect
to a process or a plan. And of course, the process and plan that this is being
disassociated with is the Torahs Covenant and its Invitations. In the middle
voice, Paul is saying that the subject, which is implied to be Christos, is being
affected, and thus is becoming misled and mistaken, by his own actions. Pauls
god, therefore, needs Pauls help, Pauls correction, Pauls preaching and letters
to resolve that problem. This arrogant position was underscored by the
interjection of the optative mood, where we discover that Paul is actually
portraying this perverted perspective as being possible and even desirable. It is
shades of Colossians 1:24-26 all over again. Paul is affirming that he is co-
savior and co-author of his plan of salvation.
So in this case, based upon the grammatical choices Shauwl made, as the
writer, he was expressing his own personal desires regarding the portrayal of a
new prospect he wants to achieve and promote. He was, therefore, communicating
his own personal longings with this statement, and not Gods will or plan. And as
a snapshot in time, Paul was expressly disassociating Yahowshas life from its
foundation in the Torah. Further, Paul wanted his audience to view his Christ as
a new paradigm, as a New Testament, and as a new and different way. Such is
the essence of Pauline Doctrine.
With this in mind, if the fifteenth through twenty-first verses are evaluated as
one cohesive thought, then the seventeenth verse transitions from nearly
incomprehensible to utterly unconscionable. According to Paul, the source of sin,
the very definition of sin, is the Torah. Just as sin is wrong, Paul believes that
doing what the Torah says is wrong. So he is actually communicating: But if
seeking and finding to be made righteous and innocent in Christo, we were
found also ourselves social outcasts and sinners (by observing the Torah),
shouldnt we be anxious that Christos becomes a guilty, errant, misled,
sinner who is a servant (of the Torah)? Not may it exist (I dont want to
consider him being guided by any plan associated with the Torah).
(Galatians 2:17)
Shauwl is attempting to besmirch the Word of God by saying that it has been
replaced by faith in his Gospel. Shauwls goal is to sever the connection between
Yahowah and Yahowsha, and between the Torah and the Maaseyah. He doesnt
want anyone to believe that the Maaseyah Yahowsha served as an implement of
Yahowah to fulfill and enable the Torahs promises relative to the Covenant
Relationship and Invitations to Meet with Him.
But in actuality, the moment that Yahowshas Passover and Unleavened
Bread sacrifices and FirstFruits and Seven Sabbaths fulfillments are disassociated
from their Torahs promises, His ordeal and life no longer has any purpose or
benefit. Apart from the Torah, Yahowshas life was a lie and He endured it all for
nothing.
What follows is so awkwardly worded, it wasnt until I came to understand
Shauwl, that I was prepared to decipher his arrogant and obnoxious claim.
According to the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear, he wrote and the NAMI
published: If for what I unloosed these again I build transgressor myself I
commend. This rendering is based upon the following Greek words, this time
more completely and correctly translated...
Because (gar for) if (ei upon the condition real or imagined) that which
(os) I have actually torn down, dissolved, and dismantled (kataluo I have put
down, invalidated, abolished, disunited, overthrew, negated, rendered vain,
deprived of benefit, brought to naught, subverted, abrogated, discarded, put an
end to, and completely destroyed), this (houtos) on the other hand (palin
making a contrast) I restore or reconstruct (oikodomeo I repair or rebuild this
household (i.e., the Towrahs Covenant), strengthening and promoting this
edifice) transgression and disobedience (parabates negligence, violation of
the Towrah and an abandonment of trust, passing over and leaving the previously
established path untouched), I myself (emautou of myself, by myself, and on
my own accord) stand with, bring into existence, and recommend (synistao
commend, demonstrate, arrange, establish, set into place, and approve).
(Galatians 2:18)
 Kataluo was written katelusa, which is first person, singular, aorist, active,
indicative. First person singular active means that Shauwl is personally taking
credit for this, while the aorist indicative reveals that Shauwl has already
accomplished this feat as in past tense. Cognizant of these grammatical nuances,
katelusa says: I have already torn down this home and household. It means I
have really put [the Towah] down in the sense of demeaning it, as well as I
have actually dismantled, dissolved, and destroyed Yahowahs Towrah. And the
fact that Pauls next statement says that he actually died as a result of the Towrah,
it is certain that the book this demonic individual claims to have invalidated,
subverted, and discarded was Yahowahs Towrah.
Kataluo is a compound of kata, meaning down with, according to, or
against, and luo to undo that which connects. It is used to speak of breaking
up a marriage, to deprive an authority of influence, and to render something
unlawful. The covenant is often presented as a marriage and the Torah was
written under the authority of God.
More telling still, katalusa also means: I have actually loosened that which
was previously bound and have removed a burden. It often refers to travelers
loosening the yokes and burdens of their animals when they arrive home at the
end of a journey. Therefore, Shauwl not only believes that he has personally
dissolved the Torah and dismantled it, he believes that he has personally and
actually untied the yoke of the Torah and removed this burden from his
believers.
Now that Shauwl has taken credit for having kataluo belittled and
dissolved, dismantled and invalidated, abolished and overthrown, negated,
discarded, and abrogated the Torah, the last thing he wants is to restore or
resurrect it anew. So, in an ironic twist, he says that to observe the Torah is to be
parabates Torahless. Hows that for circular reasoning?
In that Pauls rhetoric is clever, this bears repeating. The reason he stated in
the sixteenth verse that no one is saved by acting upon the Torah, not once but
twice, is that he wants to dissolve the Torah, dismantling and destroying the Word
of God. So now that he has established his New Testament in the seventeenth
verse, in the eighteenth, he is saying that he doesnt want Gods Old Testament
to be reestablished.
But the depths of Shauwls depravity knows no bounds. He is fully aware
that the Hebrew word, beryth, meaning Covenant Relationship, is based upon
beyth, the Hebrew word for family and home. And that is where oikodomeo
comes in. It is usually translated built or rebuilt, but that obfuscates Shauwls
intent and the verbs actual meaning. You see, oikodomeo is a compound of oikos,
house, home, household, and familial dwelling place, and doma, building a
home. Therefore, the house, home, and familial dwelling place Shauwl claims
to himself have torn down, destroyed, discarded is the beryth Familial
Covenant Relationship. He will affirm this horrid suggestion later in this same
letter, saying that the covenant presented in the Torah was replaced because it was
of the flesh and enslaved.
The one thing Paul got right, however, is his conclusion: I myself (emautou
of myself, by myself, and on my own accord) stand with, bring into existence,
and recommend (synistao commend, demonstrate, arrange, establish, set into
place, and approve) transgression and disobedience (parabates negligence,
violation of the Towrah and an abandonment of trust, passing over and leaving the
previously established path untouched).
And even with this confession, Shauwl was mocking God and playing his
audience for fools. The operative term of the beryth Familial Covenant
Relationship is halak, in which Yahowah encourages us to walk to, beside, and
with Him. Parabates is from parabaino, which means to turn away from, to
depart from, to overstep, and neglect the path, to go a different way without
passing through or touching the previously established route. It is a compound of
para, with and beside, and baino, walking. Therefore, Shauwl wants
believers to follow him on a new path which not only bypasses the established
route of the Torah, but also walks away from God.
The message Paul should have conveyed is that there are two reasons that it
isnt appropriate for us to habitually sin after we have been saved. First, when we
accept our Heavenly Fathers Torah advice on how to live, our lives are more
joyous and productive. And our relationship with God is enhanced. Second, while
our sin doesnt lead to our expulsion from Yahowahs family and home, it can
influence the choices others make with regard to associating with God. If it is
obvious that we dont respect what Yahowah has told us when we disregard His
Torah, then why would anyone trust what we have to say regarding Yahowahs
Word?
While you have to smile at the use of prevaricator, it would be unfair to
criticize these translations based upon what they had to work with. LV: For if I
rebuild the things that I have destroyed, I establish myself as a prevaricator.
KJV: For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a
transgressor. Since neither Bacon nor Jerome valued the Towrah and its
Covenant, they were comfortable sharing Pauls claim of having dissolved it.
Here we can blame the New Living Translations anti-Torah and Covenant
rhetoric on Paul. This is very close to what he intended to convey. Rather, I am a
sinner if I rebuild the old system of law I already tore down. This was written in
Pauls voice, so it reveals that Paul believes that he would be a sinner, not based
upon rejecting Yahowahs Torah, but instead by affirming it. If this does not
make you angry, then you dont know God.
I acknowledge that dissolving Yahowahs Torah and replacing it with Pauls
Gospel of Grace is in Christendoms DNA. And I realize that most Christians
have no conception of how the Torah and Rabbinical traditions differ. While both
concepts are wrong, for them, the Torah is both the Law and Judaism. So, if the
church, a pastor, or a professor made this claim, Id attribute it to ignorance and
confusion. But this repudiation of the Torah is from Paul, in a letter Christians
believe is inspired Scripture. And that is why it is so devastatingso damning.
In the 19th verse, two derivations of the Greek word nomos are repeated side
by side, even in the oldest extant copies of Pauls letter. So, the pieces which
comprise Shauwls next puzzle, in the order of their appearance in the Greek
text, reveal that, according to Shauwl, the Torah is deadly and estranging: I for
through law in law died that to God I might live. In Christ I have been crucified
together. (Nestle-Aland Interlinear)
Closer examination further reveals: I (ego) then (gar by reason of and
because) by (dia through and on account of) the Towrahs (nomou the
Apportionments (the genitive case restricts the noun to a specific
characterization, marking it as the source of)) allotment and inheritance (nomo
share which is parceled out, inheritance which is given, nourishment which is
bestowed to be possessed and used, precept which was established and is received
as a means to be proper and approved, prescription to become an heir; from nemo
that which is provided, assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them (the
dative denotes an indirect object and refers to the person or thing to which
something is given or done)) I actually died and was separated (apothnesko I
endured physical and spiritual death (aorist (without regard for process, plan, or
precedent), active (which says that the subject, which is Paul, killed himself)
indicative (inferring that the reader is to believe that this actually happened in the
past, that his death was real, not symbolic, even though Paul, himself, doesnt
believe it) first person singular)) in order that to (hina so as a result for the
purpose of) God () I might currently live (zao I am probably alive as a
result of my personal actions (in the aorist tense this reference to life is a snapshot
of the condition without any connection to any plan or process, in the active
voice, Paul is responsible for restoring his own life, and in the subjunctive mood,
this condition is a possibility, not a probability nor a certainty)). In Christo (
in the Maaseyah (but without the definite article, the errant Christou used as a
name is a better grammatical fit than the appropriate title the Implement Doing
the Work of Yahowah (while the preposition in was not written, the dative
form is used for indirect objects, especially people or things to which something is
given)) I have actually been crucified together with ( suneotrai I was
affixed to an upright pole accompanying and beside; from sun with, beside, and
accompanying, together and in union with, and stauroo to be staked, from
stauros upon an upright pole; (perfect tense describes a complete action in the
past which carries forward into the writers presence, the passive voice and
indicative mood signifies that this was actually done to Shauwl, first person
singular)). (Galatians 2:19)
Before we consider this iteration of Shauwls theology, and try to make
sense of this mans claim to have been killed by Yahowahs Torah only to have
been crucified alongside Yahowsha, lets re-examine the key words under an
etymological microscope. As we discovered a moment ago, nomou and nomo are
derived from nemo, the Greek word meaning: to provide, to assign, and to
distribute an inheritance to nourish heirs. Based upon nemo, nomos, nomo, and
nomou reflect an allotment which is bestowed and parceled out for the purpose
of feeding Gods hungry sheep. Metaphorically, then, nemo, nomos, and nomou
describe a prescription for living which is given to us by God so that we might
thrive with Him as His children, so that we might be fed and grow, inheriting all
of the property and possessions that are His to give. In this regard, and properly
defined, nomos, nomo, and nomou actually provide a fitting depiction of
Yahowahs Towrah teaching, guidance, direction, and instruction on the
benefits of choosing to engage in His Covenant Family.
In that the world is part of our inheritance from God, and because it nourishes
us, nomos was used to depict the natural systems which undergird the universe
and to convey the order assigned to nourish and support life. These concepts are
also consistent with the Towrah and its Covenant
Digging ever deeper, but not going in the right direction, Greek Sophists,
known as philosophers (men of rhetoric), often wrote of the nomos being a
collection of false opinions formed by the majority. By this definition, the Oral
Law of the Rabbis and Church Canon Law are examples. The Greek Stoics (who
held that men should be free from passion, unmoved by grief or joy, and
submissive to natural systems) saw the nomos as universal truth, something
they, themselves, knew very little about.
Also germane to this discussion, while Rabbis were skilled in Hebrew and
Aramaic, to the extent that they communicated in Greek, they associated nomos
with their Talmud, or Jewish Law. Shauwl, as a Rabbinical student, appears to
have seized upon this misappropriation of the term in his attack on Yahowahs
Towrah. Likewise, religious Christian scribes, immersed in and corrupted by
Pauline Doctrine, advanced the myth, leaving us with a nearly universal rendering
of nomos as law in virtually every English bible translation. And the intended
implication is then to apply this derogatory mischaracterization to the Towrah,
even though there is no actual association between law and Torah.
 So, while there was once, at a time long past, a dichotomy of opinion
regarding the meaning of nomos, that is no longer the case today. The word which
originally spoke of how the nurturing nature of Yahowahs Word enabled us to
become heirs to the Covenant has become a disparaging and dishonest portrayal
of the most important document ever written.
As a result, lexicons, which are universally the products of religious
publishers, say that nomos describes societal laws in general and the Torah
specifically. And yet jettisoned of this religious baggage, most Greek dictionaries
simply say that, in addition to representing an inheritance or allocation of
something which is nourishing, nomos addresses the rules related to civil rights
and human conduct within a system of justice.
As we discussed previously, Strongs initially and accurately conveys that
nomos is derived from nemo, which it says spoke of parceling something out,
and especially providing food to grazing animals which would have been sheep
in the day, but they get many things wrong from that point on. And in concert
with the primary revelation, The Complete Word Study Dictionary reveals that
nomos and nomou are from nemo, meaning: to divide among, to parcel out, to
allot, to use and possess. As we have learned, they then point to aponemo, the
variation of the word used in 1 Shimown / Peter 3:7 to convey heir, for a more
complete understanding. The apo prefix of aponemo means from and addresses
the ideas of going forth, proceeding from one object to another, and of separation
in the sense of being set apart from an entity that it was originally part.
This known, the definition then of aponemo is: to give, to attribute, to allot,
to apportion, to assign, and to bestow, distributing an inheritance to an heir. It is
related to kleronomos to hold, and to have it in ones power to distribute an
inheritance to an heir, with klero denoting an allotment which is divided. This
form of nemo is found in Mattanyah and Yaaqob to suggest that Yahowsha is
the heir of all things. Nemo is also akin to dianemo, which is used in Acts to
denote divulging the means to disperse something over a wide area, spreading it
throughout the world and throughout time. And in this case, the prefix dia
simply means through.
While Strongs, unwilling to consider its own etymological research, or even
Pauls own translation of towrah using nomos in Galatians 3:10, defines nomos as
anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command;
representing any law whatsoever, it was not until their tenth definitional clause
that they associated nomos with the Mosaic law. The Torah was not
mentioned by Strongs. It is one of many reasons that a single lexicon is wholly
insufficient. To cut through the clutter of religion, a diligent individual on a quest
for the truth has to thoughtfully consider many resources, consistently going over
the same material in recognition that repetition and understanding serve as the
catalysts which enable retention.
In this light, and as Ive stated previously, in the Exegetical Dictionary of the
New Testament, we find: Etymologically, nomos is derived from nemo, assign.
They reveal that in the 5th century BCE nomos became the written law of the
population in the developing Greek democracy as an expression of the will of the
deity. Further, this Exegetical Dictionary writes: of the approximately 220 OT
occurrences of tora, the Septuagint translates approximately 200 with nomos, and
altogether nomos is found 430 times in the LXX. (LXX, representing the
Roman number 70, is the scholarly notation for the Septuagint, the early Greek
(circa 200 BCE) translation of the Hebrew Torah, because as its name implies
there was a myth that seventy translators were deployed on the project.) So this is
the basis for and validation of Shauwls use of nomos to say Torah.
Considering the influence of the Septuagint on early Christendom, especially on
scribes, based upon this realization, the conclusion that Paul deployed nomos to
convey Torah as Law is essentially irrefutable.
Interestingly, and I am augmenting some of this to underscore an essential
insight, the Exegetical Dictionary also acknowledges: Congo Archbishop
Monsengwo Pasinya [who was awarded a doctorate in Biblical Studies from the
Biblical Institute in Jerusalem] strongly contests the view that nomos conveys the
idea that the Torah is a set of laws. He wrote nomos does not signify Law in
the legal and juridical sense of classical Greek, but rather Instruction and
Teaching in accordance with the original sense of the corresponding Hebrew
term Torah. He stretches the interpretation of nomos in Dabarym 17:10 with the
help of the Psalms to mean instruct and teach. According to Dr. Pasinya, nomos
in the LXX should be translated as instruction / teaching.
But then, recognizing how incongruous this conclusion is from modern
religious indoctrination, the Exegetical Dictionary dismisses this scholars
accurate rendering of nomos as teaching and instruction with: If such were the
case, however, the LXX translator would have been detaching himself completely
from the contemporary meaning of nomos. Nomos in the LXX should for the most
part, therefore, be translated as law. So even when a scholar stumbles upon the
truth, theologians dismiss it. After all, if nomos actually means teaching and
instruction then everything Paul wrote falls apart, including his own translations
of the Torah. Christians cant have that, now can they?
This reality was reinforced by the Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament where, if you recall, they reported: The concept that nomos means law
is religious in origin and plays a central role in these cultures. And in this same
vein, referring to Yahowahs Towrah Teaching as if it was Mosaic Law is
also the product of religious deception.
 Throughout his letters, based upon his citations, translations, and
commentary, there can be no doubt that Shauwl used nomo, nomos, and nomou
to present Yahowahs Torah as Law. He never quotes from any Talmudic
source, negating the possibility of nomo, nomos, or nomou representing the Oral
Law of the Rabbis. Moreover, it would be another 450 years before most of these
Rabbinical arguments were codified in the Babylonian Talmud. So Paul is
deliberately mischaracterizing Yahowahs towrah source of teaching,
instructions, directions, and guidance. While God wants us to observe His
Towrah in the sense of closely examining and carefully considering His Teaching,
Shauwl has corrupted and mischaracterized Gods Guidance as a set of Laws
which could not possibly be obeyed, and which therefore condemn. And it is this
perspective, this position, this pivot point, where the religion Shauwl conceived
separated itself from Gods Instructions.
And make no mistake, Paul is fixated on Yahowahs nomos Towrah. Of
the 195 times nomos is used in the so-called Christian New Testament, 122 are
found in Pauls letters, 27 are scribed in Lukan writings, who initially was one of
Pauls defenders, and two thirds of those are in Acts which presents a historical
portrait of Pauls life. We find 14 iterations of nomos in Hebrews, a book written
by one of Pauls associates. Collectively this means that 84% of the time nomos
was used to designate the Torah, Paul inspired the criticism.
Even though it should be obvious, Yahowsha did not speak English a
language derived from Anglo Saxon in the 15th century CE. He did not speak
Greek either. He would have delivered His Instruction on the Mount in either
Hebrew or Aramaic a cognate of Hebrew. So Yahowsha would have articulated
the title Towrah, a concept as familiar to His audience as were Yisrael and
Yahuwdah. Further, the original autograph of Mattanyahs eyewitness account of
Yahowshas initial and most substantial public address was written in Hebrew,
actually citing the words the Maaseyah spoke. But unfortunately, rabbis burned
every copy, so all we are left with is a Greek translation of His speech. And in it,
we find nomos used to depict the Towrah.
For evidence of this assertion, that Hebrew copies of Mattanyahs eyewitness
accounting of Yahowshas words and deeds, replete with Yahowahs and
Yahowshas actual name were burned by rabbis, consider the Babylonian
Talmud: Tosef., Shabbath xiii. 5; Tractate Shabbath, Folio 116a, Yer. Shabbath
15c, 52; and Sifre Number 16. In it, you will find: The Gilyonim [a Hebrew
corruption of euangelion as scribed by Mattanyah and Yahowchanan] and the
books of the Minim [Yisraelite followers of Yahowsha] were not saved from
fire, but one lets them burn together with the names of God written upon them.
On the week-days the names of God are cut out and hidden while the rest is
burned. I swear by the life of my children that if they fall into my hands I shall
burn them together with the names of God upon them. The Book of the Minim
[Yisraelite followers of Yahowsha] may not be saved from a fire, but they must
be burnt in their place, they and the Divine Names occurring in them. The blank
spaces above and below on account of those writings [which is a reference to the
Divine Placeholders used in Greek texts of the eyewitness accounts] and the
Books of the Minim, we may not save them from a fire. One must cut out the
Divine Names which they contain, hiding them, and then burn the rest.
Further research affirms that Rabbi Meir, in 135 CE, corrupted the Greek
euangelion to gilyonim and then used minim, in Hebrew, to convey
worthlessness of a scroll. The eyewitness accounts scribed by Mattanyah and
Yahowchanan were called sin-scrolls in Shabbath 116a. And should you be
wondering, it was considered a sin in rabbinic Judaism to burn a scroll with
Yahowah or Yahowsha written upon it, so these names were to be cut out before
being consumed in the flames. The original eyewitness account of Mattanyah was
written in Hebrew, so in it, Yahowahs and Yahowshas name was accurately
scribed.
Although it is a translation, finding nomos associated with something
Yahowsha said appeared problematic prior to coming to appreciate the
etymology of nomos, because Christian publishers are wont to render it Law a
definition the Author of the Towrah would never have ascribed to His Teaching.
But, now that we know the whole truth, nomos isnt inappropriate at least so
long as it is translated in a way which is consistent with its root. The Towrah is
Yahowahs means to nourish us and to provide us with an allocation of His power
and possessions, which is an inheritance in the familial sense of the Covenant.
And also, when used to say towrah, nomos by association means teaching,
instruction, direction, and guidance.
Aware of these facts, Yahowsha can be accurately translated using nomos
for Towrah. Such is the case in Mattanyah / Matthew 7:12, where the nomos /
Towrah is equated to our Heavenly Fathers good, healing, and beneficial gift,
and to the narrow doorway to life.
For the purpose of full disclosure, there are times where nomos was used in
correlation with the Pharisees, and thus as a reference to their Oral Law. One such
example is found in Luke 5:17. Also in Yahowchanan / John 8:17, Yahowsha
spoke of your nomos in a discussion with the Pharisees, men whose very
existence revolved around the allocation of traditions they inherited from their
forefathers. Therefore, at least apart from Paul, when we are considering Greek
references to nomos, we have to let the context dictate whether the Torah or
Judaisms Oral Law is represented by the Greek term.
 In Shauwls letter to the Galatians, the first occurrence of nomos was written
in the genitive singular as nomou. The genitive is a restrictive usage of a noun
which denotes a very specific characterization making nomou the Towrah
because there were many versions and variations of the rabbinic traditions. The
genitive also serves to mark a noun as the possessor of something, much like
adding an apostrophe s after a noun, making it possessive. So nomou is the
Towrahs.... The second application of nomos was in the dative form (nomo)
denoting that it was a less specific indirect object. And that means that nomou
nomo is the Torahs allotment and inheritance, literally, or the Torahs laws
in Pauline parlance. Proving this beyond any doubt, as we have already
discovered, Paul, himself, translated towrah from the Hebrew text of the Torah in
his Galatians 3:10 rendering of Dabarym / Deuteronomy 27:26 using nomou.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, there are a plethora of words which provide
different shadings on the related concepts of terms, conditions, requirements,
ordinances, authoritative directions, teachings, instructions, guidance, and
prescriptions for living. For example, Towrah is a proper noun, as well as a word
which conveys many of these things, albeit a relatively small portion of the Torah
is dedicated to establishing regulations, and even then, they all serve as symbols
to educate us.
In that few insights are more vital to our understanding, please consider the
etymological definition of Towrah based upon the words which comprise this
title. The numbers presented within the parenthetical are from Strongs, and were
included to facilitate your own investigation.
Towrah (8451) from tow (8420) signed, written, and enduring, towrah
(8452) way of treating people, tuwr (8446) giving us the means to explore, to
seek, to find, and to choose, yarah (3384) the source from which instruction,
teaching, guidance, and direction flow, which tuwb (8421) provides answers
which facilitate our restoration and return, even our response and reply to that
which is towb (2895) good, pleasing, joyful, beneficial, favorable, healing, and
right, and that which causes us to be loved, to become acceptable, and to endure,
tahowr (2892) and tohorah (2893) purifying and cleansing us, towr (8447) so
as to provide an opportunity to change our thinking, attitude, and direction.
By turning to Ancient Hebrew, the original language of revelation, where
each alphabetic character was designed to graphically display its meaning, we can
learn even more about this Towrah . Remembering that Hebrew reads
right to left, what we discover is that the first letter, a Taw (), was conveyed by a
pictographic representation of an upright pole replete with a horizontal support
beam: which became t. It signified the upright pillar used to support and
enlarge a tent, which was a home in its day, and also the Tabernacle, where God
met with His children. Inclusive of the support beam, the original Taw depicted a
doorway, and thus continues to be symbolic of Passover, the Doorway to Life.
The name of the character itself, Taw, is a rabbinic corruption of the letters
original designation, tow, which means signature, sign, and mark of authority.
Even today, a t is considered to be a mark and signature. So, by taking all of
these insights into consideration, in the first letter of Towrah, we find Yahowsha.
He is the Upright Pillar. He is the Doorway to Life and the Passover Lamb. And
as the visual sign of the Towrah, as the Word of God in the flesh, Yahowsha is
Yahowahs signature.
The second letter in Towrah is Wah (). It was drawn in the form of a tent
peg, , and is thus symbolic of enlarging and securing a tent home and shelter.
The Wah speaks of making connections and adding to something, as is
characterized by the conjunction wa and in Hebrew today. The Wah therefore
addresses the Spirits role in enlarging and securing Yahowahs Covenant family
and home. Yashayah / Isaiah 54 provides a wonderful affirmation of this, tying
this tent peg reference to enlarging and securing Yahowahs family.
The third letter, Rosh (), was depicted by drawing an individuals head .
Stripped of the preposition ba in, a Rosh has the honor of serving as the first
letter of the first word of the Towrah. Reshyth describes new beginnings in time,
the first and foremost priority, the best choice, the highest point or designation,
the head of a community and family, its first born, being reborn, and renewal.
Even today, the Hebrew word, resh, which just so happens to be the letters
original name, conveys all of these same ideas. Therefore, Towrahs third letter
speaks of the new beginnings which are now possible for humankind as a result of
the Towrah, at least for those who prioritize Gods teaching, make the right
choice, and thereby reach the highest possible place and status, as the firstborn
children of the head of the eternal household. And the Rosh, as a depiction of a
human head , suggests that we should use our eyes to observe Yahs teaching,
our ears to listen to Gods guidance, our brains to contemplate His instructions,
and our mouths to respond to Him once we understand what He is offering.
The fourth and final character in Towrah is Hey (). This letter was originally
depicted by drawing a person looking up, reaching up, and pointing to the
heavens: . As such, it means to observe. And as a living legacy of this
connotation, we find that the Hebrew word hey still means behold, look and see,
take notice, and consider what is revealed. For those seeking God, for those
reaching up to Him for help, all they need do is reach for His Towrah and observe
what it reveals.
 Yahowahs Towrah Teaching, Instruction, Guidance, and Direction,
therefore, written as or hrwt, conveys all of these linguistic and graphic
ideas. They are all there to enlighten those who are observant.
So that there is no confusion, in Hebrew, dath is actually the word for law,
in the sense of a decree, edict, regulation, or rule. A choq is an inscribed
prescription for living which cuts us into the covenant relationship. Similarly, a
chaqaq is a clearly communicated written instruction. A tsawah is an
authorized direction or teaching. The mitswah speak of the terms and
conditions pursuant to the covenant. A mishpat is the means to exercise good
judgment regarding the process of judiciously resolving disputes.
And as we discussed previously, in total, we find nomos used 195 times in
the Greek manuscripts. The vast preponderance of these are found in Pauls
letters, especially in Galatians with 32 inclusions. I find it interesting, however,
that nomos is not found in either of Shimowns letters, even though the context
suggests that he was criticized for observing the Towrah by Shauwl. And
Yaaqob, who was also demeaned by Shauwl in the same letter, mentions the
Towrah ten times in his relatively short epistle. But that is because Yaaqobs
letter was written to condemn Pauline opposition to the Towrah.
With Pauls latest statement regarding the Torah, there is no longer a dispute
that the nomos Paul was claiming to have actually tore down, dissolved,
dismantled, invalidated, abolished, subverted, abrogated, discarded, and
destroyed is Yahowahs Towrah. That realization alone is sufficient to see Paul
as a false prophet and false apostle.
In spite of the anguish they have caused God, here again for your
consideration are the words Shauwl scribed in his letter to the Galatians...
I (ego) then (gar) by (dia) the Towrahs (nomou) allotment / law (nomo) I
actually died and was separated (apothnesko) in order that to (hina) God
() I might currently live (zao). In Christo () I have actually been
crucified together with ( suneotrai). (Galatians 2:19)
Moving on to the next interesting term in this, the 19th verse of the 2nd chapter
of Galatians, we find that apothnesko, which is a compound of apo and thnesko.
Thnesko denotes mortality, and thus the separation of the soul from the body.
It also speaks of pandemic diseases or plagues Apo, which is the principle Greek
word for separation, when used with thnesko conveys the idea that there is yet
another separation, and that could only be separation of the soul from the Spirit of
God. As such, it denotes spiritual death. Further apothnesko was written as
apeoanon, in the first person singular aorist active indicative. That means that
Paul is saying, I actually died and was really separated. From whom is the
question.
 By using the aorist, Shauwl is taking yet another swipe at the purpose,
process, and precedent of the Towrah, as it is independent of any plan or process.
In the active voice, he is taking credit for his own death. And by using the
indicative, Paul wants readers to believe that this incredulous event actually
occurred.
Then by saying that he was actually crucified alongside the Maaseyah,
Shauwl is inferring that Yahowsha, like Shauwl, himself, was killed by the
Torah. Shauwl even concludes with another lie, saying that he was actually
crucified together with Him, as if Shauwl wants everyone to believe that he is
the co-savior. But for that to have any value, Shauwl would have had to have
been perfect, resolutely Torah observant, and divine. I dont suppose that he was
actually that delusional, but these are the questions which arise from his claims.
Paul takes his preposterous co-savior notion to the extreme of religious
mythology in Colossians 1:24-25, by writing: Now (nyn at the same time), I
rejoice (chairo I embrace and hail, I thrive and benefit (present tense, active
voice, indicative mood)) in (en by and in association with) the sufferings and
misfortunate afflictions (tois pathema the evil calamities and adverse
emotional passions) for your sake (hyper sy for the benefit of you, beyond you
and over you), and (kai also) I actually complete (antanapleroo I fill up and
fulfill, I make up for that which would otherwise be deficient (in the present tense
the writer is portraying his contribution as being in process, in the active voice, he
is signifying that subject, which would be either Shauwl or the afflictions is
performing this, and with the indicative mood, the writer is portraying his
fulfillment of the sufferings as being actual, and thus real, even though he may not
believe it himself)) that which is deficient and lacking (hysterema that which
is needed, missing, wanted, and absent from, addressing the deficiencies
associated with that which is left to be done due to prior failures and inferior
performances) of the (ton) pressures and afflictions (thlipsis pressing troubles,
anguishing distresses, burdensome tribulations, oppressive pressures, straits, and
persecutions) of the (tou) Christou (XPU) in (en) the (te) flesh (sarx
corporeally) of me (mou) for the benefit of (hyper for the sake of, on behalf of,
beyond and over) the (tou) body of (soma the human and animal nature of)
Him (autou) who (os) is (eimi He presently, and by His own accord, exist as
(present active indicative)) the (e) called out (ekklesia called-out assembly,
congregation, meeting), of which (hos that means), I (ego), myself, exist as
(ginomai myself conceive and bring into existence, become, cause, belong to,
appear as, and possess similar characteristics to) a servant (diakonos one who
serves without necessarily having the office) extended down from (kata in
accordance with or against, with regard to or in opposition to) the administration
of the household (oikonomia the management, task, arrangement, oversight,
dispensation, or plan regarding the heirs in a household) of this (tou the) god
(), the (ten) appointment having been produced and granted (didomi one
caused, assigned, entrusted, committed, and given for his advantage (in the aorist
participle this one time appointment was in antecedent time, in the passive this
god was influenced and acted upon, and in the accusative singular this
appointment was solely granted) to me (moi to and for myself (in the dative,
Shauwl is saying that this belongs to him)) to (eis for and into) you all (umas)
to complete and fulfill (pleroo to fully provide, completely enable, and finish,
bringing an end to) the (ton) word (logon statement, speech, and account) of
the (tou) god (). (Colossians 1:24-25)
Trimmed considerably for readability, Shauwl just reported: Now, I
rejoice, embrace and hail, in the sufferings and misfortunate afflictions, the
evil calamities and adverse emotional passions, for your sake, and I actually
complete, making up for that which would otherwise be deficient and that
which is lacking and left to be done due to prior failures and inferior
performances of the afflictions of the Christou in my flesh for the benefit of
the body of Him who is the called out, of which, I, myself, conceive and bring
into existence as a servant extended down from the administration and
arrangement of the household of this god, the appointment having been
produced and granted to me to you all to complete and fulfill the word of the
god.
And should you not trust my rendition of Shauwls words, consider the NA:
Now I rejoice in the sufferings on behalf of you and I fill up the lacks of the
afflictions of the Christ in the flesh of me on behalf of the body of him who is the
assembly of which became I servant by the management of the God, the one
having been given to me in you to fill the word of the God. LV: For now I
rejoice in my passion on your behalf, and I complete in my flesh the things that
are lacking in the Passion of Christ, for the sake of his body, which is the
Church. KJV: Who now rejoice in my suffering for you, and fill up that which
is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his bodys sake, which is the
church. NASB: Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake and in my flesh I
do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church. NLT: I am glad when I
suffer for you in my body, for I am participating in the sufferings of Christ that
continue for his body, the church.
Therefore, just as the juxtaposition of the 18th and 19th verses of Galatians 2
resolved any question regarding which nomos Paul claimed to be annulling and
destroying, by comparing the Galatians 2:19 with Colossians 1:24, it becomes
obvious that Paul wanted Christians to see him as a co-messiah and co-savior.
He wants to be perceived as completing the deficiencies that he claims were
inherent in Yahowshas sacrifice as well as in Yahowahs testimony. But that is
like saying: without some bird droppings spattered on the roof and some dirt
blown onto the steps, Yahowahs Temple isnt complete.
We should also note that in Galatians 2:19, zao, rendered I might currently
live, was written zeso, in the first person singular, aorist, active, subjunctive.
This means that Shauwl believed that it was probable, but not certain, that the
subject (in this case God) at some undisclosed time caused him to live,
breathe, and behave in a particular manner.
Finally, sustauroo, translated was crucified with, but literally meaning to
be affixed to the pillar upright with, wasnt actually written in the oldest Greek
witness of this letter. A placeholder, using the capitalized letter Omega with a
horizontal line over it designating an association with Divinity, was deployed
instead, but this time with the addition of suneotrai. And that means that there is
something about the word which isnt properly conveyed in Greek, and which is
better understood in the context of the Hebrew Scriptures.
If the placeholder and word had been written out, it would have read
sunestauromai. Sun means with in Greek. And estauromai is the first person
singular perfect passive indicative form of stauroo, which is the verb form of
stauros, meaning to affix to an upright pole. As we have learned, the indicative
tense tells us that Paul wants us to believe that this really happenedthat, in his
words: I was literally crucified with Christo. The passive tense tells us that Paul
is claiming that his wannabe god did this to himthat he was acted upon as
opposed to choosing this for himself. The perfect tense reveals that Paul would
have us believe that his crucifixion was endured right along with Christosthat
it was perfectly completed in the past rendering the present state of affairs.
The Greek verb is derived from stauroo (to affix to a stake which is placed
upright) and stauros (upright pole or pillar), which are both derived from the root,
histemi, meaning to stand upright so as to enable others to stand. Stauros
Hebrew equivalent is edon, meaning Upright Pillar, a Divine title which is
applied to Yahowah and Yahowsha throughout the Torahwhich is the reason
for the placeholder. The Hebrew equivalent of histemi is quwm, meaning to
stand up and to establish.
These things known, lets see if we can decode Shauwls riddle. Reduced to
its essentials, over the past five verses, Paul wrote:
We Yahuwdym by nature and not from the social outcasts of sinful and
heathen races (2:15) having come to realize without investigation or evidence
that by no means whatsoever is made right, is vindicated, or made righteous
man by means of tasks and activities associated with the Towrah if not by
belief and faith in Iesou Christou, and we on Christon Iesoun, ourselves
believed in order for us to have become righteous, to have been acquitted and
vindicated out of faith in Christou, and not by means of acting upon or
engaging in the Towrah, because by means of engaging in and acting upon
the Towrah not any flesh will be acquitted, vindicated, nor made righteous.
(2:16)
But if seeking to be made righteous and innocent in Christo, we were
found also ourselves social outcasts and sinners, shouldnt we be anxious that
Christos becomes a guilty, errant, and misled, servant of sin? Not may it
exist, (2:17) because if that which I have actually torn down, dissolved, and
dismantled, invalidated and abolished, subverted, abrogated, and discarded,
this on the other hand I restore or reconstruct, promoting this edifice, I
myself bring into existence and recommend transgression and disobedience.
(2:18) I then, because of, and by the Towrahs allotment / law, myself,
actually died and was separated in order that to God I might currently live.
In Christo I have actually been crucified together with. (Galatians 2:19)
While it is possible to die and be separated from Yahowah, this is the fate
of those who dismantle and demean the Torah, and not of those who observe it.
And speaking of dying, Paul was not actually crucified with the Maaseyah. He
wasnt even a witness to the fulfillment of Passover or Unleavened Bread, much
less a beneficiary. For had he observed Passover, he would not have died. And if
he had benefited from Unleavened Bread, he would not have been separated. That
is the purpose of the first two Miqraey.
Instead of availing himself of the Maaseyahs fulfillment of Yahowahs
promises and plan, Shauwl presented himself as god. So he imagined that his
work was even more important than Yahowshas had been, because he completed
what was lacking in His work. Rather than accepting Yahowahs gift, Shauwl
wanted believers to see him as the one who provided it.
But based upon his gods credibility problem, even Shauwl was uncertain of
his destiny. To which I have good and bad news. Based upon his own admission
of his spiritual affiliation, Shauwl lives and will never die. But he is separated
from God, spending his eternity with Satan in Sheowl. With his ego, Shauwl is
probably claiming that Sheowl was named in his honor.
According to Yahowah, He fulfilled His Torahs promises so that we could
live with Him. While the Torah delineates the Way, that Way had to be facilitated
for us to be acquitted. Yahowah provided the path and Yahowsha paid the toll.
Therefore, these arent separate things, one which kills and the other which
provides life, but instead Gods depiction of the path to life which He, Himself,
enabled.
Recognizing what the Greek actually reveals, lets consider whether the King
James and Vulgate are, in the strict sense, translations. The KJV reads: For I
through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. Now for the
Latin Vulgate (at least as it has been revised): For through the legem/law, I have
become dead to the legi/law, so that I may live for God. I have been
confixus/nailed to the cruci/cross with Christo. The NLT was similar, but then its
authors couldnt restrain themselves and conspired to create a point of their own
with: For when I tried to keep the law, it condemned me. So I died to the lawI
stopped trying to meet all its requirementsso that I might live for God. But to
be fair, if one excludes what we can learn from the tenses, voices, and moods
ascribed to these verbs, these are all reasonably close to: I then by and because
of the Towrahs allotment /law actually died and was separated, I actually
endured physical death, killing myself, in order that to God I might currently
live. In Christo I alone in unison with him was actually crucified.
As you may know, there were no numerical verse designations in
manuscripts prior to the Geneva Bible, which was published in the late 16th
century. However, the spacing on Papyrus 46 suggests that the sentence I was
crucified with the Christo belongs with the placeholder for God, , and thus
exists as part of the previous statement. However, most modern revisions remove
the and placeholders from the previous sentence and attach them to the next
one. Also, while the Textus Receptus, the Novum Testamentum Graece, and the
Nestle Aland Greek New Testament, as well as most all English translations read
the Son of God, the oldest witness to Shauwls letter does not. With this in
mind, the preceding vain and vile rant was followed by...
I live (zao I am alive (present tense, active voice, indicative mood, first
person singular)), but (de) no longer (ouketi not any more) I (ego). He lives
(zao he is alive (present, active, indicative, third person singular)) then (de
but) in (en within) me (ego) Christos ( Maaseyah (errantly presented
without the definite article)).
This (os which) because (de but) now (nym at the present) I live (zao
I am alive (present, active, indicative, first person)) in (en) flesh (sarx physical
body, corporeally), in (en) faith (pistis believing (originally meant trusting and
relying but migrated in concert with Shauwls usage)) I live (zao I am alive
(present, active, indicative, first person singular)), the of the (te tov perhaps he
meant to say that the) God () and (kai) Christou ( Maaseyah (once
again without the definite article required before a title)) the one (tov) having
loved (agapao having tangibly demonstrated devotion for (aorist, active,
participle, singular, and genitive which collectively convey that this condition
once existed in the past as a snapshot in time without any consideration for the
process which made it possible and it was done especially and exclusively for))
me (ego), and (kai) surrendered and entrusted authority (paradidomi handed
over the power to control, influence and instruct, to teach and to betray
exclusively and especially of (aorist, active, participle (happened in the past but
was not part of a process), singular, genitive (restricting this characterization to a
single individual)) Himself (heautou of Him (reflexive pronouns denote mutual
participation in the act)) for the sake of (hyper on behalf of and because of) me
(ego). (Galatians 2:20)
I recognize that this passage doesnt flow well in English, but I double-
checked the oldest manuscript, and this is exactly how it reads. Also, on the pages
of codex known as Papyrus 46, we find kai God and Christou, so
that is why it was conveyed this way instead of the Son of the God as reported
in the Nestle-Aland, whose Interlinear published: Live, but no longer I lives but
in me Christ what but now I live in flesh in trust I live the of the son of the God
the one having loved me and having given over himself on behalf of me.
Shauwls line, I am alive, but not I, he lives in me, Christos, affirms what
Ive long suspected. Shauwl wanted his audience to view him as Christos
incarnate. Frankly, there is no other rational way to interpret these words. Paul
was alive, which means that he could not have been dead.
By way of clarification, it is the Set-Apart Spirit who lives within those of us
who are adopted into Yahowahs Covenant family, not the Maaseyah. In this
way, Yahowah enriches and empowers His Covenant children with some of His
Spiritual energy, but it would be senseless to place a corporeal manifestation
inside of a physical body. So this means that Shauwl wants people to believe that
he has become the embodiment of Christou which, incidentally, he continues to
deploy as a name rather than a title.
The problem with this for Paul, besides being wrong, is that he consistently
condemns the flesh, which he claims is bad, because he wants to infer that his
spirit is good. But now that he is touting his flesh as the embodiment of Christou,
he spins the result, telling his audience to accept this hypocritical conflict by faith.
Furthermore, this arrogant perspective, in the midst of a deplorable boast to
have not only negated the Torah but to have made up for Yahowshas
deficiencies, is further underscored by the grammatical tenses, voices, and cases
Shauwl ascribed to the verbs agapao and paradidomi, in addition to the meaning
of the concluding verb.
By using the aorist snapshot tense with both verbs, love and surrender,
Shauwl is deliberately isolating Yahowshas actions, disassociating them from
Yahowahs promise and purpose. Without consideration for the process which
made these things possible, there is no longer an association between Yahowshas
sacrifice and the Towrah in the minds of those beguiled by this myth. This
negates everything Yahowah accomplished through Yahowsha.
 To believe Shauwl, Yahowsha decided to allow mortal men to kill immortal
God, nailing Him to a pagan cross. The fact that it happened on Pesach, the
doorway to life was irrelevant. Yahowsha would have to have squandered the
Shabat too, accomplishing nothing of value on the Miqra of Matsah. And in the
isolated madness of Pauline myths, especially with regard to his religions Easter
Sunday, rather than observing the Torah, the god man killed would have to have
been physically resurrected. Too bad for Shauwls devotees the eyewitness
accounts all say that no one recognized the most important individual in their
lives upon the fulfillment of Bikuwrym.
In reality, Yahowah established the doorway to life, the means to be
perfected, and the adoption process into His Covenant family to honor the
promise of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym, presenting and explaining these
Invitations to Meet with Him for a reason. He wants us to respond to these
Invitations, to observe the Guidance He has provided, and to capitalize upon what
He has done so that we might accept His merciful offer. But that is seldom done
when people are fooled into disassociating these promises from their fulfillments.
And it gets worse. Rather than presenting Gods love and sacrifice as
something done for all of us, Paul scribed both verbs as singular and then in the
genitive suggesting that his Christou exclusively and especially loved him and
therefore decided to surrender and entrust His authority to Shauwl alone.
This concern is highlighted by the realization that up to this point Paul has
been conveying his message using the royal we, as was the case with Muhammad,
thereby inferring that he and his god were speaking with the same voice. In the
Quran, this is because Allah is Muhammads alter ego, making the man and his
god one and the same. But here, weve now transitioned from we, used
similarly, suggesting that Shauwl wanted to be perceived as the voice of God, to
ego me, myself, and I when Paul is positioning himself as the exclusive object
of his gods adoration and as the sole recipient of his authority. (Should you be
curious, the transition from we to I occurred when we left the 15th, 16th and
17th verses and transitioned into the world of make believe in verses 18, 19, and
20.)
Regarding the personalization of these arrogant claims, we find the use of
paradidomi surrendered and entrusted authority individually, especially, and
exclusively, himself mutually participating in the act with me for my sake and
because of me. Paradidomi speaks of handing over authority, turning it over
and delivering it up to another, entrusting them with it, yielding to them.
Secondarily, it means to be betrayed. And its tertiary meaning speaks of
granting the authority to instruct and to teach. It is from para, which conveys
from, of, by, or with, and didomi to give, granting, bestowing, and entrusting
something for mutual advantage. Therefore, written in the singular genitive, Paul
wants us to believe that his Christou surrendered, handing over his authority
exclusively to him. Once again: a-Paul-ing.
Rather than Yahowsha being in charge, it was Paul who was lord and master
mans savior and the voice of god. Rather than the Towrah being the authorized
source of teaching and instruction, its authority was surrendered, yielded to
Shauwl. For those who know Yahowah, it is more than enough to make one want
to scream.
If Paul had wanted to say that Yahowsha offered Himself sacrificially for
our benefit, he would have written zabach (Strongs 2076) or dabach (Strongs
1685) in the first person plural. But deliberately, egotistically, and deceptively, he
selected paradidomi, and then he scribed it in the singular genitive.
Yahowsha is translated using this same word in the context of on the way
to court with an adversary, settle differences expeditiously so that your
accuser doesnt hand you over (paradidomi) to the judge, who will throw you
into prison. (Mattanyah / Matthew 5:25) It is used again in Marks account, to
say in 15:1: The leading priests and the rabbis of the religious law bound
Yahowsha, and handed Him over (paradidomi) to Pilate, the Roman
governor.
In Luke 20:20, by searching for the meaning of paradidomai, we find a
dissertation on Shauwls duplicitous nature and intent: And having observed
Him closely (paratereo), they prepared and dispatched (apostello) spies
(egkathetos people who secretly lie in wait, and who cleverly bribe and entrap),
themselves pretending (hypokrinomai themselves duplicitous insincere
hypocrites, using the statements of another to feign and separate under false
pretenses) to be upright and justified (dikaios Torah observant) in order to
seize control of (epilambanomai to take Him into their custody against His will
along with) His word (logos [Torah pronouncements]) so that they could
betray Him, cause Him to surrender, and hand Him over to the control of
(paradidomi) the supreme ruling authority (arche): the governor with the
freedom to judge (exousia).
Substitute Shauwl for the duplicitous men separating people from God
under false pretences, and Satan for the supreme ruling authority, and you will
understand the hideous intent of Galatians 2:20. And while I realize that this
would be a stretch if reliant only on this isolated passage, this is perhaps the only
reasonable interpretation of his use of paradidomi in this context.
Paradidomi, written in the aorist active participle masculine singular
genitive, as paradontos, becomes a verbal adjective which is restricted to a
singular individual. It thus conveys that the Maaseyah was betrayed, that He
surrendered, yielding Himself and His authority to Shauwl. And therefore,
Shauwl no longer lived. He was now Christou in the flesh. Telling you that Im
the man in the moon, would be more credible.
There is an interesting catch 22 evident here in our diagnosis of Pauline
Doctrine. Its obvious that this letter was poorly written, perhaps making the
specificity and frequency of these criticisms seem a bit unfair. And if Paul were
an average fellow, admitting to be unskilled in the art of written communication
as opposed to bragging about his prowess, and if he openly stated that these letters
contained his opinions as opposed to Gods message, then the strident nature of
this evaluation might be insufferable for Pauline aficionados. But that is not the
case. Paul has repeatedly protested that he is the Maaseyahs appointed apostle, if
not the living embodiment of his god. He not only claims that his message was
from God, but that his god yielded his authority to him. So from that perspective,
considering the consequence, every misstatement and every errant nuance must be
exposed and condemned.
All of this brings us face to face with something else Paul got wrong, and
which has subsequently influenced Christianity. In this verse, and in many others
like it, the Maaseyah and His alleged agent have become the focus, when our
eyes should be on the Father. Yahowsha is Yahowahs implement, a tool. He is a
substantially diminished manifestation, or corporeal representation, of God, set
apart from Yahowah. The Christian perspective is like being captivated by a
toenail clipping while ignoring the person from whom it was attached. Yahowsha
is important, but immeasurably less so than Yahowah.
Additionally, this verse says: God () and (kai) Cristou (). The
conjunction separates them as if they were different individuals, which while
consistent with Christian mythology, isnt true. It would be more accurate, and
more instructive, to say Yahowsha was set apart from Yahowah to demonstrate
His love for us.
Had Shauwl written: the moment we come to trust and rely upon Yahowah
and His Towrah, and act upon the terms and conditions of the Covenant, we cease
to be mortal, our souls are restored, and we become Gods children, immortal and
perfect, he would have had a valid point. This condition is possible because
Yahowah tangibly demonstrated His love for us, fulfilling His Passover,
Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits, and Seven Sabbaths promises, thereby enabling all
five of the Covenants benefits. But Shauwl didnt convey any of these things.
Instead he lied: I live, but no longer I. He lives then in me, Christos. This
because now I live in flesh in faith I live the of the God and Christou, the one
having loved me and surrendered, entrusting authority, yielding and handing
over the power to control, influence and instruct, and to betray exclusively
and especially of Himself for the sake of and because of me.
 The KJVs rendering has become so familiar to us, its a shame that it isnt
accurate: I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ
liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son
of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. Jeromes Latin Vulgate reads:
I live; yet now, it is not I, but truly Christus, who lives in me. And though I live
now in the flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God (in fide vivo Filii Dei), who
loved me and who delivered himself for me. In the NLT we find: My old self
has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.
So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and
gave himself for me. While much of this is wrong, to their credit, at least on this
occasion, team Tyndale actually translated pistis correctly.
The first portion of what follows would have been sage advice if not for the
name of the always-naked Greek and Roman goddesses of licentiousness. Apart
from the invalid association, and violation of the First, Second, and Third
Statements Yah etched on the First Tablet, and the Sixth Instruction He wrote on
the Second Tablet, it would otherwise underscore the life and death decision we
are all given the opportunity to evaluate. Bur alas, since Shauwl has rejected
Yahowahs source of mercy by denouncing His Torah, this is just another lie...
I do not reject or disregard (ou atheteo I do not regard as invalid, I do
not refuse nor set aside, or literally: not, I do not actually at present rely on
(present tense, active voice, indicative mood, first person singular)) the (o)
Charity / Grace (charis attractiveness, charm, and frivolity; the name of the
Greek goddesses of Charity, known to the Romans as the Gratia, which was
transliterated Grace) of the (tov) God ()....
The reason that this is so sinister is because Paul is claiming that by rejecting
the Torah, he did not reject Gods mercy. Yahowahs position, however, is the
antithesis of this, and we know that because after denouncing religion, and most
especially religious corruptions like this at the conclusion of the Second of Three
Statements on the First of Two Tablets, He wrote: My mercy is for the
thousands who approach Me in love and who closely and carefully observe
the terms of the relationship. (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 20:6) The
conditions associated with our participation in the Covenant are found in the first
book of the Towrah and nowhere else on earth. The same is true of the lone path
which has been provided to save us. Therefore, according to Yahowah, the God
who in the first of those statements introduces Himself as our Savior, the
relatively few individuals (thousands represent one in a million people) who
receive His mercy do so by studying the Towrahs Guidance so that they can walk
to Yah along the path He has provided as part of His Covenant family. So by
claiming that the Torah can be discarded without invalidating its benefits, Paul
has contradicted God while confusing Christians. As a result, the billions who
have been beguiled by Pauls rhetoric, by disregarding the Towrah, have rejected
Gods mercy. That is what makes him so deadly.
The second half of Pauls statement is more challenging to interpret, because
of its hypothetical nature, and because of the lack of specificity regarding the
identity of the nomou Shauwl was addressing because it is only distinguished by
the genitive nature of the Greek noun. And yet in this particular context, there can
be little doubt to Shauwls intent. He appears to be saying: If the Torah could
save, then there was no reason for Christos to die. Listen and see if you dont
agree (with that explanation, not with that message).
...if because (ei presenting a real or hypothetical condition) then (gar as
a transition suggesting a continuation, translation, reason, or cause and effect) by
or through (dia on account of) the Torah (nomou the allotment which is
parceled out for the purpose of nurturing those with an inheritance (restricted to a
singular and specific characterization in the genitive)) righteousness (dikaiosyne
becoming acceptable and upright, being virtuous and correct) consequently as a
result (ara then, therefore, and accordingly, based upon the prior thought the
conclusion is drawn) Christos ( Maaseyah (but without the definite
article)) undeservedly, for no reason (dorean for no purpose or cause, without
benefit, for naught, and in vain) he died (apothnesko he suffered death in the
past; from apo separation and thnesko to die). (Galatians 2:21)
By comparison, the NA published: if for through law rightness, then Christ
as a gift died. Setting aside their errant translation of nomou and unjustified
transliteration of Christos, the message is similar with the exception of dorean, an
adverb which the Nestle-Alands Interlinear rendered as gift instead of
undeservedly, for no reason. But to be fair, had dorean been scribed as a noun,
its root does speak of a gift, albeit one given without reason or benefit.
Focusing on the words themselves, this assertion inverts Yahowahs Towrah
teaching, upending the relationship between the Towrah and Maaseyah.
According to God, it is because of the Towrahs promises that Yahowsha
endured Passover and Unleavened Bread, so that He and we could enjoy
FirstFruits. Had there been no Towrah, there would have been nothing to observe
on these days and no benefits associated with them therefore, no reason to fulfill
them. So Pauls statement isnt just misleading, it is a boldfaced lie, totally
deceptive, destructive, deadly, and damning.
These four days Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, Shabuwah provide those
who answer Gods Invitations with all five of the Covenants blessings: eternal
life, perfection (righteousness and acceptability), adoption, enrichment, and
empowerment. So according to God, we become righteous and acceptable as a
result of responding to His willingness to honor the promises He made regarding
His Covenant in His Towrah.
It is only by negating this association between Yahowahs Word (Towrah)
and Yahowahs Work (Maaseyah) that either would be in vain. But that only
happens under the specific scenario Shauwl has laid before us which is what
makes his letters so devastating.
There are three utterly and inexplicitly absurd aspects to Pauls, and thus the
Christian, position on the death of God. It is impossible. God, by His own
definition, is immortal. It is irrational. Death is the absence of life, neither a
remedy nor solution to our mortality. And it is inconsistent with Gods testimony
as well as with the eyewitness accounts.
Therefore, the big picture is devastating to Christianity. God cannot die. Man
cannot kill God. And Gods death, should it even be possible, would not make us
righteous or acceptable.
On Pesach, Yahowshas physical body, representing the Passover Lamb, was
sacrificed, but only after Yahowahs presence, by way of the Set-Apart Spirit,
departed. By fulfilling this specific aspect of His promise, in harmony with the
Exodus, the lives of the Covenants children are spared, making us immortal. In
Yahs parlance, we avoid the plague of death and destruction.
The next day, which began at sundown, Yahowshas soul, representing His
life and consciousness, now separated from God, went to Sheowl, fulfilling
Matsah, known as Un-Yeasted Bread, on a Shabat. His soul, thereby, paid the
price to ransom us, making us acceptable by removing our corruption, represented
by the yeast which had now been removed from the bread. The remains of
Yahowshas body was incinerated following Passover in keeping with the
Towrahs instructions. (Shemowth / Exodus 12:10 reads: Do not leave of it (the
lamb) until morning, and what remains of it you are to burn with fire.)
So then on Bikuwrym, meaning firstborn child and foremost child,
Yahowshas soul, now released from Sheowl, was reunited with the Set-Apart
Spirit, making Yahowsha the first born unto our Heavenly Fathers family. In
this way, we too are adopted into the Covenant by being reborn Spiritually.
Next, just as He had done when He initially revealed His Towrah Teaching to
us, God enriched His children with His Guidance on Seven Sabbaths,
empowering us through the Set-Apart Spirit on Shabuwah. Therefore,
Yahowshas observation of the Towrah mattered because the promises of the
Towrah matter.
The Maaseyah Yahowsha, the Qodesh Qodesh or Most Set Apart, as the
diminished corporeal manifestation of Yahowah, in concert with the Set-Apart
Spirit, honored and enabled all four of these Towrah promises in 33 CE (Year
4000 Yah). They are essential and necessary individually but also collectively.
One without the others can be counterproductive. For example, if a person were to
observe Passover but not Unleavened Bread, they become immortal, but still
unacceptable to God, so they would be eternally separated from Him in Sheowl.
So by over emphasizing one aspect of Yahowshas life, and by mischaracterizing
it, the result can be worse than severing the overall connection between
Yahowsha and the Towrah.
Therefore, it bears repeating: the opposite of what Shauwl has just written is
true. If Christians believe Him and focus on Gods alleged death, they will die.
And should they make the connection between Yahowsha and the Passover
Lamb, but nothing more, their soul is destined for Sheowl. That is why Yahowah
warned us about this particular man in the second chapter of Chabaquwq /
Embrace This / Habakkuk.
If Shauwl had wanted to say that fundamentalists who adhere to the Oral
Law cannot save themselves, because Rabbinic teaching is in conflict with the
Torah, then he should have said soand provided examples, just as Yahowsha
had done. And if Shauwl had wanted to say that we need a savior because we
arent perfect, he could easily have phrased this in a way that everyone would
have understood. But he didnt. Instead he postured what could best be spun as an
ill-defined and beguiling hypothetical, one which pits the Torah against the
Maaseyahs fulfillment of it. A proposition which ignores both the Covenant and
the conflict between human nature and Godly perfection which can only be
resolved on Matsah.
Because they dont know or understand the Towrahs presentation of
Passover, Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits, and Seven Sabbaths, most Christians
now believe that Paul was authorized to undermine the value of the Torah and
thereby replace it with the death of Christ on a cross. In their mind, it is as
if these things provided a solution that was afforded by faith. But unless Yahowah
had a plan to reconcile sinful man, one which Yahowsha enabled, then the
cross was nothing more than a gruesome spectacle.
Since this is literally life and death, lets be as clear and unequivocal as
possible. Yahowshas existence, His words, His deeds, and His sacrifice, are
irrelevant without the Torah. Apart from the Torah, Yahowshas life was a lie and
His sacrifice was a complete waste of time. If not for the Torah, no one would
have been saved by Yahowshas actions. Therefore, as a standalone concept,
believing in Jesus Christ is as meaningless as the name and title are erroneous.
Yahowshas life matters expressly because He was Torah observant,
providing us with the path we should follow to live in harmony with Gods Word.
And, by honoring the Torahs promises, Yahowsha paid the penalty for our
noncompliance, making it possible for a just God to accept otherwise flawed
children into His presence. So it is by viewing Yahowshas life from the
perspective of Yahowahs Word, from the viewpoint of the Torah, that we can
come to appreciate who He is and understand what He did. Then, based upon this
understanding, we have the opportunity to trust and rely upon Yahowahs
provision as it is written in the Torah and lived by Yahowsha, or we can reject it
as Shauwl has done. But be aware, Paul lied, so by rejecting the Towrah, you
forego Yahowahs mercy.
Yahowah has conceived, articulated, and facilitated a seven-step path for us
to follow to achieve His ultimate objective, the Covenant, which enables us to
campout with our Heavenly Father as His children. Yahowah calls His Way the
Miqraeythe Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God. Yahowsha and
the Set-Apart Spirit fulfilled the first four, Passover, Unleavened Bread,
FirstFruits, and Seven Sabbaths, which is the reason He and She were sent.
Worse even than the senseless carnage which would otherwise be the legacy
of Yahowshas sacrifice, by devaluing the Torah relative to its fulfillment, this
line of reasoning pits Shauwl against the Maaseyah. Yahowsha explained His
sacrifices from the perspective of the Torah, and Paul is attempting to sever that
association. As such, there is no way for Shauwl to be right or to be trustworthy.
It is irrational to claim that Yahowsha is God, to claim to be Yahowshas apostle,
and then contradict Yahowsha on the very purpose of His life.
While it is now a gnat on a camel, those who rely on the King James Version
should know that it is impossible for anyone to frustrate the mercy of God. So
why does the KJV say: I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness
comes by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. The source of the King James
translation is obvious. The Latin Vulgate reads: I do not reject the grace of God
(gratiam Dei). For if justice is through the legem/law, then Christus died in vain.
If the NLTs rendering is accurate, then Pauls intent was as I have stated: to
devalue the Torah and to sever the connection between the path to salvation
delineated in Gods Word from the toll Yahowsha paid along the Way. I do not
treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right
with God, then there was no need for Christ to die. The exact opposite is true.
The Torah is the reason for the Maaseyahs sacrifice.
Gathering this portion of Pauls thesis together, and adjusting the text to more
accurately reflect his intended message based upon the whole cloth of this epistle,
the ultimate abomination of desolation reads:
We Yahuwdym by nature and not from the social outcasts of sinful and
heathen races (2:15) having come to realize without investigation or evidence
that by no means whatsoever is made right, is vindicated, or made righteous
man by means of tasks and activities associated with the Towrah if not by
belief and faith in Iesou Christou, and we on Christon Iesoun, ourselves
believed in order for us to have become righteous, to have been acquitted and
vindicated out of faith in Christou, and not by means of acting upon or
engaging in the Towrah, because by means of engaging in and acting upon
the Towrah not any flesh will be acquitted, vindicated, nor made righteous.
(2:16)
But if seeking to be made righteous and innocent in Christo, we were
found also ourselves social outcasts and sinners, shouldnt we be anxious that
Christos becomes a guilty, errant, and misled, servant of sin? Not may it
exist, (2:17) because if that which I have actually torn down, dissolved, and
dismantled, invalidated and abolished, subverted, abrogated, and discarded,
this on the other hand I restore or reconstruct, promoting this edifice, I
myself bring into existence and recommend transgression and disobedience.
(2:18) I then, because of, and by the Towrahs allotment / law, myself,
actually died and was separated in order that to God I might currently live.
In Christo I have actually been crucified together with. (2:19)
I live, but no longer I. He lives then in me, Christos. This because now I
live in the flesh, in faith I live of the God and Christou, the one having loved
me and surrendered, entrusting authority, yielding and handing over the
power to control, influence and instruct, and to betray exclusively and
especially of Himself for the sake of and because of me. (2:20) I do not reject
or disregard the Charity / Grace of the God if because then by or through the
Torah righteousness consequently as a result, Christos undeservedly, for no
reason or cause, without benefit, for naught, and in vain, he died. (Galatians
2:21)
After enduring this breathtakingly toxic display of Shauwls error and
arrogance in invalidating, dismissing, and disassociating Yahowahs Torah, here
is a breath of fresh air from Yahowshas Rock, Shimown Kephas. Speaking of
Paulos, its now apparent that Peter was right:
Paulos, through the human wisdom that had been given to him, wrote
to you. And even as in all [Paulos] epistles, inside they use circular reasoning
to speak around and about this. Within them, that is to say, there are some
things difficult to understand, hard to comprehend, and detrimental to
understanding, which the uneducated and ignorant, as well as those who are
malleable, misinterpret and distort, also like the remaining inferior writings,
to the consequence of their own individual destruction and annihilation. You,
therefore, beloved, knowing this in advance, be on your guard, keep away
from this and be especially observant, in order that you are not led astray,
associating with the deception and delusion of Torahlessness, forsaking and
falling away from ones individual guarantee of salvation and perseverance.
(2 Shimown / He Listens / Peter 3:15-17)

The third chapter of Galatians opens with some fairly insulting language. O
(o) ignorant and irrational (anoetos foolish and senseless, lacking knowledge
and understanding, unintelligent and unreasonable, unthinking and mindless)
Galatians (Galatai land of the Gauls; from Galatia, pronounced gal-at-ee-ah).
To whom (tis) you (humeis) bewitched, deceived, and slandered (baskaino
practiced black magic and deluded, brought evil upon and seduced)? (Galatians
3:1) This sounds eerily similar to the ongoing rant between Muhammad and the
Meccans in the Quran and its almost as poorly written.
Anoetos is a compound of a, the Greek form of negation, and noeo, the
ability to be judgmental, to be discerning, to perceive, to think, and to
understand. I am quite familiar with the term, because I use its English
equivalent quite often when speaking of those bewitched by religion and politics
in America and the West. No amount of fact or reason has any influence on the
preponderance of religious individuals today. They remain blissfully ignorant.
And sadly, even when the evidence needed to make an informed decision is
provided, because they are irrational, most are incapable of processing the facts
logically. Far too many religious individuals, largely because of Pauls and
Muhammads proclamations, have become: ignorant and irrational, albeit there is
no reason to attribute this to the Galatians.
I am also familiar with baskaino, translated bewitched and deceived. Based
upon phasko (recognizing that you seems to be out of place in the sentence), it
appears to be telling us that Paul thought that the Galatians had been fooled by
people who affirmed that what they were professing was Godly, when it, at
least according to Paul, was Satanic, or that the Galatians were now criticizing
Paul, and he was slandering them for having done so. Either way its a bogus bill
and an ad hominem fallacy.
Based upon the evidence at our disposal, and consistent with what we learned
in Acts and have read thus far in Galatians, Im convinced that the opposite of
what Paul was inferring was actually true. Those Paul was slandering told the
Galatians that Yahowah had instructed us to observe the Torah, while Paul has
sought to dissolve and dismantle the Word of God. So it is like the Quran once
again. The one who was doing the misleading, in that case Muhammad, recited
words he attributed to God which were designed to convince his audience that the
liar (Muhammad) was telling the truth, and that those who were telling the truth
(the Meccans) were actually lying. And now it appears as if Paul invented the
trick to achieve the same result. And like Muhammad, Paul got away with it.
Billions believe that both deceivers were messengers of God.
I would be remiss if I didnt point out that it is Godly to expose and condemn
ignorance, as well as failures in thinking. It is even Godly to infer that people
have been bewitched and deceived by religion and politics. It is merciful, even
compassionate, to hurt someones feelings if in the process you prompt them to
change their thinking and their affiliations, so that they might come to know
Yahowah, and thus save their soul. However, when Christian apologists attack
those who bluntly condemn ignorance, suggesting that applying these labels isnt
godly, then since Paul did this, he could not have been godly. And while it is clear
to those who are neither ignorant nor irrational that Paul is the furthest from being
Godly, this is a bit of a conundrum for the faithful.
Had Shauwl told the truth, as opposed to weaving his lies in and out of
Gods Torah tapestry, his bluntness might have been admirable. We should never
care what people think about us, or be concerned over how we will be received,
but instead care about sharing what we know about Yahowah, and telling people
who He is and what He has done.
And that is precisely what Shauwl did nextwell, sort of. It is one thing to
say that Yahowshas life and deeds were predicted in the Torah and Prophets, and
it is another altogether to explain the nature of the prophecies He fulfilled
especially those associated with our salvation, such as Passover, Unleavened
Bread, FirstFruits, and Seven Sabbaths.
To whom (os which) down from (kata extended downward toward and
according to) eyes (ophthalmos) Iesous Christos ( divine placeholders
used by the Disciples for Maaseyah (the Implement Doing the Work of
Yahowah), and Yahowsha (Yahowah Saves); but since this epistle has
disassociated Yahowsha from Yahowah and the Maaseyah from the Work of the
Towrah, its misleading to connect that which Shauwl has deliberately severed)
described beforehand in writing (prographo was documented in written
prophecy) to be affixed to an upright pillar (ETPO placeholder for
stauroo). (Galatians 3:1)
Prographo, rendered described beforehand in writing, is a compound of
pro, meaning before hand, and grapho, the Greek word for writing which is
often the designated term for the written Scripture found in the Torah, Prophets,
and Psalms. So while every significant aspect of the Maaseyah Yahowshas life
was predicted in advance, and in writing, no aspect of it was fulfilled before
Shauwls eyes or those of the Galatians no matter how one deals with down
from eyes. Moreover, if Shauwl had wanted to resolve the perceived issue of
Galatian ignorance, and had he sought for them to be rational, he would have
cited any one of the many prophecies predicting Yahowshas and the Set-Apart
Spirits fulfillment of Passover, Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits, and Seven
Sabbaths. But he didnt, and that speaks volumes. We should never call someone
ignorant and irrational unless we are prepared to resolve this condition. Paul
never does.
It is also interesting that Shauwl scribed prographo in the passive which
suggests that Iesous Christos was acted upon, as opposed to the active voice
which would have correctly revealed that Yahowsha chose to observe the
Towrah, engaging in and acting upon its guidance. I dont suspect that this was a
careless mistake.
The antidote which has the power to protect people from the beguiling and
bewitching influences of political and religious pontifications is Yahowahs
Towrah Teaching. In this regard, Yahowsha consistently explained His life in the
context of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. So, if you want to inoculate yourself
from mans ignorant and irrational schemes, if you want to understand Yahowahs
merciful gift of salvation, if you want to benefit from the path home God has
provided, if you want to capitalize on Yahowshas sacrifice, turn to the seven
Called-Out Assemblies presented in the heart of the Torah and rely upon the
Maaseyahs fulfillment of these prophetic announcements.
Or you could choose to wallow in the swamp of mans translations. And
speaking of them, you should know that there is no mention whatsoever of the
truth, or of obedience in the Greek text in reference to this passage. So, not
only are the King James and Vulgate erroneous, the fact that their errors are
identical is proof that they are associated with one another, as opposed to being
related to the Greek text. KJV: O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you,
that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been
evidently set forth, crucified among you? LV: O senseless Galat, who has so
fascinated you that you would not obey the truth, even though Iesus Christus has
been presented before your eyes, crucifixus/crucified among you?
The way the NLT dispenses with the Scriptural references is indeed
bewitching: Oh, foolish Galatians! Who has cast an evil spell on you? For the
meaning of Jesus Christs death was made as clear to you as if you had seen a
picture of his death on the cross. Speaking of deceiving with a picture of his
death on the cross, there is no reference to a picture in the passage, and the
image of a cross would be pagan. Then adding insult to injury, the placeholder
(ETPO) represented a verb, not a noun (and thus not cross), and therefore the
reference was to an event, not a religious icon or graven image.
 Of this demeaning declaration, the NA published: O unmindful Galatians
who you bewitched to whom by eyes Jesus Christ was written before having been
crucified. If this is divinely authored Scripture, God is illiterate.
Shauwl advances his theory by asking a rhetorical question: This (houtos)
alone (monon only) I wish (thelo I propose, want, and desire) to learn
(manthano to be appraised of) from (apo speaking of dissociation and
separation) you (sy): out of (ek by means of) acts (ergon works, tasks,
accomplishments, and activities) of the Towrah ([n]omou of the allotment
which is parceled out for the purpose of nurturing those with and inheritance,
nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and used by heirs, precept which
was apportioned, established, and is received as a means to be proper and
approved, prescription to become an heir (genitive: singular and specific)) the
spirit ( placeholder for Ruwach using pneuma) you received (lambano
acquired, grabbed hold of, and obtained or exploited by deception were possessed
by) or (e alternatively) out of (ek from) hearing (akoe listening to) of faith
(pistis of belief (the meaning migrated from trust and reliance as a result of the
popularity of Shauwls epistles))? (Galatians 3:2)
Again, if this is to be considered the inspired word of God as Paul and
Christians protest, I hereby declare that we should find a much smarter, more
articulate, and more dependable deity. And fortunately, I know right where to find
Him: in the very Towrah Shauwl was assailing with this toxic drivel.
In the vernacular of our day, and buffed up a bit, the question may well have
been: Could you just answer one question for me: did you receive the spirit as a
result of something you learned by observing the Torah, or because you decided
to believe the message I preached to you? As such, Shauwl has openly admitted
that his preaching differed materially from Yahowahs Word, and has inferred
that his message delivered superior results to Gods instructions.
If this is true, and I dont see any way around it, then this is a confession.
Paul is guilty of committing the most heinous of all crimes: bearing false witness
about God. Case closed.
Before we contemplate Yahowshas position on this topic, lets review the
Christian translations of the charlatans statements. The NA wrote: This alone I
want to learn from you from works of the law the spirit you received or from
hearing of trust? Of which, the KJV published: This only would I learn of you,
Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Hearing of faith is a very odd concept, one obviously inherited from Jeromes
Latin Vulgate: I wish to know only this from you: Did you receive the
Spiritum/Spirit by the works of the law (operibus legis), or by the hearing of faith
(auditu fidei)? To their credit, while these read poorly, they are reasonably
consistent with the underlying text, which says: This alone I want to learn
from you: out of accomplishments of the Towrah the spirit you received or
alternatively out of hearing of belief?
Since the New Living Translation theologians know that there was no
modifier, or adjective, associated with the placeholder for Spirit in this passage,
why do you suppose they added the pagan term Holy before Her title?
Additionally, do you suppose that men who purported to be Greek scholars didnt
know that there was no reference in this passage to obeying, no reference to
Mosess name, no answer to the rhetorical question being asked, no basis for
message or to Christ? Just perhaps, there is the possibility that they may have
lacked the professional integrity one might expect of those claiming to publish the
inerrant word of God? Let me ask you this one question: Did you receive the
Holy Spirit by obeying the law of Moses? Of course not! You received the Spirit
because you believed the message you heard about Christ.
So I presume another question is in order: why did the NLT change Pauls
message? Since they call Galatians Scripture, are they suggesting that their god
and this messenger he allegedly surrendered his authority to were such poor
communicators that they needed their help? Or are they knowingly advancing a
fraud, trying simultaneously to alter Pauls message to suit their religion while at
the same time elevating the writing quality in order to make the resulting piece of
fiction seem credible? Or are they just frustrated authors, and saw this as an
opportunity to publish their first novel?
Since Shauwl has posed this question regarding the receipt of an
undesignated spirit, it is beneficial to know that Yahowah introduced the gender,
power, scope, and purpose of the ruwach of elohym to us in the opening
statement of the Towrah. Lets listen to God:
In the beginning (reshyth the first born), the Almighty (elohym God)
created (bara fashioned and conceived, giving birth to) and was alongside
and closely associated with (eth eth) the heavens (samaym the spiritual
abode) and the material realm (erets the physical world).
And the material realm (wa erets the physical world) existed (hayah) as
a formless (tohuw in a state of lifeless confusion, as something which would
dissipate into nothingness without energy added), empty void (bohuw a
deserted and unoccupied space, desolate of life), and darkness (hosek
ignorance and obscurity, without light) was upon (al) the presence (paneh
face and appearance) of great commotion (tahowm of the Big Bang; from
huwm: that which is anxious, agitated, perplexed, loud and distracting).
The Almightys (elohym Gods) Spirit (ruwach the manifestation of
the divine power of God; from ruwych: that which can be accepted and is
acceptable, that which can be tangibly experienced, that which is delightful and
aids in perception and understanding, that which is enormous and brings relief,
revival, renewal, restoration and the breath of life; a feminine noun) hovered
over, ministered to, and expanded (rachap caringly moved over, served,
cleansed, and purified) according to (al) the presence (paneh face and
appearance) of the waters (maym serving as a metaphor for life and cleansing).
And God (wa elohym the Almighty) said (amar spoke, communicated,
and declared), Let there be (hayah) light (owr), and there was light (owr).
And God (elohym) saw (raah) that (eth) the light (owr) indeed (ky) was
good, valuable, and pleasing (towb).
And the Almighty (wa elohym) conceived a division (badal drew a
distinction) to encourage understanding of (bayn) the light (owr that which
shines, brightens, illuminates, enlightens, provides sight, warms, and enables life
and growth) and the darkness (hosek obscurity, the absence of light, and
people who are unknown). (Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis 1:1-4)
In the Towrahs opening statement, the Spirit of God is credited with the
formation, and thus birth, of the universe and its expansion and thus
growthgiving it life, affirming Her role as our Spiritual Mother. Bigger than all
of the galaxies combined, She (Ruwach is a feminine noun) filled the void, just
as she does in our lives, enabling us to live eternally in Yahowahs presence,
cleansing us with Her living waters. And as a result of Her work, Her
enlightenment, we can avoid the ignorant confusion of lifeless deceptions, and
thus preclude dissipating into nothingness. She encourages understanding,
enriching us with insights into Yahowahs Teaching, helping us better appreciate
the Light. She perfected creation, just as Her Garment of Light makes us look
perfect in Gods eyes.
The Spirit is the manifestation of Gods power and enlightenment who we
can personally experience. If we accept Her, She makes us acceptable. The
ruwach renews and restores us, reconciling us with God. She is not only the
breath of eternal life, She enlightens us.
The nature of the spirit a person is receptive to and receives determines
whether they spend eternity with Yahowah or with the Adversary in Sheowl. So
it is interesting to note that the rach root of rachap, translated hovered over,
ministered to, and cleansed, conveys many spiritual attributes. Rachamah depicts
a mothers womb. Rechem is a matrix, the source from which life originates,
develops, and takes form. Rachmany is a compassionate woman, whereas
rachuwm is simply compassion. Racham is love, deep, tender, affectionate,
nurturing, familial, compassionate, merciful, and motherly love. Rachats is a
trusted female servant at a bath who washes and cleanses. Rachsah is to wash
and cleanse, removing all contaminants and filth. Rachem is mercy. Rachab is
expansive, enormous in scope and breadth, even enlarging, growing, and
liberating. Rachash is to move and stir, to awaken, invigorate, and motivate. A
rachath is a feminine noun depicting a winnowing implement, something which
is used to separate the wheat from the chaff.
The ruwach-Spirit is always associated with waters, as She is here, because
of their life-giving and cleansing properties. The ruwach-Spirit is always
associated with light as She is here, because owr is that which shines,
brightens, illuminates, enlightens, provides sight, warms, and enables life and
growth. And the ruwach-Spirit is always associated with separation as She is
here, because Yahowah wants us to be set apart unto Him. He delights in those
who are enveloped, covered, and adorned in the Ruwach Qodesh Set-Apart
Spirits Garment of Light, but He does not know those shrouded in darkness.
Yahowah invites us to come into the presence of the maternal manifestation
of His light on the Miqra of Matsah, the day each year where we are perfected by
God. We are also encouraged to answer His invitation to approach this same
feminine aspect of Gods light on Yowm Kippurym, the Day of Reconciliations.
Souls who dont respond to Yahowahs Invitation on either occasion, die, ceasing
to exist, or they will be permanently separated from God in Sheowl, where they
will spend eternity with Shauwl. And between, on Seven Sabbaths, Yahowahs
Set-Apart Spirit empowers and enriches the Covenants children, helping them
learn and grow.
Had Shauwl asked Yahowchanan, the actual Apostle and Disciple would
have told the imposter that the only way the ruwach-Spirit could be acquired was
by observing the Torah. After all, the genuine Apostle and Disciple transcribed
one of the most important spiritual conversations in human history. Lets listen in:
Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of
Yahuwdahs ruling council. He came to Yahowsha at night and said to Him,
Teacher, we know You have come from God. For no man could perform the
miraculous signs You are doing if God were not inside of him.
In reply Yahowsha declared, I teach you the truth, no one can see the
Kingdom of God unless he is born from above.
How can a man be born when he is old? Nicodemus asked. Surely he
cannot enter a second time into his mothers womb to be reborn.
Yahowsha answered, I tell you the truth, no one can enter the Kingdom
of God unless he is born of water and Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but
the Spirit gives birth to Spirit.
 You should not be surprised or marvel at My saying, you must be born
from above. The Spirit blows like the wind and breathes life wherever it
desires. You are endowed with the faculty to hear its voice, yet you do not
know from where it comes and becomes known or where it is going. In this
manner, he who is to have eternal life, each and everyone is born, brought
forth, and delivered by the Spirit.
Nicodemus said, In what manner or way can this happen, becoming a
reality?
Yahowsha answered, You are Yisraels teacher, and do you not
understand this? Most assuredly, I tell the truth concerning this. We speak of
what we have known and bear witness to what we have seen, but still you do
not receive our testimony.
If I have spoken of the earthly and human, and you do not trust, how
then might you rely when I speak of trusting the heavenly? No one has ever
ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaventhe Son
of Man.
Just as Moseh lifted up the snake in the desert, so likewise, in the same
way and manner, the Son of Man must be lifted up, in order that everyone
who relies on Him may have eternal life.
For Yahowah so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that
whoever trusts and relies upon Him shall not perish but have eternal life.
For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but
to save the world through Him. Whoever relies upon Him is not judged,
separated, or condemned, but whoever does not rely stands condemned
already because he has not trusted in the name of Gods only Son.
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved the
darkness instead of light, because their behavior was annoying.
Everyone who practices evil hates the Light, and will not come into the
Light concerned that his behavior and deeds will be exposed. But whoever
lives by the truth comes into the Light, in order that it may be seen plainly,
that what he has done is taking place in close proximity to God.
(Yahowchanan / Yah is Merciful / John 3:1-21)
As a Pharisee in Yisrael, Nicodemus should have been considerably more
aware of what the Torah teaches regarding the Set-Apart Spirit, our spiritual birth
into the Covenant, and the role the Invitations to Meet with God play in our
receipt of the Spirit. Nonetheless, after chiding him for his ignorance, Yahowsha
explained the process of our adoption into our Heavenly Fathers Family. And I
suppose He did so, because Nicodemus was receptive, something he demonstrated
by his search and his questions, things religious individuals all too often avoid.
Returning to Galatians, in a case of darkness calling the night black, Shauwl
protested: In this way (houto), ignorant and irrational (anoetos lacking in
knowledge and unable to think logically, foolish and senseless, dimwitted and
without understanding) you are (eimi you exist). Having begun (enarchomai
having commenced by way of) with spirit (I used by the Disciples as a
placeholder for Ruwach using pneuma), now (nyn at the same time) in flesh
(sarx) you are completing (epiteleo you are undergoing and finishing, bringing
to a close (present tense which portrays an uncompleted action in process, middle
voice reveals that those Shauwl is calling ignorant are doing this to themselves,
and indicative mood indicating that this assessment is real))? (Galatians 3:3)
When considered together (Galatians 3:2 through 3:5), it becomes obvious
that Paul is associating the Torah with the flesh, and disassociating both from the
Spirit in unbridled Gnostic fashion. Fortunately, however, those who are informed
and rational recognize that the Set-Apart Spirit is a product of the Word and She
completes and establishes us while we are still human just as She did for
Yahowsha. Further, once we have been born anew from above by way of our
Spiritual Mother, we are a new creation just as was the case with Yahowsha
during Bikuwrym / FirstFruits following Pesach and Matsah. Therefore, even if
his connections and disassociations were accurate, which they are not, Pauls
premise remains flawed.
Also relevant, the moment we are born anew from above, we are established,
we are eternal, and we are perfect children of the Covenant, at least in our
Heavenly Fathers eyes. And His perspective is the only one which matters. So,
once we have begun with the Spirit, there is nothing left to do relative to our
status, rendering Pauls protestation ignorant and irrational.
In this case, its not that these translations are errant; its the message they
translated which is wrong. NA: Thusly unmindful you are. Having begun in
spirit, now in flesh you are thoroughly completing. KJV: Are ye so foolish?
having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? LV: Are you
so foolish that, though you began with the Spirit, you would now end with the
flesh? But alas, there is an exception to every rule. NLT: How foolish can you
be? After starting your Christian lives in the Spirit, why are you now trying to
become perfect by your own human effort? Its clearly Christians who make
Christianity deceptive.
So much (tosoutos so many, so great, and so long these things) you
suffered (pascho you were affected and you were vexed, annoyed, and angry)
without reason or result (eike without purpose or cause, in vain, randomly and
chaotically without a plan). If (ei) indeed, really (ge) and yet then (kai and
also) thoughtlessly and for nothing without cause (eike without reason, result,
or purpose, and for naught). (Galatians 3:4)
Shauwl is insinuating that Yahowahs plan of salvation, which consists of
Passover, Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits, and Seven Sabbaths, and which the
Maaseyah Yahowsha devoted His life to fulfilling, is comprised of thoughtless,
random, and chaotic events that are neither part of an overall plan nor productive,
and that by answering Gods invitations to celebrate these festival feasts with Him
the participant suffers greatly, they are vexed and annoyed without benefit.
Perhaps he is even insinuating that being observant is a complete waste of time
because his replacement can be accepted impulsively, easily, and thoughtlessly
by faith no less. He is also suggesting that our Spiritual rebirth can be aborted.
But none of this is so.
The primary meaning of pascho, rendered you suffered, speaks of an
experience which is typically unpleasant, but at its heart it is mostly about
feeling rather than thinking. It is about being affected emotionally rather than
using evidence and reason to form a rational and reliable conclusion. So Shauwl
is trying to turn the tables on those who are observant, accusing them of what he
demands: belief in the unknown rather than trust in what has been revealed and
can be known. Disingenuous politicians deploy this tactic to confuse the
unsuspecting and to make it more difficult for their opposition to attack their
weaknesses. In reality, ignorance is required to believe Paul and Yahowah is
known to those who are observant.
If Paul was speaking for God, he would not only have known if the Galatians
had been born anew from above by way of the terms and conditions of the
Covenant, he would have known that his question was ridiculous. Its akin to
asking someone if they have traveled across a bridge if after crossing it they
retreat and go back to the original side.
In that this has all been so devious and deceitful, demeaning and demonic,
lets check the NA just to make sure Shauwls message is being conveyed
accurately: Such things you suffered without cause. If indeed also without
cause.
Therefore, trying to put lipstick on this pig, So much and so long these
things you suffered, you were affected and you were vexed, annoyed, and
angry, without reason or result, even chaotically without a plan. If indeed,
really and yet then also thoughtlessly and for nothing without cause. reason,
or result, the KJV proposed: Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be
yet in vain. LV: Have you been suffering so much without a reason? If so, then
it is in vain. Our salvation is a joyous affair, which is why Yahowahs Seven
Invitations to Meet with Him are Festival Feasts. Further, the message of Yowm
Kippurym, the Day of Reconciliations, is that God suffered for us so that we
might be able to celebrate and enjoy Sukahcamping out with our Heavenly
Father.
The Covenant and the Way to participating in it is the most beneficial
agreement in the universe and the most enjoyable path to follow, yet ignorant of
this, the NLT proposed: Have you experienced so much for nothing? Surely it
was not in vain, was it?
Paul cannot refrain from belittling the Torah. The one (o) therefore (oun
consequently or then) supplying further (epichoregeo providing and
supporting) you (ou) the spirit (to I placeholder used by the Disciples for
Ruwach (a feminine noun in Hebrew) using pneuma (a neuter noun in Greek)),
and (kai) causing to function and operating (energeo bringing about and
producing to grant the ability of (present tense, active voice, participle (verbal
adjective), nominative (to be or to become), singular, masculine (thereby
misrepresenting the maternal nature of the Ruwach Qodesh))) powers (dunamis
abilities, authorities, and supernatural capabilities (feminine plural)) in (en) you
(sou) out of (ek) acting upon and engaging in (ergon observing and working
on the tasks assigned in) the Torah (nomou the allotment which is parceled out
for the purpose of nurturing those with an inheritance (singular genitive and thus
specific)) or (e) from (ek out of) hearing (akoe listening) faith (pistis belief
(the original meaning was trust but migrated to faith as a result of Shauwls
letters))? (Galatians 3:5)
If you are still clinging to the myth that this was inspired by God, you may be
thinking that my translations are unfairly making Shauwl appear inarticulate. So
please, consider this from the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition
with McReynolds English Interlinear, or NA for short: The one then supplying
further to you the spirit and operating powers in you from works of law or from
hearing of trust.
It is apparent that Shauwl was not an eyewitness to Yahowshas
participation in Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym in Yaruwshalaim, so he missed
the fact that the Ruwach Qodesh Set-Apart Spirit on Shabuwa enriched and
empowered all of the Children of the Covenant who observed Passover,
Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits. And as a result, Paul is either ignorant of the
fact that these Invitations to Meet with God not only fulfilled the Towrahs
promises, they facilitated all five of the Covenants benefits eternal life,
perfection, adoption, enrichment, and Spiritual empowerment or he was
deliberately misleading his audience.
 Beyond being an effective communicator, Yahowah is trustworthy, as is His
Torah. Yahowsha is reliable because He is the human manifestation of the
Wordthe living embodiment of the testimony contained in the Torah, Prophets,
and Psalms. The Set-Apart Spirit is dependable because She is the one who
enlightens us when we study Yahowahs teaching.
There is no dichotomy, therefore, between the Torah and the Spirit, between
the Torah and Yahowsha, between the Torah and Gods trustworthy and reliable
message, between the Torah and possessing Yahowahs power and ability. So it is
unfortunate that Shauwl postured a conflict between them.
Paul is saying that it is better to believe what he has verbally communicated
than it is to trust what is written in the Torah. In fact, he is saying that believing
his preaching provides direct access to spiritual power and that the Torahs
guidance does not. By making this claim, this distinction, Paul is affirming that
his message not only differs substantially from Gods, but also that his message is
superior. If you believe him, you are a Christian.
Simply stated: Paul was attempting to devalue the Torah relative to his
preaching. And having read both, that was an arrogant and foolish thing for him to
propose.
The most effective lies not only contain an element of truth, they twist and
corrupt the truth. In this regard, the passage devoid of the either/or, might have
had some value if it was interpreted to say that we are not empowered because of
things we do, but instead based upon trusting in and relying upon the things
Yahowah has done. In this light, however, dunamis, translated powers, in the
plural, would have been singular instead, because there is only one source of
sufficient power, strength, skill, resources, authority, and ability to accomplish
whatever task is necessary. Deployed in the business of sharing Gods message,
this capability is infinitely superior to having the power to dazzle people with a
display of miracles (signs and wonders in Pauls parlance).
But even that hint of truth is obscured by these translations of, The one
therefore supplying you the spirit, and functioning to become powers and
supernatural capabilities in you out of acting upon and engaging in the
Torah or from hearing faith? to: KJV: He therefore that ministereth to you
the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law,
or by the hearing of faith? LV: First in Latin: Qui ergo tribuit vobis Spiritum, et
operatur virtutes in vobis: ex operibus legis, an ex auditu fidei? Now in English:
Therefore, does he who distributes the Spirit to you, and who works miracles
among you, act by the works of the law, or by the hearing of the faith? And then
in the fictional version (NLT): I ask you again, does God give you the Holy
Spirit and work miracles among you because you obey the law? Of course not! It
is because you believe the message you heard about Christ.
The Spirits power in our lives is directly attributable to the first four
Miqraey, the presentation of which sits at the heart of the Towrah. For example,
the power of the Set-Apart Spirit was unknown to the Called-Out Assembly until
the fulfillment of the fourth Called-Out Assembly: Seven Sabbaths. As a direct
result of the fulfillment of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, the Set-
Apart Spirit came upon the members of Yahowahs family on Shabuwa,
empowering them to convey Gods healing and beneficial message to the world.
Shimown / Peter experienced the Seven Sabbaths transformation in person,
just as he had witnessed the Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits
requirements being fulfilled in advance of this day. Paul had missed them all, and
as a result, seemed to be missing the most important connections between the
Torah and Yahowsha, between the Set-Apart Spirit and the Invitations to Meet
with God, and between those Festival Feasts and the Covenant.
On the predicted and promised day of the SpiritShabuwaYahowah
enabled every member of His Called-Out Assembly to preach His Towrah
testimony to people of every race in every language. The Spirit gave us the power
to share Yahowahs Torah, His prescriptions for living, with all mankind.
In that it is often helpful to see an authors thoughts in unison, one sentence
flowing to the next, the first five verses of Galatians 3 say:
O ignorant and irrational, foolish and senseless, unintelligent and
unreasonable, Galatians. To whom you bewitched, deceived, and slandered,
brought evil upon and seduced? (3:1) This alone I want to learn from you:
out of accomplishments of the Towrah the spirit you received or alternatively
out of hearing of belief? (3:2)
In this way, you are ignorant and irrational, lacking in knowledge and
unable to think logically. Having begun with spirit, now in flesh you are
completing? (3:3) So much and so long these things you suffered, you were
affected and you were vexed, annoyed, and angry, without reason or result,
even chaotically without a plan. If indeed, really and yet then also
thoughtlessly and for nothing without cause. reason, or result. (3:4)
The one therefore then supplying you the spirit and causing to function
and operating powers in you out of acting upon and engaging in the tasks
delineated in the Torah or out of hearing faith? (3:5)
 Paraphrasing Gods Word to advance his next point, Shauwl will say that
Abram had faith in Yahowah before the Torah was written. While his assumption
is invalid, making this argument a straw man, his intent will be to demonstrate
that the Torah was, therefore, irrelevant to the Covenant. He will continue to
develop this theory throughout the remainder of this chapter and into the next. His
logic is so flawed, however, it is a wonder he fooled so many people on such a
crucial issue: the relationship between the Torah and Covenant.
This peculiar argument only prevails with those who are unaware of
Yahowahs Towrah its content, meaning, and purpose. That is a fact, not an
opinion because God told us in His Towrah that He had shared His towrah with
Abraham. Listen...
And (wa) I will grow and thrive (rabah I will greatly increase) with
(eth alongside) your offspring (zera seed) in connection with (ka
corresponding to) the highest and most illuminated (kowkab speaking of the
light emanating from stars in the loftiness of) heaven (shamaym spiritual realm
of God).
Then I will give (natan I will bestow and deliver, I will grant a gift) to (la)
your offspring (zera seed) everything (kol) associated with (eth) the (ha)
realm (erets land and region) of God (el).
And also (wa) all (kol) people from every race and place (gowym gentile
individuals) on the earth (erets realm and land) will be blessed with
favorable circumstances (barak they will be greeted and adored) through (ba
with and because of) your offspring (zera seed).
This is because (eqeb this is the result and consequence of), beneficially
focused on the relationship (asher for the purpose of developing a close and
favorable association), Abraham (Abraham a compound of ab father,
raham loving and merciful, and hamown enriching, meaning: Loving,
Merciful, and Enriching Father (a metaphor for Yahowah)) listened to (shama
he heard, paid attention to, and understood) the sound of My voice (b-qowl-y
My verbal communication and call; from qara My invitation, summons, and
recital, My welcome to meet and to encounter Me) and (wa) he continuously
observed, closely examined, and carefully considered (shamar he kept his
focus upon and diligently evaluated, he paid attention to the details so that he
could understand) My observances (mishmereth My things to carefully
examine; from shamar to observe, examine, and consider Me), My terms and
conditions (mitswah My binding covenant contract and authorized relationship
instructions), My inscribed prescriptions for living (chuwqah My clearly
communicated and engraved instructions regarding what you should do to be cut
into the relationship), and My Towrah (Towrah My teaching, guidance,
direction, and instruction: from tow My signed, written, and enduring, towrah
way of treating people, tuwr giving you the means to explore, to seek, to find,
and to choose Me, yarah the source from which My instruction, teaching,
guidance, and direction flow, which tuwb provides answers that facilitate your
restoration and return, even your response and reply to that which is towb good,
pleasing, joyful, beneficial, favorable, healing, and right, and that which causes
you to be loved, to become acceptable, and to endure, tahowr / tohorah
purifying and cleansing you, towr so as to provide you with an opportunity to
change your thinking, attitude, and direction toward Me). (Baresyth / In the
Beginning / Genesis 26:4-5)
Turning back a few pages, lets consider the quotation Shauwl was about to
corrupt. It reads: And so (wa) he completely trusted and totally relied
through verification (aman he was established, enduring, and loyal, standing
steadfast (scribed in the hiphil stem which causes the object, Yahowah, to
participate in the action, which is providing evidence which leads to trust, and in
the perfect conjugation which conveys that Abrahams reliance was total and
complete)) in (ba) Yahowah ( ) and (wa) He genuinely considered this
(chashab He thought, imputed, valued, and regarded this (in the qal stem this
should be interpreted literally and is a genuine response, while through the
imperfect conjugation we learn that this consideration was ongoing throughout
time)) to approach as a result of (la) vindication (tsadaqah being considered
innocent, justified, and right). (Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis 15:6)
You will notice, even here, God mentioned nothing remotely related to
faith. He did not say, nor did He infer, that the benefits of the Covenant
occurred because Abraham believed Him. And as such, you can and should
trash the entire book of Galatians. Because in it, as we shall soon see, Paul
attempts to bypass the Torah by saying that Abrams righteousness was the result
of this mans faith, and that it had nothing to do with his willingness to listen to
Yahowahs instructions or observe the conditions of His Covenant as they were
articulated in His Towrah Teaching. In other words, when it comes to
participating in the Covenant, the means Yahowah provided to engage in this
relationship are the opposite of Pauls.
Since there is the potential for misunderstanding here, please be aware that
shama does not mean obey. It only means to listen. There is no Hebrew
word for obey. These things known, we are better prepared to evaluate the
veracity of Pauls claims as he begins to weave the spell which has become
known as Pauline Doctrine.
Just as (kathos to the degree that, in as much as, and accordingly) Abram
(Abraam a transliteration of the Hebrew, ab-ram, Abrahams name before the
Covenant was consummated) believed (pisteuo had faith in; as it evolved over
time based upon Shauwls usage) the God (to ) and (kai) it was reasoned
(logizomai it was recorded and accounted) to Him (autos) to (eis)
righteousness (dikaiosune justice, being upright and virtuous; from dikaios and
dike, meaning in accord with divine instruction, virtuous, and innocent from a
judicial decree). (Galatians 3:6)
In the previous chapter, we were correctly informed by Shimown / Peter,
that Shauwl / Paul wrote around and about dikaiosune, the word translated
righteousness in Galatians 3:6. And he was correct. We discovered that it
describes the manner in which souls are approved by God. Dikaiosune speaks
of thinking correctly so as to become acceptable. The dikaios root of this word
conveys the idea of becoming upright by observing Gods instructions.
More to the point, dikaios is based upon dike and deiknuo which speak of
exposing the evidence to teach and prove that which is consistent with the law,
as in resolving a dispute with a just verdict. The comparable term in Hebrew and
in the Towrah is mishpat to exercise good judgment regarding the just means
resolve disputes. And indeed, we should think our way through this material,
judicially comparing Pauls rhetoric to Yahowahs testimony, if we are to avoid
falling into the trap which has ensnared so many.
Once again, context is critical. If we were to remove Pauls statement from
those which have come before it, and more importantly, from those which will
follow, we could be led to believe that Abram was considered righteous because
he trusted the promises God made to him. What makes this misconception so
enticing is that it is a clever variation of the truth. It veils the fact that Abraham
was upright and acceptable because he trusted and relied upon the Author of the
Covenant and Torah, which therefore makes this distinction irrelevant.
Further, it was possible for Abraham to trust Yahowah, because God spoke
directly to him, walked with him, and ate with him. And while God personally
revealed Himself to Abraham, he was not unique in this way. Yahowah has
spoken to the rest of us through His words. He has personally revealed Himself to
us through His Word made fleshYahowsha. So we too can come to know
Yahowah. We can come to trust Him, and as a result, we too can be considered
upright.
Paul is trying to establish a distinction between the promises made to
Abraham and the Covenant memorialized in the Torah, as if they were somehow
separate things. And then he will use this illusion to demean the Torah by
suggesting that Abraham didnt need it to be right with God. But Yahowah shared
His Towrah with Abraham and we need it as well, which is one of many crucial
points Shauwl has chosen to misconstrue. We are incapable of becoming a
beneficiary of the Covenant established between Yahowah and Abraham without
understanding it, as well as responding to the means God delineated to participate
in it. Such information is found in only one place the Towrah.
Also telling, in this very letter, Paul will say that the Covenant presented in
the Torah, the one written on Mount Sinai, enslaves, because it was established
with Hagar, not Sarah, Abrahams wife (the Covenant was affirmed with Sarahs
child, Yitschaq, while Hagars child, Ishmael, was expressly excluded). But since
Abraham and this Covenant are completely unknown to the world apart from this
very same Torah, citing the Torah he is discrediting to validate his denunciation
of it is irrational. You cant have it both ways. You cant claim that your
corruption of a story from the Torah proves your point and then use your point to
discredit the Torah at least not without circular reasoning.
This realization affirms that Shimown / Peter was right with regard to his
evaluation of Pauls letter to the Galatians. Shauwl uses circular reasoning to
speak around and about dikaiosune, but not in a positive sense as the rest of
Peters assessment portends. Paul twists the facts, and then deploys a plethora of
logical fallacies to suggest that the Torah is worse than irrelevant; it is our foe.
Also at stake here is the definition of pisteuo, which I have translated using
its current meaning, believed, as opposed to its original connotation: to trust
and rely upon. Pisteuo is from pistis, to think so as to be persuaded by the
evidence. But considering the fact that Shauwl never provides sufficient
evidence to trust anyone or anything, and his logic is too flawed to rely on
anyone or anything, it is obvious that he intended to convey faith and belief,
concepts which thrive in the absence of information and reason.
In this case, Shauwl wants Christians to believe that Abram had faith in God.
And then he wants to equate Abrahams alleged faith with the merits of believing
his preaching. But in the context of meeting directly with God, conceiving a child
at 100, and witnessing the salvation of his nephew, Lott, and demise of Sodom
and Gomorrah, Abrahams firsthand experience trumps belief, destroying
Shauwls premise. Furthermore, those who observe the Towrah know that
Yahowah conveyed His Teaching to Abraham, completely undermining the
foundation of Pauline Doctrine.
In spite of what the Christian translations suggest, Abraham knew God; he
walked, spoke, ate, and drank with God. Believing, which is accepting that which
is not assured, was not relevant in his situation. So it was inappropriate for Paul to
write: Just as and to the degree that Abram believed and had faith in the
God so it was reasoned and accounted to Him as righteousness, having
disputes justifiably resolved. KA: Just as Abraham trusted the God and it was
reasoned to him for rightness. KJV: Even as Abraham believed God, and it was
accounted to him for righteousness. LV: It is just as it was scriptum/written:
Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice. NLT: In the
same way, Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of
his faith. In direct opposition to the NLT, KJV, and even the Quran, Abraham
didnt have a faith; he enjoyed a genuine and personal relationship with God.
Abraham knew Yahowah, and he understood His Towrah, and because of those
facts, faith was beside the point.
It begs to be noted at this juncture, however, that Abrahams name confirms
that mercy isnt new, nor is it the lone prerogative of the so-called Christian
New Testament. The Covenant was established with Abraham, a man whose
name means Merciful, Compassionate, and Forgiving Father. And that is
something Shauwl cannot accept, which is why he consistently refers to
Abraham as Abram, by his pre-Covenant moniker, by the name he was born with
rather than the name Yahowah gave him. But youll notice that every English
translation corrected Pauls backhanded swipe at God.
Pauls next point sounds reasonable, at least up to the point that we pause
long enough to really think about it. He said:
You know (ginosko you have the information necessary to recognize,
perceive, understand, and acknowledge) as a result (ara consequently) that
(hoti because) the ones (oi) out of (ek from) faith (pisteuo belief), these
(outoi) sons (huios male children) are (eimi exist as (present tense conveying
an action in process, active voice suggesting that the ones are acting on
themselves, indicative mood saying that are actually)) Abram (Abraam).
(Galatians 3:7)
On my first pass through this material, trying to give Paul the benefit of the
doubt, and not fully appreciating that this was still the preamble of his overall
assault on the Towrah, I interpreted this verse metaphorically. But then I realized
that the symbolic meaning was torn asunder by its disassociation from form
Abraham a transliteration of the Hebrew, ab and raham, meaning the
Merciful, Compassionate, and Forgiving Father and Yahs Towrah Teaching
regarding the Covenant. And the moment we have to transition from a
metaphorical interpretation to physical lineage, the merit of symbolism dissipates.
Also, Abraham was a mere mortal. No one can choose to be one of his
descendants. And that means that this plank in Pauls thesis was wrong spiritually
and literally.
For example, both of Abrahams children, Ishmael and Yitschaq, died, and
one is still dead because he was expressly excluded from the Covenant. Likewise,
Esau was a direct descendant of Abraham, and he is most assuredly dead, because
God has told us that He hates him for having married one of Ishmaels daughters,
thereby rebelling against the Towrah and Covenant. So being Abrahams child
has no merit beyond ones temporal life, no matter how upright Abraham may
have been. The only reason Yitschaq still lives is that he personally benefited
from Yahowahs direct intervention and provision on Mount Mowryah. It is the
only way any of us can survive our mortal existence.
Abraham became the forefather of a great (in the sense of being important
and empowered) family, the Covenant, by way of Yitschaq initially, the firstborn
of the Covenant. Yitschaqs son, Yaaqob, became Yisrael, and his son,
Yahuwdah, brought us the Maaseyah.
But simply being invited to participate in the Covenant, being hand delivered
an invitation in the Torah, doesnt by itself enable the recipient to transcend
mortality, no matter to whom they may be related. Its how we respond to
Yahowahs Covenant that matters. In support of this, we have the opportunity to
answer Gods invitations and participate in seven annual meetings, or we can
dismiss them and Him, placing our faith instead in someone elses promises. We
can accept Pauls Gospel of Grace on faith, or we can come to know and trust
Yahowah through His Torah. The choice is ours, and so are the consequences.
Metaphorically, we become Abrahams children when we choose to accept
the same Covenant in which he elected to participate. This symbolic perspective
is derived from the fact that Abrahams name confirms that he was a stand-in for
our Merciful and Forgiving Father. But since our adoption into Yahowahs family
is by way of His one and only Covenant, the one which was memorialized in the
Torah, this is only possible when we appreciate the connection between Abraham
and Yahowah, between the Covenant and the Torah, and between observing and
responding. And yet these are the very associations which Paul severs.
Therefore, what Shauwl wrote is not true, nor is it relevant. The message of
the Towrah is that we can become Yahowahs Covenant children as a result of
acting upon its terms and conditions. There are five of these. First, Yahowah
asked us to walk away from our country and from all things associated with
Babylon, specifically national and religious dependence, politics, patriotism,
military and economic schemes. Second, God asks us to trust and rely exclusively
upon Him, which necessitates coming to know Him and understanding what He is
offering. Third, He wants us to walk to Him and become perfect, the means to
which is made possible through the seven Invitations to Meet with God. Fourth,
Yahowah asks us to closely examine and carefully consider His Covenant, which
is accomplished by studying the Towrah. And fifth, God asked parents to
circumcise their sons so that we remember to raise them to become Children of
the Covenant.
 Beyond this, faith is for fools; it is the residue of ignorance, and it is the stuff
of religion. A relationship with Yahowah is based upon knowing Him through His
Word, and then trusting and relying upon that which we come to know. But
according to the KJV: Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same
are the children of Abraham. LV: Therefore, know that those who are of faith,
these are the sons of Abraham. NLT: The real children of Abraham, then, are
those who put their faith in God. They would all be wrong on all accounts, but
because Paul was wrong, not on account of their translations of: You know as a
result that the ones out of faith, these sons are Abraham. And just for
verification, the NA published: You know then that the ones from trust these
sons are Abraham.
If Shauwl intended pistis to mean trust and reliance in this next statement,
and indeed elsewhere, then it would have been incumbent upon him to validate
the Towrah, conveying its teachings, because this is the only place where God can
be known and His plan for vindication can be understood. But instead, he has
consistently discounted it. So while the original meaning of pistis, which is trust
and reliance, remains valid, that connotation is possible only when the source of
the promise and the nature of the offer is known and understood. Faith, however,
is operative even in the face of ignorance which is why there are so many
religious people.
Therefore, while this too is very poorly written, what Paul appears to be
saying is that his god, knowing beforehand that Paul would be advancing an
alternative plan of salvation for the Gentiles based upon faith, predicted the
advent of his plan. Of course, that prediction is supposedly in the Torah, the book
Paul is invalidating, thereby negating the merits of the argument.
Having seen before (proorao having seen beforehand, having obtained
the ability to see things in advance of them occurring) then (de but by contrast)
the (o) writing (graphe the written word; used to describe the Torah, Prophets,
and Psalms), that because (hoti) out of (ek) faith (pistis belief, recognizing that
the original connotation of trust and reliance evolved to accommodate these
letters) makes right (dikaioo causes acquittal, being right, and pronounced just,
is justification, vindication, and righteousness, with guilt removed so as to be
declared innocent, in compliance with the standard as a result of a judicial
decision (present, active, indicative at the present time faith actually produces
righteousness in)) the people from different races and places (ethnos the
nations and ethnicities, specifically Gentiles), the God (o ), He before
beneficial messenger acted (proeuangelizomai acted in advance of the positive
messenger; from pro before and euaggelizo good, beneficial, and healing
messenger (presented in the aorist middle indicative, collectively revealing past
tense whereby the subject, the God, is being affected by His own action)), to
the (to) Abram (Abraam a transliteration of Abrahams name before the
Covenant was affirmed), that (hoti because) they will in time be spoken of
favorably (eneulogeo they would be kindly conferred benefits; from en in a
fixed position in place or time and eulogeo beneficial words, and therefore well
spoken praise (future, passive, indicative)) in (en) you (soi) all (pas) the races (ta
ethnos the ethnicities, peoples, and nations). (Galatians 3:8)
In the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, Yahowahs proposed and enabled a
specific plan to reconcile fallen man back into a relationship with Him. The
Covenant with Abraham was ratified on Mount Mowryah with a dress rehearsal.
It served as a prophetic picture of Passover, whereby Yahowsha facilitated the
five benefits of this Familial Relationship forty Yowbel later on that same
mountain by fulfilling Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuwa. The gift of
salvation, as a byproduct of reconciling the relationship, was conceived,
presented, predicted, promised, and gift-wrapped in the Torah so that it could be
unveiled before us, opening our eyes to this knowledge and understanding.
But as we press on, we will quickly learn that this wasnt what Paul was
trying to convey. He wants his audience to move from the oral promise made to
Abram to bless his descendants, directly to the Maaseyah, bypassing the Torah
along the way. It will be as if the promises were somehow in conflict with the
only document which memorialized and explained them.
Further, Shauwl wants his audience to equate listening to and believing him
with Abrahams alleged faith, because he also listened to God. Sure, thats an
extraordinarily weak argument, but it is the foundation of Pauline Doctrine.
And while it is a small issue, Scripture does not foresee. Yahowah
foresees. And neither the Torah nor the Covenant exist because God foresaw that
different people from different races would be blessed by way of the message
delivered to Abraham. This is a benefit of the Covenant, not the reason it was
conceived. Moreover, Shauwls version of it is incongruous with Yahowahs
depiction, negating Pauls prophetic implications.
Thus far we have been confronted with a steady diet of pistis, a noun which
as you know, originally meant trust and reliance. It is from the verb, pisteuo,
meaning to trust and to rely. Opening the pages of the worlds most
acclaimed lexicons and Greek dictionaries, we discover that the primary
definition of the noun and verb in the first-century CE conveyed the ideas of:
confidence, assurance, commitment, fidelity, reliability, proof, persuasion,
conviction, truth, veracity, reality, that which can be known, that which can be
trusted, that which evokes trust, that which can be relied upon as being
dependable, that which is reliable, that which enables the absolute assurance of a
promise being kept, and the use of ones conscience to test and thus prove that
something is reliable and true. But unfortunately, Pauls use in this context
precludes this connotation because he was devaluing the lone source of
knowledge and understanding which would have made these things possible. And
therefore, since Pauls letters are the most influential ever penned in Greek, and
recognizing that the traditional definition of pistis is wholly dysfunctional in these
letters, the perception of pistis evolved to faith and belief among the worlds
religious devotees.
Taking this a step further, the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
says of pistis and pisteuo: The noun and verb occur 243 times each in the NT.
Neither occurs in Second or Third John. In the Book of John, we only see the
verb. And in Colossians, Philemon, Second Peter, and Revelation, only the noun
is used. But since the same statement is expressed by the noun and verb, they
should be considered together. The ED of the NT reveals: They were not used
as catchwords for those engaging in religious propaganda in the Hellenistic world,
nor among those involved in Judaism. They were not religious terms, nor used in
religious contexts.
And yet today, as a direct result of Pauls promotion of faith, and the
influence of the religion that flowed out of it, faith and religion have become
synonymous. A persons faith is their religion their belief system. And yet while
this view is completely incompatible with the words original meaning, its
connotation was convoluted to give the erroneous impression that those who
believe are saved. Worse, by misrepresenting the story of Abraham, so that it is
perceived to be about salvation rather than relationship, the Covenant is left out of
the equation. It is as if Paul wants his audience to believe that his god is willing to
save people who dont know him and who are adverse to his message. But to a
large degree, the religion of Christianity was founded upon this particular and
peculiar error in perception.
A careful reading of Galatians demonstrates that the concepts of faith and
belief fit comfortably in every passage where Paul writes pistis and neither
trust nor reliance are ever acceptable because Paul never provides anything to
trust or rely upon. Word meanings evolve over time, driven in part by the way
that they are wielded by influential authors. In all likelihood, Pauls epistles
changed the way the populous came to view pistis, and indeed faith, associating it
with believing in Pauls letters as opposed to relying upon Yahowahs testimony.
But this is now and that was then: according to the ED of the NT: Pistis and
pisteuos closest Hebrew equivalent would have been aman. Aman means to
be firmly supported, established, built up, and nurtured by that which can be
confidently trusted and relied upon. Aman was used in connection with edon,
the Upright Pillar of the Tabernacle. It conveyed the idea that something or
someone was trustworthy and faithful, and thus reliable, making them
dependable. As a verb, aman meant to trust, and was used to say: Danyel
trusted God, in Danyel 6:23-24. Aman affirmed that we can depend upon
someone and can give credence to their message, so long as it is understood.
The ED of the NT would go on to write: In secular usage, pistis and pisteuo
conveyed that someone should: give credence to a message and to the
messenger. Depending upon the context, they mean consider something true
and trust it. And this is important only because the Disciple Yahowchanan is
translated using pisteuo in conjunction with Yahowsha, necessitating the pre-
Pauline perspective.
The Christian New Testament book called Hebrews was written by one
of Shauwls disciples and is every bit as errant and misleading as are the thirteen
Pauline epistles, yet it provides an interesting laboratory in which to contrast the
old and new connotations of pistis. This is because its author attempts to translate
many Hebrew verses into Greek. In one sentence in particular we find the Greek
words for true, trust, certainty, belief, faith, and hope.
They are all developed in Hebrews 10:22-23, where: We approach and
draw near with a genuine and true (alethinos totally accurate, in absolute
accord with the evidence, and in complete harmony with the one true name, and
thus the opposite of a counterfeit) heart (kardia inner nature) by trusting and
relying (pistis) with complete certainty (plerophoria in full assurance and total
confidence and conviction based upon a complete understanding), cleansing and
purifying (rhantizo sprinkling and splashing) the heart (kardia our inner
nature) from a worthless and defective (poneros morally corrupt and
malicious) conscience (suneidesis mental faculty used to distinguish right from
wrong, truth from lies; from suneido, to see and be perceptive, to perceive,
comprehend, and understand), and also bathing (louo washing and cleaning a
wound, removing deadly impurities from) the body (soma physical being)
[with] clean and pure (katharos) water, continuing to believe (katecho
holding fast and suppressing doubt) the profession of faith (homologia the
confession that you agree with others; from logos, spoken words, and homou,
together with others in an assembly) and unwavering (aklines and unfading)
hope (elpis the basis of anticipatory faith in an expectation as opposed to an
actuality), because (gar) we are trusting and relying upon (pistos) the (o)
messenger (epangellomai from epi, by way of, the aggelos, the messenger).
(Hebrews 10:22-23)
In actuality, Yahowah wants us to approach Him with an open mind and
receptive heart. Its His job to make our hearts pure, something that is perfected
when He writes His name and Towrah on them. Further, trust and reliance are not
facilitated by the heart, but instead are the products of our minds. Our emotions
relative to Yahowah should be a result of coming to know Him. So while those
who know Him love Him, you cannot love Him without first coming to know
Him through His Towrah.
Further, while we can love to a great extent, certainty is a cerebral concept
and not an emotional one, negating this authors message. And Yahowah is in the
business of cleansing souls, not hearts. The Adversary does just the opposite. For
example, in the Quran and Hadith, the Islamic god purifies hearts, removing that
which is defective. So this reads a lot like Islam. Moreover, our conscience isnt
managed through feelings, but it is instead the enabler of good judgment.
This unknown author was also wrong in suggesting that our bodies are bathed
to become pure. Yahowahs cleansing is focused on our souls. Correcting yet
another mistake, there is no profession of faith to be found anywhere in the
Towrah, Prophets, or Psalms. This is something which once again mirrors Islam
where a profession of faith is central to the religion. Paul and Muhammad, the
founders of Christianity and Islam, share much in common.
Lastly, the only way to trust and rely upon the Messenger, the Maaseyah
Yahowsha, is to come to know Him and understand what He is saying and doing
by viewing Him from the perspective of the Torah and Prophets. And when we do
this, we discover that we ought not focus on the Messenger when we can know
the One who sent Him.
These things known, the juxtaposition of the words and concepts we are
considering in this statement still has merit. Truth was from alethinos, which
designates that which is totally accurate and in absolute accord with the
evidence. Alethinos describes that which is real, genuine, sincere, honest, and
true, sure and certain, and thus trustworthy and dependable. It is applied to
someone who cannot lie. Strongs Lexicon takes a slightly different tact, by
saying that alethinos represents the actual name and corresponding resemblance
or manifestation of someone or something. They say it is from alethes, meaning
true. Alethes in turn is a compound of a, the Greek negation, and lanthano,
describing that which is hidden, secret, and unknown. So alethinos is the
opposite of being ignorant because someone has hidden the evidence. Simply
stated, if Paul had used this term correctly instead of pistis, he would have
conveyed that God is knowable because He has revealed Himself in the Torah,
Prophets, and Psalms.
Complete certainty is from plerophoria, which means to have full
assurance and total confidence in someone or something based upon a complete
understanding. In other words, to be convinced beyond any doubt based upon
the totality of the evidence. Plerophoria is from plerophoreo, meaning: full and
complete assurance, lacking nothing. Its component parts delineate the path to
assurance as well as its benefit. Plerophoria is from pleres, full and complete,
and phoreo, which conveys the ideas of bearing constantly, and wearing
protective garments. Therefore, these would have been appropriate terms to
convey that to become convinced, we must diligently seek and carefully
observe the available evidence, considering it thoughtfully. And when the subject
is the Torah, once we learn to confidently trust Yahowahs provision, we are
prepared to engage in His Covenant. This level of conviction regarding the
relationship is possible because we have been given access to the evidence. But
still, we must possess will to consider it rationally and respond reasonably.
This leads us to suneidesis, rendered conscience. It is the Greek equivalent
of the Hebrew nesamah, encapsulating the means Yahowah gave us to exercise
good judgment so that we could capitalize on the gift of freewill. We can use our
conscience to distinguish right from wrong and truth from lies. Suneidesis
endows us with the ability to be moral and judgmental, to be discerning and
discriminating, and to think rationally. It is derived from suneido, meaning to
closely observe so as to be perceptive, which in turn leads to understanding. This
is the tool we deploy to jettison the unknown and nebulous realm of belief and
faith in order to embrace the enlightened realm of trust and reliance in that
which is known and understood.
If our suneidesis conscience is defective, corrupted, or unused, we are
rendered incapable of bridging this gap, remaining mired in the myth of religion,
which is why clerics teach that it is a sin to be judgmental and discriminating. It
isnt per chance that Political Correctness, the replacement moral code of man,
holds the same view, imploring its unthinking and amoral victims to be tolerant,
and accepting of everything, even mutually exclusive ideas.
The next three words are all related and essential to our understanding of the
lexicon. If there were no Greek words for belief, faith, or hope, other than
the misapplication of pistis, we could not be nearly as dogmatic in our translations
of their original intent. But all three exist within the Greek lexicon.
Belief is from katecho. It means to hold fast and suppress doubt. It is a
compound which begins with kata, the ubiquitous term denoting everything from
down, through, according to, and with regard to, but also the opposite of and
against. The suffix is echo, the most common Greek term denoting: having,
holding, possessing, keeping, owning, wearing, or clinging to. Katecho is
therefore being about desperately clinging to something, trying to hold on. Our
lexicons tell us that someone who katecho believes is likely to quash
messages and suppress evidence they are uncomfortable considering. People
who believe hold on to the object of their faith as if their soul depended upon
the unremitting tightness of their grip as opposed to the trustworthiness and merit
of the individual or thing to which or whom they are clinging.
 The idea of a profession of faith hails from homologia. It speaks of the
group dynamics inherent within religious assemblies where pressure to
agree with others prompts a spoken confession of faith. For example, devoted
Catholics speak with one voice, with everyone conforming to the edicts of the
Pope.
Faith in the sense of hope, which is a favorable expectation regarding an
unknown or uncertain outcome, is from elpisthe final word in our linguistic
laboratory. It expresses an expectation based upon something which cannot be
proven as opposed to something which is an actuality. Elpis is an anticipatory
prospect. And in this case, hope was strengthened by aklines unwavering
and unfading, suggesting unremitting faith in a hopeful outcome.
Had a Greek author wanted to convey the idea of persuading someone to
believe, he would have used peitheo. Derived from peitho, it means to believe
and to express ones faith. Similarly, peitho speaks of inducing a desired
response of tranquillizing someone, and of seducing them to yield, in
addition to pacifying or inciting them, not unlike a more modern date-rape drug.
However, peitho, and especially its derivative pepoitha, can communicate the
somewhat more positive connotation of convincing an audience to believe by
way of ones rhetoric.
So now that we have examined the full pallet of linguistic terms at Pauls
disposal, we can say with absolute confidence that pistis originally conveyed
trust and reliance, not faith, hope, or belief, but that Paul misappropriated the
term, corrupting its meaning. If we were to give him the benefit of the doubt,
wed say that this was simply a mistake born out of ignorance. But since it has
been Pauls unrelenting nature to corrupt Yahowahs words, twisting them, it was
more likely by design. And honestly, determining the intended meaning of pistis
has become a rhetorical issue, because most every Christian translation assumes
that Paul meant pistis to convey faith. Frankly, this conclusion is impossible to
argue since faith has become synonymous with the Christian religion. Playing off
Paul, a Christian will introduce himself or herself as a person of faith, and they
will often use faith and religion interchangeably.
These lessons known, its time to consider the English and Latin variations of
Galatians 3:8: Having seen beforehand then by contrast, the writing, that
because out of faith makes right the people from different races and places,
the God, He before beneficial messenger acted, to the Abram that they would
in time be spoken of favorably in you all the races. Or if you prefer, in the
Nestle Aland, youll find: Having seen before but the writing that from trust
makes right the nations the God he told good message before to the Abraham that
they will be well spoken in you all the nations.
 From this, the KJV produced: And the scripture, foreseeing that God would
justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham,
saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. Shauwl didnt write heathen,
faith, or gospel. So why does the King James contain these words? And why
was the King James a willing accomplice in the advancement of Pauline Doctrine
when reason dictates that there was no association between Abraham and faith, or
between Abraham and Pauls Gospel?
Regardless of the answers, two of the four corruptions found in the KJV
came from the Roman Catholic Jerome. His Latin Vulgate says: Thus Scriptura/
Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentes by faith, foretold to
Abraham: All nations shall be blessed in you.
It isnt that the assemblage of pastors and authors responsible for the NLT
didnt know that pistis meant trust and reliance; its that saying so would be bad
for business. Whats more, the Scriptures looked forward to this time when God
would declare the Gentiles to be righteous because of their faith. God proclaimed
this good news to Abraham long ago when he said, All nations will be blessed
through you.
And while it is possible that none of these scholars did the research we
have just done regarding katecho belief, homologia faith, and elpis
hope, as compared to pistis trust and reliance, ignorance is neither ally nor
excuse. They have passed off their product as Scripture, the inerrant Word of
God, when its not even accurate.
And finally, here is the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with
McReynolds English Interlinear: Having seen before but the writing that from
trust makes right the nations the God he told good message before to the Abraham
that they will be well spoken in you all the nations. So because the only
meaningful departure between it and my rendering was proeuangelizomai, which
I translated before beneficial messenger acted, Id like you to know that the
reason that messenger was chosen over message is because proeuangelizomai
is a compound of pro before, eu beneficial, and aggelos messenger,
not message. Over time, the noun, euangelion, which is derived from this verbal
form, became gospel, which was then construed to mean good news.
Therefore, this Christian publication is advancing the religious evolution of this
term much like what Ive done with pistis.
Also, while we are considering proeuangelizomai, I found it odd that Paul
presented it in the aorist middle indicative, whereby the subject, the God, was
affected by His own action sometime in the past. This infers that the perceived
superiority and popularity of Pauline Doctrine changed Him.
 The concluding verb is also an odd choice. It goes directly against something
Yahowsha said during the Instruction on the Mount. It was the Maaseyahs
testimony that anyone who sought to negate or nullify any aspect of the Towrahs
Teaching would be called by the name lowly and little. And yet Paulos, which
means lowly and little, is suggesting that he and his faithful will eneulogeo
in time be spoken of favorably, even praised.
Continuing to develop his thesis using this divisive line of reasoning,
Shauwl told the Galatians:
As a result (hoste therefore), the ones (oi) out of (ek) faith (pistis belief
(while it originally conveyed that which can be known, trusted, and relied upon,
the popularity and influence of these letters, shaded by religious custom, altered
the connotation so that it is now synonymous with religion)), we are spoken of
favorably (eulogeo we are praised, the objects of beneficial and healing words)
together with (syn) the faithful (to pistos the believer and thus the full of faith
and religious) Abram (Abraam a truncated transliteration of the Hebrew
Abraham meaning Merciful, Compassionate, and Forgiving Father). (Galatians
3:9)
On Mount Mowryah, Abraham demonstrated that he was willing to trust
Yahowah, not that he, himself, was trustworthy. So once again, Paul has twisted
the Torah to serve his agenda. He has artificially elevated the status of a man
instead of acknowledging the status of God.
As the years progressed, Abrahams continued relationship with Yahowah
was strengthened by Gods ability to fulfill His promises. As a result of what God
had done for and with him, Abraham grew steadfast in his allegiance to the
Covenant and was therefore willing to do whatever Yahowah asked of him, no
matter the cost, even if it meant sacrificing his only son, Yitschaq.
But it was Yahowah, not Abraham, who proved that He was trustworthy and
reliable, because He provided the sacrificial lamb this day, and again exactly
2,000 years later in exactly the same place. It was God, therefore, not man, who
facilitated the promise He had made to bless all mankind through this Covenant.
The Familial Covenant Relationship was enabled on Mount Mowryah by
Yahowah because He was trustworthy and reliable. The name of the mountain
even means Revere and Respect Yahowah. And we, by coming to know,
understand, and accept the same terms and conditions of the Covenant Abraham
embraced, become Gods children.
There are seven essential stories in the Torah, and this is one of them.
Yahowah explained how and why He created the universe and life in it. He told us
about the Garden of Eden, so that we might understand the nature of the
relationship He intended and appreciate its purpose. This, of course, was
frustrated by man, which is why we are regaled with the story of Noah and his
ark. Next, we are told about the Covenant, and we witness its conditions and
promises in the life of Abraham.
As the narrative progresses, we see the Covenant expanded from an
individual relationship to a family of people with the Exodus. It is the story of the
journey out of religious and political oppression and into the Promised Land. And
as the Yisraelites began their walk with Yahowah, the Torah was revealed
through Moseh, so that we might learn who God is, what He wants, and how to
enter His home. And finally, in the very heart of the Torah, the seven Invitations
to be Called Out and Meet with God are presented as the means to the Covenants
blessings. This is the path to our salvation.
But some just never seem to get it. Mired in the milieu of religion, and unable
to escape from the shadow of the Catholic Vulgate, the KJV says: So then they
which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. It was plagiarized from
Jerome, who wrote: And so, those who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful
Abraham. NLT: So all who put their faith in Christ share the same blessing
Abraham received because of his faith. Even if the NLT hadnt arbitrarily
inserted Christ, their willingness to replace trust with faith was sufficient to
miss the point.
And now as we turn the page to a new chapter, lets give Shauwl the last
word:
Just as and to the degree that Abram believed and had faith in the God
so it was reasoned and accounted to Him as righteousness. (3:6) You know as
a result that the ones out of faith, these sons are Abram. (3:7)
Having seen beforehand then by contrast, the writing, that because out
of faith makes right the people from different races and places, the God, He
before beneficial messenger acted, to the Abram that they would in time be
spoken of favorably in you all the races. (3:8) As a result, the ones out of
faith, we are spoken of favorably, even praised together with the faithful
Abram. (3:9)

LE: 08-08-13
 Questioning Paul
Volume 1: The Great Galatians Debate
Is Christianity Right or Wrong?

Towrah Teaching and Guidance

Are We Saved or Enslaved by Observing the Towrah

At long last we have arrived at the verses cited by a New Zealand radio
program which ultimately prompted this review of Pauls letters, especially
Galatians. The Christians message, one predicated upon Pauls epistle, stressed
that we are not required to pay attention to the Torah because it has been replaced
by faith in the Gospel of Grace. And while that is consistent with what Shauwl
has written, it is amazing that such a preposterous notion has fooled so many for
so long.
Pauls testimony in this regard was based upon a twisted portrayal of Abram
and his participation in the Covenant offered by Yahowah. And what makes that
perplexing is that this man and his relationship with God would be unknown to us
if not chronicled in the Torah. So how, Christians, can the only account of the
Covenant be irrelevant to the Covenant? How can Abrahams response and
reward disavow the words written about these things? And if Abraham matters,
why was the Covenant he formed with God besmirched and dismissed by Paul,
only to be replaced by his New Covenant?
Before we resume our consideration of Pauls assault on Yahowahs Torah,
since most readers may be somewhat unfamiliar with Yahowahs Teaching, a
quick review of Gods perspective on His Torah is in order. However, for those of
you who would prefer a more detailed presentation of the Towrahs role in our
lives, this would be a wonderful time to take a break from Questioning Paul to
systematically consider what God has to say about His foundational text. In An
Introduction to God (www.IntroToGod.org), Volume Three, you will find a
comprehensive evaluation of Yahowahs Towrah Teaching. Part One presents
what the Towrah says about itself. Part Two delves into what can be gleaned from
comments made about the Towrah in the Proverbs and Psalms. Part Three is my
favorite, because it is devoted to the greatest song ever written presenting Dowd
/ Davids lyrics on how to properly observe, actually understand, and intelligently
respond to the Towrah. And then in Part Four, most everything Yahowah revealed
about His Towrah through His prophets is presented for your consideration.
Now, for those who would prefer a quick review, please consider the
following citations regarding the Towrah, the terms and conditions of its
Covenant, and the overall relevance of the words and teaching of Yahowah...
Listen (shama hear this message) children (ben sons) to the correct
instruction (muwcar to the accurate teaching) of the Father (ab), and pay
attention (qasab accept, process, and consider this information and respond
appropriately) so as (la) to know and acknowledge (yada to find, become
aware of, to become familiar with, to care about, to respect, and to embrace)
understanding and discernment (bynah to gain knowledge through
observation and insight and wisdom through consideration so as to be intelligent
and distinguish between right and wrong, fact and fiction).
For indeed (ky this is important, trustworthy, and reliable), such teaching
and learning (laqah receiving instruction and possessing it to the point of
comprehension) is good, beneficial, and helpful (towb is proper, prosperous,
favorable, beautiful, pleasing, enjoyable, valuable, and healing).
For this reason I have given you (la natan therefore, for this purpose, I
have actually provided and bestowed you with the completed gift of) My Towrah
(Towrah: from tow My signed, written, and enduring, towrah way of treating
people, tuwr giving you the means to explore, to seek, to find, and to choose,
yarah the source from which My instruction, teaching, guidance, and direction
flow, which tuwb provides answers that facilitate your restoration and return,
even your response and reply to that which is towb good, pleasing, joyful,
beneficial, favorable, healing, and right, and that which causes you to be loved, to
become acceptable, and to endure, tahowr / tohorah purifying and cleansing
you, towr so as to provide you with an opportunity to change your thinking,
attitude, and direction).
You should not forsake, neglect, or reject it (al azab without it you will
be forsaken, neglected, rejected, abandoned, separated, and left behind). Indeed
(ky this is important, reliable, and true), I have and will actually come to exist
as (hayah I was, am, and will be as) a Son (ben) to approach the kind and
merciful Father (la rak ab on behalf of My compassionate, gentle, and
tenderhearted Father), the only begotten and unique Son (yahyd as the one and
only child) by way of (la) the Mothers (em) presence (paneh).
And He has and will teach Me (yarah He has and will become the source
of My instruction, guidance, and direction). And He said to Me (amar la He
told Me), Accept, uphold, fulfill, and keep (tamak receive, grasp hold of, and
retain) My Words (dabar My message) upon Your heart (leb). Focus upon
and closely observe (shamar carefully examine, thoughtfully contemplate,
thoroughly evaluate and consider) My terms and conditions (mitswah My
authorized directions and instructions regarding the covenant contract) and live
(chayah be restored to life, embracing the source of continuous and sustained
growth, which is healthy, beneficial, and abundant, accepting the promise of
renewal and restoration). (Masal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 4:1-4)
The Towrah (Towrah the signed, written, and enduring means to search
for, find, and choose the instruction, teaching, guidance, and direction, which
provides answers which facilitate our restoration and return that are good,
pleasing, joyful, beneficial, purifying, and cleansing) is Light (owr) and (wa)
the Way (derek the Path) of Life (chay the source of continuous and sustained
existence, abundant growth, of revival, renewal, and restoration, the promise of
the most favorable of circumstances, prosperity, and blessings). (Masal / Word
Pictures / Proverbs 6:23)
My son (beny My child), choose to actually observe (shamar elect to
focus upon, carefully examine, diligently consider, and thoughtfully evaluate,
agree to pay close attention to and genuinely care about (qal imperative indicating
that an actual relationship will be established between Father and son should the
child choose of their own volition to pay attention to this exhortation to revere and
regard)) My Words (emer My answers, explanations, and promises). And (wa)
My Terms and Conditions (mitswah My authorized directions and binding
instructions regarding My covenant contract), you should habitually treasure
and store (tsaphan you should value and keep (qal imperfect affirming the
relationship between us and Yahs terms and conditions ought to be genuine
because by properly valuing them, their influence will be ongoing, producing
everlasting results)) with you (eth).
Choose to keep focused upon, closely examine, and carefully consider
(shamar elect to actually observe, pay close attention to, and genuinely care
about (qal imperative)) My Terms and Conditions (mitswah My authorized
instructions and binding directions regarding the covenant agreement) and (wa)
live (chayah be restored and renewed, be nourished and grow, electing to exist
forever as a result of Gods promise and favor) (qal imperative affirming that
our decision to observe the Terms and Condition of Yahs binding Covenant is
equivalent to choosing to be restored to life and living forever)). My Towrah
Teaching (Towrah My Torah Instruction, Guidance, and Direction: from tow
My signed, written, and enduring, towrah way of treating people, tuwr giving
you the means to explore, to seek, to find, and to choose, yarah the source from
which My instruction, teaching, guidance, and direction flow, which tuwb
provides answers that facilitate your restoration and return, even your response
and reply to that which is towb good, pleasing, joyful, beneficial, favorable,
healing, and right, and that which causes you to be loved, to become acceptable,
and to endure, tahowr / tohorah purifying and cleansing you, towr so as to
provide you with an opportunity to change your thinking, attitude, and direction)
should be as (ka should be considered as and akin to) the pupil, the center,
and the focus (iyshown the extant essence and individual nature) of your eyes
and understanding (ayin your sight and perceptions, your perspective and
thoughts). (Masal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 7:1-2)
The wicked (rasa the guilty and condemned who deserved to be
punished, those in violation of the standard) arrogantly boast and make fools of
themselves (halal they are flashy, and while pretending to be bright and
enlightened they display an improper attitude of haughtiness, glorifying
themselves, praising themselves they mock and slander) by abandoning and
rejecting (azab by forsaking and separating from, by neglecting and
disassociating from, by departing from and ignoring) the Towrah (Towrah the
signed, written, and enduring means to search for, find, and choose the
instruction, teaching, guidance, and direction which provides answers which
facilitate our restoration and return that are good, pleasing, joyful, beneficial,
favorable, healing, and right, purifying and cleansing, thereby giving us the
opportunity and means to change our thinking, attitude, and direction to the way
which is more fortuitous and beneficial). And (wa) those who observe, focusing
upon (shamar those who closely examine and carefully consider) the Towrah
(Towrah Instruction, Teaching, Guidance, and Direction), they take the
initiative to oppose and resist them (garah ba they are overtly hostile to them
and they provoke them, they actively engage against them and irritate them by not
conforming to their pressure or power). Evil (ra wicked and violent,
mischievous and malignant) individuals (ysh men) do not (lo) apprehend or
teach (byn consider, realize, perceive, understand, instruct, or implement) good
judgment (mishpat the proper means to resolve disputes, to be discriminating,
to be fair, to obtain justice, and to make sound decisions). But (wa) those who
diligently seek (baqas those whose search and investigation allows them to
procure the information necessary to learn about) Yahowah ( ) consider
and understand (byn apprehend, perceive, and realize) everything (kol).
(Masal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 28:4-5)
The one who turns away his ear from hearing (suwr ozen min shama
the one who avoids listening to) the Towrah (Towrah the source of instruction
and direction, guidance and teaching), his prayers and requests (taphilah his
pleas and petitions for intervention) also (gam) will be considered detestable
(towebah will be seen as a disgusting abomination). The one who misleads
(sagah the one who deceives and leads astray) the upright (yashar the
straightforward) in the way (ba derek) of evil (ra in that which is harmful,
malignant, afflicting, and adversarial, severing the relationship), into the pit (ba
shachuwth the place where one is brought down, prostrating themselves in
worship before false gods and reduced to despair), he will fall and be cast down
(huw naphal he will descend from a higher position to a lower one, wasting
away), but the innocent (tamym those who have been perfected, who are
genuine and unblemished) will enjoy a good, generous, festive, and beneficial
inheritance (towb nachal will inherit and acquire that which is agreeable,
moral, joyous, and valuable). (Masal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 28:9-10)
Without revelation (ba lo chazown with no communication from God,
without prophecy; from chazah without seeing and perceiving, without
understanding) people (am) take charge and run wild (para they are
ignorant and they take their own initiative and behave like an uncontrolled and
unrestrained mob). But (wa) he is happy and blessed, he walks upright on the
correct path (esher / ashur he finds good fortune and experiences great joy
along the restrictive but valid, straight way to stand safe and secure), who
observes and focuses upon (shamar who closely examines and carefully
considers) the Towrah (Towrah Teaching, Instruction, Direction, and
Guidance). (Masal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 29:18)
Blessed and happy is (asry by walking the straight path the enjoyment of
a favorable outcome awaits) the individual (ha iysh) who (asher) does not
walk (lo halak) in (ba) the plans and schemes (esah the strategy, advice, and
counsel) of the wicked who violate the standard (rasa of those who are evil
and unrighteous). And in (wa ba) the way (derek path) of sinners (hata of
the offensive who have missed the way), he does not stand (lo amad he does
not appear and is not even present). In the assembly (wa ba mowshab in the
dwelling places and settlements, the communities and households) of those who
arrogantly mock (lys of those who boast and interpret which showing no
respect), he does not stay (lo yasab dwell, live, settle down, sit, or remain). To
the contrary (im), instead (ky), in (ba) the Towrah of Yahowah ( )
the Teaching, Instruction, Guidance, and Direction of Yahowah), he finds
enjoyment and pleasure (chephets he prefers, refers, and desires). And
regarding (wa ba) the Towrah (Towrah teaching, instruction, guidance, and
direction), he speaks thoughtfully and purposefully (hagah he reviews the
material, meditates upon the information, considers its implications, and then
makes the decision to roar, declaring these conclusions forcefully, emotionally,
and powerfully (qal imperfect telling us that these informed declarations on
behalf of Yahs Instructions are genuine and ongoing)) in the daytime (yowmam
in the heat of the day) and at night (wa laylah in the darkness and shadows).
(Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 1:1-2)
 Yahowahs ( ) Towrah (Towrah Source of Teaching and Instruction
and the Place from which Direction and Guidance Flow) is wholly complete and
entirely perfect (tamym without defect, lacking nothing, totally correct, sound,
genuine, right, helpful, healing, beneficial, and true), returning, restoring, and
transforming (suwb turning around, bringing back, changing, and renewing)
the soul (nepesh our consciousness). Yahowahs ( ) restoring testimony
(eduwth enduring witness) is trustworthy and reliable (aman is instructive,
informative, verifiable, confirming, supportive, and establishing), making
understanding and obtaining wisdom (hakam making education, learning,
and enlightenment to the point of comprehension) easy for those who are
receptive (pethy simple for the open-minded). Yahowahs ( ) directions
(piquwdym instructions and prescriptions, precepts and guidance; from paqad
that which we should pay especially close attention to, care about, look at, and
examine so that we respond appropriately) are right (yashar are straight (and
thus neither crooked or circuitous) and upright (and thus are disassociated from
bowing down), they are approved, esteemed, correct, proper, and pleasing),
causing the heart to rejoice (leb samah facilitating an attitude of elation).
Yahowahs ( ) terms and conditions (mitswah His authorized instructions
regarding the codicils of His covenant contract) are morally pure and are
purifying (bar paving the way to inheritance, to enlightenment, and to
comprehension), shining a light toward understanding (owr ayn
illuminating the proper perspective, shedding a brilliant light on the path to
enlightenment). Revering and respecting (yirah) Yahowah ( ) is
cleansing and restoring (tahowr purifying and perfecting), sustaining and
establishing (amad causing one to be established, standing upright) forever
(ad). The just means to resolve disputes of (mishpat the means used to
achieve justice and exercise good judgment of) Yahowah ( ) are
trustworthy and reliable (emeth are enduring, dependable, honest, and true).
They are wholly (yahdaw all together and completely) vindicating (tsadaq
justifying, causing the recipient to be righteous and innocent). (Mizmowr / Song /
Psalm 19:7-9)

With that introduction from Yahowah, the man who claimed to speak for
God, began his crusade against Him by writing these words:
Paulos, an apostle, not of men, not even by the means of man, but to the
contrary on behalf of Iesou Christou and god, father of the one having
awakened Him out of a dead corpse, (1:1) and all the brothers with me to the
called out of the Galatias, (1:2) Grace to you and peace from god, father of us
and Lord Iesou Christou, (1:3) the one having given Himself on account of
the sins and errors of us, so that somehow, He might gouge or tear out,
uprooting us from the past circumstances of the old system which had been
in place which is disadvantageous and harmful, corrupt and worthless,
malicious and malignant according to the desire and will of god and father of
us, (1:4) to whom the opinion regarding the glorious appearance of the
shining light, a manifestation of Gods reputation, by means of the old and
the new systems, Amen, let it be so. (1:5)
I am astonished, wondering in this way quickly you changed, becoming
disloyal, apostates and traitors away from your calling in the name of Grace
to a different beneficial messenger (1:6) which does not exist differently,
conditionally negated because some are stirring you up, confusing you,
proposing to change and pervert the healing message of Christou, (1:7) but to
the contrary, if we or a messenger out of heaven conveys a beneficial
messenger to you which is contrary to what we delivered as a good messenger
to you then a curse with a dreadful consequence exists. (1:8)
As we have said already, and even just now, repetitively, I say, if under
the condition someone communicates a useful message to you contrary, even
greater than that which you received, it shall be (in fact I command and want
it to exist as) a curse with a dreadful consequence. (1:9) For because
currently, men I persuade presently, actually use words to win the favor of,
seducing, misleading, and appeasing the god. Or by comparison and
contrast, I seek and desire to please and accommodate humans? Yet
nevertheless, if men, I was pleasing and accommodating, exciting the
emotions of and lifting up a slave of Christou, certainly not was me. (1:10)
But nevertheless, I profess and reveal to you brothers of the beneficial
message which having been communicated advantageously by and through
myself, because it is not in accord with man. (1:11) But neither because I by
man associating myself with it. Nor was I taught or instructed as a disciple.
But to the contrary, by way of a revelation, an appearance serving to uncover
and unveil Iesou Christou. (1:12)
For because indeed you heard of my wayward behavior in some time and
place in the practice of Judaism, namely that because throughout, showing
superiority, surpassing any measure of restraint, to an extraordinary degree,
and better than anyone else, I was aggressively and intensely pursued,
persecuting, oppressing, and harassing the called out of god, and I was and
am devastating her, continuing to undermine, overthrow, and annihilate her.
(1:13)
 And so I was and continue to progress, accomplishing a great deal, and I
persist moving forward in the practice of Judaism, over and beyond many
contemporaries among my race, zealous and excited, devoted and burning
with passion to belong to the traditions and teachings handed down by my
forefathers. (1:14) But at a point in time when it pleased and was chosen
enjoyable and better for god, the one having appointed me, setting me aside
out of the womb of my mother (1:15) to reveal and disclose, uncovering and
unveiling the son of him in order that I could announce the healing message
among the races, immediately. I did not ask the advice of or consult with
flesh or blood. (1:16)
I did not ascend into Yaruwshalaim toward the goal of being with or
against the Apostles before me, but to the contrary I went away, withdrawing
to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. (1:17) Then later in the sequence
of events, after three years time, I ascended up to Yaruwshalaim to visit and
get acquainted with Kephas and remained against / with him fifteen days.
(1:18) But other of the Apostles, I did not see, I did not pay attention to, or
concern myself with except Yaaqob, the brother of the Lord. (1:19)
But now what I write to you, you must pay especially close attention in
the presence of god, because I cannot lie. (1:20) Thereafter, I came to the
regions of Syria and also of Cilicia. (1:21) But I was not known and was
disregarded, I was either ignored or ignorant, not recognized or understood,
personally by appearance as an individual by the called out of Yahuwdah in
Christo. (1:22) But then only they were constantly hearing that the one
presently pursuing and persecuting us at various times now he presently
proclaims a healing message of faith which once he was attacking, continuing
to annihilate, he was consistently ravaging and destroying. (1:23) And so they
were praising and glorifying, attributing an exceptionally high value and
status, considering illustrious and magnificent, dignifying and magnifying in
me for god. (1:24)
Later, through fourteen years also, I went up to Yaruwshalaim along
with Barnabas, having taken along also Titus. (2:1) I went up from
uncovering an unveiling revelation which lays bare, laying down to them the
beneficial messenger which I preach among the races down from my own,
uniquely and separately, but then to the opinions, presumptions, and
suppositions, into foolishness and stupidity, without purpose, I might run or I
ran. (2:2)
To the contrary, not even Titus, a Greek being, was compelled, forced or
pressured, to be circumcised. (2:3) But then on account of the impersonators
who faked their relationship brought in surreptitiously into the group to spy
upon and plot against the freedom from conscience and liberation from the
constraints of morality that we possess in Christo Iesou in order that us they
will actually make subservient, controlling for their own ends, (2:4) to whom
neither to a moment we yielded, surrendered, or submitted in order that the
truth of the god may continue to be associated among you. (2:5)
But now from the ones currently presumed and supposed to be someone
important based upon some sort of unspecified past, they were actually and
continue to be nothing, completely meaningless and totally worthless, to me.
It carries through and bears differently the face of god of man not take hold
of or receive, because to me, the ones currently presuming and dispensing
opinions based upon reputed appearances, of no account, worthless was their
advice and counsel in the past. (2:6)
Contrariwise, nevertheless, the objection and exception, having seen and
perceived that because namely I have been believed entrusted with the
healing message and beneficial messenger of the uncircumcised inasmuch as
Petros / Rock of the circumcised. (2:7) Because then namely, the one having
previously functioned in Petro to an apostle for the circumcision, it actually
functioned also in me to the nations and ethnicities. (2:8)
And having recognized, becoming familiar with the Grace of the one
having been given to me, Yaaqob, Kephas, and also Yahowchanan, the ones
presently presumed and supposed to be leaders, the right place of honor and
authority they granted to me, and to Barnabas fellowship as a result. We to
the nations and ethnicities, but they to the circumcision. (2:9) Only alone by
itself the lowly and poor, the worthless beggars of little value that we might
remember and possibly think about which also I was eager and quick same
this to do. (2:10)
But when Kephas came to Antioch, I was opposed to and against his
presence. I stood in hostile opposition because he was convicted and
condemned, even ignorant. (2:11) Because, before a certain individual came
from Yaaqob, he was eating together with the different races, but when he
came, he was withdrawing and was separating himself, out of fear of the
circumcised. (2:12) So they were hypocritical, and also the remaining
Yahuwdym. As a result even Barnabas was led away and astray with them in
the duplicitous hypocrisy. (2:13)
Nevertheless, when I saw that they were not walking through life rightly
with the truth of the healing and beneficial messenger, I said to Kephas in
front of all: If you Jews actively being ethnic, how the ethnicities you compel
and force into being or acting Jewish? (2:14)
We Jews by nature and not from the social outcasts of sinful and heathen
races (2:15) having come to realize without investigation or evidence that by
no means whatsoever is made right, vindicated, or righteous man by means
of tasks or activities associated with the Towrah if not by belief and faith in
Iesou Christou, and we on Christon Iesoun, ourselves believed in order for us
to have become righteous, to have been acquitted and vindicated out of faith
in Christou, and not by means of acting upon or engaging in the Towrah,
because by means of engaging in and acting upon the Towrah not any flesh
will be acquitted, vindicated, nor be made righteous. (2:16)
But if seeking to be made righteous and innocent in Christo, we were
found also ourselves social outcasts and sinners, shouldnt we be anxious that
Christos becomes a guilty, errant, and misled, servant of sin? Not may it
exist, (2:17) because if that which I have actually torn down, dissolved, and
dismantled, invalidated and abolished, subverted, abrogated, and discarded,
this on the other hand I restore or reconstruct, promoting this edifice, I
myself bring into existence and recommend transgression and disobedience.
(2:18) I then, because of, and by the Towrahs allotment or law, myself,
actually died and was separated in order that to god I might currently live.
In Christo I have actually been crucified together with. (2:19)
I live, but no longer I. He lives then in me, Christos. This because now I
live in the flesh, in faith I live of the god and Christou, the one having loved
me and surrendered, entrusting authority, yielding and handing over the
power to control, influence and instruct, and to betray exclusively and
especially of himself for the sake of and because of me. (2:20)
I do not reject or disregard the Charity / Grace of the god if because then
by or through the Torah righteousness consequently as a result, Christos
undeservedly, for no reason or cause, without benefit, for naught, and in
vain, he died. (2:21)
O ignorant and irrational, unintelligent and unreasonable, Galatians. To
whom you bewitched, deceived, and slandered, brought evil upon and
seduced? (3:1) This alone I want to learn from you: out of accomplishments
of the Towrah the spirit you received or alternatively out of hearing of
belief? (3:2)
In this way, you are ignorant and irrational, lacking in knowledge and
unable to think logically. Having begun with spirit, now in flesh you are
completing? (3:3) So much and so long these things you suffered, you were
affected and you were vexed, annoyed, and angry, without reason or result,
even chaotically without a plan. If indeed, really and yet then also
thoughtlessly and for nothing without cause, reason, or result. (3:4)
 The one therefore then supplying you the spirit and causing to function
and operating powers in you out of acting upon and engaging in the tasks
delineated in the Torah or out of hearing faith? (3:5)
Just as and to the degree that Abram believed and had faith in the God
so it was reasoned and accounted to Him as righteousness. (3:6) You know as
a result that the ones out of faith, these sons are Abram. (3:7)
Having seen beforehand then by contrast, the writing, that because out
of faith makes right the people from different races and places, the God, He
before beneficial messenger acted, to the Abram that they would in time be
spoken of favorably in you to all the races. (3:8) As a result, the ones out of
faith, we are spoken of favorably, even praised together with the faithful
Abram. (3:9)
Given the choice between relying upon Yahowahs Word or believing what
was scribed in Shauwls letters, it is a wonder three people, much less three
billion, chose to place their faith in this man. It is also hard to imagine that
someone claiming to speak for God would call His Torah a curse, but
nonetheless, that is precisely what the founder of the Christian religion said next...
Because (gar for) to the degree that (hosos as many and as far as) out
of (ek) tasks and activities of (ergon works or actions associated with,
engaging in) the Torah (nomou the means to being nourished by that which is
bestowed to become heirs, precepts which were apportioned, established, and
received as a means to proper and be approved, and prescriptions for an
inheritance; from nemo that which is provided, assigned, and distributed to heirs
to nourish them (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)), they are
and they exist (eisin eisin) under (hupo by way of) a curse (katara that
which a supernatural power deploys when he wishes to invoke harm by promoting
evil, that which is accursed, denounced and detested), for (gar because indeed)
it has been written (grapho) that (hoti): To become accursed (epikataratos
to be exposed, abhorrent, and repugnant, slanderous, hateful, and malicious (to
become is a product of the nominative case)), everyone (pas all and completely)
who (hos) not (ou) remains in (emmeno stays and continues in, perseveres
with) all (pas) that (tois) having been written (grapho) in (en) the scroll (to
biblion the book or documented written record typically on papyrus) of the
(tou) Torah (nomou the allotment which is parceled out, the inheritance which
is given, the nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and used to grow, the
precepts which are apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper
and approved, and the prescription to become an heir (singular genitive, and thus
restricted to a singular specific and unique characterization)), the of (tou) to do
(poieomai to make, produce, or perform) them (autos). (Galatians 3:10)
 This is the ultimate confession. And for informed and rational individuals, the
case is closed. The testimony Yahowah has called good, beneficial, and perfect,
Shauwl has just labeled abhorrent and malicious. Since both cannot be telling
the truth, who do you suppose is lying?
We have comprehensively researched every discernible connotation of
nomos. And here, Shauwl has finally and openly confessed to what we have
long since known. He is using nomou to describe the Torah, as if nomos and
towrah were synonymous. We know this because in the attempt to prove this
point he translated the Hebrew word towrah into Greek as nomou. As a
result, a Pauline apologist can no longer promote the myth that Paul was
condemning Rabbinic Law instead of the Towrah without contradicting Pauls
own testimony. With this single statement, the debate is over, the question has
been answered. Paul is demeaning and denouncing not just the Word of God, but
Yahowahs foundational testimony.
Beyond emphatically demonstrating that Shauwl was using variations of
nomos to convey Torah throughout his letters by rendering towrah as nomou, to
be intellectually honest, the meaning of towrah in Hebrew which is teaching,
instruction, direction, and guidance must prevail over law. Therefore, not only
is Paul implicating himself by disparaging the Word of God, those who publish
Christian bibles are universally guilty of misrepresenting one of the most
important words ever written when they render towrah via nomos as law.
While Shauwl has bragged about annulling and destroying Yahowahs
Teaching, he has now upped the ante. He has devolved to name-calling. Katara,
translated a curse, is actually a considerably more demeaning concept. This
noun is defined in the dozen lexicons at my disposal as being an execration,
imprecation, and malediction. Since these are not common terms, lets consider
how they are defined. To execrate is to denounce someone or something,
declaring it or them to be hateful, abhorrent, and loathsome. To imprecate is to
invoke evil on someone or something, cursing them or it. And a malediction is
slander which maligns and is malicious. If we are to believe Shauwl, all of
these things apply to Yahowah and to His Towrah.
Katara is a compound of ara, a malevolent prayer which is harmful, hateful,
and repugnant, and kata, meaning down from, according to, and throughout.
Therefore, there is no getting around the fact that Shauwl is denouncing
Yahowahs Towrah because he loathes it. Shauwl wants us to believe that the
book Yahowah authored to introduce Himself, to reveal His Covenant, to present
His Invitations, and to provide His Guidance is hateful and abhorrent, something
to be maligned because it is evil, slanderous, harmful, and malicious throughout.
 This known, I have a confession. I joined the two verbs in the opening
statement together because the second insertion of eisin, which means they are or
they exist when it is scribed in the third person plural, is out of place at the
statements conclusion. According to the Nestle-Aland, this sentence actually
reads: For as many as from works of law are under curse they are.... Therefore,
I combined the verbs to convey the concepts of being and existing.
In both instances, eisin was scribed in the present active indicative third
person plural. In the present tense, Paul is portraying the evil curse as being in
process with no end in sight. The active voice reveals that those who have chosen
to observe the Torah have brought this abhorrent, harmful, and repugnant
condition upon themselves. Worse, in the indicative mood, Paul is saying that his
evaluation of the Towrah and its consequence is real, genuine, and actual.
Shauwl used a variation of katara to convey accursed in his citation of the
Torahs Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26. This variation is from
epikataratos, an adjective that adds the prefix epi, meaning on, upon, before, or
against. As such, Paul is attempting to ascribe each of the horrendous aspects of
katara to the Towrah, itself, impugning its author, by inserting this abhorrent
concept directly into the Torahs dialog. And yet, Ive seldom been as pleased to
see the Torah quoted. By doing so in this context, Shauwl is affirming beyond
any doubt that the nomou he is attempting to destroy is the one Yahowah
authored. If he had meant to demean Rabbinic Law, he would have quoted from
the Oral Law which became the Talmud.
Incidentally, Shauwls initial condemnation is actually undermined by his
citation. If the Torah is katara a curse from a supernatural power designed to
invoke harm by promoting evil, and if it is katara abhorrent, slanderous, and
malicious, then it cannot be a credible source. That which is katara is not
reliable, thus should not have been used to validate his claim.
Having thought about this passage now for several months, having come to
understand Pauls strategy relative to dissolving and dismantling the Torah, and
now viewing it within the context of Pauls overall thesis as it is presented in
Galatians 3:6 to 4:31, there is no denying the fact that Paul was trying to use the
Torah to demonstrate that the Torah should not be used.
By citing a passage that includes curse and Towrah, Shauwl was hoping
that his audience would believe that he was right in stating that the Towrah is a
curse. Beyond this singular similarity, it was counterproductive for him to cite
Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26 in this context. After all, the passage says
nothing about working for ones salvation.
But if, as Christians protest, Paul was intending to say that observing the
Torah cannot save us because we have to do everything that is written in the
scroll of the Torah or be accursed by it, then they and he would still be wrong.
While that is the most reasonable interpretation of Pauls rhetoric, the very
purpose of the Torah is to provide a remedy for that very condition.
As we discussed, the second half of this statement presents a flawed and
truncated Greek rendering of Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26. The
discussion in which it is found begins with a long list of blessings, all of which
flow from observing the Torah all of which, therefore, negate the point Shauwl
was attempting to promote. As always, the context destroys his argument.
Starting with the 9th verse of Dabarym 27, we find:
Then (wa) Moseh (Moseh One Who Draws Out), the priests (ha kohen
ministers), and the Lowy (Lowy those who unite) spoke (dabar sharing the
word) to (el) all (kol) Yisrael (Yisrael individuals who engage and endure
with God) to say (la amar in order to communicate), Choose to be quiet
(cakath refrain from speaking and elect being silent (the hiphil stem and
imperative mood mean that we facilitate our ability to listen when we choose to
close our mouths)) and (wa) listen (shama hear), Yisrael (Yisrael everyone
who exists and endures with God). This (ha zeh) day (yowm) you are (hayah
you exist as (in the niphal perfect, the existence of an individual who lives with
God is predicated upon their willingness to listen to Gods complete testimony) a
family (la am of related people) on behalf of and to approach (la) Yahowah
( ), your God (elohym). (27:9)
Choose to genuinely and completely listen (shama under the auspices of
freewill, elect to literally hear the totality of (the qal stem encourages a literal
interpretation, the perfect conjugation conveys completeness, and the consecutive
mood is an expression of volition)) to the voice of (ba qowl to the speech and
words of) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), and (wa) of your own
volition, act, engaging with (asah eth elect to observe, celebrate, gain from,
and profit in accordance with) His terms and conditions (mitswah the
directions associated with His relationship agreement), and with (wa eth) His
inscribed prescriptions for living (choq His written instructions which cut us
into the relationship), which beneficially (asher as a result of the relationship)
I am directing you (anky sawah I am instructing, guiding, and teaching you)
this day (ha yowm). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:9-10)
In other words, rather than praying without ceasing, which is a constant
jabbering and something only Paul insisted upon, our Heavenly Father is
encouraging His children to listen to everything He has to say so that they can
then choose to respond to the terms and conditions of His Covenant which serve
as prescriptions for living.
 From this point, Yahowah inspired Moseh to explain that by listening to God
and by responding to His Towrah that they would be established and blessed. But
then, knowing that many would choose a different course, with many being
misled by the likes of Shauwl, the Towrah delineates a series of behaviors which
God says will engender an unfavorable response.
Invoking harm upon oneself (arar bringing a curse upon oneself by
making oneself unlikable) is the individual (ysh) who (asher) engages and acts
with regard to (asah who conceives, performs on behalf of, and makes) a
presentation of a false god (pesel an idol or icon fashioned to be believed and
worshiped). Any (wa) representation of a pagan god which is spouted out
(macekah cocktail of imagined deities poured out or image which is cast and
offered) is a detestable thing (towebah an abomination which is repulsive,
loathsome, and abhorrent) to Yahowah ( ). It is the work (maasah the
pursuit, practice and undertaking) of the hand (yad influence [note that
Shauwls epistles were inscribed by the hand]) of a clever and crafty man
(charash of an artificer who contrives and devises an inscribed and artificial
construct), choosing to present it (wa sym and through their designs to formally
place it, bringing it about, establishing, listing and appointing it) slyly, concealing
their purpose (ba ha cether acting covertly in a veiled manner so as to hide
their disingenuous behavior, doing it in a hidden way obfuscating their motives).
And then (wa) the entire family (ha kol am) replied (amar), This is truthful,
trustworthy, and reliable (amen this is verifiable and dependable). Dabarym
/ Words / Deuteronomy 27:15
The list of counterproductive behaviors continues with he: who lightly
esteems his Father and Mother, who steals his neighbors property, who
misleads a blind person, who denies justice to a stranger, foreigner,
orphan, or widow, who commits any form of incest, who commits
bestiality, who strikes and beats his neighbor, and who accepts a bribe
and harms an innocent person. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:16-25)
We should not be surprised, therefore, that those who perpetrate these
unsavory behaviors will be shunned by God. But it is telling that the course Paul
charted was listed first (in 27:15), and unlike the others was called an
abomination, suggesting that few things are worse than what Shauwl has done.
This summary conclusion followed. It is the statement Shauwl misquoted
and also removed from the context which incriminated him:
Invoking harm upon oneself (arar cursing oneself by making oneself
undesirable) is whoever relationally and beneficially (asher) is not (lo)
established (quwm restored, supported, encouraged, lifted up and caused to
stand, confirmed, and enabled to endure) by (eth with and through) the words
(dabar message and accounts) of this (ha zoth) Towrah (towrah source of
guidance, direction, teaching, and instruction), approaching (la) by engaging
through them (asah eth by acting upon them and doing productive things
according to them, celebrating and profiting with them). And then (wa) the
entire (kol) family (am people and nation) responded (amar answered,
promised, and declared), This is true, acceptable, and reliable (aman this is
affirming, supportive, verifiable, and dependable). (Dabarym / Words /
Deuteronomy 27:26)
Therefore, we can now say for certain, that according to Yahowah:
Invoking harm upon oneself is whoever relationally and beneficially is not
established, restored, and supported by the words of this Towrah teaching
and guidance, approaching by acting upon them. And the entire family
responded, This is true, acceptable, reliable, verifiable, and dependable.
And this means that any attack on the Torah, any belittlement of it, any attempt to
negate or annul it, any statement which suggests that it is a curse, is directly
opposed to Yahowahs Word. It also means that to make his point, Shauwl had
to misquote God. But more on that in a moment.
When Paulos misquoted Yahowahs instruction regarding the restorative
nature of His Towrah teaching to call Gods Towrah a curse, two things became
indisputable. First, Paul is deliberately and undeniably contradicting Yahowah.
The mans message and Gods message are incongruous. Their conclusions are
the antithesis of one another. Therefore, this man could not have been speaking
for God.
And second, since Paulos wrote nomou in his letter to translate the word,
towrah, in Mosehs statement, each time we see any variation of nomos in the
Greek text, we should translate it Towrah. The man whose letter we are
evaluating defined it for us. And in this case, that must take precedence over any
lexicon.
Reinforcing Gods essential instruction, the very next statement from Moseh
regarding the value of Yahowahs Towrah reveals:
And it shall reliably exist (wa hayah it totally was, without interruption
is, and literally will be (the qal stem affirms that this promise can literally be
relied upon, the perfect conjugation conveys that this realization is total and
complete without interruption, and consecutive mood affirms that this is Gods
desire and our choice)) that if (im predicated upon the condition that) you
really listen to and consistently hear (shama shama ba you actually pay
extremely close attention to and continually and literally receive (the qal stem
presents the ideas of actually, genuinely, and literally, while the imperfect
conjugation communicates that which is continual and consistent, unfolding
throughout time)) the voice of (qowl the recited words of) Yahowah ( ),
your God (elohym), for the purpose of (la) observing (shamar closely
examining and carefully considering) and for the purpose of (la) engaging in
and acting upon (asah eth celebrating and profiting through) all of (kol) His
terms and conditions (mitswah the codicils of His covenant) which
beneficially and relationally (asher) I (anky) am instructing (sawah I am
directing, teaching, and guiding) you this day (ha yowm), then (wa) Yahowah
( ), your God (elohym), He will place and appoint you (natan He will
grant you the opportunity to be) as the most high (elyown) among and above
(al) all (kol) the ethnicities (Gowym people from different races and places) of
the earth (ha erets). And (wa) flowing over you (bow coming upon you) will
be all of these, the Almightys, blessings (kol ha barakah eleh beneficial
promises and valuable gifts), continuing to reach and inundate you (nasag
will be offered to you) when (ky) you consistently listen (shama) to the voice of
(ba qowl the recited words of) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym).
(Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 28:1-2)
The Torahs message is as wonderful as it is consistent, as rewarding as it is
enlightening. The Torahs instructions exist to bless us in this life and especially
in the next. All we have to do to benefit from Yahs promises is to listen to Him
which is accomplished by reciting His Towrah.
Now that we have an appreciation of the Towrahs role in our lives, lets
compare what Yahowah inspired Moseh to affirm regarding His Towah with
Shauwls misquotation of the same statement. The Towrah reads:
Invoking harm upon oneself is whoever relationally and beneficially is
not established, restored, and supported by the words of this Towrah,
approaching by engaging through them. And then the entire family
responded, This is true, acceptable, and reliable. (Dabarym 27:26)
So why does Galatians say:
Because to the degree that out of tasks and activities of the Torah, they
exist under a curse which a supernatural power deploys when he wishes to
invoke harm by promoting evil, doing what is accursed, denounced and
detested, for it has been written that: To become accursed, to become
abhorrent, and repugnant, everyone who does not remain in everything that
having been written in the scroll of the Torah, to do them. (Galatians 3:10)
These statements arent remotely similar, and in fact they are diametrically
opposed to one another. The Towrah says: a person evokes harm upon
themselves, they are not restored or established, when they ignore the Towrah and
when they fail to act upon it. Galatians says: to become accursed, a person
should remain associated with Towrah, doing everything its God asks. This
citation is so blatantly fraudulent, so obviously disingenuous, why have so
many people been fooled by Pauls errant quotations and subsequent assertions?
This isnt the first time Shauwl has misquoted God, nor will it be his last. It is
just the worst.
Along these lines, please make a note of Yahowahs instruction in Dabarym
28:1-2, where He has asked us to really listen to and hear the voice of Yahowah,
our God, repeating the request twice. Later in Galatians, Shauwl will play off of
Yahowahs listen to Me, mocking God to say the Torah cannot hear you.
Inverting Gods message is his specialty.
Now that you are informed, if you are rational, it is now impossible for you to
view Paul and Galatians favorably. He is a liar, and it is filled with his lies. And
while I wish it was that simple, it isnt because Paul has placed his deceitful,
destructive, deadly, and damning rhetoric in the place it does the most harm. He
has undermined Yahowahs credibility and testimony, and promoted something
that is completely opposed to both, while at the same time pretending to speak for
one and to quote the other.
In this way, Shauwl has done more to separate souls from God than anyone
who has ever lived. It is the reason he alone was called out by Yahowah, by name,
by time, by character, and by strategy with God telling us that his religion would
be as popular as it would be devastatingly deadly.
According to the Nestle-Aland, the statement Paul wrote actually reads: For
as many as from works of law are under curse they are. It has been written for
(not applicable) curse on all who not stay in all the things having been written in
the small book of the law the to do them.
Not bothering to examine the passage Shauwl cited in the Torah, as it was
written in Hebrew, Bacons King James Version, and Jeromes Latin Vulgate,
misquoted Shauwl and Yahowah. And by doing so, they demeaned the source of
life. KJV: For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is
written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in
the book of the law to do them. LV: For as many as are of the works of the law
(operibus legis) are under a curse. For it has been written (Scriptum): Cursed is
everyone who does not continue in all the things that have been written in the
book of the Law (Libro legis), so as to do them.
After considerable study and thought, Im convinced that while the New
Living Translation is inconsistent with the Greek text, this Christian publisher
accurately conveyed Pauls intended message: But those who depend on the law
to make them right with God are under his curse, for the Scriptures say, Cursed is
everyone who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in
Gods Book of the Law. Youll notice, of course, that the NLT had to corrupt
the Dabarym quotation to keep it from refuting Pauls thesis. But that is precisely
what Paul wanted them to do, what he expected them to do, which is why he
thought he could get away with misquoting a passage to support his declaration
when he knew that it was actually in direct opposition to it.
Pauls strategy here, as it will be in each of the four passages which comprise
the foundation of his thesis, is to play off word pairs and patterns. In Galatians
3:10, the operative words associating Pauls premise with the inaccurately cited
verse are cursed towrah doing. Variations of each of these words appear in
both statements, albeit to communicate mutually opposed ideas.
Ambivalent to Pauls tactic, of his willingness to twist the Towrah to serve
his agenda, Christians have been cursed by the legacy of Galatians. They have
now been led to believe that the Torah is not just irrelevant and pass, but is
actually a curse to be avoided. And yet, Gods instruction is clear. It is neither
hidden nor obscure. This is hard to misinterpret: Invoking harm upon oneself is
whoever relationally and beneficially is not established, restored, and
supported by the words of this Towrah, approaching by engaging through
them. And then the entire family responded, This is true, acceptable, and
reliable. (Dabarym 27:26)
In light of this statement, and the ones which precede and follow it in
Dabarym, Pauls thesis is torn asunder. According to God, the Torah isnt just the
means to eternal life, it is the only way which is why those who dont capitalize
upon it are all said to be harming themselves. And yet Christians the world over
have managed to justify the juxtaposition of two mutually exclusive thoughts, one
from man, the other from God, to infer that the Torah is a curse, rather than the
source of salvation. It is little wonder that Yahowah called Shauwl the plague of
death.

Continuing to play off word patterns, Shauwl reinforced a similar

presumption by once again misappropriating Gods testimony: But (de if
follows, moreover, and namely) because (oti) with (en inside and with regard
to) the Torah (nomo the allotment which is parceled out, the inheritance
which is given, and the prescription to become an heir) absolutely no one (oudeis
nothing, nobody, and not one; from oude heis not even one) is vindicated or
justified (dikaioo made or shown to be correct, proper, or right, acquitted or
declared righteous) by (para with and in the opinion of) the God (to )
becomes evident (delos becomes clear and is made plain (scribed in the
nominative, where an adjective is presented influencing the subject, God, in this
case, renaming Him)) because (oti namely and for this reason): Those who are
correct, righteous, and proper (o dikaios those who are right, upright,
virtuous, and guiltless) out of (ek) faith (pistis originally meant trust but
evolved to faith or belief as a result of Shauwls usage in these letters) will live
(zao will be alive). (Galatians 3:11)
This statement is as errant as it is unequivocal. Shauwl has misquoted
Yahowah, twisting His words again to claim that God, Himself, is incapable of
saving anyone. Shauwl wants Christians to believe that oudeis absolutely no
one, not even one person, can become righteous or vindicated as a result of
Yahs Towrah.
But if this is so, why did the Maaseyah Yahowsha enable the Towrahs
promises on the Miqraey (Invitations to be Called Out and Meet) of Pesach
(Passover), Matsah (Un-Yeasted Bread), Bikuwrym (First-Born Child), and
Shabuwah (Seven Sabbaths)? Why did Yahowsha refer to the Towrah (Teaching
and Guidance) as the doorway to eternal life during His Instruction on the Mount?
And if Yahowah cannot save, how is it that Yahowsha, a diminished
manifestation of Yahowah, can do what God could not?
If Paul is right, why does Yahowah say that Dowd (David) is righteous and
vindicated? Why did Yah bother saving Noah and Lot? What was the purpose of
liberating the Children of Yisrael (Individuals who Engage and Endure with
God) from the Crucible of Egypt? If this is so, why bother with the Covenant,
where through the Towrah, Yahowah promised to make His children immortal
and perfect, adopting them, enriching them, and empowering them? How then
would it be possible for Yowseph to be righteous in Mattanyah 1:19, for
Yahowsha to say that there were righteous ones who longed to witness to what
you are seeing in Mattanyah 13:17, that it was known that Yahowchanan was a
righteous and set-apart man in Mattanyah 6:20, or that Zakaryah and
Abyah...were both righteous before God, blamelessly walking in all of the
provisions and means of vindication of Yahowah in Luke 1:6? If the Towrah
cannot do any of these things, the children of Yahowahs Covenant, Abraham,
Yitschaq, Yaaqob, and all twelve of Yaaqobs sons, are dead, along with Adam,
Chawah, Noah, his family, Lot, Moseh, Aharown, Yahowsha ben Nuwn, Dowd,
Shamowel, all of the prophets including Yashayah and Yirmayah, even
Yowseph and Miriam, along with Yahowchanan the Immerser. If Paul is right,
there would have been no hope for anyone who lived in the first four millennia of
human history. Even the man who scribed the Towrah would have been destined
for Sheowl.
Why write the Torah? Why bother with the Prophets? What is the purpose of
the Psalms? Why was the Covenant conceived? Why were the Ten Statements
etched in Stone? Why did God bother inviting us to attend His seven annual
Feasts? What is the benefit of God accurately predicting the future if not to
demonstrate that He can be trusted?
What was the purpose of Yahowshas life? Why did He affirm every stroke
of every letter of every word which was written in the Towrah telling us that not
even the smallest aspect of the Towrah would be disregarded? Why predict His
arrival and mission in a book that can neither be trusted nor perform as promised?
And if God is incapable of doing what He has sworn to accomplish, why quote
Him knowing that He cannot be trusted, especially to lend credence to a
contrarian position?
Shauwl has clearly thrown down the gauntlet by saying that Gods Teaching
and Guidance, His Towrah, has not, cannot, and will not save a single solitary
soul. But if that is the case, by what mechanism was Yahowshas soul reunited
with Yahowahs Spirit during Bikuwrym? If what Shauwl has written is true, then
men did kill God, as Christians claim. And if the resurrection was the answer,
why was it that the only common denominator among the Bikuwrym eyewitness
accounts was that no one recognized Him?
Please tell me, how does anyone benefit from what Yahowah has done if he
or she does not know what He has done? How does Passover restore life? How
does Un-Yeasted Bread perfect souls? What is the means to adoption into the
Covenant Family on First-Born Child? How and why did Yahowah enrich and
empower His children on Seven Sabbaths? These are all questions without
answers should the Towrah be rendered moot. And that, perhaps, is the reason
Shauwl never addresses any of these questions. All he asks is that you believe
him when he lies, especially when misquoting and contradicting God.
Most people dont know that Chabaquwq / Habakkuk was one of Yahowahs
prophets and that is to their detriment, because taunting and mocking those he
played for fools, Shauwl ripped a passage out of a prophecy which actually
condemned him by name. This is as brazen as Muhammad telling Muslims that
the proper food for them to consume was Halal which is Satans given name.
So now that the proper perspective has been established, the lines have been
drawn in the sand. There is no getting around what is at stake. This is Shauwl and
his letters versus Yahowah and His Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms. So lets
compare notes.
Way back in Chapter Three, Yaruwshalaim Source of Reconciliation, we
considered Yahowahs narrative in Chabaquwq / Habakkuk based upon Shauwls
insistence that he was running a race. In that this review was a very long time ago,
lets not make the same mistake that Shauwl made by removing part of one verse
from the context of that prophetic discussion.
 Yahowah begins...
Upon My requirements and responsibilities, I will continually stand. I
will stand up, providing affirmation and validation for that which protects
and fortifies. So I will be on the lookout in order to see what he will say about
Me, observing how he will question Me. So then, how can I be expected to
change My attitude, My thinking, or My response concerning My
disapproving rebuke? (2:1)
Then Yahowah responded to me, and He said, Write this revelation and
expound on it using letters upon writing tablets so that by reciting this, he
might run away. (2:2) Still surely, this revelation from God is for the
appointed time of the Mowed Meetings. It provides a witness and speaks,
pouring out evidence in the end. Whatever extended period of time is
required for this question to be resolved, this shall not be proven false.
Expect him in this regard, because indeed, he will absolutely come, neither
being delayed nor lingering. (2:3)
Pay attention, he will be puffed up with false pride. His soul, it is not
right nor straightforward in him. So, through trust and reliance, by being
firmly established and upheld by that which is dependable and truthful,
those who are upright and vindicated live. (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:4)
Before we press on and consider the remainder of this prophetic warning
regarding Shauwl, lets check to see if Shauwl quoted Yahowah accurately
when he wrote: But because with the Torah absolutely no one is vindicated
or justified by the God becomes evident because: Those who are correct,
righteous, and proper, out of faith will live. (Shauwl / Galatians 3:11)
Once again a modicum of inquiry reveals that Shauwl once again twisted
Yahowahs statement so significantly that the opposite of what was conveyed was
used to undermine Gods credibility. But this time, in so doing, Shauwl took us
directly to Yahowahs single most damning personal rebuke.
The prophecy continues, with Yah saying...
Moreover, because the intoxicating and inebriating spirit of the man of
deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal is a high-minded moral failure,
and his is arrogant and meritless presumption, he will not rest, find peace,
nor live, whoever is open to the broad path, the duplicitous and improper
way, associated with Shauwl. He and his soul are like the plague of death.
And so those who are brought together by him, receiving him, will never be
satisfied. All of the Gentiles will gather together unto him, all of the people
from different races and nations in different places. (2:5)
 But they do not ask questions, any of them, about him. Terse references
to the word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, with implied associations that
mock, controlling through comparison and counterfeit, along with allusive
sayings with derisive words arrogantly conveyed. There are hard and
perplexing questions which need to be asked of him, and double dealings to
be known regarding him. So they should say, Woe to the one who claims to
be great so as to increase his offspring, acting like a rabbi, when neither
apply to him. For how long will they make pledges based upon his
significance, becoming burdened by his testimony? (2:6)
Woe to one who is cut off, coveting, while wickedly soliciting ill-gotten
gain in league with him, setting up and appointing his temple in association
with heights of heaven, thereby snatching away acquired property and
possessions from the paws of fellow countrymen. (2:9) You have deliberately
decided upon and conspired at the advice of another to promote a shameful
plot to confuse those who approach your temple, ruining and reducing many
by separating people from different races and places, and in the process
losing your soul. (2:10)
Woe to the one who causes and allows his neighbors, companions, or
countryman to drink, thereby associating them with this venomous wrath,
but also making them drunk for the purpose of observing their genitals. You
will get your fill of shame and infamy instead of honor and glory. Inebriated,
in addition, you also show yourself unacceptable, going round about over the
lack of circumcision. Upon you is the binding cup of Yahowahs right hand.
Therefore, public humiliation and indignity will be your status and reward.
(Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:15-16)
Sobering.
In so many ways, faith is the antithesis of trust, just as belief is the inverse of
reliance. This dichotomy exists because trust is predicated upon knowing and
understanding, while faith fills the void when both are absent. From this
perspective, the King James Version, which is a revision five times over of the
Latin Vulgate, which was a blended compilation of Greek translations of the
Hebrew text, is worse than misleading with regard to the Torahs message. They
are wrong. KJV: But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is
evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
The King James position is illogical, albeit since its a translation, it may not
be entirely their fault. Even if no one was justified by the Torah, that does not
infer that the just shall live by faith. Rather than cause and effect, these are
mutually exclusive ideas. It is like saying: Islam does not work so it is evident we
should all be atheists.
 The Roman Catholic text reads: And, since in the law no one is justified
with God, this is manifest: For the just man lives by faith. That is not what
Yahowah said or Habakkuk wrote. And it is not true.
Often entertaining, NLT postured: So it is clear that no one can be made
right with God by trying to keep the law. For the Scriptures say, It is through
faith that a righteous person has life. While this was Shauwls intent, Paul has
been anything but clear. The passages he has quoted he has muddled, and he is
often guilty of contradicting his own statements in addition to Gods. Moreover,
the Scriptures dont say anything about faith, much less that belief leads to
being righteous.
As has become our custom, lets also consider the Nestle-Aland McReynolds
Interlinear. It conveys: But that in law no one is made right along the God clear
because the right from trust will live.
Once again, I ask: if Gods Word cannot save anyone, then whose words can?
Should faith actually be the key to salvation, who should we believe? Said
another way: who would be so foolish as to believe a man who said that he spoke
for a god who he claimed could not be trusted?
Speaking of trust, you may have noticed that with exception of the Nestle-
Aland Interlinear, all three of the most popular bible translations rendered pistis,
faith, and not trust. So while weve done all of the etymological archeology
necessary to prove that pistis meant trust and reliance to Greeks circa 50 CE,
the uniformity found in old and modern translations regarding pistis demonstrate
that Pauls letters caused its meaning to migrate, becoming faith and belief as a
result of his popularity. As a direct result of Pauls letters, Christians refer to
themselves as believers, and use faith as if it were synonymous with religion.
Frankly, the moment we recognize that trust is not achievable in the
context of Galatians, we must acquiesce to the modern interpretation. After all, it
would be absurd to ask someone to trust or rely upon anything without giving
them sufficient evidence or reason to do so. But it would be perfectly appropriate
to ask them to believe that which they do not know, that which was neither
explained nor verified, much less rational. And that is the rub; Pauls position is
irrational, necessitating faith.
The reason that Paul never provides the basis of trust, which is evidence, nor
the basis of reliance, which is understanding, is that his letters are focused upon
articulating contrarian opinions and conflicting conclusions. Reason is his enemy,
his most debilitating foe. His singular ploy is to draw invalid cause and effect
relationships between false statements.
 We have seen nothing but a litany of lies tied together by circular reasoning.
Not once in the entirety of this epistle has Paul, or will Paul, provide any reliable
evidence, and thus nothing to bolster his use of pistis. Even here, where he has
misquoted a portion of two verses, neither validates his point. Instead, both mirror
his rhetoric when they are inverted. Therefore, since a reader is incapable of
trusting his position, Paul has limited believers to putting their faith in his
assertions all of which are false.
A very thoughtful friend sent a note. He wrote: When I was agnostic, I
would ask Christians why I should place my faith in their religion, and not believe
the Islamic Allah, Buddha, or even the Hindu gods. No one was able to provide a
rational answer. Their only proof was that they felt the presence of their god
controlling their lives. And yet, every Islamic terrorist would say the same thing,
with many of them willing to kill others in the process of dying for their faith. So
I came to realize that faith was this fuzzy nebulous concept which required no
thought, no actual evidence, and no proof. With faith a person does not have to
learn anything or think. Both of which are appealing to many.
Therefore, the most logical and informed conclusion based upon the corpus
of evidence available to us is that Paul established his faith, his religion, with
these words, with us now rendering them as he intended them:
O ignorant, and irrational, and unreasonable, Galatians. To whom were
you bewitched and deceived, being seduced to evil? (3:1) This alone I want to
learn from you: out of acting upon the Towrah did you receive the spirit, or
alternatively out of hearing of belief? (3:2)
In this way, you are ignorant and irrational, lacking in knowledge and
unable to think logically. Having begun with the spirit, now in the flesh are
you completing? (3:3) So much and so long you suffered and were vexed,
annoyed and angry without reason or result, if indeed, thoughtlessly. (3:4)
The one, therefore, supplying you with the spirit and causing you to
function, operating the powers in you, was that out of acting upon the Torah
or out of hearing faith? (3:5) Just as Abram believed and had faith in God so
it was accounted to Him as righteousness. (3:6) You know, as a result, that
the ones out of faith, these sons are Abram. (3:7)
Having seen beforehand then by contrast, it was written that because out
of faith are the races made right, so God acted before the beneficial
messenger with Abram so that they would in time be spoken of favorably
with you to all the races. (3:8) As a result, the ones out of faith, we are spoken
of favorably, even praised together with the faithful Abram. (3:9)
 For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks of the
Torah, they are under a curse, because it is written that: All are accursed
who do not remain alive and persevere with all that is written in the scroll of
the Torah, doing it. (3:10) So with that Torah, absolutely no one is
vindicated or justified alongside God. It becomes evident: Those who are
justified, correct, and righteous, out of faith will live. (3:11)
Therefore, based upon what he has written and what follows, this is what
Paul meant to say. It is the basis of Pauline Doctrine. It is what Christians believe.
It is wrong.
The Torah says that Yahowah will shower us with blessings, and He will lead
us to salvation, so long as we listen and respond to the advice He has shared in
His Torah. And based upon the fulfilled prophecies He has articulated therein, we
can trust Him.
A relationship with Yahowah is predicated first upon coming to know Him
based upon what He had to say about Himself in His Towrah. And second, it is
predicated upon observing the Towrahs teaching closely and carefully regarding
the Covenant, which enables us to properly respond to its conditions. Salvation
follows. It is a byproduct of the Covenant. It, like all of the Covenants blessings,
is afforded to those who answer Yahs Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with
Him, and most especially Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread, First-Born Child, and
Seven Sabbaths.
To engage in a relationship with God and to be saved by Him, we must come
to understand His Torah sufficiently to trust and rely upon Him, His message and
His plan. And so while no one has ever been saved because they performed
Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread, First Born, or the Promise of Seven perfectly, all
who are saved are beneficiaries of Yahowsha and the Set-Apart Spirit observing
Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuwah perfectly.
The reason Yahowah consistently uses the Hebrew word, shamar, meaning
observe, in connection with His Towrah Guidance, is because He wants us to
examine the Torah closely, to look at it intently, to investigate it thoroughly, to
not only move in close and scrutinize its jots and tittles, but to step back and
visualize how its threads are woven into a comprehensive and cohesive tapestry.
In this regard, shamar and shama are related concepts. Shama means listen to
and shamar means to observe. By combining our senses of hearing and sight,
our understanding of God grows.
By inspecting the Torah as if our life depended upon it, by listening to what
Yahowah had to say, by understanding the message, and by coming to know its
Author, we are in a position to trust Him, to rely upon His Word. And that is the
sum and substance of the Towrah, its Covenant, and our subsequent salvation.
 Yahowah told us what to eat and what to avoid consuming, not only because
His advice, if respected, would keep us healthy, and enable us to live longer, more
enjoyable lives, but because He wants us to look at the words we are being asked
to consume. Ingest too many unhealthy and poisonous propositions, and
eventually they will kill you. Dine on a feast of trustworthy terms, like those
found in the Torah, and you will live. No one has ever engendered themselves
with God because they never ate pork, but if you roll around in the mud with pigs,
you are going to die estranged from Him. The reason that Chawah, Esau, and
Yahowsha were tempted with things which were not good to eat is because
nothing is more deadly than a deceitful diet.
God wants us to know Him and understand His message, so that we can
objectively and rationally choose to trust and rely upon Him. He doesnt want us
to jump into the darkness with our eyes closed, in a giant leap of faith, because
that will get us killed. He wants us to walk with Him into the light, with our eyes,
ears, hearts, and minds open and receptive to His message.

This next Pauline proposition also includes a citation from the very Towrah
the writer was demeaning. And while it is another truncated misapplication of
Yahs Teaching, this time from Qara / Leviticus 18:5, without referencing it, we
would be challenged to make sense of these words:
But (de) the Towrah (nomou the allotment which is parceled out, the
inheritance which is given, the nourishment which is bestowed to be used to
grow, the precepts which are apportioned, established, and received as a means to
be proper and approved, and the prescription to become an heir) exists (eimi is)
not (ouk) out of (ek) faith or belief (pistis), but to the contrary (alla making
an emphatic contrast with an adversarial implication), The one having done (o
poieomai the one having made and performed as such becoming) them (autos)
will live (zao) in (en with and by) them (autos). (Galatians 3:12)
Or if you prefer, the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with
McReynolds English Interlinear, reads: But the law not is from trust but the one
having done them will live in them. While both are reasonably accurate
renditions of the text, neither approach literate.
The prevailing verbs are poieomai having done and zao will live.
Poieomai, which means do, make, perform, carry out, cause to be, work, toil,
behave, or accomplish an assigned task, was written in the aorist participle which
designates antecedent time. That means a person must perform, doing what the
Towrah says, to live, at least according to Paul. Antecedent time addresses that
which has gone before, that which precedes another event in this case, future
life. Further, in the active voice, poieomai presents the individual performing the
action, which is to say that he is trying to prolong his own life. The nominative
case requires us to view the subject, those attempting to perform as the Torah
directs, as becoming reclassified, thereby actually becoming defined by the Torah.
Zao was scribed in the future tense, once again reinforcing the process
Shauwl is rejecting. In the middle voice, we discover that the Towrah observant
individual is being affected by his own actions, suggesting that his performance
will determine his fate. And finally, in the indicative, the writer is portraying this
cause and effect scenario as real, even though he may not actually believe what
hes saying.
Reflecting Pauls intent without actually translating what he wrote, the
fervent Pauline apologists at the New Living Translation published: This way of
faith is very different from the way of law, which says, It is through obeying the
law that a person has life. Apart from changing having done to obey,
altering all three verb tenses, and adding without justification this way, very
different from, the way, which says, it is through, the law, and that a
person has, while ignoring but, not out of, to the contrary, the one,
having done, and them twice, what the NLT has proposed appears to convey
the spirit of Shauwls proposition. However, by promoting a loose paraphrase,
they have run even farther afield of the partial passage Paul cited.
To their credit, it is true that the way of faith is very different from the way
of the Torah. One is the opposite of the other, telling us that the way of faith
actually leads in the opposite direction of the way presented in the Torah, with
faith being at cross purposes with Yahowahs Guidance.
To satisfy our quest for understanding, the Qara 18:5 passage Shauwl is
misappropriating is set into the context of the following instruction:
Speak (dabar communicate using words) to (el) the Children of
Yisrael (beny Yisrael children who engage and endure with God), and (wa)
say (amar affirm) to them (el), I am (anky) Yahowah ( ), your God
(elohym). (18:1-2) With regard to things which could be considered similar to
(ka as with and making a direct comparison to) the practices (maaseh the
pattern of behavior, the work, the things done, undertakings, and pursuits) of the
realm (erets land) of the Crucible of Egypt (Mitsraym crucibles of
religious, political, military, and economic oppression) where (asher) you dwelt
(yashab), you should not engage in or act upon (lo asah you should not
celebrate or profit from) similar (ka) pursuits (maaseh patterns of behavior,
things done, undertakings, and practices) in the land (ba erets) of Kanaany
(Kanaany Zealousness which subdues, bringing people into subjection;
commonly transliterated Canaan), which beneficially as a result of the
relationship (asher), I am (anky) bringing and accompanying you (bow
esh). There (sham), you should not act upon or engage in (lo asah) their
decrees and customs (chuqah their prescriptions for living and their traditions
and statutes), never walking in or following them (lo halak never patterning
your life after them). (18:3)
With (eth) My means to exercise good judgment regarding the
resolution of disputes (mishpat My means to decide regarding justice and
judgment), you should continually engage and genuinely act (asah). With
(eth) My prescriptions for living (chuqah My inscribed recommendations
which cut you into the relationship), you should consistently examine and
carefully consider (shamar you should make a habit of consistently and
actually observing) for the purpose of approaching by (la) walking in them
(halak ba). I am (anky), Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym). (Qara /
Called Out / Leviticus 18:4)
This Fatherly advice serves as an open indictment against religion and
politics. It is a call to expose and condemn the incorporation or adoption of the
rites, rituals, and festivals of pagan religions into a community or culture. It is
therefore denouncing the very fabric of Roman Catholicism, where the entire
religion is predicated upon incorporating such things. And it speaks against the
integration of religion and politics, the propensity of the initial civilizations to
maintain large militaries, as well as their tendency to improperly compensate
workers for their labor. The civilizations Yahowah is describing in Egypt and
Canaan were famous for creating and worshiping religious imagery. They gave
birth to the concepts of the Trinity, to crosses, to Easter, Christmas, and Sunday
worship, to Communion and to the Eucharist, to faith and to bowing, to gods
dying and being resurrected, even to viewing a woman as the Mother of God and
Queen of Heaven all of which were incorporated into Christianity. They were
the first to refer to God as the Lord, and they called God all manner of names,
none of which was Yahowah.
Yahowahs next statement is the verse Shauwl misrepresented to promote
his agenda one that adopted the political and religious practices of the
Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. But before I share it with you, take
note of the fact that in it shamar observe, which is to closely examine and
carefully consider something by focusing upon it with your eyes, was scribed in
the qal perfect consecutive. Thereby, Yah is encouraging us to choose of our own
volition to literally examine the totality of His chuqah inscribed prescriptions
for living and His mishpat means to resolve disputes, viewing Gods written
testimony as a whole while recognizing that it is complete.
 But then youll note, with asah engaging in and acting upon what we
have observed and come to know about His prescriptions for living and His
means to resolve disputes, the qal imperfect was deployed. From this we learn
that our response does not have to be complete, nor perfect, but simply ongoing.
God is not expecting us to do anything flawlessly, nor is He even asking us to
behave in complete harmony with His instructions.
This realization has profound implications which exonerate the Towrah and
condemn Shauwl. God has given us the opportunity to examine and consider His
Towrah testimony, but the choice is ours whether we elect to read it, ignore it, or
oppose it. All God is asking is that we dont take snippets of what He has said out
of context, but rather that we review His Towrah as a whole while recognizing
that it is complete. This means that we should consider it from Baresyth to
Dabarym, from creation to Eden, from the flood to the Covenant, from slavery in
Egypt to freedom in the Promised Land. We should also view Yahs Towrah as
lacking nothing. It provides answers to every question regarding life and
relationship. Nothing should be added, nothing should be taken away, and thus
nothing should be changed.
And yet, our willingness to observe what God has written is just the input
side of this equation. On the output side, we have our reaction, which is
essentially our attitude and our words in response to God. Here, scribed now in
the imperfect, God is neither expecting nor asking, and most especially not
requiring perfection from us. We are only being asked to continually try to do the
best we can. As we learn more, our testimony improves. As we understand more,
we become more trusting and thus more capable. It is a process, as are all
relationships, with us growing with Yah over time.
But you see, Shauwls point has been that there is no reason to observe the
Towrah because unless a person does everything the Torah demands flawlessly,
they will be condemned by God. But that is the antithesis of what Yahowah is
saying here...
And so (wa) you should choose of your own volition to actually and
completely observe (shamar under the auspices of freewill, you should
consider choosing to carefully examine the totality (qal perfect consecutive))
accordingly (eth) My prescriptions for living (chuqah My inscribed (and thus
written) instructions which cut you into a relationship (and thus into the
Covenant) with Me) and also (wa) My means to resolve disputes (mishpat My
means to exercise good judgment regarding redemption (thereby directing our
attention to His seven Invitations to Meet). Whoever (asher relationally and
beneficially) over time and as an ongoing process acts upon and engages
(asah consistently endeavors to genuinely celebrate and continually benefit (qal
imperfect)) with them (eth), that individual (ha adam that man and person)
indeed (wa emphasizing this) is actually and completely restored to life as a
result of this desire and his decision, living forever (wa chayah he is literally
revived, perfectly renewed, actually nurtured, completely spared, and kept alive
into perpetuity through this exercise of freewill, raised, preserved, and allowed to
flourish (qal perfect consecutive)) through them (ba with and by them). I am
(any) Yahowah ( ). (Qara / Called Out / Leviticus 18:5)
If I may add another interesting consideration. Yahowah has promised to
chayah restore the lives of those who not only choose to examine and
consider His Towrah, but who also respond favorably to His prescriptions for
living and His means to resolve disputes. And since the restoration and elongation
of His childrens lives is our Heavenly Fathers doing, He had Moseh scribe
chayah life in the best way possible. The qal stem is relational, creating a
connection between the subject, which would be those of us who listen to Yah,
and the action of the verb which is to be restored and live. The qal stem also
conveys actions which are simple to understand, straightforward, and real, and
thus actual. The perfect conjugation reveals that Yahowah is not only promising
to make us whole and complete, entirely perfect, He is saying that He will do all
of the work to accomplish this on our behalf with nothing additional added on
our part. He is even saying that the restoration of our lives isnt a process that
could be abated for some reason, but is instead, done, as in leaving nothing to
prove, nothing more to accomplish, and nothing more to do. Then it gets better
because here the perfect was prefixed with a wa, making this the consecutive
form. This causes the perfect conjugation to reflect the unfolding and ongoing
nature of the imperfect, telling us that our lives are being restored forever. In
addition, the consecutive form reveals that this is volitional, and thus it reflects
our choice and Gods will.
Returning to Galatians, Paul said: But the Towrah exists not out of faith
or belief, but to the contrary, The one having done and performed them will
live in them. (Shauwl / Galatians 3:12)
Comparing that to the Towrah, Yahowah said: And so you should choose
of your own volition to actually and completely observe My prescriptions for
living and also My means to resolve disputes. Whoever over time and as an
ongoing process acts upon and engages with them, that individual indeed is
actually and completely restored to life as a result of this desire and decision,
living forever through them. I am Yahowah. (Qara / Called Out 18:5)
It is hard to miss the horrible pattern that is emerging. This time, however,
Shauwls statement is misleading principally because he removed Yahowahs
statement from the context of the point God was making, and in so doing created
a perception which is invalid. He did the very thing Yahowah asked us not to do
in the passage he abbreviated.
 Yahowah is telling us that restoration and life eternal are a direct derivative
of observing His means to resolve disputes which serve as prescriptions for living.
And Paul is promoting blind faith.
Once again, Shauwl has abridged, misquoted, and misapplied a passage
which is inconsistent with his own message, perhaps hoping that the use of a
common word, this time, perform / do, in conjunction with an aspect of the
Towrah would be sufficient to convince the impressionable and ignorant that God
agrees with his position.
But at least we have another affirmation that it is Yahowahs Towrah that
Shauwl is assailing by misappropriating citations from it. Under these
circumstances, a rational argument cannot be made in favor of the Oral Law or
the Yaruwshalaim Talmud being the focus of Shauwls ire. He consistently refers
to the Towrah in order to undermine it, while never once referring to nor citing
the Oral Law which was ultimately memorialized in the Babylonian Talmud.
Also, while Yahowahs message was clear, even straightforward and easy to
understand, Shauwls was not. What on earth does the law exists not out of faith
and belief mean? What is the connection or contrast between this clause and
Yahowahs statement in Qara / Leviticus 18:5? Why did Paul only cite the end
of the verse when its meaning is derived from the introduction?
Since Pauls castrated citation of this passage was as inappropriate as his
statement was undecipherable, lets turn to those hypnotized by his spell for
additional insight into the Christian mindset. The King James Version reads:
And the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them shall live in them. At
least its clear that it was derived from the Latin Vulgate which says: But the law
is not of faith; instead, he who does these things shall live by them.
If nothing else, we know that Shimown Kephas / Peter was right in saying
that Pauls letters would be twisted, such that they would deceive the ignorant and
malleable, robbing them of their salvation. But like so many prophecies, just
because its true doesnt mean that we should allow ourselves to be destroyed by
it.
In that Paul was fanning the flames he was using to burn Yahowahs Torah, I
am convinced that he meant to say: The Torah is not like the way of faith, but
to the contrary, it requires you to do what it says in order to live. (Galatians
3:12 reflecting Pauls intended message.)
At this point, we must ask ourselves: can Pauls faith, his religion, be
unlike the Torah and still facilitate a relationship with God? Is it possible that
God could have endorsed a plan which is counter to the one He authored?
 Irrespective of the answer (which is obvious), at least the battle lines have
been drawn. According to Paul, it is his testimony against Gods Word. We are
now immersed in the Great Galatians Debate: Are we to trust Yahowahs Torah
or believe Pauls Gospel of Grace?
Before we press on, since the context of the Qara / Leviticus passage was
particularly germane to Pauls Galatians epistle, a letter which serves as the
foundation of Christendom, Id like to reinforce Yahowahs advice. God
encouraged His people not to follow the religious practices or political traditions
of the Egyptians and Canaanites. That means we are to avoid doing the same
things which were also done in Babylon, Greece, and Rome whose civilizations
either inspired or copied them. And that means we should not celebrate New
Years Day, Saint Valentines Day, Lent, Easter, Halloween, or Christmas, nor
gather in churches on Sundays.

The key to understanding this next statement is katara - curse. As we

discovered at the beginning of this discussion when reviewing Galatians 3:10,
kata is either being used to communicate down from, according to or
against, with the latter serving as a negation of ara, and its root, airo, which is
either a prayer or a curse. Therefore, the ara curse could well be not
having ones prayer answered, not having ones airo burdens lifted, or not
having ones soul carried away to heaven. Further, katara is especially
demeaning. It suggests that Yahowah uses His supernatural power to invoke
harm by promoting evil, doing what is accursed and abhorrent, detestable and
loathsome, maligning and malicious.
According to the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear, Paul wrote: Christ
us brought out from the curse of the law having become on behalf of us curse
because it has been written curse on all the one having hung on wood. And now,
literally...
Christos ( placeholder for Maaseyah [but it is unlikely in this
context and with this audience that Shauwl would have associated the Maaseyah
with Yahowah]) us (ego) bought back (exagorazomai worked to redeem and
purchase, making good use of the opportunity, taking advantage to buy and
deliver; from ek, out of, and agarazo, doing business in the marketplace where
(agora) people assemble for a public debate, to buy, sell, and vote) from (ek) the
curse (katara from the evil, hateful, abhorrent, loathsome, maligning, and
malicious influence) of the (tov) Towrah (nomou the means to being nourished
by that which is bestowed to become heirs, precepts which were apportioned,
established, and received as a means to be proper and to be approved through
prescriptions for an inheritance; from nemo that which is provided, assigned,
and distributed to heirs to nourish them (singular genitive, and thus a specific
characterization)), having become (ginomai having existed as) for our sake
(hyper ego) a curse (katara a repugnant prayer, invoking the power to harm
others by wishing evil upon them, maligning and malicious), because (hoti) it has
been written (grapho inscribed): A curse on (epikataratos being exposed to
divine slander and vengeance) all (pas) the one (o) having hung (kremamai
suspended) on (epi) wood (xylon). (Galatians 3:13)
Paul is reaffirming his diagnosis. In his view, Yahowahs Torah is an
abhorrent and detestable curse which promotes evil. Gods Word, according to
Shauwl, is malicious and repugnant. Rather than Yahowsha affirming,
observing, and fulfilling the Towrah as God, Himself, attests in the 5th and 7th
chapters of Mattanyah / Matthew, according to Shauwl, the Maaseyah has cut a
deal and engaged in a business transaction whereby He has redeemed us, not from
sin, but instead from the Torah itself.
Since this hideous lie is the antithesis of what Yahowsha said and did, we
now know for absolute certain that Paulos was psychotic. Calling this man who
contradicted Gods message while claiming to speak for Him delusional is
wholly inadequate. Pauls position has also made it obvious that he was demon-
possessed, goaded and controlled by one of Satans envoys. But even then, this is
hard to swallow.
This insane admission does, however, confirm that Paul was deliberately
maligning the Towrah in his opening statement, because what he wrote in
Galatians 3:13 echoes the same sentiment found in Galatians 1:4. Remember:
Iesou Christou, the one having produced and given Himself on account
of the sins and errors of us, so that somehow, He might possibly gouge or tear
out, rooting out and taking us away from the past inflexible and unrelenting
circumstances of the old system (aionos the previous era; from aei
circumstances which are incessant, unremitting, relentless, invariable, and
inflexible) which had been in place which is disadvantageous and harmful
(poneros which is wicked and worthless, evil and faulty, immoral and corrupt,
annoying and mischievous, laborious and criminal, unprofitable and useless,
unserviceable and malicious, malevolent and malignant) extending down from
and according to the desire and will of the God and Father of us
(Galatians 1:4)
Now, the poneros worthless and malevolent aionos inflexible and
unrelenting old system which is being called katara a repugnant curse is
identified as the nomou Towrah the Teaching and Guidance of Yahowah. If
true, then everything Yahowah said and everything Yahowsha did was untrue
and unreliable. So how is it possible that someone who claims he was exclusively
authorized to speak for the former is believable when he contradicts God? How
can Shauwls message about Iesou Christou be credible when it is the opposite
of Yahowshas own Instruction on the Mount? By calling Yahowahs Towrah a
curse, and by saying that Christos therefore became a curse because of it, Paul has
proposed the preposterous. The proposition is so asinine it serves to prove that
religion renders its victims incapable of rational thought.
Yahowahs, and thus Yahowshas, soul on Matsah, not Pesach, and thus not
while He was hanging on wood, bore our sins, not to free us from the Towrah, but
from their consequence, when His soul descended into Sheowl. He did not
become a katara curse, but instead the means to facilitate the Towrahs
promises and the Covenants blessings. Yahowsha was perfect because He
observed the Towrah. He did not become a katara repugnant prayer, He did
not katara invoke evil, and there was nothing katara malignant, maligning,
or malicious about Him. It is impossible for the living manifestation of the
Towrah to free us from that which He, Himself, observed. And if we are to
believe that the Torah is a curse, then as its corporeal representation, Yahowsha
was a curse. So Paul is saying that the cure for the disease is the disease.
His claim on behalf of Christianity, is so absurd it strains credulity.
Yahowsha, by His own admission, is the diminished manifestation of Yahowah,
the human representation of God. So how is it that Yahowah would curse us with
His Word only to Himself become a curse to ransom us from His Word?
And yet as spellbinding deceivers have done throughout time, Paul continues
to weave the semblance of a good thread through his evil tapestry, all to make his
lies appear plausible. Yes, it is true, the Maaseyah redeemed us, but not from
the curse of the Torah. Our redemption was based upon Him enabling the
Torahs promises. Yahowshas sacrifices apart from the Torah were useless,
because there would have been no reason for them, nor any benefit. Unless the
Maaseyah fulfilled Passover and Un-Yeasted Bread in perfect harmony with the
Towrahs Instructions, His sacrifices were irrelevant. In fact, if the Towrah didnt
depict Yahowahs enduring plan of salvation, then Yahowsha would have been a
liar who should not have been trusted, because He said otherwise.
The statement Shauwl misquoted also comes from the Towrah, this time
from Dabarym / Words 21:23. The passage reads:
Indeed, when (wa ky) it comes to pass over time (hayah) that by
association (ba) an Individual (ysh a Man) is considered to be guilty of sins
(chata mishpat it is judged, decided, determined, and thought that He is liable
for sin in order to resolve disputes) worthy of death (maweth), and He chooses
to be dispatched to the realm of the dead (wa muwth He passively allows
Himself to be slain so as to be absent from the living, completely fulfilling the
penalty (hophal stem perfect conjugation consecutive mood)), and then (wa) you
decide to suspend Him (talah eth you want to literally hang Him by
completely fastening Him (qal perfect consecutive)) on (al) a wooden timber
(ets or tree), His corpse shall not remain overnight (lo lyn nabelah His
body must not endure the night, staying there after sunset) on that timber (al ha
ets near the wooden pillar).
Rather instead (ky truthfully and certainly), you should surely prepare
and entomb His body (qabar qabar it is essential that you place His body in a
sepulcher) on this same day (ba ha yowm ha huw). Indeed, because (ky) the
One being suspended (talah the one being hanged) is being diminished and
slighted as a result of an owth (qalalah is maligned and abated, going away as
a result of a promise (in the construct form, the abated and diminished is being
associated with and is connected with and bound to)) of God Almighty
(elohym).
So you should not defile (wa lo tame you should not cause to be
unclean), accordingly (eth), your soil (adamah your land, realm, and world;
from adam mankind and thus your human nature), which relationally and
beneficially (asher) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), gave (natan
produced, offered, and bestowed) to you (la for you to approach) to become an
heir (nahalah as a means to an inheritance). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy
21:22-23)
This is a prophetic picture of the Maaseyahs fulfillment of the Torahs
presentation of Passover and Un-Yeasted Bread leading to First-Born Child and to
inheriting the Covenant. It confirms that the source of our salvation is based upon
the very book Paul is demeaning and attempting to depreciate and annul.
Yahowahs prophetic testimony reveals that Yahowsha would be considered
to be guilty of sin worthy of death, that He would be suspended from a wooden
timber, that His body would be removed from the upright pole before the sun set,
that His carcass would be prepared and placed in a sepulcher, as opposed to being
buried in the ground, and that as a result of having our sins associated with Him,
Gods soul would become the slighted and diminished aspect of God in other
words, it would be separated and abated in Sheowl. It tells us that His body, in
keeping with Yahowahs instructions regarding Passover, would cease to exist
that night. Also, by using adamah, it is adam human nature which is no
longer defiled as a result.
 So while the passage is powerful in the sweeping nature of its predictions, it
was not even remotely supportive of Pauls argument. If anything, this precise
prediction demonstrates that the Towrah and its Author can be trusted to do what
He has promised.
Recognizing that Shauwl quoted a truncated portion of the Dabarym
reference to Yahowsha, and recognizing that his was a woefully inaccurate
rendering of it, we are compelled once again to question the veracity of
everything Shauwl wrote and said, even question his intentions. There is a very
significant difference between: A curse on all the one having hung on wood,
and Indeed when it comes to pass that by association an Individual is
considered to be guilty of sins in order to resolve disputes worthy of death,
and He chooses to be dispatched to the realm of the dead, and then you
decide to suspend Him on a wooden timber, His corpse shall not remain
overnight on the wood. Rather instead, you should prepare and entomb His
body on this same day. Indeed, because the One being suspended is being
diminished and slighted as a result of an owth of God. So you should not
defile your soil or your nature, which relationally and beneficially Yahowah,
your God, gave to you to become an heir.
Without the context provided by Yahowah, the reference to being the slighted
and diminished aspect of God is senseless. A profound and precise eyewitness
account, serving as both prediction and explanation of an event which would
transpire fifteen centuries hence, becomes incomprehensible, and thus worthless
apart from Gods explanation.
And yet Shauwl has now plucked three statements Yahowah has made from
the context that makes them valuable, miscasting his redacted variations such that
each truncated citation now infers the antithesis of what God actually revealed.
Each time he revised Gods Word to suit his thesis. So are we to suppose that
Shauwl was misinformed, even ignorant, and that these were just careless and
uninspired mistakes, or was this deliberate, making Shauwl a disingenuous
deceiver? The only other possibility requires us to view most every Greek
manuscript of the Christian New Testament as being unreliable, including the
Papyrus 46 codex dated to the vicinity of 85 CE, in which Pauls letters are
extant.
Paul is stuck in a rut. Each Towrah quotation has been chosen, not because it
affirmed his position, but because of word linkage. He has gone from towrah
doing, to towrah justified, to towrah performing, and then to curse
hanging on wood. In all four couplets, he has abridged Gods statement and then
twisted it to make it appear as if his preaching was consistent with Gods position.
To excuse this pattern of malfeasance as being an honest mistake, being Gods
will, being inspired by the Spirit, or being a product of scribal error is to be
played for a fool.
Paul is a false witness. He is purposefully misquoting and perverting
Yahowahs Word in order to establish his doctrine. This is evil in the worst sense
of the word. And the consequence has been catastrophic. Billions of souls have
been ensnared in his hideous trap and cursed by these letters.
Unwilling to consider the Greek or Hebrew text, and relying instead on the
Latin Vulgate, the Christian theologians who created the revision known as the
King James Version missed the fact that the Torah predicted what Yahowsha
fulfilled: Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse
for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree. If the King
James has accurately reflected Pauls thought, then, at least according to Paul, the
Torah is actually a curse. Rather than fulfilling the Torah, Yahowsha ransomed
us from it. And rather than being the perfect Lamb of God, Yahowsha embodied
all the negativity a curse implies.
Had Jerome created his Latin Vulgate from Greek manuscripts, as opposed to
blending his preferred readings from Old Latin variations, he would have seen the
light as well. But alas, he didnt. Christus has redeemed us from the curse of the
law, since he became a curse for us. For it is scriptum / written: Cursed is anyone
who hangs from a tree.
The only curse pronounced by the Torah is upon those who disregard it, and
Christians are wont to do just that. NLT: But Christ has rescued us from the
curse pronounced by the law. When he was hung on the cross, he took upon
himself the curse for our wrongdoing. For it is written in the Scriptures, Cursed is
everyone who is hung on a tree. When they added he was hung on the cross, it
became obvious that they noted the very same pattern Ive been warning you
about. The NLT translation team members, like their patriarch, arent oblivious,
they are mischievous.
Moving on to the next statement, Paul remains consistent. This is also untrue.
Abrahams words do not comprise the healing and beneficial message,
Yahowahs do. Further, there is no connection between Abrahams statements and
the Maaseyah, but instead the Covenant. And the connection that matters most is
between Yahowahs Word and the Maaseyah.
As a result (hina in order that), to (eis in, among, or in reference to) the
people from different races (ta ethnos the cultures and ethnicities) the
beneficial word (e eulogia the praise, flattery, or polished language, the
laudation, benefit, or favorable terms; from eu to be well off, to fare well, and to
prosper and logos speech or word) of (toe) Abram (Abraam a truncated pre-
Covenant transliteration of Abraham the Merciful, Forgiving, and
Compassionate Father) might become (ginomai may happen (the aorist tense
denotes a snapshot event without respect to any process, the middle voice
signifies that Abraham was being affected by his own actions, and the subjunctive
mood presents this as being probable)) in (en) Christo Iesou ( divine
placeholders for Maaseyah (Work of Yah) and Yahowsha (Yah Saves), but
since this epistle has disassociated Yahowsha from Yahowah and His work
regarding salvation, its misleading to connect that which he has severed) that
(hina in order to) the promise (ten epaggelia the announcement of claim to
do something (singular)) of the (tou) spirit () we might take hold (lambano
we may grab and grasp, obtain possession, being carried away) through (dia
by) faith (pistos). (Galatians 3:14) Papyrus 46, scribed within as few as fifteen
years of the original letter, includes a second eulogia, beneficial word or
polished language before the placeholder for Spirit, but since it is so awkward,
Ive elected not to include it in this translation.
The story of Abraham, and his relationship with Yahowah, is detailed for us
in the opening book of the Towrah. Gods presentation of His Covenant
prioritized and detailed, chronological and historical, and set into a very specific
geographical and geopolitical context so that we might come to know its terms
and benefits in a very tangible way. The formation of this Covenant relationship is
Gods first priority, the very reason He created the universe, and Yahowah wants
us to know what He wants and what He is offering so that we are empowered to
respond appropriately. We are in fact given the same opportunity to engage in the
same Covenant in the same way, enjoying the same benefits that Abraham was
afforded. And that is why knowing its conditions and accepting its terms is so
important.
There are five specific requirements. First, we must walk away from our
country, and specifically from Babylon, which denotes the corruption of politics
and religion. Second, instead of being dependent upon ones country, we are
asked to trust and rely exclusively on Yahowah. This in turn necessitates coming
to know Him and coming to understand what He is offering and asking things
known only to those who study the Towrah. Third, we are asked to walk to Yah
and become perfect. This is achieved by answering Yahowahs seven annual
Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with Him. Fourth, so that none of this is a
blind leap of faith, we are encouraged to observe the Covenant which is to
closely examine and carefully consider its terms and rewards. And fifth, as a sign
of our acceptance, and as a commitment to raise our children so that they also
choose to embrace the Covenant, God has asked parents to circumcise their sons.
Those who accept these conditions are rewarded. The five promised benefits
of the Covenant include: eternal life, being perfected and thus exonerated, being
adopted into Gods family, being enriched with the Towrahs teaching, and being
empowered by the Spirit. If there is an e eulogia beneficial word, this is it.
And this then makes the Towrah the only place where Abraham and the
Covenant are known essential, thus negating everything Shauwl has written.
And make no mistake, it is absolutely and unequivocally not the beneficial
word of Abram that became in Christo Iesou, but instead the Word of Yahowah
that is Yahowsha. Further, Abraham was the beneficiary of the Covenant and not
its source. He benefited from Yahowahs words not his own. Pauls testimony is
therefore a lie from beginning to end.
It is worth restating: it is irrational to predicate a thesis on a book that one is
negating and invalidating. Apart from the Towrah, Abraham and the Covenant are
unknown and unknowable. So to suggest that a person can believe in a promise
expressed by an individual known exclusively through the Towrah, while
discrediting the Towrah, is absurd. And since this conclusion is obvious, even
irrefutable, how is it that this letter launched a religion?
Abraham was a beneficiary of Yahowahs Covenant. He was not its author.
Abraham didnt conceive it, offer it, modify it, deliver it, or codify its terms or
benefits. Abraham cannot influence our lives in any way. He does not have the
power or authority to grant life, to perfect us, to adopt us, to enrich us, or to
empower anyone. The Covenant is based upon Yahowahs testimony, Yahowahs
plan, Yahowahs promises, and Yahowahs ability to deliver, not Abrahams. And
yet Shauwl would have you believe that all of this occurred because of Abram,
because that way he could sidestep Yahowah while bypassing His Torah, thereby
separating Yahowsha and Christians from both. And the result is Christianity.
And that is why it is so destructive, deadly, and damning.
But imagine hating God so much that you would ascribe His Covenant to its
initial beneficiary. That is like saying the passenger in seat 1A designed, built,
paid for, and is flying the airplane.
While the promises made by Yahowah to Abraham were showcased to reveal
the conditions and rewards of the Covenant relationship, this portion of the story
isnt the Towrahs most adroit connection between the Maaseyah and the
Covenants promises. Had Paul wanted to make a case from which his audience
could build a solid foundation of understanding, he would have referenced what
happened on Mount Mowryah, where the Maaseyahs purpose and sacrifice were
foreshadowed by the experience of Abraham, Yitschaq, and Yahowah. But he
didnt.
The reason that we are indirectly blessed by way of Abraham is because he
trusted and relied upon Yahowah at one of the most pivotal moments in all of
human historythereby becoming the first beneficiary of the Covenants
blessings. He tangibly demonstrated this trust by acting upon Yahowahs
instructions, taking his son to Mount Mowryah as God had asked. But Yahowah
provided the lamb to predict His own fulfillment of Pesach on this same
mountain, just as He would forty Yowbel (exactly 2000 years) later at the summit
of Mowryah. Yahowsha fulfilled what Yahowah had predicted, facilitating the
promises God made to Abraham and to the rest of us through him. Yahowahs
message does not change from beginning to end. It is one story. Everything points
to the same opportunity.
NA: That in the nations the good word of the Abraham might become in
Christ Jesus that the promise of the spirit we might receive through the trust.
KJV: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus
Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. LV: This
was so that the blessing of Abraham might reach the Gentibus through Christo
Iesu, in order that we might receive the promise of the Spiritus/Spirit through
faith.
Most every word presented in the NLT is wrong, either errantly transliterated,
mistranslated, or simply not represented in the Greek text: Through Christ Jesus,
God has blessed the Gentiles with the same blessing he promised to Abraham, so
that we who are believers might receive the promised Holy Spirit through faith.
In total, 26 of the 30 words found in the New Living Translation were not
translated or transliterated, but instead authored. Its little wonder Christians are
deceived.
Pauls comments are out of sync with his preposition when pistis is translated
trust or reliance in the 11th, 12th, or 14th verses. It is only by rendering pistis
faith or belief in these passages that the distinction he is making fits his thesis.
So, he has not only defined the fulcrum of his argument, but has also presented
the opening salvo of Pauline Doctrine. He proposed:
But when Kephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I was opposed to and against
his presence. I stood in hostile opposition because he was convicted and
condemned, even ignorant. (2:11) Because before a certain individual came
from Yaaqob (James), he was eating together with the different races, but
when he came, he was withdrawing and was separating himself, out of fear of
the circumcised. (2:12) So they were hypocritical, and also the remaining
Jews. As a result, even Barnabas was led away and astray with them in the
duplicitous hypocrisy. (2:13) Nevertheless, when I saw that they were not
walking through life rightly with the truth of the healing and beneficial
messenger, I said to Kephas in front of all: If you Jews actively being ethnic,
how will you compel the ethnicities, forcing them into acting Jewish? (2:14)
We are Jews by nature and are not from the social outcasts of sinful and
heathen races, (2:15) having come to realize without evidence, that by no
means whatsoever is man vindicated or made righteous by means of activities
associated with the Towrah, if not by faith in Iesou Christou. And we on
Christon Iesoun, ourselves, believed in order for us to have become righteous
out of faith in Christou, and not by means of acting upon the Towrah,
because by means of engaging in the Towrah not any flesh will be acquitted,
vindicated, nor made righteous. (2:16)
But if seeking to be made righteous and innocent in Christo, we were
found also ourselves social outcasts and sinners, shouldnt we be anxious that
Christos becomes a guilty, errant, and misled, servant of sin? Not may it
exist, (2:17) because if that which I have actually torn down, dissolved, and
dismantled, invalidated and abolished, subverted and discarded, this on the
other hand I restore or reconstruct, promoting this edifice, I myself bring
into existence and recommend transgression and disobedience. (2:18) I then,
because of and by the Towrahs law, myself, actually died and was
separated in order that to god I might currently live. Together with Christo,
I have actually been crucified. (2:19)
I live, but no longer I. He lives then in me, Christos. This because now I
live in the flesh, in faith I live of the god and Christou, the one having loved
me and surrendered, entrusting authority to control, influence, instruct, and
to betray exclusively and especially of himself for the sake of and because of
me. (2:20) I do not reject or disregard the Charity / Grace of the god if
because then by the Torah, righteousness as a result Christos undeservedly,
for no reason or cause, without benefit, for naught, and in vain, died. (2:21)
O ignorant and irrational, unintelligent and unreasonable, Galatians. To
whom were you bewitched, deceived, slandered, and seduced? (3:1) This
alone I want to learn from you: out of accomplishments of the Towrah the
spirit you received or alternatively out of hearing of belief? (3:2) In this way,
you are ignorant and irrational, lacking in knowledge and unable to think
logically. Having begun with spirit, now in flesh you are completing? (3:3) So
much and for so long these things you suffered. You were affected and you
were vexed, annoyed, and angry, without reason or result, if indeed, really
without result. (3:4)
The one, therefore, then supplying you the spirit and causing it to
function, operating powerfully in you, out of acting upon the Torah or out of
hearing faith? (3:5) Just as Abram believed and had faith in the God so it
was reasoned and accounted to Him as righteousness. (3:6) You know, as a
result, the ones out of faith, these are Abrams sons. (3:7)
Having seen beforehand then by contrast the writing, that because out of
faith makes the people from different races and places right, God, He, before
the beneficial messenger acted for Abram, that they would in time be spoken
of favorably in you to all the ethnicities and nations. (3:8) As a result, the
ones out of faith, we are spoken of favorably, even praised together with the
faithful Abram. (3:9)
For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks of the
Torah, they are under a curse, because it is written that All are accursed
who do not remain alive, persevering with all that is written in the scroll of
the Torah, doing it. (3:10) So with that Torah, absolutely no one is
vindicated or justified alongside God. It becomes evident: Those who are
justified and righteous, out of faith will live. (3:11) But the Towrah exists not
out of faith, but to the contrary, The one having done and preformed them
will live in them. (3:12)
Christos bought us back from the evil and hateful curse of the Towrah,
having become for our sake a maligning and malicious curse, because it has
been written: A vengeful curse on all those having hung on wood. (3:13) As
a result, to the people from different races, the beneficial word of Abram
might become in Christo Iesou that the promise of the spirit we might take
hold, being possessed through faith. (Galatians 3:14)
This is so twisted and perverse, so completely invalid, and so utterly ignorant
and irrational, it speaks poorly of the human race, because so many people have
placed their faith in this charlatan. What is wrong with us? Its as if there is no
longer any desire to think, any merit to evidence or reason, not even when the
evidence comes from God, Himself, and is unassailable.
A rational case cannot be made in Pauls defense. His message comes full
circle in the manner of all great spellbinders. From his perspective, the good
word came from Abram, not Yahowah, making a man responsible for the
Maaseyah and the Covenant, even our salvation, not God. Knowing the truth no
longer matters because righteousness comes through faith.
As a result of these words, humanity is faced with a choice. We can decide to
listen to Paul or listen to God. Both is no longer an option. They are adversaries,
not allies. Therefore, it is long past time that we acknowledge that his words
demonstrate that he was a liar, and thus a false apostle and false prophet.

As we press on, making our way through this insidious web, some foresight
might be helpful. In addition to Pauls present course, that of denouncing and
attempting to nullify Yahowahs Towrah, replacing it with his faith-based
Gospel of Grace, Shauwl will soon attack the centerpiece of the Towrah, its
Covenant. By miscasting and misrepresenting the parties who were engaged in the
Covenant which was established between Yahowah and Abraham, Paul will seek
to invalidate it, calling the Towrahs Covenant enslaving. This sleight of hand
will then set the stage for a new, entirely different covenant, the one conceived by
Paul, the one which became Christianitys New Testament.
I have shared this glimpse into the next chapter of Galatians because it helps
highlight the hypocrisy of Shauwls next ploy, which is to say: once an
agreement is established, it cannot be invalidated or augmented. Beyond the fact
that this conclusion is untrue, Paul will use this strategy to further invalidate the
Towrah, suggesting that since the Towrah came after Abraham, it has no bearing
on the Covenant established prior to its existence. While this assumption is also
untrue, for reasons we considered in the previous chapter, and which we will
confront once again, truth has become irrelevant in Pauls fictitious realm of faith.
The self-proclaimed apostle is counting on his audience remaining as he sees
them, ignorant and irrational, so that they will believe him when he says that
Abram was considered righteous simply because he believed.
And yet, every nuance of this is opposed to the Towrahs presentation of this
relationship. In the Towrah, God reveals that it was Abrahams actions, his
response to the terms and conditions of the Covenant, that facilitated his receipt of
its benefits, one of which was vindication. This is why Paul requires his audience
to completely overlook, even reject and discard, the Towrah.
But how is it even remotely plausible that the only historical account, the
lone eyewitness testimony, regarding the interactions and conversations between
Abraham and Yahowah, isnt germane to their relationship? If Gods witness
regarding what He requested of and offered to Abraham isnt reliable, how can
Pauls suppositions regarding a Covenant that he was not party to, one that was
formed two-thousand years before he was born, have merit?
Shauwls argument is akin to discounting the Towrahs creation account, its
revelations regarding Eden, its presentation of the flood, and the story of the
Exodus, since these things all occurred before Gods explanation of them was
recorded in writing. But worse, he is then offering a contrarian view of the
Towrahs Covenant while using the Towrah, itself, as his only reference.
In his next statement, Shauwl writes that men realize how to honor
covenants, and that they neither invalidate nor disregard them. So he is either
oblivious to what he, himself, is now doing, or he no longer thinks he is human.
The tactic which Shauwl is deploying is to distinguish between the
conversational promises God made to Abraham and the terms of the Covenant as
they were inscribed in the Torah. The fact that a case cannot be made that their
actual discussion differs from the lone record of it was apparently irrelevant to his
argument. Paul simply wants Christians to believe that they can bypass the Torah
and still have a relationship with God. But that is not possible according to God.
Shauwl perpetrates this scheme in part by suggesting that adding to the
Covenants conditions or benefits, which is something Yahowah does as the
relationship develops, somehow invalidates the preexisting oral agreement.
Therefore, his argument is: to capitalize upon the promises made to Abram,
Christians ought not consider Yahowahs stipulations, but instead ignore them.
That is because, as a man, Moseh was not in a position to delineate conditions for
participation.
The fact that Shauwl does this very thing is something he wants Christians to
overlook. Just because Paul is deceitful doesnt mean that he isnt clever. After
all, Yahowah warned us way back in Eden that the Serpent, Shauwls guiding
spirit, would be cunning.
To position the second plank in his thesis, Shauwl had to ignore these words
which were spoken to Yitschaq, Abrahams son: I will grow and thrive with
your offspring in connection with the highest and most illuminated heaven.
So I will give to your offspring everything associated with this realm of God.
And also, all people from every race and place on the earth will be blessed
with favorable circumstances through your offspring. This is because,
beneficially focused on the relationship, Abraham listened to the sound of My
voice and he continuously observed and closely examined My considerations,
the terms and conditions which comprise the Covenant, My inscribed
prescriptions for living which cut you into the relationship, and My Towrah
(Towrah My teaching, guidance, direction, and instruction). (Baresyth /
Genesis 26:4-5)
Disregarding the Divine affirmation that Yahowah shared His Towrah
Teaching and Guidance with Abraham concurrent with His presentation of the
Covenant, Shauwl would like his devotees to believe:
Brothers (adelphos), according to (kata among, down from, against, and
in opposition to) man (anthropos human beings), I say (lego I speak and
provide meaning) nevertheless as a concession (homos similarly, likewise, and
all the same, even so and yet) a man (anthropos a human being) having been
validated with (kyroo having shown something to be real, having been ratified
and reassured, even authenticated by (in the perfect tense the ratification occurred
in the past and is producing validation presently, the passive voice reveals that
said man is being acted upon as opposed to choosing to engage himself in the
process, where the participle form serves as a verbal adjective and the accusative
case marks the direct object of the verb)) an agreement (diatheke a covenant or
promise, a testament or will designed to dispose of assets after death), no one
(oudeis nobody ever) rejects (atheteo sets aside, does away with, disregards,
invalidates, thwarts, voids, nullifies, abrogates, or refuses to recognize) or (e)
actually accepts added provisions (epidiatassomai actually or currently
accepts something additional (present tense (currently), middle/passive voice
(accepts), indicative mood (actually))). (Galatians 3:15)
As is the case with so many of Pauls statements, this paradigm appears
reasonable until you actually think about it. Then it becomes laughably absurd.
Man has elevated the violation of agreements to an art form. Legions of attorneys
attest to this sorry state of affairs. Not to mention that Paul is, himself, in the
process of rejecting and invalidating the Torah and its Covenant. Moreover, in
business and in life, as relationships grow, provisions are added to accommodate
the parties engaged in the agreement, delineating what is being sought by each
and offered in return.
For example, when our sons were infants, we fed and coddled them, and
expected nothing in return. When our sons were children, we provided a loving
home and sent them to school, providing an education. But at this point in their
lives, there were expectations, rules if you will, regarding the kind of behavior
that was considered permissible within our family. When our sons became adults,
we helped them buy their first cars and homes, hoping that theyd show some
appreciation in return. And now they are self-sufficient, building their own
families. Our relationship, therefore, with our sons has evolved as they have
grown. The same is true with most every business relationship in which Ive
participated. It is the nature of things.
With the Covenant, Yahowah initially asked Abram to walk away from his
country, which was Babylon, and his family, which was pagan. After they had
come to know one another, Yah asked Abram to trust Him. Then Yahowah
encouraged this man to walk to Him and become perfect, but not before He
provided the path and explained it to him, guiding Abram through the process by
sharing His towrah teaching. All along the way, God presented the conditions
and benefits of His Covenant to His associate and friend. He even asked Abraham
to pay especially close attention to what He had offered as well as what He
expected in return. Then, many years into this relationship, Yahowah asked
Abraham to demonstrate his acceptance through circumcision. Therefore, the
benefits of the Covenant were offered and explained over time as were the
requirements. This relationship grew, it matured; it was not invalidated.
It should be noted that during the Instruction on the Mount, Yahowsha said
that the Heavenly Fathers gift is the Torah and Prophets, and that the Torah
represents the narrow gate to life. This occurs in the same discussion where
Yahowsha obliterated the Christian theological position that the Law was
annulled by Grace when He affirmed that He came to fulfill the Towrah, not
annul it, saying that every jot and tittle of every Hebrew letter comprising
every word in the Torah would remain in effect as long as the universe existed,
and until its every promise was fulfilled.
So, the only way Christians can be right is for Yahowsha to be wrong. And
if Yahowsha was wrong, Christians cant be right. And therein lies the rational
conundrum the religious are unwilling to confront. Properly understood, this
passage is Christianitys death nail. After all, their New Testament isnt just a
monumental addition to the Towrah and its Covenant, it alters everything,
invalidating the entirety of Yahowahs testimony regarding life, relationships, and
salvation.
The Christian interpretations of this passage are as errant as Pauls
suppositions. The NA proposed: Brothers, by man I speak likewise of man
having been authenticated agreement no one sets aside or adds. The KJV
published: Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a mans
covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Jerome
in his LV promoted: Brothers (I speak according to man), if a mans testament
has been confirmed (confirmatum testamentum), no one would reject it or add to
it. Men and women have disavowed vastly more covenants than they have
upheld. And this Covenant is Gods, not mans.
Politically correct and charming, the NLT presents: Dear brothers and
sisters, heres an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or
amend an irrevocable agreement, so it is in this case.
The inspiration for Shauwls zera seed ploy also appears in Baresyth /
Genesis 17:8. But so as not to err in the way of Shauwl, lets consider the
statement in context. Here, Yahowah, who was speaking to Abraham, promised:
And (wa) I will stand up, establish, and restore (quwm), accordingly,
with (eth) My Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth), as a means to
recognize Me and as the source of understanding with regard to an
association between Me (byn) and (wa) between you, to help you observe,
think, and respond (byn), and between your offspring, so that they might be
observant and responsive (wa byn zera) after you (achar) regarding, and on
behalf of (la), their dwelling places and generations (dowr) for an eternal and
everlasting (owlam) Family Covenant Relationship (beryth), to literally be
and to genuinely remain (la hayah) as your (la) God (elohym) and (wa) to
approach (la) your offspring (zera) after you (aharown). (17:7)
So (wa) I will give (natan) to you (la), and to (wa la) your offspring (zera)
after you (achar), this (eth) land (erets) where (eth) you are living as an
alien (magowr), the entire (kol) land (erets) of Canaow (canaow) to (la)
eternally (owlam) possess and settle within (achuzah). And (wa) I will exist
(hayah) unto them as their (lahm la) God (elohym). (17:8)
And (wa) God Almighty (elohym) said (amar) to (el) Abraham
(Abraham), And (wa) as for you (eth atah), you should actually and
continuously observe, closely examine and carefully consider (shamar) My
Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth-y), you (atah) and (wa) your
offspring (zera) after you (achar) throughout (la) their generations, dwelling
places, and eras of time (dowr). (Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:9)
Observation which yields understanding is overtly opposed to Pauls pretext
of a faith-based relationship. And so is the realization that Yahowahs words
govern His Covenant, not Abrahams. But playing off a minor nuance in the
Torahs Baresyth / Genesis 17:8 and 26:4 presentation, Shauwl nurtured a seed
into a full born theory.
But (de then) to (to the) Abram (Abraam the abridged pre-Covenant
name of Abraham, which is based upon the Hebrew ab and raham, meaning
Merciful, Compassionate, and Forgiving Father), these (ai) promises (epaggelia
announced agreements (this time plural rather than singular)), from epaggello,
meaning to announce and promise to do something voluntarily while professing
the ability and authority to do as sworn, from epi, to be in position, and aggelos,
to be a messenger) were said (erreoesan were spoken and verbally
communicated (aorist, passive, indicative, third person, plural)): And (kai) to the
(to) offspring (sperma seed (singular)) of him (autos). Not (ou) it says (lego):
And (kai) to the (tois) seeds (spermasin offsprings (plural)), like (hos as)
upon (epi) many (polys a great number), but to the contrary (alla by
contrast) as (hos like) upon (epi) one (heis), and (kai) to the (to) seed (sperma
offspring (singular)) of you (sou) which (hos who) is (eimi) Christos (
while the placeholder represents Maaseyah, the Work of Yah, Shauwl discredits
Yahowahs involvement, thereby negating the title)). (Galatians 3:16)
Yahowah promised to supply five specific benefits to those who embraced
His Covenant. These include: immortality, perfection, adoption, enrichment, and
empowerment. So while it would be accurate to speak of these as promises
plural, up to this point Shauwl has said that there was only a singular epaggelia
promise. Therefore, this new twist reveals a troubling inconsistency one
which lies at the very heart of his thesis. Was there one promise, that being the
arrival of the Maaseyah, or were there a number of promises? And since God
says that there was more than one, articulating each of them in His Towrah, why
hasnt Paulos noted them or described them?
 It is widely known that the promise to bless all humankind through Abraham
was fulfilled in part through Yahowsha. But Yahowsha was simply the
implement Yahowah deployed to facilitate the Covenants promises. So while
Paul is acknowledging the obvious, using methods which are not altruistic, he is
simultaneously promoting a cover up. Somewhere along the line, he turned on his
own people and became anti-Semitic. What he is attempting to accomplish here is
to sidestep the lineage of the Covenant through Yitschaq and Yaaqob, who
became Yisrael. By writing them out of the story, he can jump directly from
Abraham to the Maaseyah and bypass the preponderance of the Towrah, the
Covenant, the Invitations, the Promised Land, and the Chosen People.
Christianity, which disassociates itself from all of these things, is the residue of
this ploy.
But credit to where credit is due. In the whole of the Greek language, it
would be difficult to find a more appropriate term in this context than epaggello
especially in the plural. It embodies the essence of the healing and beneficial
message Yahowah, through Yahowsha, brought to the world. It says that
Yahowah made a promise to voluntarily, on His own accord, furnish the
Maaseyah, the Messenger, who was in a position, and who had the ability and
authority, to do what He had announced in the Torah.
But I would be remiss if I didnt point out that Shauwls specificity here
with regard to zera being seed singular, not plural, suggests that I was right
when I said that it was unlikely that he accidentally misappropriated and
misquoted Yahowahs testimony to convince his readers that his message was
supported by the God he was offending. How is it that this man could have
misconstrued the intent of everything Yahowah has said, and yet isolate one
aspect of zera?
In reality, this is pure madness. Even today, both seed and offspring have
plural connotations and implications. If you asked someone to bring you a bag of
seed, what would you think of them if they made certain that there was only one
seed in the bag? Likewise, we say offspring when depicting our children, not
offsprings. Moreover, proving this point, zera does not have a differentiated
singular and plural form when addressing seed. When a person is depicted sowing
an entire field, zera is used, as it is when the descendants number in the
thousands or even millions. This argument, thereby, preys on ignorance.
Demonstrating that one requires faith to believe that God inspired these
words, the Nestle Aland has Paul saying: To the but Abraham were said the
promises and to the seed of him. Not it says and to the seeds as on many but as on
one and to the seed of you who is Christ.
 Missing the magnificence of the word which served to unify the Torahs
promises with their fulfillments, the inadequate KJV writes: Now to Abraham
and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but
as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
The Catholic Churchs Latin Vulgate reads: The promises were made to
Abrah and to his offspring. He did not say, and to descendents, as if to many,
but instead, as if to one, he said, and to your offspring, who is Christus. To this
Jerome added: ~ The Promise was certainly made to many descendents of
Abraham, since God used the figure of the stars in the sky and the sand on the
shore. But Paul is saying that the word used for offspring can be taken in the
singular sense, because the promise is primarily about Christ, (the one offspring
who redeems all other offspring), and only secondarily about the physical and
spiritual descendents of Abraham. The Roman theologian is saying that Paul
made a big deal out of nothing, and I concur. And to make his point, Jerome had
to change promises back to promise.
Speaking of making something out of nothing, the New Living Translation
would have us believe that zera and sperma both mean child. God gave the
promises to Abraham and his child. And notice that the Scripture doesn't say to
his children, as if it meant many descendants. Rather, it says to his childand
that, of course, means Christ. Therein we see one of the problems of Pauls
writing and reasoning exposed. His words and thoughts are far too easily
misconstrued and misrepresented.
The less evident, but more intriguing, message related to the use of zera
seed is found by connecting this promise to the one made in the Garden of Eden.
There, Yahowah predicted that the zera seed of woman would bruise Satan
on his head, which is precisely what the Maaseyah did. God also warned that the
Serpent would bruise mankind in the heel, which serves as the basis of Yaaqobs
name the child of the Covenant who became Yisrael.
Apart from appreciating the eternal nature of the relationship between
Yahowah and Abraham, and how that led to God blessing Yitschaq and Yaaqob,
and therefore Yisrael, in addition to providing the line which led over chasms of
time to the Maaseyah, this is all much ado about nothing. It is a pathetic
argument for the reasons already discussed. Abrahams seed is both the
Maaseyah, singular, and the Covenants children, plural. God obviously meant to
convey both aspects of zera, and spoke vociferously of the Children of Yisrael
and the Maaseyah. And indeed, as the children of the Covenant Yah made with
Abraham, those who are born into Yahowahs family become the Merciful
Fathers seed. Also, we have and will continue to see Paul speak of himself as the
seed of Abraham, discrediting his argument while feeding his ego.
 Once again, citing the book Christians are wont to claim Galatians was
nullifying, Shauwls next sentence is based upon Baresyth / Genesis 15:13. In
context, here is some of what Yahowahs Towrah reveals about the ongoing
nature of the Covenant, which He said would remain in force:
And He said to him (amar el), I am (any) Yahowah ( ) who
relationally (asher) brought you out (yasa) from (min) Ur (Uwr) of the
Chaldeans (a synonym for Babylon (Casdym)) to give (la natan) accordingly
(eth) this (zoth) land (erets) to possess as an inheritance (la yaras). (15:7)
So he said (wa amar), Yahowah ( ), in what way (ba mah) shall I
know (yada) that indeed (ky) I shall possess it as an inheritance (la yaras)?
(15:8)
He said (amar): Abram (Abram), you should know with absolute
certainty (yada yada) that indeed (ky) as one making a sojourn (ger), your
seed (zera) will exist (hayah) in (ba) a land (erets) which is not for them (lo
lahim). And they shall serve them (abad). And they will respond and seek
resolution (anah), accordingly, in (eth) four (arba) hundred (meowah)
years (sanah). (15:13) But also (wa gam), therefore (eth), that Gentile nation
(gowy) which (asher) reduces them to servitude (abad), I will judge (dyn).
And afterward (ahar), accordingly (ken), they shall come out (yasa) with
(ba) an intensely important and tremendously valuable (gadowl) possession
(rakuws). (15:14)
As for you (wa atah), you shall go to (bow el) your Father (ab) in (ba)
peace, satisfied, reconciled, and saved (salowm). You shall be buried (qabar)
with (ba) grey hair (sebah), good, moral, and pleasing (towb). (15:15) And
they shall return (suwb) here (henah) in the fourth (rabyy) generation of time
(dowr), because indeed (ky), the corruption, distortions, and perversity
(aown) of the Emory (emory) are not yet (lo ad) fully finished or totally
complete (salem). (15:16)
On (ba in) this (huw) day (yowm), Yahowah ( ) cut (karat) the
Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth) with (eth) Abram (Abram) to
promise and affirm (la amar): To your offspring (zera), I give (natan)
therewith (eth) this (zeth) land (erets). (Baresyth / In the Beginning /
Genesis 15:18) (Please note that while Yahowah is still using Abram, as a result
of the Covenant, God would soon change his name to Abraham, telling us that
this would be his name forevermore.)
The duration of time between the Covenant being announced through and
being established with Abraham, and it being affirmed in writing, was 430 years.
While Yisraelites lived in bondage for 400 years, Abraham didnt leave the
Promised Land immediately after the agreement was reached, and the Yisraelites
were initially welcomed guests in Egypt. Therefore, the Torah is right with 400
years of bondage and Shauwl was correct mathematically with regard to the
overall duration of time, because the Torah itself uses both numbers.
And while that explains the arithmetic, very few Christians have ever
attempted to explain what Shauwl does next. This is the first of countless times
that Shauwl will deploy a phrase that sets him apart from those who scribed the
Torah and Prophets. They spoke for God, but Paul speaks for himself. His but I
say is used so frequently, it should have alerted everyone to the fact he was
speaking for Paul when he wrote...
But (de) this (houtos) I say (lego I speak), A promised covenant
agreement (diatheke a testament, will, or agreement of some kind to dispose of
and distribute a deceased individuals property) having been ratified beforehand
(prokyroo having been sanctioned and validated in advance; from kuroo, to
promise and confirm publicly that something is valid, and thus truthful and
reliable, and pro, ahead of time) by (hupo because of, under the auspices of, by
the means of, and for the reasons that) the God (tou ), this (o) after (meta
with) four-hundred and thirty (tetrakosioi kai triakonta) years (etos), having
become (ginomai having appeared on the scene and arrived upon the stage of
history as) Towrah (nomos the means to be nourished by that which is
bestowed, becoming heirs, precepts which are apportioned, established, and
received as a means to proper and to be approved, prescriptions for an
inheritance) does not (ou objectively denying the reality of an alleged fact)
revoke it (akyroo invalidate, nullify, contradict, or void it, depriving it of
authority) so as to (eis) invalidate or abolish (katargeo idle or inactivate,
diminish or remove the force of) the (o) announced promise (epaggelia the
heralding of the consent approval and agreement (singular)). (Galatians 3:17)
You may have noticed that the singular promise which became promises,
plural, is now singular again. This is a symptom of one of the many problems
associated with lying: remembering what was said.
Let there be no doubt, speaking for Himself, Yahowah, in Baresyth / Genesis
26:5, told us unequivocally that He not only shared His Towrah with Abraham,
but that the reason He was now honoring its provisions with Yitschaq was
because Abraham listened intently and carefully observed everything He had to
say. Therefore, the very Towrah which presents the Covenant was concurrent
with it. These are parallel events, not sequential.
For comparison sake, the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition
with McReynolds English Interlinear attests that Paul wrote: But this I say,
agreement having been validated before by the God, the after four hundred and
thirty years, having become law not invalidates for the to abolish the promise.
 As has become his custom, Paul has positioned a principle that is only
plausible if the audience is unaware of what Yahowah has written. He is
suggesting that the Towrah is irrelevant because the Covenant preceded it, and
therefore cannot nullify it. When in reality, the Towrah not only confirms every
nuance of the Covenant, without the Towrah, the Covenant is unknown and
unknowable. Therefore, this argument is irrational, preying on peoples
ignorance.
Simply stated: without the Towrah, there is no Covenant. With the Towrah,
there is only one Covenant. The Covenant is inseparable from the Towrah. One
does not exist without the other.
As mentioned a moment ago, it is inappropriate, although not out of
character, for Paul to begin this statement with But this I say. It is as if he thinks
his personal suppositions, even when they are in conflict with God, are superior.
And yet here, what he is saying is only believable if you are unaware of what
Yahowah has said.
Rather than affirm that the Covenant established with Abraham was validated
and memorialized in the Towrah, Shauwl is proposing the notion that the Torah
did not revoke or invalidate it. In that way, rather than the Torah being essential
to the Covenant, it becomes irrelevant to it. This strategy was ingenious, albeit
insidious.
To understand why Shauwl used such twisted logic, blending half-truths
with outright lies, we have to consider this statement within the context of the
point he has been trying to advance. Paul is linking the promise / promises made
to Abraham with the Maaseyah and then to believing the message he has
been preaching, while at the same time bypassing the entirety of Torah, which
must be negated for his formula to prevail. Therefore, he is telling the Galatians
that since the Torah cannot revoke or invalidate the promise / promises, the Torah
is extraneous to that promise or promises.
The reason this clever, although ridiculous, line of reasoning prevailed is that
the natural tendency of people ensnared in a religious system is to give those who
claim to speak for God the benefit of the doubt. I am embarrassed to say that I
was once counted among those he beguiled. And that is why I shared my
preconceived thoughts regarding Galatians at the outset of this evaluation. I was
predisposed to justify the discrepancies between the Christian interpretation of
this epistle and Yahowahs testimony. I had hoped to solve the many conundrums
by suggesting that it was Rabbinic Law, not Yahowahs Towrah, that was being
assailed. But Id have to sacrifice my integrity and my soul to do either. Since the
facts condemn Paul, it would be immoral and irrational to absolve him by
concealing or twisting his testimony.
 It is ironic in a way. I have been vilified for having turned over and exposed
the rocks Paul has hurled at the Torah. And yet, in actually, and for far too long, I
was guilty of letting my desire to validate Pauls message taint my judgment.
Had Shauwl simply said that the Covenant was validated by God after 430
years, becoming memorialize for our benefit in the Torah, he would have been
correct. But he had an entirely different agenda. And not recognizing it initially, I
understand how easy it is to fall prey to his rhetoric. Yes, it is true, the Torah
didnt invalidate Yahowahs promises. But that is like saying the novel Moby
Dick didnt invalidate Ahabs vow to get the whale. Every last detail associated
with these promises would be completely unknown without the Torah. In this
light, please ponder:
Brothers, according to man I say nevertheless a man having been
validated with an agreement; no one rejects or actually accepts added
provisions. (3:15) But to Abram these promises were said, And to the
offspring of him. It does not say: And to the seeds, like upon many. But to
the contrary, as upon one, and to the seed of you which is Christos. (3:16)
But this I say, A promised covenant agreement having been ratified
beforehand by the God, this after four-hundred and thirty years, having
become Towrah does not revoke it so as to invalidate the promise.
(Galatians 3:17)
In context, the transition from promises to promise in the beginning of
3:16 and at the conclusion of 3:17 is glaring. Those skilled in rhetoric recognize
that inconsistencies of this type serve as proof that an individual is lying and
cannot be trusted.
The twist here is invalidate as opposed to validate. In reality, the
Covenants promises which were discussed between Yahowah and Abraham were
affirmed, that is to say, they were validated, while and after they were being
established, concurrent with the salvation of the Children of Yisrael from
bondage in the crucible of Egypta story central to the message of the Towrah
and its Covenant.
Rather than the Torah being bypassed, or worse, being negated and annulled,
by Abraham, the Covenant formed between he and God became the basis of the
promises made between God and all men.
Turning to the interpretive translations of Galatians, we find the KJV
inferring that since the Law cannot invalidate the promise, the Law must be
wrong, which is worse than, albeit a natural extension of, what Shauwl was
trying to say. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God
in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul,
that it should make the promise of none effect.
The Latin Vulgate isnt wrong; its just inadequate: But I say this: the
testament confirmed by God (testamentum confirmatum a Deo), which, after four
hundred and thirty years became the Law (Lex), does not nullify, so as to make
the promise empty.
The New Living Translation published: This is what I am trying to say: The
agreement God made with Abraham could not be canceled 430 years later when
God gave the law to Moses. God would be breaking his promise. After all, Paul
was composing the lyrics for their hymnals.

At this point, the writing quality, which has been abysmal, suddenly
deteriorates. This next verse requires a reordering of the words, the addition of a
verb, a preposition, and some articles. So lets begin with the most credible
source, the acclaimed Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with
McReynolds English Interlinear: If for from law the inheritance no longer from
promise to the but Abraham through promise has favored the God.
Because (gar for) if (ei as a condition) from (ek out of) the Towrah
(nomou the allotment which is parceled out, the inheritance which is given, the
nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and used to grow, the precepts
which are apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and
approved, and the prescription to become an heir (singular genitive, and thus
restricted to a singular specific and unique characterization)) the (e) inheritance
(kleronomai possession of gifts from a deceased parent), no longer (ouketi)
from (ek out of) a promise (epaggelia an agreement or consent (singular)),
but (de) to (to) Abram (Abraam a transliteration of Abram, Abrahams
original name) by (dia through) promise (epaggelia agreement or consent
(singular)) he has favored (charizomai he has done a favor to gratify and
pleasure, showing hospitality and merriment, serving as a derivative of Charis
the name of the Greek goddesses of Charity) the God (o ). (Galatians 3:18)
While this is preposterous from beginning to end, if we were to put some
lipstick on this pig, wed have to begin by reordering the last three words: the
God (o ), He has given and favored. Albeit this requires us to highlight the
fact that charizomai is the verbal form of Charis the name of the naked
goddesses of sexual pleasure and merriment in Greek mythology.
 While I suspect that weve all had our fill of Paul by now, in a way, his
continued and desperate attempt to portray Abraham and the Covenant as being
outside and apart from the Towrah adds considerable credence to the assertion
that this ploy is the fulcrum upon which Pauline Doctrine, and thus Christianity,
pivots. He is saying that, Abram, circa 2000 BCE, became righteous and
vindicated, and thus saved, as a result of believing an undisclosed promise.
He then wants us to differentiate this wholly unverifiable and conflicting
promise of salvation through faith from the Towrahs account which
methodically presents Abraham engaging in a relationship with Yahowah based
upon responding to what God had requested. But even if Pauls contradictory
claims were true, and they are not, even if Paul could validate his proposition, and
he cant, why would God deliberately present an inaccurate depiction of the most
pivotal relationship He ever formed? And if God cannot be trusted to tell us what
happened, why should we believe someone who claims to speak for Him
regarding this relationship and its consequences?
While this determination may strike some as premature and too far reaching,
please consider the following. First, in the Towrah, the process is relationship and
then salvation. With Paul, a relationship is immaterial. He goes directly from
believing to vindication. It is this improper perspective that beguiles so many
Christians.
According to Yahowah, trust is the second of five steps we must take to
participate in His Covenant. These steps, or requirements, include: 1) walking
away from our country, especially that which is represented by Babylon, and
therefore, from religion, politics, and patriotism, 2) trusting and relying on
Yahowah, which necessitates knowing Him and coming to understand what He is
offering, something that can only be achieved by studying the Towrah, 3) then
based upon this knowledge, walking to Yahowah to become perfect, a path guided
by the Towrah, 4) which is why we are asked to closely examine and carefully
consider every aspect of the Covenant relationship, which again can only be
achieved by studying the Towrah, and 5) as parents, we are asked to circumcise
our sons as our commitment to raise our children to become Gods children. After
we do these five things, Yahowah responds by making our souls immortal,
perfecting us, and adopting us into His Covenant family, so that He can enrich us
with His teaching and empower us with His Spirit.
It would be foolish for Yahowah to save someone who does not know Him,
who is not part of His family, who hasnt so much as bothered to consider what
He wants or to know what He is offering. If He were to do so, heaven would be
no different than earth.
 In the Towrah, salvation is a byproduct of the Covenant relationship because
our Heavenly Father cares for His children. And this is why faith in the unknown
is not part of this equation.
But with Paul, salvation is instantly awarded to those who believe him. A
person does not need to know Yahowahs name, consider Yahowahs instructions,
engage in Yahowahs Covenant, or answer Yahowahs Invitations. Nothing is
required. No knowledge. No thinking. No relationship. No action. No
commitment. And yet, should Paul be right, heaven would be hell for Christians
because those who have an affinity for the thoughtless and inactive myth will, like
Paul, hate the voyage of discovery we will take with Yahowah through His word
and world.
The second reason to discard Pauls ploy is that the scenario he is presenting
is rationally impossible. Since the Towrah is the only place where God introduces
Himself to us, the only place where the terms and benefits of the Covenant are
presented, and the only place where the path to God and thus to salvation is
explained, by negating and bypassing it, there are no promises.
Third, to suggest that a person cannot rely on the written testimony of God in
His Towrah, but can believe an unrecorded and unsubstantiated promise from this
same God, is insane.
Fourth, most every aspect of Pauls salvation by believing a promise made
to Abram theory is in conflict with the lone eyewitness account of what actually
occurred. To discard the written testimony of an eyewitness, especially when that
eyewitness is God, only to believe an arrogant, insane, and demon-possessed man,
is far too foolish even for faith. Doing so requires the faithful to believe that God
authorized a man to trash His reputation, to annul His testimony, to deny His
purpose, and to refute His solution, so that everything He promised and proposed
could be discarded.
And fifth, since Yahowah proved beyond any doubt that He is God and that
He authored the Torah and Prophets, and did so through countless prophecies, all
of which have occurred precisely as predicted, or are in the process of coming
true right before our eyes, to reject such affirmed testimony, and instead believe
in Pauls letters, a man who got his lone prediction wrong, isnt real smart.
Returning to the text of Galatians 3:18, kleronomai, translated inheritance,
highlights one of many problems with Christianity. As a result of Pauls letters,
the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms have been relegated to an Old Testament, with
the inference that it is kleronomai the will and testimony of a deceased parent,
or at least that of a retired and incapacitated father who is no longer relevant
because he allotted everything he possessed to his son. The same concern is
also evident in diatheke, which Paul has used relative to the agreement, which
also speaks of a testament or will which was written to dispose of and distribute
a deceased or incapacitated individuals property.
Also interesting, kleronomai is a compound of kleros which is a means of
selecting someone by random chance and, specifically, to cast or draw lots,
and the all too familiar nomos, allotment which is parceled out as an
inheritance. It is therefore a random chance means of determining ones
inheritance which is being errantly associated with the Torah.
Beyond this, the notion that because something is written it ceases to be a
promise is also absurd. A promissory note is a written pledge to pay someone
what is owed to them. A legal contract stipulates responsibilities and delineates
the things each party promises to perform. The contract does not change the
nature of the promises, it simply holds the parties accountable to the promises
they have made. Likewise, while it is actually a three-party agreement with the
government, most consider their marriage license to be a written affirmation of a
husbands and wifes oral vows regarding their union. Similarly, an affidavit
serves to memorialize oral testimony, making ones oath legally binding rather
than nullifying it. Written agreements mitigate misunderstandings and create an
enduring legacy.
This passage, combined with the previous one, once again precludes us from
pretending that Paul was referencing the Oral Law or Traditions of the Rabbis.
According to Pauline Doctrine, the Torah must be bypassed for the promise to
remain valid and for believers to become heirs of his god. Therefore, in his
warped mind, the affinity between the Covenant established between Yahowah
and Abraham, and the Towrah in which this Covenant has been memorialized, is
counterproductive. Therefore, with Paul, this is an either or proposition.
According to Shauwl, you can fail by following the Towrahs guidance or you
can be saved by believing in an unspecified promise made by the very same God
whose testimony is incapable of saving anyone.
Christians believe that Paul was right, because they have been misled by his
letters into believing that the Torah represents a works-based, onerous, and thus
impossible, means to salvation. And yet that is not remotely accurate. While we
must engage in specific ways to participate in the Covenant, our salvation is the
byproduct of that relationship. All we are required to do to become perfect and
immortal is to answer Yahowahs Invitations and meet with Him on the days that
He has set aside to save us. He does the work, as do all loving fathers on behalf of
their children. This is what Maaseyah the Work of Yahowah means. It is
what Yahowsha Yahowah Saves affirms.
Since from a Pauline perspective, faith in a promise requires nothing from
the beneficiary, what would be the benefit, if the result is to eternally coexist in
the home of a God with whom you share nothing in common and whose agenda
and priorities are the opposite of your own? After all, Yahowah is adverse to
everything Christians hold dear: Paul and his letters, being religious, discounting
His name, being referred to as Lord, the Christian New Testament, an Old
Testament, being anti-Semitic, a new covenant, Grace, calling His Word the
Bible, everything associated with the Church, the Trinity, the cross, bowing
down, being worshipped, Sunday observances, Christmas, Lent, Easter,
Halloween, the pagan myth of a dying and bodily resurrected deity, and prayers
apart from responding to His Towrah.
Relative to Galatians 3:18, the problem isnt with the translations, but instead
with the original document. Paul wrote: Because if, as a condition, from the
Towrah the inheritance, no longer from promise, but to the Abram by
promise of the God, He has favored and pleasured. The King James Version
published: For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God
gave it to Abraham by promise. It was a precisely accurate translation of the
Latin Vulgate. For if the inheritance is of the lege/law, then it is no longer of the
promise. But God bestowed it to Abraham through the promise.
However, Gerald Borchert, of the Northern Baptist Theological Seminary,
Douglas Moo of Wheaton College, and Thomas Schreiner of the Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary, working under the auspices of Mark Taylor, the Chief
Stylist, Daniel Taylor, the Senior Stylist, and Philip Comfort, the N.T.
Coordinating Editor, collectively known as Team Tyndale, with regard to
Galatians, coordinated this stylish theological twist whereby the promised
inheritance was nullified by trying to keep the law. Then for good measure, they
tossed in an extra grace, just to be sure they had paid proper homage to Pauls
goddesses. For if the inheritance could be received by keeping the law, then it
would not be the result of accepting Gods promise. But God graciously gave it to
Abraham as a promise.
Since the Torah provides the worlds lone depiction of the one and only
Covenant, it makes no sense whatsoever to differentiate between Old and
New Testaments. Moreover, according to Yahowah, His Covenant has not yet
been renewed, and when it ultimately is reaffirmed on Yowm Kippurym in Year
6000 Yah, that restoration of the familial relationship will be predicated upon a
full integration of the Towrah. Yahowah, Himself, has promised to place His
towrah teaching inside His children, writing it on our hearts on this day. So
the notion that the Towrah and its Covenant are somehow outdated, necessitating
new approaches, is inconsistent with Yahowahs promises.
Turning to Shauwls next statement, we are confronted with considerable
differences between an older manuscript and the majority texts as presented in the
Nestle-Aland. So while Ive included the additional verbiage found in post-
Constantine codices, Ive placed these words within brackets. But with or without
them, this nearly incomprehensible.
After having said that Yahowahs Towrah was both irrelevant and diabolical,
Paul was compelled to explain why God even bothered to write it. So, here is
Pauls most lucid explanation as it is chronicled by the Nestle Aland Greek New
Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear: What then the
law? Of the transgression on account it was set forward until which might come
the seed to who it has been promised having been directed through messengers in
hand of mediator.
Rearranging these same words a bit, but not misrepresenting any of them,
here is another perspective on the same statement:
Then (oun therefore), why (tis or what) the (o this) Towrah (nomos
allotment which is parceled out, inheritance which is given, precepts apportioned,
established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, and prescriptions
to become an heir)?
[Of the (ton) transgressions (parabasis violations and promulgations,
disobediences and disregarding, lawbreaking and overstepping) because of the
favor (charin for the purpose and reason of, for the charity and pleasure of) it
was continued (prostithemai it was provided and added to)]
Until (achri) the (to) seed (sperma offspring and descendants) which (hos
who) might come (erchomai may happen (in the subjunctive mood the verbs
action is a mere possibility)) to whom (hos to which) it has been promised
(epangellomai asserted, professed, or announced) having been commanded
(diatasso having been instructed, arranged, and planned) [by (dia through)]
messengers (angelos / aggelos a class of spiritual beings serving as envoys
commonly known as angels) in the hand (en cheir in control of) of a mediator
(mesites of a reconciler; from mesos middleman). (Galatians 3:19)
Paul has painted himself into a corner. At this time, especially within walking
distance of Yisrael, the Towrah was the best known and most often quoted text.
That is still true. It is the most accurate historically, the most prophetically
precise, the most thoroughly moral, the most consistently enlightening, and the
most innovative and important document the world has ever known. So now that
Paul has trashed it, his audience is obviously questioning why God bothered with
it in the first place. What was Gods purpose? What, if anything, did He
accomplish by writing it? Where did God go so wrong that His teaching is no
longer valid?
So Shauwl is floating another trial balloon, hoping that no one actually reads
or considers the book he is relegating to a bygone era. In Pauls view, Yahowahs
Towrah was a document ton parabasis associated with transgressions.
Yahowahs Teaching and Guidance ton parabasis overstepped its bounds with
promulgations, which is the spread, proliferation, and dissemination of things
which should be disobeyed and disregarded. At best, at least according to this
self-proclaimed apostle of God, the Towrah prostithemai was provided,
augmented, and continued only achri until the charin sperma the
fortuitous and charitable seed erchomai might come to rescue mankind from
the mean-spirited and incompetent god of that old testament. The replacement
sperma offspring would be more charin pleasurable, charitable, and
agreeable, treating everyone favorably, liars like Paul apparently included.
So attractive would be the replacement god, he would come in the name of
the Greek Charis Charities and the Roman Gratia Graces, emulating the
beautiful party girls of pagan mythology. That, according to Paul, was the full
extent of the Torah. And now that the seed had come, you were encouraged to
cast the Torah aside. Goodbye and good riddance, Gods alleged spokesman said
of said God.
I would also be remiss if I did not share two additional facts. First, Yahowah
specifically asks us not to prostithemai add to His Towrah. And second,
Yahowah routinely affirms that His Towrah is owlam eternal and everlasting.
If that were not enough to strongly suggest that Shauwl ought not be trusted,
the second half of his pontification is especially ripe with rotten fruit. From
whence is anyone to understand how to capitalize on the favor being provided by
the new seed? If the mercy He is providing doesnt come by observing the
Towrah, why was He promised in the Towrah? And why did He observe the
Towrah and encourage us to do the same especially when trying to understand
Him if we are to ignore it? Since He was the Word of God, how can He be good
if those words were bad?
Why pretend that the seeds credibility is enhanced because it was promised
that He erchomai might come? Scribed in the subjunctive mood, the promise
was at best probable. Do you suppose that Paul is trying to disparage Yahowahs
prophetic record in the Towrah and Prophets, where everything He has promised
has materialized? After all, any rational open-minded individual who studies
Gods predictions and their fulfillments comes to realize that Yahowah not only
proves that He is God, but also that His Towrah testimony can be trusted. So is
Shauwl implying that God just got lucky this time, and that wed be wasting our
time to observe His prophecies more closely? Or is he trying to discourage his
audience from considering the fact that the most complete and accurate
presentation of Yahowshas name, title, nature, purpose, timing, place, words, and
deeds is found in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, in eyewitness accounts
committed to parchment five to fifteen centuries before His arrival?
 Facts aside, it would be in Shauwls interest for his audience to relegate
Yahowahs Word to the scrapheap of time, because those who consider Gods
testimony will reject Pauls letters.
But that is not the end of the rotten fruit. Yahowshas arrival in the fourth
millennia of human history to fulfill the Towrahs promises in the Yowbel year of
4000 Yah, entering Yaruwshalaim four days before Passover, at the exact moment
predicted in the opening chapter of the Towrah and ninth chapter of Danyel, to
enable the benefits associated with answering Yahowahs Invitations to Meet on
Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuwah, wasnt per chance, but by design.
And while predicted and explained, it was not a command, and more importantly,
His arrival was not dia angelos by way of angels. Yes, Gabriel announced
His arrival to Danyel and to Miryam, but that was the full extent of any malak
spiritual messengers contribution. So once again, Shauwl is willing to
mislead his audience, hoping that they disassociate Yahowah from Yahowsha.
And yet in reality, Yahowsha is nothing more or less than a diminished corporeal
manifestation of Yahowah, set apart from Him to serve us.
Further, Yahowsha is neither mesites mediator or middleman. There is
one God, one Savior Yahowah. That is what Yahowsha means. No one comes
between Yahowah and His Covenant children.
Since Yahowah affirms that His Word would abide forever, Pauls letters
remain diametrically opposed to Gods Word. There is nothing in the Towrah
which suggests that it was a temporary solution, and if there were, you could
bet your oldest shekel Shauwl would have cited it. Virtually every important
instruction in the Torah comes with the provision that this is to be olam
eternal and everlasting.
Especially relevant, the Maaseyahs message is also the antithesis of Pauls.
It isnt just Yahowahs testimony Shauwl is opposing. Yahowsha expressly
refuted the notion that He came to annul the Torah, and said that even the smallest
strokes of the letters which comprise the words which proclaim its message would
endure as long as the universe exists and until every last promise is fulfilled. So
since Pauls message is in direct conflict with the Maaseyah Yahowsha, who is
Pauls sperma seed?
For the few, like me many years ago, who were hoping to salvage this epistle
by substituting Rabbinical Law for the Torah, this is one of many statements
where that argument becomes impossible. Rabbinical Law was still in its infancy
during the Maaseyahs arrival. Unlike Christians, who were beguiled by Paul
into believing that Yahowsha put an end to the Towrah, Rabbis never postured
such a claim.
 The Torah does not say that it was given because of transgressions. But
that didnt stop the KJV from proposing: Wherefore then serveth the law? It was
added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise
was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. The
inspiration for those words came from the Latin Vulgate: Why, then, was there a
lex/law? It was established because of transgressions, until the offspring would
arrive, to whom he made the promise, ordained by Angelos through the hand of a
mediator.
A disclaimer is in order: what you are about to read is not true. Using the
New Living Translation may be harmful to your health. Why, then, was the law
given? It was given alongside the promise to show people their sins. But the law
was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised. God
gave his law through angels to Moses, who was the mediator between God and
the people.
That is not what Paul wrote, and thus the NLT is not a translation. It isnt
even true. It is not what Yahowah said about the Torahs purpose, so this message
is counter to Scripture. And this position is the opposite of Yahowshas
statements regarding the Torah. Moreover, not only is law an invalid depiction
of the Towrah, it was not given by way of angles. That means that Gerald
Borchert, of the Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Douglas Moo of
Wheaton College, Thomas Schreiner of the Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary, and their stylists Mark and Daniel Taylor, and Philip Comfort, have
joined with Shauwl to deceive all gaining fame and making money in the
process.
How do you suppose these scholars reconcile their but the law was
designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised with the
Child of the promise saying:
You should not think or assume (me nomizomai you not consider,
expect, nor suppose at any time even the possibility of the commonly held or
popularly established presumption, never accepting the prevailing precept or
justification (negative particle, aorist active subjunctive verb)) that (hoti
namely) I actually came (erchomai I in fact appeared then, now, or in the
future (aorist active indicative)) to tear down, invalidate, put an end to, or
discard (kataluo to dissolve, destroy, disunite, subvert, overthrow, abrogate,
weaken, dismantle, or abolish, releasing or dismissing any of the implications,
force, influence, or validity of) the Towrah (ton nomon that which has been
assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) or the Prophets (e tous prophetes
those who are inspired to speak and write based upon divine inspiration, making
Gods thoughts and plans known even before they happen).
 I actually came not (ouk erchomai) to dismiss, to invalidate, to discard, or
to put an end to it (kataluo to tear it down, to dissolve, to destroy, to disunite,
to subvert, to overthrow, to abrogate, to weaken, to dismantle, or to abolish it,
dismissing any implication or influence), but instead (alla to the contrary,
emphatically contrasting that to the certainty) to completely fulfill it (pleroo to
proclaim and complete it, providing the true meaning and thinking, to liberally
supply, carrying out, accomplishing, and rendering it totally and perfectly). (5:17)
Because (gar for this reason then so that you understand) in deed and in
truth (amen truly and reliably), I say to you (lego sy), till (hoes up to the
point that) with absolute certainty (an) the heaven and the earth (o ouranos e
ge the universe and the surface of the planet) cease to exist (parerchomai pass
away, disappearing), not ever under any circumstance shall (ou me there is no
way whatsoever, not even so much as a possibility that) one aspect of the
smallest letter (eis iota shall a single Yowd, the first letter in Yahowahs name
and the smallest character in the Hebrew alphabet) nor (e) a single stroke of the
pen (mia keraia one of the smallest line distinguishing any aspect of any
Hebrew letter) cease to be relevant (parerchomai be averted or neglected, have
any chance of being ignored or disregarded, being passed over or omitted,
perishing) from (apo being disassociated, separated, or severed from) the
Towrah (tou nomou that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an
inheritance) until with absolute certainty (hoes an) everything (pas every last
aspect, all and the totality of it) comes to exist (ginomai it all take place and
happens, becoming a reality). (5:18)
Therefore (oun indeed and as a result), whoever may (hos ean if at any
time anyone introduces a contingency or condition whereby the individual)
dismiss or attempt to do away with (luo may seek to toss aside, invalidate, or
abolish, tearing away or asunder) one of the (mian ton) smallest and least
important of these (houtos ton elachistos) prescriptions and instructions
which are enjoined (entole rules, regulations, and authorized directions,
precepts, and teachings), and (kai) he may instruct or indoctrinate (didasko
he might teach, delivering moralizing discourses while conceiving and instilling
doctrine, expounding or explaining so as to enjoin) people (anthropos humanity
or mankind) in this manner (houto thusly and likewise), he will actually be
called by the name and will be judicially and legally summoned as (kaleo he
will be referred to and called by the proper name, literally and passively
summoned, called to task and designated) Lowly and Little (elachistos a.k.a.,
Paulos, which means small, inadequate, and insignificant, scarce and insufficient,
irrelevant and unimportant, of no consequence, immaterial, and inconsequential
(Paulos, the Latin name Shauwl adopted as his own means elachistos lowly
and little)) in the kingdom of heaven (en te basileia ton ouranos by, within,
among, and with regard to the reign and royal authority of the heavens).
And then (de but by contrast), whosoever (hos an) might act upon it
(poieomai may engage through it, making the most of it, attempting to carry out
its assigned tasks (aorist active subjunctive)), teaching it (didasko trying to
provide and share its instructions, expounding upon it), this individual (houtos
these things) will properly be referred to and named (kaleo it will be
judiciously and appropriately called and designated) great and important (megas
astonishingly valuable, splendid and sensible, albeit surprisingly uncommon)
among those who reign within the heavens (en te basileia ton ouranos by and
with regard to the kingdom and royal authority of the heavens). (Mattanyah /
Yahowahs Gift / Matthew 5:19)
While Yahowsha spoke to His audience in Hebrew, the translation of His
Instruction on the Mount begins using me nomizomai in the aorist active
subjunctive, which is an express prohibition against accepting what will become
a commonly held belief. In this tense and mood, this is something so wrong we
should not allow ourselves to even begin to think this way, no matter how popular
or prevalent this sentiment is within our society. Therefore, Yahowsha was
telling us that so many people would embrace the myth that Shauwl has been
promoting that his justification and supposition would ultimately become
commonly held, customary, presumed settled, and regarded established
throughout the world. And yet it was absolutely and irrefutably wrong to assume
that Yahowsha came to invalidate any aspect of the Towrah, as Paul was
claiming.
Kataluo is an unequivocal term in this context and it is repeated twice. It
means that a person is in irreconcilable conflict with the Maaseyah Yahowsha if
they are of the opinion that His life in any way invalidates, subverts, sidesteps,
abrogates, weakens, abolishes, or dismisses any aspect of the Towrah. And that
means that the terms and conditions of the Covenant remain in effect and must be
acted upon to participate in a relationship with God. That means that Yahowah is
still inviting us to attend the same Meetings, expecting us to respond to Him if we
desire immortality, vindication, adoption, enrichment, and empowerment. That
means that the Towrah and its Covenant have not been replaced. That means that
everything Paul has said is wrong. Believe this insignificant man, and you will
die.
The most common Christian dismissal of Gods unequivocal statement is to
suggest that pleroo to completely fulfill somehow means to do away with
as opposed to doing what one has promised. But twice in this very same
statement, Yahowsha told us by using kataluo that this interpretation was in
irreconcilable conflict with His explanation of His life. Moreover, last time I
checked, the universe and the earth still exists. So we can count on the fact that
every promise, every prediction, every direction and inspiration in the Towrah is
going to remain true. This is what makes God so reliable.
Eliminating any potential for misunderstanding, Yahowsha was
extraordinarily specific, telling us that not so much as the smallest Hebrew letter,
a Yowd, which not-so-coincidently is the first letter in His name, nor even the
smallest stroke of the lines which comprise the Hebrew letters, which comprise
the Hebrew words, of the Hebrew Towrah, would be disregarded, then, now, or in
the future. Therefore, no matter how limited one perceives Pauls global attack on
the Yahowahs Towrah to be, it is now impossible to reconcile it with
Yahowshas statement. As a result of Yahowshas specificity, we are compelled
to conclude that Paul lied when he claimed to be authorized by God, no matter
how tortured the justification.
Incidentally, the reason that the validity of the smallest strokes and letters
which currently comprise the Towrah wasnt presented in Yahowahs customary
fashion in reference to His Towrah Teaching and Guidance, which is to call these
things eternal and everlasting, is because the words which comprise the current
Towrah do, in fact, have a limited life. By the end of the Millennial Shabat in year
7000 Yah (3033 CE), there will be no need for the Towrahs Teachings regarding
how to come to know Yahowah, nor His Directions on how to engage in the
Covenant relationship, even His Guidance on how to walk to Him by answering
His Invitations, because by this time every soul will have taken advantage of
Yahowahs Instructions. We will all know Him, be members of His Covenant,
and be recipients of every promised benefit. At that time, as we watch our
Heavenly Father create a new universe, we will still require His towrah
guidance, but then on how to live the most productive and enjoyable lives in the
spiritual realm where our power will be unlimited.
Yahowshas second to last statement is confusing for some. There is a
tendency to translate kaleo, he will be called insignificant as opposed to he
will be named Little and Lowly, i.e., Paulos, in the kingdom of heaven. The
former seems to imply that this insufficient individual is in heaven, but holds a
lowly status, while the latter reveals the individuals personal and proper name, as
well as describing heavens utter disdain for Paulos. Not only is there no
hierarchy, therefore, status, in heaven, since we are family, lowly and little is
Paulos chosen name, the name of the individual best known for having done
specifically what Yahowsha condemned.
Remember, Paul, which is a transliteration of the Latin Paulos, meaning
little and lowly, was born with the Hebrew name Shauwl, a name which is
synonymous with Sheowl and means to question. But since this man despised
being questioned, he abandoned his given name and chose to speak and write as
Paulos. Further, Paulos isnt a transliteration or translation of Shauwl, but is
instead a Roman moniker. And since it means little and lowly, it would be
foolish to ignore this coincidence, especially since Paulos founded the worlds
most popular religion by doing the very thing Yahowsha admonished us not to
do.
From the opposing perspective, those who do the opposite of what Paulos
said and did, who act upon the Towrah, and who to the best of their ability teach
the Towrah, expounding upon it, their contribution to Yahowahs Covenant
family is called great, even important. It isnt that those who do so hold some sort
of elevated status, but instead it is their willingness to engage with God and share
His instructions which is seen as uncommon, both astonishingly valuable and
sensible.
It is also interesting to note that many, if not most, of the prophecies
presented in the Torah are yet unfulfilled. Yahowsha has not returned. Yisrael
and Yahuwdym have not been reconciled. The Millennial Sabbath has not
commenced. The Towrahless One, or Antichrist, has not yet been manifest. The
Tribulation has not occurred. Neither the Magog nor Armageddon wars have been
waged. The promises associated with the final three Miqraey Taruwah,
Kippurym, and Sukah have not been enabled. Therefore, the Torah could not
have ended its useful life, even if such a thing was possible, 2,000 years ago. Paul
is wrong on all accounts.

Returning to the anti-Towrah diatribe being promoted by the little and lowly
one, I must admit, his next statement is somewhat confusing. We are required to
speculate on what he is attempting to convey. And based upon the most popular
and respected translations, Im not the first to go down this winding road.
But now (de) the mediator and middleman (o mesites one who
intervenes and either reconciles an existing relationship or creates a new covenant
(singular/masculine)), he is (estin exists) not (ouk) of one (heis of a single
thing or lone individual), but (de) the God (o ) he is (estin he exists as) one
(heis). (Galatians 3:20)
The interlinear associated with the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition reads: The but
mediator one not is the but God one is. In the King James Version, we find:
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Jerome wrote the
following in the Latin Vulgate: Now a mediator is not of one, yet God is one.
The NLT suggests: Now a mediator is helpful if more than one party must reach
an agreement. But God, who is one, did not use a mediator when he gave his
promise to Abraham. The self-proclaimed literal New American Standard Bible
published: Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.
To their credit, they used italics to indicate that party only and only were not
written in the Greek text. The New International Version, an extremely popular
paraphrase, conveys: A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but
God is one.
As an eternal optimist, Im wont to derive something sensible, even if Pauls
sentiments are all wrong. So, here is my best shot. I suppose Shauwl may be
trying to say that his mediator and middleman is going to create new covenants
for many, unlike the old god who is limited to one. As such, Pauls reconciler
may not exist as a diminished manifestation of God who is one. Perhaps even,
since a mediator exists to reconcile differences between parties, Pauls middleman
came expressly to conceive more accommodating covenants. But admittedly, I am
guessing, something a person would not be expected to do if they were reading
words which were actually inspired by God.
While this extrapolation of Pauls last point is not clear, it is clearly
inaccurate. It is a given that Paulos has not specified the nature of the undisclosed
promise he alleges an unnamed god privately made to Abram, or how he
became privy to it. But now he is saying that Yahowahs Towrah, which describes
every known aspect of this relationship and this man, is not only contrary to, but
is actually opposed to a supposed promise made by the same God to this same
individual. It is one thing for Paul to errantly claim that Yahowahs Towrah,
which is the lone reservoir of information pertaining to the conversations which
were pursuant to the Covenant is irrelevant, but to call the Constitution of the
Covenant opposed to the promises of that Covenant is a giant stride closer to
Sheowl, and to eternal separation from God.
Indeed (oun therefore and consequently), the (o) Torah (nomos that
which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) accordingly is
against (kata is contrary to) the (tou) promises (epaggelia the
announcements (this time plural)) of the God (tou U). Not may it become (me
ginomai it could but shouldnt exist (the optative mood is used by a writer to
portray an action as possible or to express a wish or desire)).
For (gar) if (ei per chance) had been given (didomi had been produced,
granted, allowed, and appointed) the Torah (nomos the source of nourishment
and inheritance) to be the one with the power and ability (o dynamai the
capacity and resources) to impart life (zoopoieo to make alive), certainly
(ontos surely and truly) in (en) the Torah (nomos that which has been
assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) would (an) be (en) the (o)
righteous and vindicated (dikaiosyne upright who are right and acceptable,
approved in the correct relationship). (Galatians 3:21) (While the more popular
and recently compiled Greek manuscripts have ek, meaning out of, rather than
en, meaning in, before the last reference to the Torah, as is found in P46, it
really doesnt make much difference.)
Once again, Paulos has stumbled over his own tongue. The same fellow who
was fixated on the irrelevant notion that zera seed was singular, now cant
remember if there was one promise or many promises. And while promises is
the correct answer, Paulos has shown a decided proclivity for promise singular,
which is invalid. But either way, such inconsistencies on something that drives to
the heart of his message is incriminating.
For those who may suggest that Paul is annulling his own conclusion that the
Towrah is in opposition to its promises, by saying Not may it become, please
note that the optative mood was deployed to convey one of two ideas, neither of
which serve as a refutation of the preceding comment. Paul was either saying that
this opposition was distinctly possible, or that he wishes that this opposition
wasnt so. And both positions are in conflict with the testimony of Yahowah and
Yahowsha.
And yet what follows is far worse. Paulos is stating emphatically that there is
no one who is righteous or vindicated in or by the Towrah because the Towrah
does not have the ability or power to impart life.
Au contraire, it only by observing and acting upon the Towrahs guidance
regarding Pesach and Matsah that we become righteous and live. The God of the
Towrah is the Author of life, its Designer and Creator. And the God of the
Towrah is our Savior, the only one who can absolve our sins.
Paul is once again saying that Yahowahs Towrah is inept. In direct
contradiction to Gods personal involvement and testimony, according to this
man, Gods Guidance and example cannot fulfill His Passover and Un-Yeasted
Bread promises, delivering life or vindication. But if this is true, nothing was
accomplished by the Lamb of God, rendering the crucifixion nothing more than a
gruesome spectacle. And who knows why God even bothered with Matsah. I
suppose He took the day off work, slumbering in the tomb.
If there is no power to prolong life or to facilitate righteousness in the
Towrah, why did Yahowah promise these things to Abraham? Why did He save
Lot from Sodom? Why did He rescue His children from bondage in Egypt? Why
is Yahowshas Kingdom equated to the Kingdom of Dowd / David, and why was
Dowd declared righteous? Do you suppose that Yahowah is going to model His
eternal reign after someone both flawed and dead? Where is Enoch? Where is
Elijah? Where is Moseh? Why did Yahowsha equate all that was good, valuable,
and reliable with Moseh?
 Or better question yet, suppose it was actually possible for man to kill God,
how does God dying save man? What made Yahowsha perfect? How could
Yahowsha be perfect if He lied about the Towrah? Was it just a cosmic
coincidence that Yahowshas sacrifice happened to coincide perfectly with
Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread, First-Born Child, and Seven Sabbaths in the
Yowbel Year of 4000 Yah? What enabled the reunification of Yahowshas soul
with Yahowahs Spirit on the morning of the third day if not the Towrahs
promises regarding Bikuwrym?
Said another way, if believing a promise to vindicate was all one had to do to
be saved, why was Yahowsha required to become the Passover Lamb and then
spend the Shabat fulfilling Unleavened Bread?
Or perhaps you prefer this question: if the God who authored the Towrah
cannot be trusted, if He is incompetent and impotent, then why would you believe
this man who claims to speak for Him?
Pauls most recent diatribe is part of a long argument, one that started in
earnest a half-dozen statements ago. His is a clever ploy, a disingenuous
maneuver designed to bypass the Torah, moving directly from an undisclosed
promise to our salvationwith nothing in between, including an explanation, a
relationship, or a depiction of Gods plan. Pauls purpose has been to put a wall
around the Torah, telling his audience that they can and must discard it.
But if you toss away the Torah, you discard any chance to know God, to
engage in a relationship with Him, or to be saved. It is such a costly decision, its
a shame that so many do it without a thought. And perhaps, just perhaps, that is
what Paul and his spiritual advisor wanted.
In direct contradiction of Yahowshas Instruction on the Mount, Shauwl is
overtly annulling the Torahs power to restore and to prolong life. In direct
contradiction to Gods Word, he is bluntly proclaiming that no one was
considered righteous and thus saved from the time Adam was expelled from the
Garden to the time the middleman died. If hes right, Yahowah is wrong, because
He called Dowd / David righteous and promised to do the same for every child of
the Covenant. For Paul to be right, Moseh is estranged from God. If Paul is
correct, the Exodus was a hoaxnothing but a cruel charade. Even Yahowahs
prophets were played.
So are we to accept Pauls assessment and thereby believe that the same God
who came to earth in the form of a man to save men was so sadistic prior to that
time that He conceived a plan in which everyone was destined to fail? Were
Yahowahs instructions regarding His seven Invitations to be Called Out and
Meet with Him a complete waste of time? Were the Miqraey for naught? And if
so, why did Yahowsha fulfill them?
 Perhaps it was Paul who created the monster that became Marcion, rather
than Marcion conceiving the legend that became Paul. Marcion just wanted to
write Yahowah, Yahuwdym, and Yisrael out of His canon. Paul wants to demean
and demote them.
Despite the claims made in the King James Version, the Latin Vulgate, and
the New Living Translation, Gods title does not appear in this Greek text once,
much less twice. Moreover, there is no basis for a question, much less an answer.
But so that you come to appreciate just how divergent these supposed
translations are from the Greek text, lets begin our review by considering the
Nestle-Aland Interlinear: The then law against the promises of the God. Not may
it become. If for had been given law the one being able to make live really from
law (not applicable) was the rightness.
Now, compare that to the KJV: Is the law then against the promises of God?
God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily
righteousness should have been by the law. Or the Latin Vulgate upon which it
was based: So then, was the law contrary to the promises of God? (Lex ergo
adversus promissa Dei?) Let it not be so! For if a lex/law had been given, which
was able to give life, truly justice would be of the lege/law. And now, the New
Living Translation which contradicts itself: Is there a conflict, then, between
Gods law and Gods promises? Absolutely not! If the law could give us new life,
we could be made right with God by obeying it. The fact that these three
translations agree with one another and disagree with the Greek text demonstrates
that they are revisions of one another. Publishers are businessmen and they know
familiarity sells.
Struggling to make sense of what Paul was trying to portray to his audience
has become exasperating, especially since his message has been so un-Godly.
Therefore, the time has come to consistently introduce each subsequent statement
by providing a scholarly frame of reference. We are going to use the Nestle-Aland
27th Edition McReynolds Interlineartodays most trusted textual resourceas a
handrail in Pauls inverted world. So please consider their rendition of Galatians
3:22: But closed together the writing the all under sin that the promise from trust
of Jesus Christ might be given to the ones trusting.
I dont claim that this is any clearer, but it is more precise and complete. To
the contrary (alla certainly and emphatically by way of a contrast), the (o)
writing (graphe usually used to designate the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms)
imposed restrictions, encircling, trapping, and enclosing (sugkleio has
trapped fish caught in a net, restricting and confining, binding and locking up
prisoners, hemming them in on all sides, completely shutting up) of everything
(ta pas) under (hupo because of and under the control of) error and evil
(hamartia sin, disinheritance, wandering away from the path, missing the mark,
and wrong-doing) in order that (hina) the (e) promise (epangelia (singular))
from (ek) the Faith (pistis the Belief or Religion) of Iesou Christou (
placeholders for Yahowsha and Maaseyah whose association with Yahowah
Shauwl has severed) might at some time be passively given to (didomi the
possibility exists that it may be granted without the recipient engaging or without
a plan, being bestowed without reference to time to (aorist passive subjunctive))
the believers (tois pisteuo the faithful, i.e., the ones who believe Shauwl).
(Galatians 3:22)
Beyond his vacillation over whether there were promises, or just one promise
(after saying that there were promises in 3:21, there is just one promise in
3:22), there are six significant problems with this statement. First, sugkleio speaks
of netting fish, and trapping and imprisoning people, binding and tying them
up. It is from sun, with, and kleio, to shut a door and withhold something,
making access inaccessible. To be sugkleio is to be devoid of pity, and to
obstruct the entrance to heaven. And here, Shauwl is saying: The writing
(a.k.a., the written Towrah) closes the door, blocks the entrance, and makes
heaven inaccessible, trapping everyone in a net as if they were fish. He is calling
Gods Word a trap and a prison. And as bad as that is, he will connect sugkleio
with phroureo held in custody as a prisoner in the next verse, exacerbating
this overt denunciation of Yahowahs Towrah.
Second, the Towrah does not encircle or enclose evil, but instead protects
us from evil, removing it from our souls, literally erasing the stain, while at the
same time insulating us from its consequence. The implication here is that the
Towrah is a pit or trap into which all evil flows.
Third, since Paul has said that there is no correlation between the unspecified
promise / promises and the Towrah, it is irrational to say that the same Towrah
exists in order to provide the alleged promise or promises. He is contradicting
himself, something Yahowsha condemned other Rabbis for doing during His
attack on them in Mattanyah 23.
Fourth, there is no faith of Iesou Christou. Yahowsha did not have or
promote a religion. He claimed to be the living embodiment of the Towrah. He
was resolutely Towrah observant. He consistently affirmed what Yahowah had
previously written. He did not add anything new.
Fifth, with complete knowledge and understanding, faith is nonsensical.
Yahowsha cannot be God and believe. If He requires faith, He is no longer God.
Sixth, the problem with faith is that it is always uncertain, which is why
didomi the possibility exists that it might be passively given to those who do
nothing at some time without reference to a plan was scribed in the aorist passive
subjunctive. Who and what are the faithful to believe? If the promise was
singular, and represented the Maaseyah, what were the promises? Why werent
the promises recorded in the Towrah? Why trust the verbal, unspecified promises
of the God of the Towrah when His written testimony is unreliable? How do the
promises save? To whom and to what are the faithful being saved?
How can anyone in his or her right mind place their faith in a man who is
quasi-literate, who is constantly contradicting himself, who misrepresents the
facts, who is often irrational, and who is demeaning the God for whom he claims
to speak?
Since the dearth of evidence in Pauls epistles makes trust and reliance
impossible, he obviously meant to convey faith and believing and, thereby,
establish his Faith on believing: To the contrary, emphatically and certainly,
the writing imposed restrictions, completely shutting the door on heaven,
imprisoning everything under error and evil in order that the promise out of
the Faith of Iesou Christou might be given to believers.
Christian translations agree. KJV: But the scripture hath concluded all under
sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
LV: But Scriptura/Scripture has enclosed everything under sin, so that the
promise, by the faith of Iesu Christi, might be given to those who believe (ut
promissio ex fide Iesu Christi daretur credentibus).
Writing their own epistle, the NLT proposed: But the Scriptures declare that
we are all prisoners of sin, so we receive Gods promise of freedom only by
believing in Jesus Christ. While it is obvious that these renderings diverge
somewhat from Pauls script, the task of deciphering the wannabe Apostle is even
more difficult than translating him.
So even if we were to limit sugkleio to enclose and restrict, the Torah is not
a vessel filled with error or evil. The Maaseyah Yahowsha had no faith and no
religion. And belief is completely irrelevant to our salvation.
Moving on, please consider the difficulty the Nestle-Aland Interlinear had
with the following text before reading my attempt to decipher Pauls subsequent
message. Before the but to come the trust under law we were being guarded
being closed together for the being about trust to be uncovered. While Im
sympathetic to the etymological reasons why the most respected Greek textual
resource consistently renders the term upon which the Galatians debate pivots,
pistis, as trust, as opposed to faith, every word Paul writes dictates that this
was not what he intended.
Shauwls next derogatory statement actually speaks of the coming of faith,
which is tantamount to the formation of his religion:
 But (de) before (pro) this (tou), to come (erchomai to go, to move, to
become, or to happen) the (ten) Faith (pistis Belief), under (hupo by, because
of, and under the control of) the Towrah (nomou that which has been assigned
to nourish and provide an inheritance (accusative case making it a direct object of
the verb)), we were actually being held in custody as prisoners (phroureo we
were being kept as prisoners, confined, strictly controlled, with guards in
opposition to us (imperfect passive indicative)), restricted and trapped (sugkleio
bound and imprisoned, netted and confined, locked up and out) to (eis) the (ten)
being about (mello typically the intended or impending future expectation or
hope, but this was scribed in the present tense) of the Faith (pistis Belief, a.k.a.,
Religion) was revealed (apokalypto uncovered, disclosed, and unveiled).
(Galatians 3:23)
To say that Shauwl and Yahowah didnt see things the same way would be
the understatement of the millennia. Phroureo is accurately translated we were
actually being held in custody as prisoners. However, based upon the compound
of pro before and horao seeing, Paul is inferring that the Towrahs
prisoners were kept in the dark and blind, but now, as a result of his testimony,
the faithful are able to see what those incarcerated by God missed.
And yet the overriding problem with all of this, beyond of course demeaning
Yahowah and annulling His Towrah testimony, is that Paul never explains the
basis of the unspecified promise. There are no conditions. Therefore, faith is
wholly ambiguous. As a result, what a person believes becomes irrelevant. There
are no rules, no guidelines, no consequences, no right or wrong, no definitions of
what is good or bad, and no absolutes or certainties. An individuals conception of
god, their gods purpose and will, even their gods means to honor his promises,
as well as what these promises might portend for those who believe such a
nebulous being, are all undisclosed and thus must be immaterial. The believer is
able to imagine their own deity, their own belief system, their own definition of
righteousness, and even project their own caveats upon what is expected and what
life with their deity might be like. With Pauls faith, everyone is entitled to their
own interpretation of god, of faith, of life, and of salvation. And no ones
interpretation can be any better or worse that anothers. But then, what basis is
there to believe anything this little and lowly man contrived? How is it that under
such a scenario, he can be right and those who oppose him be wrong?
The answer to this question is actually obvious. Pauls god has been
conceived in Pauls image. To know Paul is to know the mediator. Paul is the
seed. He is the source of the promise. Everything comes to a full stop with
Paul. That is why he prefers promise to promises. Yahowah has been
emasculated and Yahowsha has been castrated. We have been left with little
more than: but I say...
 But alas, if only that was the sum total of Pauls letters. If he had crafted his
religion out of a new and whole cloth rather than removing, re-coloring, and re-
weaving threads which had formed the fabric of the Towrah, he would have
fooled far fewer people and done far less damage.
Also, since but before the arrival of the trust is awkward, and the arrival
of the faith is a natural fit, this is yet another affirmation that Shauwl intended
pistis to convey its present religious connotationsomething further advanced by
his final clause. Pauls faith was built upon the ruins of the Torah, the only
document which can be universally trusted.
And how, pray tell, has being about faith been revealed? Since we have
been told that the testimony which actually revealed and accurately predicted
every aspect of Yahowsha life was wholly opposed to this new faith, where is the
substance of Pauls beliefs?
Keep in mind, the Maaseyah Yahowsha, who was revealed to us as
promised by Yahowah, bears nothing in common with Shauwls arbitrary and
imaginary conception. Shauwl does not provide a biography by which to know
Yahowsha. He does not quote Yahowsha. And Shauwl has been at war with
those who actually knew Him, condemning the Prophets and the Disciples. So I
ask you, how has the seed, the mediator, the promise, been revealed?
Most people would recognize that there would be no benefit of believing that
Dionysus died for our sins, acting as a mediator to save believers. So since
Pauline Christianity is modeled upon Dionysus, having far more in common with
his cult than with Yahowsha, and since Paul attributes Dionysus most famous
quote to his Ieosus, why would there be any reason for Yahowah to save those
who have mistaken Him for a pagan god? Might Yahowah have answered this
question when He said that the deceitful and broad way associated with Shauwl
was a plague of death?
Here are the Christian interpretations of Galatians 3:23. KJV: But before
faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should
afterwards be revealed. LV: But before the faith arrived, we were preserved by
being enclosed under the lege/law, unto that faith which was to be revealed.
NLT: Before the way of faith in Christ was available to us, we were placed under
guard by the law. We were kept in protective custody, so to speak, until the way
of faith was revealed. In this case, the English translations arent nearly as harsh
as the words Shauwl selected. But, based upon what has and will be said, this
accommodation isnt deserved. We are about to meet Pauls guardians and
taskmasters.
Even though the next verse is part of this same paragraph, it began so long
ago, a quick review is in order.
 Because if out of the Towrah, the inheritance is no longer from promise,
but to the Abram by promise of God, He has forgiven and pleasured. (3:18)
Then, therefore, why the Towrah? [Of the transgressions of violations and
overstepping, because of the favor and pleasure, it was continued and added to]
Until the seed which might come to whom it has been promised having been
commanded by spiritual messengers in the hand and control of a mediator or
middleman. (3:19) But now, the mediator, he is not of one, but the god, he is
one. (3:20)
Indeed, consequently, the Torah accordingly is against the promises of
the god. Not may it become (although it might be, even though I dont want it
to be). For if, per chance, had been given the Torah the power and ability,
the capacity and resources, to impart life, certainly in the Torah would be the
righteous and vindicated. (3:21)
But to the contrary, the writing imposed restrictions, completely shutting
the door on heaven, imprisoning everything under error and evil in order
that the promise out of the Faith of Iesou Christou might be given to
believers. (3:22) But before the arrival of the Faith, under the control of the
Towrah, we were actually being held in custody as prisoners, restricted and
trapped like fish in a net, to the bringing about of the Faith was revealed.
(Galatians 3:23)

Before we press on, now that the text of the Nestle-Aland Greek New
Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear is being provided as
a handrail with considerable regularity, and now typically in advance of the more
complete and accurate amplified translations, Id like to explain the process
deployed in rendering one of Pauls statements. First, Ill evaluate it as it appears
in a reputable and scholastic presentation like the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition. If
there is a pre-Constantine codex, I compare the older version to the more modern
text. Then I examine every word under an etymological microscope, even those
with which I am totally familiar (so I dont become complacent), consulting a
variety of lexicons and dictionaries, in order that all possible shadings are
considered, including tenses, voices, and moods, in addition to word order and the
deployment of pronouns, conjunctions, articles, and prepositions. Then I share a
more fully amplified rendition of what Shauwl wrote, always sharing his choice
of words so that curious readers can verify their etymological ancestry for
themselves.
 Next, I reorder some of the words as is required to transfer the thoughts they
convey into the structure of English grammar. At this point, I check verb tenses
and other grammatical references a second time, and then complete the translation
with an eye on the surrounding text. And as a rule, I try to render each additional
statement so that it is as consistent as is possible with the overall message being
delineated.
Then, if the etymology of a word exceeds what can comfortably be placed
within the sentence itself, or even inside a parenthetical devoted to the words
meanings, without the text being overly verbose and thus confusing, Ill write a
separate descriptive paragraph on the most interesting words. And then I strive to
share whatever the Spirit reveals to me regarding the statements veracity and
implications, adding those insights into my commentary. Lastly, when a statement
is complete, Ill go back and attempt to introduce it in such a way that the
transitions are clear and intent is readily evident.
So while Ive devoted more than a year of my life to do this as accurately and
fairly as possible, this current Pauline argument has been so antagonistic toward
Yahowahs Towrah, on my first pass through this material, I simply translated
each statement and moved on, hoping that the next line would help modify the
previous one. But nothing seemed to help. So in my struggle to deal with writings
this hostile to Yahowah and Yahowsha, whom I love and respect, I decided that
you were entitled to an independent witness. Therefore, Ive consistently provided
interlinear translations so that you would not be dependent upon my translations
alone. I have long ceased to be impartial. And this is why I have been sharing
three additional English bible renditions, recognizing that the case against Paul is
made by those who he beguiled.
Initially, my hope was to extricate Shauwl from the pit it has now become
evident that he dug for himself. But since Pauls letter made that impossible, I
have taken sides and so has God.
The bottom line is: I am very uncomfortable with what Shauwl is saying.
Therefore, Im lessening the burden this places on me by exposing you to the
translations of others who are not bothered by him. For example, the Nestle-Aland
Interlinear presentation of the next line in Galatians reads: So that the law tutor
of us has become to Christ that from trust we might be made right.
In comparison to that, this almost seems sane: As a result (hoste so then
therefore), the (o) Towrah (nomos the allotment which is parceled out to
bestow and inheritance) has come to exist as (ginomai has become) our (ego)
disciplinarian (paidagogos pedagogue who instructs in a particularly pedantic
and dogmatic manner using strict, old-fashioned methods, with an overbearing
demeanor as slave-trainer of adolescent boys, an enslaving guardian, a custodian
who keeps trainees in custody, a harsh and arcane taskmaster, or controlling
supervisor of little children, often of those who were enslaved, striking, smiting,
and stinging them) extending until (eis to the point of) Christon (
placeholder for the Maaseyah (but without the definite article its obvious that
Shauwl meant Christon to represent a name, not a title)) in order that (hina so
that as a result), by means of (ek out of) the Faith (pistos the Belief or
Religion (in the singular genitive, this is a specific characterization of belief
system, a.k.a., religion)), we might, at some point in time, while doing nothing
ourselves, be justified (dikaioo we have the possibility of someday being
vindicated, declared innocent, and becoming righteous as a result of being
influenced (aorist, passive, subjunctive). (Galatians 3:24)
The unflattering metaphor which lies at the heart of this sentence provides us
with a window into Shauwls mind. From his perspective, the Torah is a
paidagogos tough disciplinarian lording over us as if we were slaves. The
concept, not surprisingly, was a loanword from rabbinic usage. The term carries a
decidedly negative connotation, and is distinguished from a teacher in that the
paidagogos is only responsible for mundane behaviors, such as the rules
regulating conduct, some as trivial as table manners.
Up to this point, Shauwl has promoted his case for his Faith by misquoting,
truncating, twisting, dismantling, dissolving, and demeaning the Torah. There has
been no reason to delve into the realm of Rabbinical commentary, Greek or
Roman society, or into the use of slaves. But since Paulos has now gone down
this path, we are compelled to reveal pertinent failings.
In the rabbinical mindset, a paidagogos directed the affairs of children, and
was used to describe slaves who supervised and directed the lives and moral
conduct of adolescent boys. It is from pais and a repudiated form of ago. Pais
means: a child, especially a young boy or adolescent, who is often a servant and
slave. It is in turn derived from paio, meaning to strike or smite, to wound and
sting. Ago and its cognate, agoge, mean to conduct training and discipline, to be
an attendant or servant, and to lead away, even to impel or force, influencing
the mind. This root speaks of leading someone away to the magistrate at a
criminal court.
Therefore, especially considering the Rabbinic baggage, paidagogos is in
lockstep with Shauwls tortured perspective on the Towrah. In his view, God, as
the Taskmaster, is a Pedagogue: someone who instructs in a particularly
pedantic and dogmatic manner using strict, old-fashioned methods, with an
overbearing demeanor, always ready to smite those He has enslaved if they dare
step out of line. Paul is then positioning himself, and his Faith, as less
constraining and overbearing, as more modern, more compassionate, more
tolerant, more generous, and freeing. Nothing is asked, nothing is expected,
nothing is required, and nothing except the Torah is wrong. But unfortunately,
also nothing is accomplished.
If, as Paulos is asserting, Yahowah and His Towrah are antiquated and
arcane, the logical extension would be to label His old-fashioned methods the
Old Testament. And then through similar extrapolation, why not label Pauls
more modern, less judgmental, and more universally tolerant, politically correct
and outcome-based approach a New Testament.
And speaking of Pauls influence in the conception of the Christian New
Testament, a tome his letters dominate, as a result of the faith-based salvation
scheme he conceived, a belief system emerged, one where the initiates can only
hope that at some undisclosed point in time there is the possibility that something
favorable might happen to them. Pretending to step forward, the religious have
been taken back to the myths and mysteries of old. It would be a leap of faith into
obscurity, uncertainty, and ignorance. To which Yahowah says, My people are
destroyed for lack of knowing and understanding. Because you have rejected
knowledge and understanding, I reject you from being ministers for Me.
Since you have forgotten the Towrah of your God, I also will forget your
children.
The paidagogos were not associated with schools, or with learning, but
instead with harsh discipline, so the KJV would be wrong with schoolmaster.
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might
be justified by faith. LV: Itaque lex pdagogus noster fuit in Christo, ut ex fide
iustificemur. And so the law was our guardian in Christ, in order that we might
be justified by faith. NLT: Let me put it another way. The law was our guardian
until Christ came; it protected us until we could be made right with God through
faith. There is no basis for it protected us in the Greek text.
Even if we were to deprive paidagogos of its arcane cultural baggage, wed
be left to resolve a whole new set of issues raised in Shauwls next sentence.
When you start with a bad metaphor, things go from bad to worse. Such is the
case with this, Having come but the trust no longer under tutor we are, as it was
rendered in the Nestle Aland.
But now (de) having come (erchomai having happened and become,
coming forth and arriving) the (tes) Faith (pistos the system of belief or
religion), no longer (ouketi not any more) do we exist (eimi are we placed)
under (hypo under the auspices of) an old fashioned and strict disciplinarian
(paidagogos a pedagogue who instructs in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic
manner using harsh, old-dated methods, with an overbearing demeanor, an
antiquated taskmaster enslaving children by striking, smiting, and stinging
them). (Galatians 3:25)
 In other words, believers have been liberated from the supervision, control,
discipline, and even instruction of the Torah. There are no rules, no
requirements, no directions, from God. He no longer cares what you think of Him,
what you believe, how you act, or what you do. Since there is no longer a right
way, there are no wrong ways. Every path, so long as it is nebulous and
unrestrictive, now leads to Pauls god.
In Shauwls religion, Yahowahs Towrah no longer exists as a meaningful
guide. In his Faith, mans fate is no longer linked to the path that God provided.
According to Shauwl, the Torah is pass; its dominion is overit is an
encumbering and hurtful icon of the past. Goodbye and good riddance.
So lets see if the most influential Christian translations followed their leader
down this ungodly dead end. KJV: But after that faith is come, we are no longer
under a schoolmaster. LV: But now that faith has arrived, we are no longer
under a guardian. NLT: And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer
need the law as our guardian.
Since the schoolmaster and guardian represent the Torah, according to
Paulos, we are no longer living in Gods world. The Almighty is neither teacher
nor instructor. There is nothing we can learn from His Towrah Teaching.
Since He is no longer guiding His children, we cannot follow Him. And because
His example is now outdated, we cannot benefit from His work. Yahowah is no
longer an influence in our lives. But if that is so, who is?
Pauls message in Galatians 3:25 isnt salvageable. For the paidagogos
guardian or disciplinarian metaphor to work, the one who leads us as little
children to our Heavenly Father has to be Yahowshathe Word made flesh. But
since our salvation cannot be independent of Him, the second half of the
statement is invalid. Moreover, Yahowsha is inseparable and indistinguishable
from the Towrah and from Yahowah, a reality in irreconcilable conflict with
Shauwls new belief system.
The best possible spin that can be put on this is to say that Shauwl might be
saying that while the Torah may have led us, however harshly, to the point where
we could embrace the Faith, its value ends once we have done so. And that means
that Yahowahs life-saving advice is suddenly beneath believers. But how is it
that Pauls Faith can soar above the Word of God?
Beyond this realization, how is anyone going to grow in a relationship with
our Heavenly Father without solid food, without devouring the Word of God,
without being nourished by God? The fact is, Yahowsha, Himself, explained His
entire life from the perspective of the Torah and Prophets. According to Him,
observing what they reveal is the only way to understand and capitalize upon who
He is, what He said, and what He did.
 While there are many reasons to be troubled by Shauwls paidagogos
metaphor, it isnt one which helps Christendom either. Pastors and priests present
themselves, as well as their churches, as if they were still the guardians,
supervisors, and teachers of their flock, as opposed to Yahowsha having lived
that role. So all they have done is substituted themselves for the Torah, and
thereby, they have become their own god. It is exactly what Rabbi Akiba, the
founder of modern Judaism, did when he empowered rabbis above an unnamed
god. As was the case with Paul, so it was with Akiba. One replaced the Towrah
with a New Testament comprised of his letters, while the other replaced the
Towrah with a Talmud comprised of his arguments.
Before we press on, a little perspective is in order. Mired in the midst of the
third chapter of Galatians, we are discovering that almost nothing Paul has written
has been true. And the remainder of what he has scribed is either
incomprehensible or irrelevant. Therefore, one has to be ignorant of what Paul
wrote, or irrational, to think of Galatians as being inspired by God. By claiming it
as such, your god becomes an unknowable, vacillating, inconsistent, unreliable,
and incomprehensible mirage.
This next line, removed from this abysmal context, would offer a glimmer of
hope had Paul meant pisteos to say trust and reliance instead of it announcing
the Faith. And while that is what the word meant at the time he wrote this
epistle, that connotation isnt permissible in the context of Galatians. As we have
come to realize, Paul hasnt provided any evidence for the reader to rely upon.
And he has relentlessly assailed the Torahthe worlds only source of universal
truth.
Still clinging to the original meaning of pisteos, while rejecting the original
title and name of the Maaseyah Yahowsha, the NA reads: All for sons of God
you are through the trust in Christ Jesus. So then more precisely and completely,
this is what Shauwl wrote:
For (gar indeed because) all (pas) sons (huios children) of God (),
you all exist (este you all are) by way (dia through and on account) of the
(tes) Faith (pisteos belief system or religion in the singular genitive specific
characterization) in (en) Christo Iesou ( placeholders for the
Maaseyah Yahowsha which Shauwl overtly disassociates from Yahowah).
(Galatians 3:26)
Trust is not possible if no evidence is provided to demonstrate that the
Maaseyah Yahowsha is the diminished corporeal manifestation of God set apart
from Him to serve us, the One who fulfilled a staggering number of exacting
prophecies, the One who walked out of the pages of the Towrah, observing and
affirming its every letter and word. Proving the case on behalf of Yahowsha is
one of the prime directives of the Towrah. It is why Yahowahs Word is filled
from Baresyth to Malaky with promises depicting what God, Himself, would do
for us. But all of that must be rejected, along with the Towrah, for faith to be
operative.
But apart from the Torah and Prophets, Yahowsha is without identity or
purpose. The Maaseyahs life is a lie and His sacrifices are for naught if He is
disassociated from His source. Who is Christo Iesou if not Yahowsha, the One
predicted and described in the Torah and Prophets, if not the Maaseyah, the One
He, Himself, claimed to be?
If Paulos is right, then Abraham, Yitschaq, and Yaaqob are estranged from
the Covenant. In spite of the fact that Yahowah said that the offspring of His
Covenant would be numerous, there isnt one.
This, of course, begs the question. If Bikuwrym First-Born Child is rendered
inoperative, if responding to the terms and conditions of the Covenant isnt the
means to be adopted into Gods family, what about Yahowsha? He observed,
upheld, relied upon, and fulfilled the book that Paul has said is devoid of life. So
is He, as one would have to surmise by this, dead and estranged from God? There
is no mistaking the fact that He, without exception or exclusion, advocated the
Towrah, not some new fangled faith.
So in its distinction, Pauls statement has become the foundation of
Christianity. Christians have been led to believe that they become Gods children
through faith in Christ Jesus someone whose accurate title, name, identity,
nature, life, purpose, words, and deeds they neither know, acknowledge, nor
respect. And since they have substituted all of these things for a character who has
more in common with Dionysus that Yahowsha, how is Pauloss new faith any
different than the belief systems of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, or
Romans?
By changing the order, and by rendering pistis faith, the King James
Version has captured Pauls intended meaning: For ye are all the children of God
by faith in Christ Jesus. However, that is not true. We are not all children of God.
In fact, most of those Paul preached to, and all of those who subsequently
believed his letters, are specifically excluded from Gods Covenant family
victimized as many have been by this false prophet.
Our Spiritual Mother enables our adoption into our Heavenly Fathers family
on Bikuwrym First-Born Child based upon our love for Yahowah, our
decision to engage in the Covenant relationship in accordance with His
conditions, our willingness to answer Gods Invitations to Meet with Him, and
our commitment based upon what we have come to know and understand to trust
and rely upon what He, through the Maaseyah Yahowsha, has done to facilitate
the Towrahs promises. But since one cannot love someone they do not know,
cannot engage in a relationship they dont realize is being offered, and cannot
respond to Invitations they dont think were written to them, what then? Are we to
believe that faith based upon ignorance, or worse, denial, has merit?
In reality, it is common for people to place their faith in faulty propositions.
The masses have believed fictitious proposals throughout history. But if the
promises regarding these things are unfounded, or worse, deceitful, destructive,
deadly, and damning, a believers faith is as meritless as the misconception. So
since Paul has discredited and discarded the only source of reliable promises,
what is left other than disappointment?
In his attempt to convey Pauls thoughts, Jerome missed this realization as
well. LV: For you are all sons of God, through the faith which is in Christo Iesu.
(Omnes enim filii Dei estis per fidem, qu est in Christo Iesu.) NLT: For you
are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Its telling that each
translation was arranged in the same order, one which flows in opposition to the
Greek.
Having dismissed the Towrah and its Covenant, there is no longer any merit
to circumcision, which Yahowah had stated was the everlasting sign of His
eternal Covenant. And therefore, the NA states: As many as for unto Christ were
immersed Christ put on.
Documented more comprehensively, this becomes: Because (gar for
indeed then) as many as (hosos so long as) to (eis) Christon (N), you all
were actually at some point baptized (baptizomai you all were dipped,
immersed, and / or really submerged without process or plan by the actions of
another (aorist, passive, indicative)), Christon (N) you all clothe or plunge
(enduo you all dress and put on; from en in and duno go into or sink into,
being plunged (aorist (occurring at some point in time without regard to a plan or
process) middle (the subject, you all, are being affected by your own actions)
indicative (conveying action the writer wants his audience to believe is real which
occurred in the past)). (Galatians 3:27)
Either Paul is unaware of the discrete roles performed by the Son and the
Spirit, or he knows them and is being purposefully misleading. But either way,
none of this is true.
We are immersed and cleansed by the Set-Apart Spirit, not the Son. And it is
our Spiritual Mother who adorns us in Her Garment of Light. We do not clothe
the Maaseyah. His apparel is irrelevant. Our Spiritual birth from above occurs on
Bikuwrym First-Born Child, as did Yahowshas. And this is only after we
have availed ourselves of immortality on Pesach Passover and have answered
the Invitation to come into the presence of the Spirits Maternal Light on Matsah
 Un-Yeasted Bread, which perfects us so that we are prepared to be adopted.
Paul failed to report any of this. And yet Gods Word from beginning to end
exists to delineate these profound truths, all of which Shauwl swept away with
the stroke of a pen.
There are some other issues with this passage. It has become obvious that a
second-century scribe, not Shauwl, supplied the Divine Placeholder XPN, which
would normally be symbolic of ha Maaseyah the Implement Doing the Work
of Yahowah. But without a definite article, its readily apparent that the original
author wrote Christon as if it were a name, and not a title. Further, since the
primary purpose of this epistle has been to distinguish Yahowsha from Yahowah
and from His Word, it would have been counterproductive for Shauwl to
reconnect them. The placeholders are only meaningful to those who use them to
find Yahowshas actual name and His Maaseyah title written in the Torah,
Prophets, and Psalms.
But that is only partially true. The Saviors name is actually Yahowah.
That is Gods one and only name the only name He wants to be called, to be
known as, and for us to use for all time. Yahowsha is an identity designation and
a mission statement, telling us that Yahowah Saves. By saying that He came in
His Fathers name, He said that His name is Yahowah.
Lastly, enduo, scribed as enedusasoe, and rendered you all clothe or
plunge, as a compound of en and duno, literally means: you all should believe
that you have at some point in time really taken a plunge and actually sunk in.
Thats insightful, especially considering the leap of faith Shauwl is advocating.
Duno was most commonly used in reference to the setting sun. In that Satans
name is Halal ben Shachar, which conveys the self-exalting son of the sun,
associating the Maaseyah with this is a demonic pun. And its troubling because
the souls of those advocating Shauwls scheme sink into Sheowl the pit
where deceased souls await questioning and thus judgment.
As has been noted, the verb, enedusasoe, was written in the second person,
plural, aorist, middle, indicative. The aorist indicative indicates something which
the writer wants his audience to believe has actually happened in the past, but
something which was not part of any discernible process or plan. And the middle
voice signifies that subjects of this verb will have been affected by their own
actions which is taking the plunge into Pauline mythology. Also since enduo
sometimes conveys the idea of having clothed and dressed oneself, in this way
too, it would be opposed to having the Set-Apart Spirit adorn us in Her Garment
of Light. This may be material because everything up to this point has been
decidedly passive, with everything happening to and being done for the faithful,
making this change significant. The inference then may be that those who are
immersed into Shauwls faith in Christon (a name which speaks of the
application of drugs) have taken the plunge and have clothed themselves in his
religion.
Shauwl has already disparaged circumcision in this letter, saying that it was
not required, only to associate it with the Disciple Shimown, who he condemned.
But he is just getting warmed up. Shauwls animosity towards circumcision will
become the dominant theme in this letter before he is finished. And here, baptism
is being positioned as a replacement for circumcision, as the rite of passage into
Pauls Faith. But let us not forget, according to God, when He condemned
Shauwl by name in Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:16, Yahowah
warned us, saying that Shauwls aversion to circumcision would be part of the
false prophets poisonous brew.
Woe to the one who provides, causes and allows his neighbors and
companions to drink, thereby associating them with this venomous wrath,
but also making them drunk for the purpose of observing their genitals.
You will get your fill of shame and infamy instead of honor and glory.
Inebriated, in addition, you also show yourself unacceptable, going round
about over the lack of circumcision.
Upon you is the binding cup of Yahowahs right hand (a metaphor for
judgment). Therefore, public humiliation and indignity will be your status
and reward (or Paulos in Latin). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk
2:15-16)
And this was just the conclusion. God told us that Shauwl would convey all
of these things. Remember...
Surely, this revelation from God is for the appointed time of the
Mowed Meetings (in other words when Shauwl would have been in
Rabbinical school in Yaruwshalaim during Year 4000 Yah (33 CE) while
Yahowsha was fulfilling the first four Mowed). It provides a witness and
speaks, pouring out evidence in the end.
Whatever extended period of time is required for this question to be
resolved, this shall not be proven false. Expect him in this regard, because
indeed, he will absolutely come, neither being delayed nor lingering. (2:3)
Pay attention, he will be puffed up with false pride. His soul, it is not
right nor straightforward in him. So, through trust and reliance, by being
firmly established and upheld by that which is dependable and truthful,
those who are upright and vindicated live. (2:4)
Moreover, because the intoxicating wine and inebriating spirit of the
man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal is a high-minded moral
failure, and his is arrogant and meritless presumption, he will not rest, find
peace, nor live, whoever is open to the broad path, the duplicitous and
improper way, associated with Shauwl.
He and his soul are like the plague of death. And so those who are
brought together by him, receiving him will never be satisfied. All of the
Gentiles will gather together unto him, all of the people from different races
and places. (2:5)
But they do not ask questions, any of them, about him. Terse references
to the word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, with implied associations that
mock, controlling through comparison and counterfeit, along with allusive
sayings with derisive words arrogantly conveyed.
There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him,
and double dealings to be known regarding him. So they should say, Woe to
the one who claims to be great so as to increase his offspring, acting like a
rabbi, when neither apply to him. For how long will they make pledges based
upon his significance, becoming burdened by his testimony? (2:6)
You have deliberately decided upon and conspired at the advice of
another to promote a shameful plot to confuse those who approach your
temple, ruining and reducing many by separating people from different races
and places, and in the process losing your soul. (Chabaquwq / Embrace This /
Habakkuk 2:10)
Yes, on three occasions now we have had reason to consider Yahowahs
testimony regarding Shauwl. And we, no doubt, will do it again. Nothing cuts
through the fog of lies better than Gods prophetic testimony. So we will continue
to remind ourselves that God despises this mans hideous ploy.
Ever in the dark, and never recognizing any of Pauls ploys, the King James
Version published: For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have
put on Christ. We dont wear Christ, and common words like baptizomai
should be translated, not transliterated. But again demonstrating the KJV was a
translation of the Roman Catholic Latin text, and not Pauls Greek, we find the
same wording in Jeromes Vulgate: For as many of you as have been
baptizati/baptized in Christo have become clothed with Christum.
There is no reference to united or new in the Greek text, and yet the
authors of the New Living Translation wrote: And all who have been united with
Christ in baptism have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes. And how did
team NLT come up with new in the etymology of the verb, enedusasoe?
 While we can and should be adorned in the Set-Apart Spirits Garment of
Light, we cant and shouldnt attempt to put on Christ. As the corporeal
manifestation of Yahowah, this would be flesh wearing flesh.
Further, if baptism was essential to salvation, why didnt Yahowsha baptize
anyone, including His Disciples? Why isnt it mentioned anywhere in the
Towrah?

No longer surprised, Shauwls next statement isnt accurate either. The NA

reads: Not there is Judean but not Greek not there is slave but not free not there
is male and female all for you one are in Christ Jesus.
No longer (ouketi) is there (eni there exists) Yahuwd (Ioudaios Jew; a
transliteration of the Hebrew name Yahuwd meaning Related to Yahowah) nor
(oude) Greek (Hellen), no longer (ouketi) is there (eni there exists) slave
(doulos) nor (oude) free (eleutheros freeborn), no longer (ouketi) is there (eni
there exists) male (arsen) and (kai) female (thelys), because then (gar) all
(pas) of you (sy) exist as (este) one (heis) in (en) Christo ( placeholder for
the Maaseyah (but without the definite article its being deployed as a name
meaning drugged)) Iesou ( placeholder for Yahowsha whom Shauwl
has disassociated from Yahowah). (Galatians 3:28)
It is hard not to laugh at Pauls hypocrisy. He has divided the world between
Jew and Greek, claiming all of the Greeks for himself. If they no longer exist as a
distinct ethnicity, if there is no difference, what was the point? Likewise, he has
wallowed in the myth that faith in the promise frees, while observing the Torah
enslaves. But how can that be if no one is a slave and no one is free? And in other
letters, he will demean women, subjecting them to be lorded over by men,
something that makes no sense in a genderless realm.
If there is no longer Yahuwdym, why has Yahowah promised in Yirmayah /
Jeremiah 31 to reconcile Yahuwdah and Yisrael when He returns to restore His
Covenant on Yowm Kippurym the Day of Reconciliations in Year 6000 Yah
(2033 CE)? And if gender was irrelevant, why does Yahowsha present Yahowah
as our Heavenly Father? Why also is the Ruwach Qodesh Set-Apart Spirit
depicted as Maternal? Why are we encouraged to value our Father and Mother as
the Second Instruction on the Second of Two Tablets Yahowah etched in stone?
How does a family like the Covenant materialize and grow without a Mother and
Father? How can there be a Son of God without gender? Why did Yahowah tell
us that He created us male and female? Why does He disapprove of sex
between men?
While our Heavenly Father has but one family, and while we can become His
children whether we are natural-born Yahuwdym or adopted Gowym, there is still
a very significant difference from Yahowahs perspective between Yahuwdym
and Gowym, and between Yisrael and the rest of the world. Most unfulfilled
prophecy deals with the reconciliation of Yahuwdym and Yisrael with Yahowah.
So just because something rolls off the tongue and sounds accepting and
tolerant, doesnt make it so. Yahowah said no such thing, and in fact, He says the
opposite.
Paul composed this verse to undermine the value of Yahuwdym and Yisrael
in Yahowahs ongoing story. He may also have wanted to demean the roles our
Heavenly Father and Spiritual Mother play in the Familial Covenant. And he
never knew the love of a woman, preferring Timothys adoration, so it is easy to
see why he promoted this peculiar perspective on sexual orientation.
Ironically, in the next chapter, Shauwl will contradict himself and say that
those who observe the Torah are still enslaved by it especially those associated
with the Torahs Covenant. And as Ive mentioned, all of the chauvinism found in
the New Testament hails from Pauls poison pen, where women are inferior to
men. And if that were not enough, he introduces himself as Paulos, a slave of
Christ, in his letter to the Romans.
The familiar prose of the King James Bible has come to resonate in religious
circles: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is
neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. But to the contrary,
according to Scripture, there are still Yahuwdym, Yisrael endures, there continue
to be male and female individuals, and thanks to what Yahowsha has done, there
are those of us who have been freed from mans religious schemes, setting us
apart and distinguishing us from those who have not been liberated.
Jeromes Latin Vulgate reads similarly: There is neither Iudus nor Grcus;
there is neither servant nor free; there is neither male nor female. For you are all
one in Christo Iesu. Recognizing the popularity of Pauls prose is promoted by
the King James, and knowing that familiarity sells, even the adventurous New
Living Translation left the lie alone: There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or
free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. Yet, to their credit,
apart from butchering the Saviors name and title, all three translations accurately
presented the words Paul wrote. Now if only Pauls words were accurate.
Some may think that Im being too critical here, and that Pauls last statement
was just a figure of speech, a bit of soaring oratory. And this perspective would be
valid if Paul were a politician, and if Galatians was part of an election campaign
rather than a treatise on a new faith-based religion.
Moving from a lack of discernment to a lack of consistency, Shauwl
concludes this line of reasoning by contradicting his initial point. If you recall,
previously he said that seed was singular because it spoke not of Abrahams
descendants (those pesky Jews), but instead just of Iesou Christou (who was
Jewish until Paulos gave him a Greek name). But now, according to Shauwl, we
all exist as Abrahams seed. This is not something to be dismissed. The singular
nature of the seed became the seed of Paulos faith-based religion. The singular
connotation of one seed at the absolute exclusion of many descendants is how this
all began. It was how Paul differentiated between the promise / promises and
the Torah. So while his reasoning has been flawed from the beginning, even if it
was valid, he is about to harpoon his own rationale.
His initial clause obviously needs a verb, but the Nestle-Aland was not
inclined to speculate on the kind of action Shauwl was recommending: If but
you of Christ then of the Abram seed you are by promise inheritors.
But (de then and now) if (ei conditionally) you all (sy) Christou (),
then (ara consequently) of the (tou) Abram (Abraam transliteration of the
name Abram, meaning Enriching Father) seed (sperma descendant or
offspring) you exist (este you all are) with respect to (kata down from,
against, or according to) promise (epaggelia agreement and announcement
(singular)) heirs (kleronomos receives of an inheritance). (Galatians 3:29)
As we have already discovered, kleronomos, translated heirs, is a
compound of kleros and nomos, therefore affirming that the nomos Towrah is
where we find the allotment which is parceled out to bestow an inheritance. I
say this because kleros speaks of a game of chance. It refers to a lot or stone with
a persons name inscribed on it, which along with other names on other stones,
was tossed into a jar, shaken, and then selected purely by random as a result of
which stone fell to the ground first. So, once again, the addition of kleros
corrupts the realization that our adoption into Yahowahs Covenant family is
predicated upon our choice to respond and not random chance. Gods family is
not selected by casting of lots, which is akin to divination, something Yahowah
says is an abomination.
But the problem is actually much bigger. Since the crux of Pauls argument
continues to be a contrived contrast between the Towrah and the promise made to
Abram, selecting a word for heir based upon nomos defeats the purpose and
demonstrates a complete disregard for the intelligence of his audience.
The KJV managed to turn a statement into a question: And if ye be Christs,
then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise? Jerome was a
smart fellow, so Im convinced that he recognized that Paul had just contradicted
himself. LV: And if you are Christi, then are you the offspring of Abraham, heirs
according to the promise.
There is nothing akin to and now that you belong to in the Greek text, so
why is it in the NLT: And now that you belong to Christ, you are the true
children of Abraham. You are his heirs, and God's promise to Abraham belongs to
you. In addition, there is also no justification for the, true, children, of, you, are,
his, and, Gods, to, (the second) Abraham, belongs, to, or you.
At this point, the second codicil of Pauline Doctrine is in the books.
Combined with Shauwls first plank, it is presented here for your convenience
and consideration. However, since this is redundant and repulsive, you may want
to jump down to the chapter summary and then pick up Pauls trail again as he
opens the fourth chapter of Galatians.
We are Jews by nature and are not from the social outcasts of sinful
and heathen races, (2:15) having come to realize without evidence, that by no
means whatsoever is man vindicated or made righteous by means of activities
associated with the Towrah, if not by faith in Iesou Christou. And we on
Christon Iesoun, ourselves, believed in order for us to have become righteous
out of faith in Christou, and not by means of acting upon the Towrah,
because by means of engaging in the Towrah not any flesh will be acquitted,
vindicated, nor made righteous. (2:16)
But if seeking to be made righteous and innocent in Christo, we were
found also ourselves social outcasts and sinners, shouldnt we be anxious that
Christos becomes a guilty, errant, and misled, servant of sin? Not may it
exist, (2:17) because if that which I have actually torn down, dissolved, and
dismantled, invalidated and abolished, subverted and discarded, this on the
other hand I restore or reconstruct, promoting this edifice, I myself bring
into existence and recommend transgression and disobedience. (2:18) I then,
because of and by the Towrahs law, myself, actually died and was
separated in order that to god I might currently live. Together with Christo,
I have actually been crucified. (2:19)
I live, but no longer I. He lives then in me, Christos. This because now I
live in the flesh, in faith I live of the god and Christou, the one having loved
me and surrendered, entrusting authority to control, influence, instruct, and
to betray exclusively and especially of himself for the sake of and because of
me. (2:20) I do not reject or disregard the Charity / Grace of the god if
because then by the Torah, righteousness as a result Christos undeservedly,
for no reason or cause, without benefit, for naught, and in vain, died. (2:21)
 O ignorant and irrational, unintelligent and unreasonable, Galatians. To
whom were you bewitched, deceived, slandered, and seduced? (3:1) This
alone I want to learn from you: out of accomplishments of the Towrah the
spirit you received or alternatively out of hearing of belief? (3:2) In this way,
you are ignorant and irrational, lacking in knowledge and unable to think
logically. Having begun with spirit, now in flesh you are completing? (3:3) So
much and for so long these things you suffered. You were affected and you
were vexed, annoyed, and angry, without reason or result, if indeed, really
without result. (3:4)
The one, therefore, then supplying you the spirit and causing it to
function, operating powerfully in you, out of acting upon the Torah or out of
hearing faith? (3:5) Just as Abram believed and had faith in the God so it
was reasoned and accounted to Him as righteousness. (3:6) You know, as a
result, the ones out of faith, these are Abrams sons. (3:7)
Having seen beforehand then by contrast the writing, that because out of
faith makes the people from different races and places right, God, He, before
the beneficial messenger acted for Abram, that they would in time be spoken
of favorably in you to all the ethnicities and nations. (3:8) As a result, the
ones out of faith, we are spoken of favorably, even praised together with the
faithful Abram. (3:9)
For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks of the
Torah, they are under a curse, because it is written that All are accursed
who do not remain alive, persevering with all that is written in the scroll of
the Torah, doing it. (3:10) So with that Torah, absolutely no one is
vindicated or justified alongside God. It becomes evident: Those who are
justified and righteous, out of faith will live. (3:11) But the Towrah exists not
out of faith, but to the contrary, The one having done and preformed them
will live in them. (3:12)
Christos bought us back from the evil and hateful curse of the Towrah,
having become for our sake a maligning and malicious curse, because it has
been written: A vengeful curse on all those having hung on wood. (3:13) As
a result, to the people from different races, the beneficial word of Abram
might become in Christo Iesou that the promise of the spirit we might take
hold, being possessed through faith. (3:14)
Brothers, according to man I say nevertheless a man having been
validated with an agreement; no one rejects or actually accepts added
provisions. (3:15) But to Abram these promises were said, And to the
offspring of him. It does not say: And to the seeds, like upon many. But to
the contrary, as upon one, and to the seed of you which is Christos. (3:16) But
this I say, A promised covenant agreement having been ratified beforehand
by the God, this after four-hundred and thirty years, having become Towrah
does not revokes it so as to invalidate the promise. (3:17)
Because if out of the Towrah, the inheritance is no longer from promise,
but to the Abram by promise of God, He has forgiven and pleasured. (3:18)
Then, therefore, why the Towrah? Of the transgressions of violations and
overstepping, because of the favor and pleasure, it was continued and added to
Until the seed which might come to whom it has been promised having been
commanded by spiritual messengers in the hand and control of a mediator or
middleman. (3:19) But now, the mediator, he is not of one, but the god, he is
one. (3:20)
Indeed, consequently, the Torah accordingly is against the promises of
the god. Not may it become (although it might be, even though I dont want it
to be). For if, per chance, had been given the Torah the power and ability,
the capacity and resources, to impart life, certainly in the Torah would be the
righteous and vindicated. (3:21) But to the contrary, the writing imposed
restrictions, completely shutting the door on heaven, imprisoning everything
under error and evil in order that the promise out of the Faith of Iesou
Christou might be given to believers. (3:22) But before the arrival of the
Faith, under the control of the Towrah, we were actually being held in
custody as prisoners, restricted and trapped like fish in a net, to the bringing
about of the Faith was revealed. (3:23)
As a result, the Towrah has come to exist as our disciplinarian using
dogmatic old-fashioned methods extending until Christon in order that by
means of the Faith we might, at some point in time, while doing nothing
ourselves, be justified. (3:24) But now having come the Faith, no longer do we
exist under an old fashioned and strict disciplinarian. (3:25) For all sons of
God, you all exist by way of the Faith in Christo Iesou. (3:26) Because as
many as to Christon, you all were actually at some point baptized, Christon
you all clothe or plunge. (3:27)
No longer is there Jew nor Greek, no longer is there slave nor free, no
longer is there male and female, because then all of you exist as one in
Christo Iesou. (3:28) But if you all are Christou, then you are of Abrams
seed with respect to the promise heirs. (Galatians 3:29)
 While there have been a few isolated moments of lucidity, confusion has
been more prevalent. While we have read things which have not been totally
wrong, most of what we have read has been misleading.
In order to set all of this in perspective, based upon Yahowahs own
presentation of His nature, His purpose and plan in the Torah, Prophets, and
Psalms, here is how I would categorize the first seventy-four Galatians verses.
Completely Accurate: 0. (0 @ 0%)
Irrelevant: 1.2, 1.13, 1.14, 1.19, 1.21, 2.15. (6 @ 8%)
Insufficient: 1.18, 3.1. (2 @ 3%)
Half Truth: 3.8, 3.16, 3.17, 3.26. (4 @ 5%)
Unintelligible: 1.7, 2.14, 3.20, 3.29. (4 @ 5%)
Inaccurate: 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.20,
1.22, 1.23, 1.24, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13,
2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.19, 2.20, 2.21, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12,
3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.18, 3.19, 3.21, 3.22, 3.23, 3.24, 3.25, 3.27, 3.28. (58 @ 78%)
Therefore, not one of the seventy-four passages presented in the first half of
Galatians represents a completely accurate depiction of our potential to form a
relationship with God or to be saved by Him. And just 5% were partly accurate,
but not necessarily sufficient to advance understanding. So it would be fair to say
that nothing that Paul has written thus far in Galatians has been helpful.
While 6% of all verses were unrelated to our relationship with Yahowah,
thats only a problem in that Paul has been overly concerned about promoting
himself, and on establishing his unassailable credentials as an Apostle. And while
a partially accurate statement is acceptable in an ordinary letter, it isnt in
Scripture, and there are seven of them in the first half of Galatians.
Prior to having scrutinized Pauls every word, I was inclined to believe that
most of the difficult issues associated with Galatians were the result of an
inadequate resolution between the Towrah and Rabbinical Law. But upon closer
and contextual evaluation, there can be no doubt that Shauwls intent has been to
dissolve and dismantle Yahowahs Torah. He has left no other option in this
regard.
I was surprised to find that so much of Galatians was unintelligible. Either
the words in the text were insufficient to register a cogent thought, or the point
being made was incomprehensible.
But the fact that 58 of the 74 passages, more than three out of every four
statements, fully 78%, are wrong (that is to say they are in conflict with
Yahowahs Word and Yahowshas testimony) is devastating to Pauls credibility
and to the veracity of his foundational epistle.
And when it comes to evaluating the credibility of a letter considered to be
Scripture by billions, we must also add incomprehensible, insufficient, and
irrelevant to this total, increasing that which is unintelligible or useless to 18% of
the total.
But in this case, we cannot pin the blame on scribal error or careless
transmission. There are no older or more reliable Greek manuscripts than Papyrus
46, in which we find copies of Pauls epistles, including Galatians. Recovered
alongside the oldest manuscript copy of Mattanyah, Mark, Luke, Yahowchanan,
in addition to Acts in Papyrus 45, both codices are the product of careful and
professional scribes. And the most comprehensive dating evaluation concluded
that P46 may have been scribed as early as 85 CE, with the most pessimistic
evaluations placing it in the early second century.
Moreover, Papyrus 46 is remarkably consistent with modern manuscripts
which are based upon majority texts. At least apart from the absence of
placeholders in younger manuscripts, as well as in the Nestle-Aland, Papyrus 46
corresponds to the NA27 (Nestle-Aland 27th Edition) almost 95% of the time. So,
if we cannot trust the textual accuracy of Galatians, the rest of the New
Testament becomes highly suspect.
Based upon the evidence before us, and recognizing that we are still in the
midst of Pauls letter, we are in a position to make some preliminary conclusions
about the epistle to the Galatians. It would be fair to say that nothing Paul has
written in Galatians has been completely accurate or useful, and thus it has added
nothing to our understanding of Yahowahs Covenant or His plan of salvation.
Fully 96% of what we have read has been inaccurate, incomprehensible, or
irrelevant.
But to be fair, Galatians is widely considered to be Pauls worst letter.
(Although I dont think that is so. There are others which are considerably more
deplorable.) So if it was not for the fact that it has been used to say that we should
no longer observe the Torah, but instead believe this mans faith-based religion, it
probably would have vanished along with Pauls letter to the Laodiceans. If
only

LE: 08-13-13
 Questioning Paul
Volume 1: The Great Galatians Debate
Is Christianity Right or Wrong?

Echthros Despised Adversary

The False Prophet

The third chapter of Shauwls letter to the Galatians reached a bitter

conclusion, but its demon-possessed and psychotic author was not yet satisfied.
He remained committed to denouncing the Torah as his fourth stroke against God
commenced. Word by word Paul would build his case for Faith. It would be so
simple, it would appeal to a child.
So (de but) I say (lego), as long as (epi upon / hosos as much /
chromos time) the (o) heir (kleronomos one who receives an inheritance by
lot) exists as (estin) a small child (nepios an infant or baby, childish, immature,
uneducated, and undisciplined), he is no different than (oudeis diaphero he is
no more valuable than) a slave (doulos), belonging to (on being) the lord and
master (kurios the ruler and owner one who controls and has possession) of
everyone and everything (pas of all). (Galatians 4:1)
Recognizing slaves are owned, and thus do not own, and that slaves are
subject to lords, so they do not act as lords, given the opportunity to render on as
belonging to or being, I made the obvious choice. And yet as you shall soon
discover, most every English bible translation, holding a jaundiced view of the
Lord, opted to advance an oxymoron.
More importantly, those who speak for God write: Yahowah said.... Those
advancing their own agenda in opposition to Him write: But I say. And those
who speak for Him dont suggest that His Torah enslaves, or that God acts like a
lord, controlling everyone.
Inspiring the political slogan that swept Barak Obama into power, Paul has
laid his foundation for Change we can believe in. Too bad the wannabe apostle
and president sought to lord over everyone, leading them in the wrong direction.
Realizing also that this statement is an adjunct to what we have just read,
Shauwl is attempting to say that while the small child is an heir to the promise
there is no benefit so long as the child remains enslaved to the Lord of
the Torah. He is inferring that if believers were to reject the Torah and accept his
Pauline Promise on faith that they would be free to grow. And yet since the
terms and conditions associated with our growth are delineated in only one place,
the Torahs depiction of the Covenant remains indispensible.
But in the end, it all comes down to a simple choice: do you believe Paul or
do you trust Yahowah? God tells us to cling to His Torah as if our lives depended
upon it, and Shauwl has told us to discard it so that we might be free. If Yahowah
is trustworthy, Paul is not. If Yahowah is reliable, Paul is His adversary.
Most Christians would interpret this verse as demarking the change
between being held in bondage to the Law and the freedom given to those who
place their faith in the Gospel of Grace. For them it is thus the transition from the
Old Testament to their New Testament, with the latter being vastly superior,
less demanding, and infinitely more accommodating.
Christian apologists would also say that Pauls letters provide the
nourishment New Testament children need to grow once they are free of the
Torah and its mean-spirited Lord. But in reality, Paul never provides the nutrition
(defined as Gods Word) required to grow, preferring instead to dish out his own
personal brand of poison. Truth is upended and inverted, because according to
Yah, His Torahs pivotal story is the liberation of His children from human
bondage so that those who accept His Covenant might become His heirs.
Pauls Greek was so lacking that a handful of words had to be added to the
text to resolve the grammatical deficiencies of this sentence. For example, in the
Nestle-Aland, we find: I say but on as much as time the inheritor infant is
nothing he differs of slave master of all being. Yet since the King James Version
was a translation of the Latin Vulgate, these deficiencies were irrelevant. It reads:
Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a
servant, though he be lord of all. Even as Yahowahs child, we are not lord of
all. Moreover, being Yahowahs servant is something to aspire to, not disdain.
However, it is evident that Jeromes Vulgate inspired the English bible: As long
as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all.
As if they felt authorized to write their own letter, the New Living
Translation magically transformed Pauls meager, inadequate, and errant
suggestion into: Think of it this way. If a father dies and leaves an inheritance for
his young children, those children are not much better off than slaves until they
grow up, even though they actually own everything their father had.
Before we move on to the next plank, there is something curious about
kurios. It was translated the lord and master in this passage because that is the
words primary meaning. It could have also been rendered owner, which while
accurate, would have been an uncommon depiction. Kurios is from kuros, which
means supremacy in the sense of being powerful, strong, and authoritative.
When the Disciples used it in reference to Yahowah or Yahowsha, it was always
represented by a Divine Placeholder, which stood for Yahowah or the Upright
One respectively, consistent with how the same placeholders were deployed
throughout the Septuagint. And yet on those 667 occasions, new testament
translators have universally ignored their established symbolism and have printed
Lord instead. In the relatively few times in which kurios was written out, as it is
here, it is rendered lord, with a lower case l 54 times, as master 11 times,
and as sir 6 times by these same religious publications. And yet, kurios
primary meaning, which is owner, is only found once in the most popular
English translations.
Since Shauwls Greek remains wanting, lets continue to reach out to the
Nestle-Aland for help. But under governors he is and managers until the purpose
of the father. Considering this synopsis, it appears as if Paulos is attempting to
combine his first two codicils. According to the wannabe apostle: those who
observe the Torah are subservient to a Taskmaster, therefore the Torah which
imposed this condition was designed for obsolescence. Then if we are to believe
the Nestle-Aland, the purpose of the father wasnt expressed by His earlier
contrivances, even though God clearly authored those arrangements. So why, if
we are to take this translation of Paul seriously, would our Heavenly Father
conceive a plan that was opposed to His will?
Certainly (alla but yet and by contrast with an adversarial implication),
he is (eimi) under the auspices of (hypo) foremen who control the workers
(epitropos the manager or governor in charge over laborers (plural)) and (kai)
administrators (oikonomos managers of an estate who have legal authority
over an inheritance; from oikos, household, and nomos, a nourishing allotment to
become an heir (plural)) until (achri) the (o) previously appointed time set
(prothesmia the period prearranged, established, and fixed beforehand; from
pro, before, and tithemi, to arrange and set in place) of the (tou) Father ().
(Galatians 4:2) The intent is now obvious.
Epitropos, rendered foremen who control the workers, is a compound of
epi, by, and tropos: a manner, way, or fashion. It speaks of those who are in
control, whether they are managers, foremen, political officials, or even
governors. It is another way of saying that the Torahs God is authoritarian and
controlling and that His approach is burdensome and laborious. These
mischaracterizations are designed to make Paul and his Faith appear preferable.
He continues to deploy one derogatory metaphor after another to besmirch
the Towrah and its Author. Since he first foisted paidagogos, enslaved leader of
boys or taskmaster, in Galatians 3:24, this approach has become curious to say
the least. Wouldnt this positioning of the God of freewill and empowerment as
controlling, stunting the growth of His children, make Shauwl Yahowahs
adversary? In his tortured attempt to make the Torah appear pass, the author of
the Christian New Testament is steadfastly undermining his own credentials.
Even in this sentence, the epitropos, foremen, and oikonomos, estate
administrators, are strange bedfellows. The first reference is to those who on
behalf of the political authority direct and control common laborers, and the
second describes property and money managers hired by a homeowner. They are
incompatible concepts, and neither are appropriate in reference to the Torah, even
when trying to belittle it.
Especially troubling, Paul is attempting to say that the Torah was a temporary
administrator, but both epitropos and oikonomos are plural. And yet there is only
one Torah, so this was clearly a gaffe in reasoning. And while there is more than
one source of Rabbinic Law, we cant use this as an excuse because the
foremen and managers are working on behalf of the Father at the end of the
passage, and there is no association between Rabbinic Law and our Heavenly
Father.
To their credit, the New American Standard Bible accurately conveyed Pauls
message, but unfortunately, the resulting rendering promotes the idea that the
Father appointed a time in which His initial foremen and managers would become
obsolete. NASB: But he is under guardians and managers until the date set by
the father. The only rational, albeit inaccurate, conclusion is that Paul was saying
that God planned for the Torah to be outmoded and superseded. But if thats true,
then neither Yahowah, the Torah, nor Yahowsha can be trusted because they said
that every aspect of the Torah would remain in effect for as long as the universe
exists. So, this passage once again pits Paul against God and against reason. It is
becoming increasingly difficult for an informed and rational person to believe
him.
The KJV rendition of this passage mistranslated epitropos foremen and
oikonomos household managers: But is under tutors and governors until the
time appointed of the father. And they did so because the Authorized King James
Bible was nothing more than an English translation of the Roman Catholic Latin
Vulgate: But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed by the
father.
Since there is no basis for they have to obey their or until they reach
whatever in the Greek text, the NLT is little more than a flight into the realm of
fantasy. They have to obey their guardians until they reach whatever age their
father set. Further, Father was rendered with a Divine Placeholder, meaning
that was meant to be capitalized and represent our Heavenly Father.
 Moving on, we find that Pauls word choices in this next statement are far
more damaging than in the previous one, so lets begin our review with the
Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear. Thusly also we when we were infants
under the elements the world we were having been enslaved. These folks, as we
have seen, while slavishly accurate grammatically, have taken great liberty in
their renderings of the words, themselves. But translating stoicheion as
elements, completely subverts its intent.
To be fair, most every Pauline advocate is stumped by the selection of
stoicheion, rendered stoicheia here in the accusative plural. And that is perhaps
why it was timidly and inadequately translated elements in the NA interlinear.
The provocative term was often acknowledged in Platos writings and is
ubiquitous in the philosophy and cosmology of Greek antiquity, especially among
the Stoics. Specifically, stoicheion was used to differentiate between the cults of
the elements, those being earth, water, air, and fire, and the celestial bodies, all of
which were worshipped as deities through Hellenistic syncretism. Stoicheion is,
therefore, a pagan religious term, and would have been read as such by
enlightened Greeks, especially when deployed in conjunction with kosmos in a
religious text.
This is a problem of unfathomable magnitude because Paul is using it to
describe, or more specifically, to mischaracterize Yahowahs Towrah a book
which universally denounces religion, especially the worship of the elements and
celestial bodies. But now Shauwl wants us to believe that Gods Torah is
advocating what it condemns. This is not unlike his claim in Romans 7 that the
Towrah was the source of his personal perversion s.
In that stoicheion is the most dishonest and disdainful criticism Paul has
wielded against Gods Word, and especially His Towrah, since he called His old
system malicious in Galatians 1:4, before we consider an amplified translation of
Galatians 4:3, we are best served by coming to grips with why the word was
selected and what it actually meant. And toward this goal, lets turn to the
lexicons at our disposal.
The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, as the name implies, is a
Christian publication. They are, therefore, committed to defending Paul even if
they have to incriminate themselves in the process. So after conveying the
perspective presented in quotations three paragraphs ago, they opined: It is much
disputed whether stoicheia (Galatians 4:3 and 4:9) is to be understood within this
syncretistic context [of pagan mythology], and resolution of the question depends
on whether Paul has picked up a catchword used by his Galatian adversaries. If
this is the case, then the false teachers demonstrate not only a Judaizing tendency
(Galatians 5:1-4), but also a Hellenistic syncretistic tendency that included
worship of the cosmic elements and observance (Galatians 4:10) of the special
dates and festivals. One lie has simply led to many others.
Should you be curious, syncretism is defined as the combination of different
forms of belief or practice. In this context, it specifically refers to the
incorporation of pagan mythology into Christianity by the Roman Catholic
Church to make the subsequent religion more popular and appealing. All three
so-called Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are guilty of
syncretism, but Christianity and Islam are nothing but syncretistic more
religious myth than inspired testimony. And while Christianity and Islam run
afoul of their monotheistic claims with their Trinity and Satanic Verses, it is the
festivals, religious rites, and symbols of the Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, and
Roman mythologies that were incorporated into the more modern religions,
allowing the myths associated with many gods to reside in their one god.
Along these lines, Judaizers were invented by Paul. They are as mythical as
todays Palestinians. There is no mention of them anywhere in history. Apart
from the psychotic recesses of this mans mind, and in the minds of those he
beguiled, they do not exist. And as we know, Paul has identified his foes, and they
are the Disciples Shimown, Yaaqob, and Yahowchanan.
More twisted still, Judaizing is a complete misrepresentation of what it
means to be Torah observant. Yahowsha and His Disciples closely examined and
carefully considered the Towrah and encouraged everyone to do the same
regardless of race, time, or place. And while they were not Judaizing with this
approach, if they had been, then Yahowsha was a Judaizer. So by proposing
this argument, Christians strike a fatal blow against their religion.
In reality, Judaizer is a straw man, a debate fallacy whereby the presenter,
rather than refuting the merits of his opponents case, creates an imaginary foe
who is easier to defeat. But all that proves is that the presenter, in this case Paul, is
both incompetent and deceptive.
Also, if it is true that Paul picked up a catchword used by his Galatian
adversaries then he was not inspired by God, thereby, once again undermining
the foundation of the Christian religion. Further incriminating this approach, if
historians were to define Jews with a single word, their designation would be
monotheistic. The last thing anyone an informed and rational individual would
ascribe to Yahuwdym would be the promotion of deifying the sun, moon, planets,
and stars. And yet that is what Paul, and with Christian scholars following his
lead, who are proposing to justify the incorporation of stoicheion into this letter.
To their credit, and to their religions shame, the Christian theologians who
contributed to the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament acknowledged that
Paul was using stoicheion to renounce the Torah. And in doing so, they showed
their bias for many of Shauwls most egregious mischaracterizations, writing:
More likely Paul uses this term, known to him from (Stoic) popular philosophy,
on his own initiative to designate collectively both the Jewish Torah, which the
false teachers understood as a path to salvation and advised the Galatians to
follow at least in part (Galatians 5:3), and the previous Gentile piety of the
Galatians (4:3 and 4:8). He considered both to be manifestations of that power
presently enslaving human beings (4:3, 4:5, 4:8), a power that nonetheless appears
beggarly compared to the huiothesia [adoption] of verse 5, such power was the
basis of human religious existence before Christ. If this assessment is accurate,
God is a liar.
This is as good a time as any to affirm that Christian theologians readily
acknowledge that Paul was attacking the Torah, just as they are doing here. And
they view such denunciations as valid, even though it means repudiating the
testimony of the God Paul claims inspired him. So, like Paul, they perpetuate the
myth of a Jewish Torah, using Jewish as a pejorative term, because accurately
labeling it Yahowahs Towrah would make it obvious that their religion was in
opposition to God and His Word. In an informed and rational world, this
argument alone would be sufficient to negate the veracity of the religion.
But even in the midst of their religious chicanery, there is nugget of truth.
The teachers Shauwl has been opposing, understood that the Torah
represented the path to salvation. The Disciples, or Taught Ones, therefore
advised the Galatians to follow the Towrahs teaching, instruction, and
guidance. It is what Yahowah said, it is what Yahowsha taught, so we should not
be surprised it is what the Disciples Shimown, Yaaqob, and Yahowchanan
conveyed. Everyone was singing the same song except Shauwl. And this means
that in Pauls world, a false teacher was anyone who shared Gods Word and
therefore undermined his words.
Then affirming the depravity that maligns the soul of Christendom, the
lexicon refers to Yahowah as that power presently enslaving human beings, a
power that nevertheless appears beggarly compared to adoption into Pauls
religion. They have ingested the poison and it has rendered these theologians as
adverse to God as was their mentor.
If this were not bad enough, these same Christian clerics, after admitting that
Paul wrote stoicheia to besmirch the Torah, calling it the essence of pagan
religious philosophy, reveal that Paul uses the word again to present the
elemental spirits in Colossians 2:8 and 2:20. These evil spirits undoubtedly
make use of the terminology of the false teachers in Colossae, in whose mystery-
oriented philosophy such spirits might have played a significant role. To which
they conclude speaking of stoicheion, according to Stoic doctrine, the elements
will perish in the final conflagration, signifying Pauls ultimate triumph over
God, I suppose.
Now that we know that stoicheia was used in Greece to describe the
religious pagan cults that grew out of the elements of earth, water, air, and fire
as they interacted with the deified celestial bodies, and that Paul equates it with
mystery spirits, lets examine the text of Galatians 4:3...
And also (kai), in this way, it follows that (outos thus) when (ote as
long as and while) we (ego) were (emen existed as) infants (nepios small
children and babies) under (upo) the (ta) elementary teachings and
rudimentary principles of religious mythology (stoicheion simplistic and
basic initial precepts of the supernatural powers associated with the cults of the
earth, water, air, and fire, and the deification of the sun, moon, planets, and stars)
of the (tou) universal system (kosmos worldly order, global disposition,
arranged structure, or government constitution of that arrangement), we were
(emeoa) subservient slaves (doulos controlled, enslaved, and subject to
obligations). (Galatians 4:3)
Shauwl, who unleashed his children metaphor way back in Galatians 3:7,
is now exploiting as a result of the Faith, we can come to exist as Abrams
children. This was in opposition to becoming Yahowahs children by
responding to His Covenant. The proposition was advanced again with the first of
several references to an inheritance beginning in Galatians 3:21-23: For if,
per chance, had the Torah been given the power or ability to impart life,
certainly in the Torah would be the righteous. (3:21) But to the contrary, the
Writing enforced restrictions, completely shutting the door on inheritance,
imposing evil in order that the promise out of the Faith of Iesou Christou
might be given to believers. (3:22) But before the arrival of the Faith, under
the control of the Towrah, we were actually being held in custody as
prisoners, restricted and trapped like fish in a net, until the bringing about of
the Faith was revealed. (3:23)
It was then that Shauwl introduced the first of his four Towrah substitutes,
beginning in Galatians 3:24-25: As a result, the Towrah has come to exist as
our disciplinarian using dogmatic old-fashioned methods extending until
Christon in order that by means of the Faith we might, at some point in time,
while doing nothing ourselves, be justified. (3:24) But now having come the
Faith, no longer do we exist under an old-fashioned and strict authoritarian.
(3:25)
This childish metaphor was augmented by: So I say, as long as the heir
exists childish and immature, he is no different than a slave, belonging to the
lord and master who owns and controls everyone and everything. (4:1)
Certainly, he is under the auspices of foremen who control the workers and
administrators until the previously appointed time set of the Father. (4:2)
Which brings us to the current extrapolation of this theme: And also, in this
way it follows that when we were infants, under the elementary teachings
and rudimentary principles of religious mythology, the simplistic and basic
initial precepts of the supernatural powers associated with the cults of the
earth, water, air, and fire, and the deification of the sun, moon, planets, and
stars of the world, we were subservient slaves. (4:3)
In this context, as these passages flow out of Galatians three and into the
fourth chapter with its jarring climax, we have only one viable alternative with
regard to the paidagogos disciplinarians, kurios the lord and master,
epitropos the controlling foremen, and oikonomos the administrators of the
inheritance relative to the stoicheion rudimentary principles of religious
mythology. Paul has deployed them to describe and demean Yahowah and His
Torah.
This known, in Galatians 4:3, kosmos sounds familiar because it has been
transliterated from Greek to become the English word cosmos. So while it is
often translated universe, earth, or world, kosmos more accurately represents
things as different as: an arranged constitution, a decorated adornment, an
estranged people who are hostile to God, and a new world order, speaking of a
system of political or religious governance. It can be translated universal system
or global dispensation. Kosmos is from komeo which conveys the idea of
administrative control and the disposition of power which speaks to Pauls
intentions. Beyond this, some lexicons state that komeo is a temperamental, self-
absorbed personality intent on transferring custody or possession of individuals,
carrying them away from one person to another. It even describes the idea of
trying to take back and recover something which was previously thought to be
ones own. So lurking under the surface there are a plethora of Satanic notions
associated with kosmosa word which appeared innocent at first blush.
And as we now know, there is nothing innocent associated with Pauls use of
stoicheion (pronounced stoykhion) in this context. No matter how it is
translated, it is very, very troubling when associated with Yahowahs Torah. I say
that for six very specific reasons.
First, stoicheion, translated elementary teachings and rudimentary principles
of religious mythology in Galatians 4:3, is used again in Colossians 2:20. There,
the New Living Translation says that the Maaseyah has set you free from the
supernatural powers (stoicheion) of this world, thereby making the stoicheion
demonic spirits. And in this Colossians passage, Paul then asks, So why do
you keep on following the rules of the world as such? Therefore, by juxtaposing
his use of stoicheion in his first letter with his last epistle, it becomes obvious that
Paul wants the faithful to believe that the Torah is comprised of demonic
religious mythology.
But thats not the end of the disparaging associations. Stoicheion also affirms
that Paul wants Christians to believe that the Torah may have been nothing more
than a derivative of the initial rudimentary and natural elements which
comprised the universe, and was therefore of the world, as opposed to being
from God. Another belittling connotation of stoicheion suggests that Paul was
implying that the Torahs usefulness had come to an end, in that it was just the
first step, and a primitive, underdeveloped and childish step at that. This is in
conflict, however, with the fact that Yahowah and Yahowsha say that Passover is
the first step toward inheriting eternal life, and that each of the remaining six steps
travel through the Torah.
Yet another unflattering definition of stoicheion is derived from its root.
Stoicheo speaks of soldiers marching off (as in away from the Torah) from one
place to another (as in from the Old Testament to the New Testament).
Stoicheo is somewhat reminiscent of Yahowahs depiction of His malak
spiritual messengers being saba relegated to a command and control regimen
where they follow His orders. In this light, stoicheo describes soldiers in orderly
ranks, with each combatant simply following the leader, and with everyone
moving in a structured line. It conveys the idea of existing in conformity with
the instructions they have been given. There is no hint of freewill in stoicheion,
thereby undermining the purpose of creating humankind or of providing us with
the Torah, which was to provide the information we would require to engage in a
relationship with Yahowah.
However, as a fallen spiritual messenger, stoicheion does accurately describe
the only condition Satan knowsthe one he rebelled against. So now Yahowahs
Adversary is having his messenger ascribe the condition he despised to the Torah,
hoping that believers will swallow Shauwls poison, and like lemmings, plunge
to their death. In this regard, the root meaning of kosmos may come into play.
Remember komeo conveys the idea of administrative control and the disposition
of power, speaking of a temperamental, self-absorbed personality intent on
transferring custody or possession of individuals, carrying them away from one
person to another. More telling still, it describes the idea of trying to take back
and recover something which was previously thought to be ones own.
Therefore, it is beginning to look like someone has let their guard down, letting us
peak behind the veil.
But there are more disparaging connotations. When we investigate
stoicheions etymological history, we find that it is akin to sustoicheo, meaning
to march in a line, one person following the other, all acting and looking the
same. Paul will use this very word, translated corresponds to, in Galatians
4:25, to associate Yaruwshalaym with the Torah in a derogatory fashion, stating
that both enslave. Words which share a common root with stoicheion describe
Shauwls nature and tactics and include: sustasiastes one who revolts and
joins an insurrection, sustatikos introduce something, sustauroo to crucify
someone or something, sustello to abridge, diminish, shorten, and enshroud so
as to terminate or conceal, sustenazo to audibly express suffering,
sustratiotes to be a soldier, sustrepho to twist something so as to change its
intended meaning, and sustrophe to be a disorderly and rebellious individual
acting in a coalition or conspiracy inappropriately blending things together in a
poorly disclosed and hidden combination so as to get people to: suschematizo
conform, following the example set by another, and thereby change their mind,
attitude, and perspective. In a word, we have Shauwl.
As we learned a moment ago, Greek philosophers used stoicheion to describe
what they considered to be the four rudimentary and essential elements which
comprised the universe: earth, water, air, and fire. As such, the Complete Word
Study Dictionary, New Testament states the inescapable: In Galatians 4:3, Paul
calls the ceremonial ordinances of the Mosaic Law worldly elements. And in
truth, we must strike ceremonial ordinances from this conclusion, because there
is no such distinction being made by Paul, leaving us with the stark reality that the
man who claimed to be speaking for God was alleging that the book Yahowsha
said defined His life was of the world, and therefore not of God.
If we could separate this statement from this epistle, removing it from the
third and fourth chapters of Galatians, and Pauls ongoing onslaught against the
Torah, then we could make the case that stoicheion kosmos was selected to assail
the pagan traditions and festivals associated with worshiping the elements of the
earth, in addition to the sun, stars, moon, and planets. But unfortunately, since
Pauls criticism has been focused singularly on demeaning the Torah, and not
against pagan worship prevalent in Galatia at the time, there is no basis for such
an interpretation. Paul has called the old and arcane system of laws that
comprise Yahowahs Towrah everything from harsh to enslaving, from
perverted to cruel, from incapable to obsolete, so why not pagan and
worldly.
Pauls use of stoicheion in Colossians eliminates any chance we might
otherwise have to strip the Greek word of its derogatory mythological and
religious connotations. While it can convey fundamental teachings, and
elementary doctrines, this definition simply transfers the problem we are
wrestling with to the Colossians epistle. If stoicheion conveyed a fundamental
teaching, wed have to ask ourselves why we are told by Paul in Colossians that
his Iesou wanted to lead us away from it. And if stoicheion was the Torahs
elementary doctrine, why would such enlightenment be considered as a source
of authoritarian control that stunts our growth here in Galatians?
Also interesting with regard to the paidagogos taskmasters, epitropos
foremen, oikonomos household managers, and kosmos stoicheion
arranged constitution of religious mythology, we find that all four Greek terms
were rendered in the plural. This suggests that Paul may well have been trying to
associate the Torah with Rabbinic Lawinferring that both of these things
enslave us. But even for the sake of argument, if we were to assume that worldly
religious systems and Jewish Law were similar enough to group them together
and justify the consistent use of the plural forms, since its evident that these
things were never valid, nor ever associated with God, they dont fit within the
context of something previously appointed by the Father. And that leaves us with
Paul associating the Torah with all six of the disparaging aspects of stoicheion
none of which are good.
What I dont understand is how Christians have come to accept Pauls
inverted portrayal of the Torah. Gods Word describes our Heavenly Fathers
relationship with man, details the liberation of Gods children, and articulates the
path to our freedom. So how do they construe this to be about enslaving us? As
unbelievable, inaccurate and counter intuitive as Shauwls upside down and
revisionist world has become, its hard to understand why billions of people
believe that his perspective is correct.
But we do know that the most important early catalyst for Pauline deception
occurred when Marcion inappropriately elevated Pauls epistles to scriptural
status, and as a result, this troubled mans letters were ultimately included in the
Latin Vulgate. And here with regard to Galatians 4:3, Jerome provided a
somewhat faithful, albeit grossly inadequate, translation of Pauls errant
statement: So we also, when we were children, were serving under the elements
of the world. The KJV copied them with: Even so we, when we were children,
were in bondage under the elements of the world: Based upon this context, it is
highly unlikely that Paul used stoicheion to convey elements.
From this, the NLT extrapolated: And thats the way it was with us before
Christ came. We were like children; we were slaves to the basic spiritual
principles of this world. The liberty these translators have taken with Pauls text
is breathtaking. Compare this to: And also in this way, it follows that when we
were small children under the universal arranged constitution of religious
mythology, we were slaves. They have fanned the flames of Pauls blasphemy.
However, while the words were grossly mistranslated, especially and thats
the way it was with us before Christ came, and their basic spiritual principles,
the message was not misrepresented. Based upon the evidence, the Christian
Church has correctly interpreted these passages to say that Paul thought that the
Torah was elementary and childish, a crude first step, and a cruel taskmaster
which oppressed and enslaved all those who observed it. According to Paul, and
thus the Church, the Torah was poorly conceived and it had a negative influence
on peoples lives. Apart from ignorance, there is no escaping this ungodly
conclusion, one which puts Paul and the Church in direct opposition to God. Yet
since the religious institution and its founding father claim to have derived their
authority from God, if God cannot be trusted, they are unreliable. If you are a
Christian, let that sink in.
If the Torah had been designed to last for a limited and preordained time,
why did God tell His children to observe it forever? If the Torah no longer
mattered after the arrival of the Maaseyah, why did the Maaseyah quote it so
often? If the Torahs influence came to a close with the birth of Christ, why did
He observe it? Was it merely a coincidence that Yahowsha fulfilled the Miqraey
of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym in the precise manner described in the Torah
and on the days established therein? Or if it became obsolete after His sacrifice in
33 CE, why did He tell us that while the world exists, not one jot or tittle of the
Torah would be passed by until it was entirely fulfilled?
While this may be among the most important questions you have ever
contemplated, my words pale in comparison to Yahowshas farewell message to
His Disciples. These are among the most important words ever spoken:
Now He said to them (de lego pros autos), These words of Mine (outos o
logos) which I spoke to you while (ego os laleo pros ou) I was with you (on sun
su), because (hoti namely by way of identification or explanation) it is
necessary to (dei inevitable and logical, beneficial and proper, as part of the
plan to) completely fulfill (plerooenai carry out fully, totally perform,
accomplish, proclaim, giving true meaning to, realizing the prophetic promises of)
everything (pas all) that is written (ta grapho) in (en in unison with and with
regard to) the Towrah (to nomo) of Moseh (Mouseos a transliteration of the
Hebrew Moseh, meaning to draw out, altered to conform to Greek grammar by a
scribe), the Prophets (propetais those who proclaimed and foretold Gods
message), and the Psalms (psalmois) about (peri because of, with regard to, on
behalf of, and concerning) Me. (Luke 24:44) God just told us the way to
understand Him. Are you listening?
Then He fully opened their minds (dianoigo nous He explained and
enabled the proper attitude and way of thinking, completely facilitating reasoning)
so that they would be intelligent and have the capacity to understand (syniemi
to bring things together and make the proper connections to be enlightened,
clearly perceive, gain insight, and comprehend) the Writings (graphas). (Luke
24:45) God has told us the proper way to think, so that we might know Him and
understand what He is offering. This is reminiscent of that found in Psalm 19,
where we read: Yahowahs Towrah is complete and entirely perfect,
returning and restoring the soul. Yahowahs testimony is trustworthy and
reliable, making understanding and obtaining wisdom simple for the open-
minded. (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:7)
Yahowsha, speaking Hebrew, continued to address His Disciples...He said
to them, Because (hoti namely by way of explanation) in this way (houto
thus it follows), it is written (grapho) that the Implement Doing the Work of
Yahowah ( placeholder for Maaseyah, from Chrestus, meaning Upright
Servant and Useful Tool) must undergo and experience suffering (pascho be
afflicted because it is sensible) and rise up amidst (anistemai to establish by
taking stand in ones midst; a compound of histemi, to stand and establish, and
ana, into the midst, amidst, among, and between) out of (ek) lifeless separation
(nekros) the third day. (Luke 24:46) He was speaking of His fulfillment of the
Miqraey of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikurymthe three most important days in
human history. This is the way to salvation that Shauwl is demeaning.
So that you are not misled by this statement, Yahowsha previously defined
the Hebrew word translated nekros as separation from the father in His parable
of the prodigal son, which is recorded in Luke 15:11-32. Therefore, He was
predicting His reunification with His Father on Bikuwrym First-Born Child,
not a bodily resurrection from a corpse. In this light, anistamai speaks of His soul
rising up from Sheowl and into the midst of the living.
After telling His Disciples that His life and sacrifice could only be
understood from the perspective of acting upon what was written in the Torah,
Prophets, and Psalms, God said...
And it should be announced publicly (kerysso proclaimed in a
convincing manner to persuade and warn, to herald, publish, and pronounce with
authority) upon (epi) His (autos His [not My, and thus in Yahowahs]) name
(onoma), Change your perspective, attitude and thinking (metanoeo) to be
forgiven and pardoned from (aphesis to be released and liberated from)
wandering from the path and missing ones inheritance (hamartia the
consequence of being mistaken; from a, not and meros, being assigned an
allotment with regard to ones destiny), to all (pas) nations, races, and places
(ethnos ethnicities), commencing and leading (archomai first beginning)
from (apo) Yaruwshalaym (Ierousalem transliteration of the Hebrew name
Yaruwshalaym, the Source of Salvation). (Luke 24:47)
Metanoeo change your perspective, attitude, and thinking, a translation of
the Hebrew suwb, is an extremely important concept. Unless and until we are
willing to reject religion, and view the Maaseyah Yahowsha from the
perspective of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, thinking differently by making
the appropriate connections, there is no way to find, much less understand, the
path to God.
Also please note that Yahowsha asked His Disciples to publicly announce
that His life was best understood from the perspective of fulfilling the Torah and
that by following this way one would be forgiven, to pas ethnos to every
ethnicity, to every race and nation, thereby undermining Pauls principle claim.
You are witnesses to (martys those with firsthand experience and
knowledge who can testify to ascertainable facts regarding) these things
(houtos). (Luke 24:48) Thereby affirming that the Disciples were privy to
information and experiences which led to understanding missed by the wannabe
Apostle Shauwl.
And speaking of being mistaken, since neither Abraham nor faith have been
mentioned, but God the Father and His Towrah have, Yahowsha is now revealing
to His Disciples that Yahowahs promise can be found in the place Paul would
later demean and discard. Based upon this testimony alone, the basis of Pauline
Doctrine must be rejected...
And behold (kai idou now pay attention), I, Myself, have prepared and
sent you off as Apostles to convey the message (ego apostello I, Myself
equipped you to deliver the word, being sent forth) of My Fathers (mou )
promise (epaggelia to vow and an agreement to do something beneficial which
leads to the assurance of approval and reconciliation) upon you (epi su).
But now (de), you remain (su kathizo) in the city (en te polis) until the
time when (heos os) you are clothed (enduo dressed [speaking of the Spirits
Garment of Light) in power and ability (dynamis) from (ek) above (hypsos
heaven on high). (Luke 24:49)
This occurred right on schedule, on the Miqra of Shabuwa, when the Set-
Apart Spirit descended upon the Covenants children in Yaruwshalaym
enriching and empowering them just as Yahowah promised in Qara Called
Out, the central book of His Towrah Teaching. And with this fulfillment, the
last of the Covenants promises were honored by God. Those who answer His
Invitation to be Called Out and Meet with Him on Pesach Passover become
immortal. The beneficiaries of Matsah Un-Yeasted Bread are perfected,
becoming vindicated and righteous in our Heavenly Fathers eyes. This leads to
Bikuwrym First-Born Children where Gods now immortal and innocent sons
and daughters are adopted into His Covenant Family. Then because He wants us
to grow, and because He wants us to share what we have come to know, we are
enriched and empowered by the Set-Apart Spirit on Shabuwa Promise of the
Sabbath. This is Yahowahs message to us. It is the very essence of Yahowshas
life. It is the reason we exist and the reason the Towrah was written.
And yet with these words, everything Paul has written has been torn asunder.
There should never have been a debate between believing Pauls Gospel of
Grace and trusting Yahowahs Torah. Rather than speak for the Maaseyah
Yahowsha as Shauwl has claimed, He has consistently contradicted Him. If Paul
had personally experienced the Maaseyah Yahowsha, if his mind had been open
to the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms the way the Disciples had been, he would
never have written Galatians.
Since the Christian position is ludicrous in light of Yahowshas testimony,
we have but two options relative to Paul and his letter. If what we are reading is
what Paul actually wrote, if the text of his letter has been faithfully preserved,
then Paul is to be condemned for leading billions of people away from God. His
words and Gods Word are diametrically opposed. But if what we are reading has
been corrupted in transmission, if every early copy of Pauls letter differs
substantially from what he actually said, then Paul may be redeemable, but his
epistles are not. For the Christian religion, that is a lose-lose proposition.
Before we move on to the next claim, here is a quick review of what Paul has
written thus far in the fourth chapter about the alleged Faith of Abram.
So I say, as long as the heir exists childish and immature, he is no
different than a slave, belonging to the lord and master who owns and
controls everyone and everything. (4:1) Certainly, he is under the auspices of
foremen who control the workers and administrators until the previously
appointed time set of the Father. (4:2) And also, in this way, it follows that
when we were infants, under the elementary teachings and rudimentary
principles of religious mythology, the simplistic and basic initial precepts of
the supernatural powers associated with the cults of the earth, water, air, and
fire, and the deification of the sun, moon, planets, and stars of the universal
system and world order, we were subservient slaves. (4:3)

Had this next incomplete sentence been rendered carelessly, independent of

Pauls dissertation, and also estranged from his subsequent conclusion, for the
first time ever his message might have been somewhat accurate, even generally
consistent with Gods own testimony. In the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament,
27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear, it reads: When but came the
fullness of the time delegated out the God the son of him having become from
woman having become under law...
Amplified by our lexicons, and reordered to accommodate the transition into
English, the same words reveal...
But (de) when (hote) came (erchomai arrived) the fullness (to pleroma
the complete contents) of the (tou) unspecified time (chromos indefinite
occasion), the God (o ) sent out (exapostello out of being set apart and
dispatched the messenger with a message on a mission) the (ton) Son (I) of
Him (autos), having come to exist (ginomai having become and having
originated) from (ek out of) a woman (gune an adult female), having come to
exist (ginomai having originated and being) under (hypo through, as an agent
of, under the auspices of, by the means of, subject to, or because of) [the] Towrah
(nomon nourishment which facilitates an inheritance; used throughout the
Septuagint to translated the Hebrew noun towrah, meaning teaching and guidance
(written in the singular accusative case, making Towrah the direct object of the
verb) (Galatians 4:4)
The pleroma fullness or complete contents of time has not yet occurred.
Yahowahs Covenant story takes place over seven-thousand years not over four
thousand. And God does not like to be shortchanged. Further, His timing is
precise, not chromos unspecified, occurring on some indefinite occasion.
That said, exapostello separated and sent out is an accurate depiction of
the origin and purpose of Yahowsha. Comprised of ek, out of and away from,
and apostello, one who is prepared, equipped, set apart, and sent off as a spiritual
messenger, we discover that Yahowsha is out of God, set apart from Him, and
sent off, prepared and equipped to serve us.
The Son of God did not, however, ginomai ek come to exist out of,
originating from a woman. As part of Yahowah, Yahowsha has always existed,
which is to say He could not have been born. And that is why Yahowah was so
precise in His prediction through Yashayah (Isaiah) in the 9th chapter, saying To
approach us, a child is born. For us to approach, a Son is given.
Hypo, translated under, could have been rendered by means of, thereby
making this portion of Pauls statement accurate. Yahowsha, as the corporeal
manifestation of Yahowah and His Towrah, came into our world hypo as a
result of and because of the Towrah. But He was not hypo under the Towrah
in the sense of being subservient or subjugated no one is. And yet, based upon
what has come before and what follows, this is clearly Pauls implication.
Moreover, this verse plays off of Galatians 4:2, because when came the fullness
of the unspecified time and until the previously appointed time set by the
Father are parallel concepts. And sandwiched in between them, Galatians 4:3
now clearly conveys Pauls conclusion that the Torah is an inadequate first step
which enslaves us.
While that is an insurmountable problem for Pauline Doctrine and thus
Christian credibility, there is another. It is important to know that the woman who
bore the child was a descendant of King David, that she felt that she wasnt
qualified, that she was willing to be used by God in this way, and that she was a
virgin, but thats it. So may I suggest that the unnamed Miryam (Mary) is being
inaccurately presented as the source of Yahowshas existence the same way
Abram was inappropriately presented as the source of our salvation. But worse, as
we shall soon discover, Paul will try and contrast her with Hagar, the slave of
Abrahams wife. And while there is no rational comparison that can be made
between these women, Paul, ever the clever one, will hang his theory on the idea
that Sarah, who is also an unnamed woman in his thesis, can become the mother
of freeborn children by way of the promise made to her husband, whereas Hagar
represents slavery to the Torah. So, by going from woman to woman, Paul
bypasses the Torah and the role of our Spiritual Mother.
In their quest to garner religious favor for their king, the theologians who
crafted the King James Bible wrote: But when the fullness of the time was come,
God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law. Then, the New
Living Translation, reflecting the perspective of modern Christianity, turned what
could have been construed as an affirmation of the Torah into a disparagement of
it based upon the way they translated hypo: But when the right time came, God
sent his Son, born of a woman, subject to the law.
In the spirit of disclosure, I had thought that theological animosity for
Yahowahs Torah was why they rendered hypo as subject to as opposed to
because of, for the reason of, through, as an agent of, under the auspices of, or by
the means of the Torah. But upon further thought, the NLT may well have
accurately reflected Pauls intended disdain for the Torah based upon the
surrounding context.
So in this case, the NLT is probably right with regard to intent, even if wrong
with regard to the words etymology. This realization in turn invalidates what
would otherwise have been Pauls first partially accurate statement. After all,
being subject to the law makes it sound as if He was controlled and enslaved by
the Pauline taskmaster.
Apart from Shauwls letter to the Galatians, and consistently errant
phraseology, there were elements of this clause which would otherwise affirm that
Yahowah has a plan, one which was described in the Torah, and one which is
being unfurled on a specific timeline. According to Baresyth / Genesis, the
Greater Light would enter our world during the fourth millennia of human history
as a sign associated with the Mowed Meetings. He would be set apart from God
and arrive as the seed of woman to bruise Satans schemes. And as the Lamb of
God, upon Mount Mowryah, He would serve as Yahowahs substitute to free
mankind from the sting of death, while facilitating and enabling the promise of
Passover.
And while that is completely true, nothing is more beguiling than hiding the
truth by placing a lie on top of it. It is how counterfeits are made. It is the reason
frauds prevail. When you see threads of truth woven into an improperly conceived
tapestry, you are witnessing Satans finest work. This will become obvious with
the completion of the sentence.
In this light, those who believe that Paul could not have been a false prophet
because some of what he wrote was true, one rough-cut and unfinished rock in a
pigsty is hardly the standard borne by those who serve Yah. And also, such
thinking fails to appreciate how deceivers operate and how religions achieve their
goals. As I have shared before, no one would be fooled by a counterfeit bill if it
didnt appear very much like the real thing. And yet, while the bogus bill shares
many, if not most, of the same strokes as the legitimate one, it is completely
worthless even illegal.
Along these lines, some Christian apologists posture the notion that it is
unfair to label Paul anti-Torah because there are places where he speaks
favorably of the Torah in other letters. But if so, all that would prove is that the
man who felt no compunction regarding contradicting God was willing, when the
circumstances required, to contradict himself. So how is it that Pauls willingness
to negate his own thesis suddenly makes him credible?
Striving to make his delusions believable by associating his conclusions with
Gods Word, Shauwl continues to lead unwary souls to Sheowl. In the words of
the McReynolds Interlinear: that the ones under law he might buy out that the
adoption as son we might receive back. This, of course, infers that we were all
subject to the law, which is invalid no matter how Pauls words are interpreted.
The Towrah exists because of us, to serve us, not the other way around. It frees us
from submission and subjugation.
This also infers that we were redeemed from the Towrah instead of by the
Towrah, thereby misrepresenting the entire purpose of the Towrah. And if that
werent bad enough, the Towrahs Covenant is the sole means to our adoption
into Yahowahs family. This then becomes impossible to capitalize upon when
the Towrah is discarded.
Lastly, by saying that we might be received back, Paul is inferring that we
were once Gods children but somehow became estranged. And that means that
God cannot be trusted to protect His family. It means that His Covenant isnt
everlasting and that His promises arent reliable.
But should you want a more reliable translation, this is my best effort...
in order that (ina for the purpose and result of) the ones (tous) under
(hypo by means of or subject to) Towrah (nomon nourishing allotment which
provides an inheritance; used universally throughout the Greek Septuagint
rendering of the Hebrew Towrah to translate towrah teaching and guidance)),
he might redeem (exagorazomai he may make use of the opportunity to
ransom, possibly working to buy back) in order to (ina) the son set (ten
uiothesian a Pauline term based upon an assumed compound of huios son and
a derivative of tithemi to set or place) we might receive back or obtain from
(apolambano we may receive what is sought and due; from apo, to be set apart,
and lambano, to be taken by the hand, therefore sometimes translated take aside,
lead away, or welcome back). (Galatians 4:5)
Uiothesian, rendered son set is a word Paul made up and only he uses.
Typically translated as adoption in Christian bibles, this represents the first of
three deployments. The second and third installments of uiothesian are found in
Romans, where Paul contradicts himself and God by asking: Who are the
Israelites to whom the son set (uiothesian) and the glory and the covenants
and the giving of the Torah and the service and the promises. (Romans 9:4)
According to God there is only one Covenant and the Yisraelite role in it is
something He makes well known. But by associating them with it, Paul has
contradicted himself. And in the third instance, uiothesian was used in Romans
8:23 to associate son set with the redemption of our body, as if our flesh
was being adopted and not our soul.
Since this all flows out of the same misguided rant, to properly appreciate his
ploy, Shauwl has now proposed: So I say, as long as the heir exists childish
and immature, he is no different than a slave, belonging to the lord and
master who owns and controls everyone and everything. (4:1) Certainly, he is
under the auspices of foremen who control the workers and administrators
until the previously appointed time set of the Father. (4:2) And also, in this
way, it follows that when we were infants, under the elementary teachings
and rudimentary principles of religious mythology, the simplistic and basic
initial precepts of the supernatural powers associated with the cults of the
earth, water, air, and fire, and the deification of the sun, moon, planets, and
stars of the universal system and world order, we were subservient slaves.
(4:3) But when came the fullness of the unspecified time, the God sent out the
Son of Him, having come to exist, originating from a woman, having come to
exist under Towrah (4:4) in order that the ones under Towrah, he might buy
back in order to the son set we might receive back and obtain from. (4:5)
 So now lets be clear: we were not bought back, obtained, or received from
the Towrah, but instead from our own perversions and the corruptive nature of
religion. Further, the recipients of this merciful gift are adopted into the Towrahs
Covenant, where Yahowah makes His children immortal, perfect, enriched, and
empowered so that we can grow and thrive.
Yahowsha, the Son, loved His Towrah, observed His Towrah, taught His
Disciples His Towrah, answered His Towrahs Invitations, and embraced the
conditions of His Towrahs Covenant. His Towrah was the mechanism He used to
ransom us and adopt us during the Miqraey of Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and
Shabuwah. Therefore, Yahowshas response to His Towrah and Shauwls
statements regarding it are polar opposites.
As usual, the New Living Translation isnt a translation, nor is it even a
paraphrase. It is so divergent from the Greek text that it is more akin to a novel.
God sent him to buy freedom for us who were slaves to the law, so that he could
adopt us as his very own children. The authors of this publication appear as if
they have never read the Exodus account whereby the Children of Yisrael were
freed from slavery. The Towrah did not enslave them. It was His gift to them on
Shabuwah celebrating the promise of seven and the Shabat.
The KJV is no closer to the text: To redeem them that were under the law,
that we might receive the adoption of sons. In actuality, and thankfully, we are
still subject to the Towrah. According to God, it has not been repealed. And thats
fortunate for us, because it provides the narrow path to life.
As we approach this next claim, we find yet another discrepancy between
more modern Greek manuscripts like the 16th century Textus Receptus and the
20th century Nestle-Aland, with P46, the oldest witness to Pauls letters. The
clause of the Son does not follow the placeholder for Spirit in the late 1st-
century codex. In this light, the Spirit, like the Son, is set apart from Yahowah,
not from Yahowsha. The Spirit and Son are parallel manifestations of the Father,
not sequential.
Reprising his selection of exapostello, this time Paul unwittingly associates
its meaning with our Spiritual Mothers role in the adoption process...
But (de) because (hoti that) you are (este you exist as, represent, and
correspond to) sons (huios male children) sent out (exapostello prepared, set
apart, and dispatched the representative of) the god (o ), the (to) spirit ()
into (eis) the hearts (tas kardias) of us (emon) shouts (krazo cries out,
screams, or croaks), Abba (abba a transliteration of the Aramaic word used to
address ones father)the (o) Father ( a placeholder for the Hebrew ab).
(Galatians 4:6)
 In the order the words appear in the text of the modern manuscripts of the
letter, at least according to the McReynolds Interlinear, the same statement reads:
Because but you are sons delegated out the God the spirit of the son of him into
the hearts of us shouting abba the father.
In Pauls native Aramaic, this is the delightful expression spoken by sons and
daughters as they gazed up into their fathers eyes. Paul, himself, however, would
not know this pleasure, as he was sent off to Rabbinical school as a young boy.
And Shauwl never married, and thus never experienced the joy of being a parent.
All of this I think contributed to his less-than-ideal temperament.
That said, this passage misrepresents the reasons God sent the Ruwach
Qodesh Set-Apart Spirit. She covers our souls with a Garment of Light and
does not invade our hearts. She does not speak for us either; She speaks to us
when we are engaged studying Yahowahs Word. And as our Spiritual Mother,
Her relationship with Yahowah cannot be defined as father. Further, Yahowahs
chosen language is Hebrew, not Aramaic. The Spirit would never actually say
abba, but instead ab. And this error would not have been worth mentioning
had Paul not switched languages to that of the Babylonians and Assyrians here to
make his point. By doing so, he has belittled the language of the Torah, and thus
its voice. And that was his intent.
Considering the vitriol Shauwl has unleashed against Gods Word, a
relentless assault which began with his opening paragraph and will reach its
crescendo in Galatians 4:24, it would be naive to dismiss the associations he has
positioned as anything other than his attempt to bypass the Torah. In this light, the
unnamed originating from a woman, having come to exist under Towrah in
verse 4:4 will soon be compared with the slave woman of 4:23 who bears
children who are enslaved to the Torah. The adoption process in 4:5 is being
established to capitalize on the children of promise in 4:28, again bypassing the
Torah. The awkward and invalid reference to the Spirit in 4:5 is an attempt to
associate our Spiritual Mother with Sarah, just as Shauwl will do again in 4:27-
31. And by having the Spirit speak to the Father in Aramaic, Shauwl not only
dismisses the Hebrew Scriptures, but also associates the Spirit and Mary with one
of the most distinguishing aspects of the Babylonian religion; that of the Madonna
and Child and the Mother of God.
Unfazed by the fact that Paul did not include the phrase of the Son in this
sentence, the NLT misrepresents the Galatians message once again. And because
we are his children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, prompting
us to call out, Abba, Father. The verb krazo shouts out was singular in the
text, meaning that its the Spirit who cries out, as opposed to us being
prompted to call out. Further, the Spirit speaks to the Father for us, rather than
prompting us to speak to Him. The KJV wrote: And because ye are sons, God
hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Yahowah sent His Spirit, the very same Spirit who indwelled Yahowsha,
making Him the Son of God and making us the sons of God. Moreover, those
who are cognizant of the Set-Apart Spirits role in our lives recognize that She
neither cries, croaks, nor shouts, but instead elevates the caliber of our
communications so that we understand God when we recite His Word and listen
to Him and so we are articulate when we talk to others about our Heavenly Father.
One of the reasons that Ruwach is consistently rendered by a placeholder in
the eyewitness accounts scribed by Yahowshas Disciples is that pneuma, the
Greek word for spirit, is a neuter noun. To appreciate the nature and role of the
Ruwach Qodesh (Set-Apart Spirit) in our lives, we must first come to recognize
that She represents the maternal aspects of God. Our Spiritual Mother is set apart
from Yahowah to cover and protect us in Her Garment of Light. She cleanses and
purifies us of sin, nurtures us in the Word, and enlightens our path. And it is by
way of our Spiritual Mother that we are born anew from above, and thereby
adopted into Yahowahs Covenant family. She does not, however, say abba
daddy.
Similarly, when Son is used in reference to Yahowsha being the Son of
God, a placeholder is consistently used in all of the late first through mid fourth-
century manuscripts written by Yahowshas Disciples. And yet in Pauls next
statement, and as represented by Papyrus 46, Upsilon Iota Sigma (I) was used
twice, with both referring to an individual becoming the son or child of God.
But thats not right since we are not divine. Therefore, the most reasonable
explanation for this mistake is that a scribe, knowing that his peers routinely used
the Divine Placeholders for Son, replaced huios with I. And if the scribe of
Papyrus 46 felt at liberty to replace huios with I in Galatians, nothing would
have stopped him from changing Iesou, Christos, and Kurios to their respective
placeholders in order to make Shauwls letter appear similar to Mattanyahs and
Yahowchanans testimony. Therefore, since the Divine Placeholders associate
Yahowah with the Maaseyah Yahowsha, a relationship Shauwl has sought to
sever, this scribal legacy suggests that Paul did not use them.
This next thought, in this context, also affirms that Paul had indeed
positioned his previous statements to infer that Yahowahs Torah was something
from which we had to be freed in order to be saved. In the Nestle-Alands
preferred Interlinear, it reads: So that no longer you are slave but son if but son
also inheritor through God.
So as a result (hoste) you no longer exist as (ouketi eimi) a slave (doulos),
but to the contrary (alla) a Son (I). But now (de) if (ei) a Son (I) and
(kai) an heir by chance (kleronomos receiver of an inheritance through casting
lots) through (dia) a god (). (Galatians 4:7)
Beyond the fact that this was a wholly inappropriate use of Divine
Placeholders, and the implications of this reality for the credibility of Pauls
letters, kleronomos has ghastly connotations. It is based upon kleros and nomos,
with kleros the casting or drawing of lots in a game of chance modifying
nomos the Towrahs nurturing allotment which provides an inheritance.
Nothing with God is per chance. That is what makes Him trustworthy. Chance,
however, is akin to faith.
Beyond this, we were not slaves to the Torah, making Shauwls premise
preposterous. Gods Word is the means to our liberation.
According to God, we were freed from the oppression of human religious,
political, economic, and military schemes, and thus from the consequence of our
rebellion and corruption by the Torah. The Familial Covenant Relationship
memorialized in the Torah is the agreement which codifies our adoption process.
And the seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God provide the means
to obtain that goal. The Torah consistently tells us that as Yahowahs children we
will inherit all that is His. This, along with the enjoyment of His company,
encapsulates the benefits of the Covenant.
The King James rendering of the seventh verse reads: Wherefore thou art no
more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. And
yet, we are called to be servants, because it is an honor to serve with Yahowah.
After all, Yahowsha considered Himself to be a servant and was predicted in
Yashayah / Isaiah to be the Suffering Servant.
Continuing to advance Pauls slavery mantra, the New Living Translation
published: Now you are no longer a slave but Gods own child. And since you
are his child, God has made you his heir.
Unfortunately, the slave reference harkens back to the dark days of Galatians
3:10-12, 3:24-25, and 4:1-5, and thus ties all of these verses together. By doing
so, any possibility of disassociating the Torah from the source of enslavement no
longer exists.
The best way to understand Pauls thesis, which claims that we must be
freed from the Torahs curse of slavery to become adopted heirs, is to
consider his rhetorical progression. He begins by calling the Torah a curse. For
as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks of the Torah, they
are under a curse, because it is written that All are accursed who do not
remain alive, persevering with all that is written in the scroll of the Torah,
doing it. (3:10) So with that Torah, absolutely no one is vindicated or
justified alongside God. It becomes evident: Those who are justified and
righteous, out of faith will live. (3:11) But the Towrah exists not out of faith,
but to the contrary, The one having done and preformed them will live in
them. (3:12) Christos bought us back from the evil and hateful curse of the
Towrah, having become for our sake a maligning and malicious curse,
because it has been written: A vengeful curse on all those having hung on
wood. (3:13)
Then he claims that the Torah is an instrument of death, saying that there is
no life in it or inheritance from it. Indeed, consequently, the Torah
accordingly is against the promises of the god. Not may it become (although
it might be, even though I dont want it to be). For if, per chance, had been
given the Torah the power and ability, the capacity and resources, to impart
life, certainly in the Torah would be the righteous and vindicated. (3:21) But
to the contrary, the writing imposed restrictions, completely shutting the
door on heaven, imprisoning everything under error and evil in order that
the promise out of the Faith of Iesou Christou might be given to believers.
(3:22)
He then associates the Torah with enslavement, and the Maaseyah with
freedom, as if the Torah and Maaseyah were not only unrelated, but actually
opposites. But before the arrival of the Faith, under the control of the
Towrah, we were actually being held in custody as prisoners, restricted and
trapped like fish in a net, to the bringing about of the Faith was revealed.
(3:23) As a result, the Towrah has come to exist as our disciplinarian using
dogmatic old-fashioned methods extending until Christon in order that by
means of the Faith we might, at some point in time, while doing nothing
ourselves, be justified. (3:24) But now having come the Faith, no longer do we
exist under an old-fashioned and strict disciplinarian. (3:25)
According to Paul, adoption and inheritance required being freed from the
enslavement of the Torah. So I say, as long as the heir exists childish and
immature, he is no different than a slave, belonging to the lord and master
who owns and controls everyone and everything. (4:1) Certainly, he is under
the auspices of foremen who control the workers and administrators until the
previously appointed time set of the Father. (4:2) And also, in this way, it
follows that when we were infants, under the elementary teachings and
rudimentary principles of religious mythology, the simplistic and basic initial
precepts of the supernatural powers associated with the cults of the earth,
water, air, and fire, and the deification of the sun, moon, planets, and stars of
the universal system and world order, we were subservient slaves. (4:3)
Reinforcing the foundation he had laid, Paul restates that abandoning the
Torah is a precondition for adoption. But when came the fullness of the
unspecified time, the God sent out the Son of Him, having come to exist,
originating from a woman, having come to exist under Towrah (4:4) in order
that the ones under Towrah, he might buy back in order to the son set we
might receive back and obtain from. (4:5) But because you are sons sent out
the god, the spirit into the hearts of us shouts, Abbathe Father. (4:6) So
as a result you no longer exist as a slave, but to the contrary a Son. But now
if a Son and an heir by the chance casting of lots through a god. (4:7)
Based upon these statements, it would be a fools folly to assume that Paul
was lampooning Rabbinical or Roman Law as opposed to Yahowahs Towrah.
Moreover, since it is universally accepted that the Galatians were Gentiles, the
fact that they were never under or subject to Rabbinical Law is proof in itself
that Shauwl wasnt condemning his peoples religious traditions or Oral Law. So
while it is bone-chilling to recognize that ShauwlChristianitys founding
fatherhas committed Scriptural and Spiritual suicide by criticizing the Torah,
whats particularly distressing is to consider how many souls he has taken with
him.
Shauwl told his audience that all they needed to do was believe him. But
then, one or more of Yahowshas Disciples, or someone they had taught from
Yaruwshalaym, spoke to the Galatians about the role the Torah plays in
establishing a relationship with God, in helping us come to know Yahowah, and
understand His plan of salvation. They would have done what Yahowsha did,
which is to explain everything He stood for from the perspective of the Torah, so
that His sacrifice could be understood, trusted and relied upon. But when the
insecure Shauwl got word of thisthat Gods Word had been elevated over his
ownhe panicked, and went into attack mode. As is the case with all insecure
individuals, he slandered his opponents, which at this point included God, and
elevated his status by saying that he was the ultimate truth-tellerthe one who
could be believed.

Now that Paul has laid the foundation of his thesis the Torah enslaves
we are confronted with a trilogy of statements whereby the enslaved are
associated with nature, with false gods, with the inadequate initial
constitution, and with the observance of special days, months, and years.
Therefore, bereft of a transition away from Pauls belittlement of the Torah, and
in the midst of his crusade against Gods Word, we are compelled to at least
consider the probability that Paul is now associating some very unsavory things
with Yahowahs Scriptural foundation.
 The next three pronouncements advance a singular thought. Here is the first
of them through the eyes of the Nestle-Alands McReynolds Interlinear: But then
indeed not having known God you were enslaved to the in nature not being gods.
Or if you prefer...
Certainly (alla to the contrary and by way of contrast) on the other hand
(men indeed) then (tote) not having known, perceived, or acknowledged (ouk
oida not having been aware of) god (), you were enslaved (douleuo) to
(tois) nature (physis the laws of the physical and natural world; from phuo
your birth and how you were begotten) not existing as (me ousin not being or
corresponding to) gods (theois deities). (Galatians 4:8)
Oh my, how much farther into the slime of this mans mind are we going to
sink? God did not design us to be slaves, ergo, we were not begotten as slaves to
nature. Not knowing God does not enslave us, nor does just being aware of God
liberate us.
And if that were not sufficiently asinine, Yahowahs Covenant children do
not become theois gods, making many divinities. And just because gods, as
in multiple divinities, sounds similar to gods as in belonging to the one and
only God, Paul wrote theois, which is the plural form.
My former business partner, speaking of someone like Paul, said: You can
fix a lot of things, but you cannot fix stupid. And that is what we are dealing
with here.
Also, while pagan gods and goddesses were often associated with nature, the
Greek and Roman religions practiced in Galatia were considerably more
sophisticated. So with this statement, Paul was demeaning the intelligence of his
audience which would have done nothing but irritate them.
But thats a lot better than irritating God. If you recall, Shauwl deployed
stoicheion elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious
mythology in Galatians 4:3 the same way he used slave to nature in his
previous statement. So now, making sure that his audience would also make this
same connection, he wrote...
But (de) now (nyn) having known (ginosko having become personally
familiar with) god (), but (de and or) more (mallon instead, to the
contrary, or by contrast), having been known (ginosko having been recognized
and understood) under (hypo) god (), how (pos) have you returned,
changing your beliefs (epistrepete you changed your ways, your faith, your
religion, and your opinions, reversing course) back (palin again and again
repetitively) upon (epi) the (ta) incapacitating and incompetent (asthenes
feeble and weak, powerless and infirmed), and (kai) worthless, belittling, and
terrifying (ptochos lowly and little, destitute and impoverished; from ptoeo to
terrify and to diminish and pipto to fall, crouching in submission before dying)
elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology
(stoicheion simplistic and basic initial precepts of the supernatural powers
associated with the cults of the earth, water, air, and fire, and the deification of the
sun, moon, planets, and stars representing the underdeveloped, inadequate,
simplistic, and improperly formed first step) which (ois) back again (palin
repetitively) and again from above (anothen from heaven and for a very long
time) you are choosing (thelete your are desiring and taking pleasure in,
wanting) to be controlled as a slave (douleuein)... (Galatians 4:9)
Just a moment ago, Paul was telling believers that they had become gods, but
now they are incompetent and worthless. However, while this may sound like
another contradiction, remember that Paul has consistently portrayed Yahowah as
impotent and inadequate.
So that you dont think that Im being unfair to Paul, the Interlinear
associated with the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition renders the same statement: now
but having known God more but having been known by God how you returned
again on the weak and poor elements to which again from above to slave you
want.
Beginning at the beginning, considering the fact that most peoples written
expressions convey vastly more information that their verbal proclamations, and
recognizing that Shauwl has consistently misquoted and contradicted Yahowah,
there is no chance whatsoever that anyone came to know God based upon his
preaching. The same is true of his writing, even today, and as a result, God does
not know a single Pauline Christian. So Paul had this wrong.
Beyond this, mallon more is inappropriate in the context of the Covenant.
Whats most important is us coming to know God and then, once we know Him,
the next most important thing is to understand what He is offering so that we can
respond accordingly. It is only then that God reciprocates and comes to know us
as His children. However, the last thing we should desire is for Him to know us
better than we know Him. The more closely we examine Him, the better He
looks, but the same is not true for us. The entire purpose of the Set-Apart Spirits
Garment of Light is to replace the darkness in our souls with His Light so that as
our Father, He sees Himself in us. So Paul had this wrong.
We can quit our job, we can move to a different state or country, we can
change political allegiances, we can even divorce our spouse, but we cannot
disown our children. The same is true with God. So while each of us are given the
opportunity to ignore, reject, or accept the Covenant, should we embrace its terms
and conditions, we are Yahowahs sons and daughters forever. That is His
promise, a vow memorialized among the Covenants benefits. So when it comes
to the revolving door to heaven, Paul had this wrong as well.
Paul is, of course, suggesting that when the Galatians believed him they were
saved, but by rejecting him they were doomed. His pivotal term is intriguing in
this regard. Epistrepte, which was translated have you returned, changing your
beliefs, is a compound of epi upon or against and strepho to turn on ones
self, no longer caring for oneself by changing ones mind. It is defined by
various lexicons as to change faith or religious beliefs toward true worship and
obedience. So since God is opposed to religion, since God does not want to be
worshipped, and since He places no value in faith, Paul is once again wrong. And
it only gets worse from here.
In Galatians 4:1 through 4:5, Paul not only directly associates stoicheion with
the Towrah, he demeans the Torah by calling it childish, enslaving, controlling,
works based, overbearing and thus oppressive, in addition to being mythological:
So I say, as long as the heir exists childish and immature, he is no different
than a slave, belonging to the lord and master who owns and controls
everyone and everything. (4:1) Certainly, he is under the auspices of foremen
who control the workers and administrators until the previously appointed
time set of the Father. (4:2) And also, in this way, it follows that when we
were infants, under the elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of
religious mythology, the simplistic and basic initial precepts of the
supernatural powers associated with the cults of the earth, water, air, and
fire, and the deification of the sun, moon, planets, and stars of the universal
system and world order (stoicheion), we were subservient slaves. (4:3) But
when came the fullness of the unspecified time, the God sent out the Son of
Him, originating from a woman, having been under Towrah (nomos) (4:4) in
order that the ones under Towrah (nomos) he might buy back in order to the
son set we might receive back and obtain from. (4:5)
So in Galatians 4:9, after all of these derogatory comments, and after
establishing this connection between stoicheion religious mythology and the
nomos Towrah, Paul calls Yahowahs Testimony asthenes incapacitating
and incompetent as well as ptochos worthless, belittling, and terrifying.
In this regard, Paul could not have been more wrong.
But that was insufficient. He went on to claim that the religious
mythology to which they had returned again and again came from
above, as in from God in heaven. And that by choosing Gods elementary
teachings, they were deciding to be controlled as a slave... The opposite is
true.
 And this is also true: to Shauwl the Torah remains an enslaving object of
scorn to be rejected.
A man on a mission, Shauwl ripped the heart and life out of the Torah,
rejecting the Shabat, the Miqraey, and the Yowbel: Days you keep watch and
months and seasons and years. He is repudiating Yahowahs instructions to keep
the Shabat, the seventh day, special. And in this way, Gods promise and plan
become unknown. Worse, he is denouncing Yahowahs instructions to observe
the Mowed Miqraey at their designated times in the spring, summer, and fall
seasons, meeting with God in the first, third, and seventh months of the year. By
so doing, there is no hope of salvation. And finally, the reference to years is
designed to negate the observance of the Yowbel, designating the time when debts
are forgiven and slaves are freed. As a result, Pauls devotees remain clueless
regarding the Towrahs purpose and the date of Gods imminent return. For
Christendom, Pauls statement was devastating and irrecoverable. All Christians
would die.
Those reading along referencing an English bible or even the Nestle-Aland
Greek rendition of Pauls epistle may have noticed that the ninth verse appears to
conclude the sentence with a question mark, leaving us to believe that the tenth
verse is independent of the ninths diabolical hypothesis. However, Papyrus 46
corrects the first word of what would otherwise have been the next sentence,
changing paratereisoe you are observing and attending to paraterountes
by observing and attending, thereby combining these thoughts. In so doing,
Shauwls statement goes from bad to worse because he is saying that we choose
to be controlled and enslaved by Yahowahs Towrah by observing and attending
the Shabat, the Miqraey, and the Yowbel.
Therefore, corrected to reflect the oldest extant codex, this same concluding
statement reads:
...by observing and carefully attending (paraterountes by closely
examining so as to be present, by taking a stand being perceptive through careful
consideration, by paying unremitting attention to, by looking for benefit in by
attending; from para from, beside and near and tereo to carefully attend),
days (hemera), and (kai) months (menas using moon phases), and (kai)
seasons (kairos appropriate or opportune occasions, proper or specific times),
and years (eniautos annual solar cycles or eras)? (Galatians 4:10)
According to Paul, by observing Yahowahs days, His months and
seasons, and His years, and therefore by accepting Yahowahs Invitations to
Meet with Him and attending His Feasts is one of the ways God enslaves and
controls humankind. It was the next logical step in Shauwls thesis. Having
separated the Maaseyah from the Torah, he is now separating mankind from
God.
More deceitful, deadly, destructive, and damning than any words ever
written, those Paul scribed 1,963 years ago have precluded billions of souls from
knowing Yahowah. Christians do not observe the Shabat, attend the Miqraey, or
understand the Yowbel and thus cannot engage in a relationship with God and
cannot be saved. They do not know what these days, months, seasons, and years
represent. Most find them despicable.
Pauls message was translated by Jerome in the Latin Vulgate to say: But
then indeed, not knowing God, you served them who, by nature, are not gods. But
now, after that you have known God, or rather are known by God: how turn you
again to the weak and needy elements which you desire to serve again? You
observe days and months and times, and years.
Copying the Catholics, the Authorized Protestant King James Version said
something fairly similar: Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service
unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God,
or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements,
whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and
times, and years.
The NLTs liberal interpretation is more in keeping with Christianitys
antagonism for the Torah, and especially Yahowahs instructions regarding His
Sabbath, Invitations to Meet, and Yowbel Redemptive years. Before you
Gentiles knew God, you were slaves to so-called gods that do not even exist. So
now that you know God (or should I say, now that God knows you), why do you
want to go back again and become slaves once more to the weak and useless
spiritual principles of this world? You are trying to earn favor with God by
observing certain days or months or seasons or years.
While the New Living Translation is dead wrong, they have accurately
conveyed Shauwls intended message. He is obviously demeaning the heart of
the Torah: Yahowahs Sabbath (where we learn that we cannot work for our
salvation), His seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God (where we
are freed from death, our sins are forgiven, we are adopted into the Covenant, and
are enriched and empowered), and His Redemptive Year of Gods Lamb (where
souls are freed and debts are forgiven). So in his first denunciation of specific
aspects of Yahowahs Word, the wannabe Apostle has renounced the essence of
Gods plan of reconciliation and salvation.
On my first pass through this material, I was focused on translating one verse
at a time, and thereby lost sight of the context within which these thoughts were
encapsulated. And at that time, I was predisposed to render each of Pauls
statements as consistently with Yahowahs overall message as the words
themselves would allow. So I evaluated this trilogy of verses as if Paul was
assailing pagan traditions and festivals, especially those observed by the Persians,
Romans, and Greeks, whereby they worshipped gods predicated upon the natural
and physical world.
And while I will share where that thought process led, as it is always
beneficial to understand the nature of religious counterfeits, I must now admit that
my metanoeo attitude, perspective, and thinking has changed based upon a
more contextual, careful, and complete review of Paul generally and Galatians
specifically. Based upon what he has said thus far in Galatians 2:16 through 4:7,
and what he will say in verses 4:21 through 4:31, the inescapable conclusion is
that all of this represents a singular doctrinal statement. According to Paul: the
Torah enslaves and must be rejected.
Here then is a summation of this devastating trilogy of Pauline statements.
And while I understand that we have gone over this before, second only to
properly conveying the meaning of the words themselves, context provides the
basis for understanding:
So I say, as long as the heir exists childish and immature, he is no
different than a slave, belonging to the lord and master who owns and
controls everyone and everything. (4:1) Certainly, he is under the auspices of
foremen who control the workers and administrators until the previously
appointed time set of the father. (4:2) And also, in this way, it follows that
when we were infants, under the elementary teachings and rudimentary
principles of religious mythology (stoicheion), we were subservient slaves.
(4:3) But when came the fullness of the unspecified time, the god sent out the
Son of him, originating from a woman, having been under Towrah (nomos)
(4:4) in order that the ones under Towrah (nomos), he might buy back in
order to the son set we might receive back and obtain from. (4:5) But because
you are sons sent out the god, the spirit into the hearts of us shouts, Abba
the Father. (4:6) So as a result, you no longer exist as a slave, but to the
contrary a Son. But now if a Son and an heir by the chance casting of lots
through a god. (4:7)
Certainly on the other hand, not having known or acknowledged god,
you were enslaved to nature, not existing as gods. (4:8) But now having
known god, but whats more, having been known under god, how have you
returned, changing your beliefs back upon the incapacitating and
incompetent, the worthless, belittling, and terrifying elementary teachings
and rudimentary principles of religious mythology representing the
inadequate, simplistic, and improperly formed first step which back again
and again from above you are choosing to be controlled as a slave (4:9) by
observing and carefully attending days, and months, and seasons, and
years? (4:10)
As affirmation of this abomination, Paul first introduced the concept of our
inheritance, in Galatians 3:18, whereby he disassociated the Torah from Gods
promise to Abraham to forgive us. Subsequently, Paul asked, So why then this
Towrah? clearly referring to the Word of God, as he would have no reason to
explain the origin of human edicts. By the 19th verse, Paul spoke of the Towrah
existing only until the prescribed Messengers arrival the opposite of what the
Messenger, Himself, said.
Then in the second half of the 21st verse, the man with the audacity to
contradict Gods Word while claiming to be His Apostle, claimed that no one has
been made right with God based upon the Towrah, which further undermined any
attempt to pin the blame for mans enslavement on worldly schemes. Scripture
remained the subject of the 22nd verse, where Paul used hypo to speak of but to
the contrary, the writing imposed restrictions, completely shutting the door
on heaven, imprisoning everything under error and evil, just as he used hypo
in the first three verses of the fourth chapter to speak of us being childish slaves
under the control of oppressive authority figuresthemselves apparently
representing the Torahs tendency to enslave.
So it was in the midst of this that we were confronted with Galatians 3:25,
But now having come the Faith, no longer do we exist under an old
fashioned and strict disciplinarian, whereby a direct comparison was made to
Galatians 4:1-3: So I say, as long as the heir exists childish and immature, he
is no different than a slave, belonging to the lord and master who owns and
controls everyone and everything. (4:1) Certainly, he is under the auspices of
foremen who control the workers and administrators until the previously
appointed time set of the Father. (4:2) And also, in this way, it follows that
when we were infants, under the elementary teachings and rudimentary
principles of religious mythology, we were subservient slaves. (4:3)
Therefore, Shauwls lord and master is the Towrah, effectively destroying
any chance we had of redeeming his testimony by subsequently disassociating the
foremen, managers, mythological region, or enslavement from being
associated with the Torah.
Stroke by stroke, word by word, Paul is building his case against Yahowah,
His Word, and His plan of reconciliation and salvation. And he will stop at
nothing, including demeaning the Disciples, misquoting Scripture, contradicting
Yahowsha, and twisting Gods Word, to establish himself and his doctrine. It is
Paul versus God and all of His witnesses and prophets. If Paul hasnt become the
Adversary, he is, at the very least, his messenger.
 Men are enslaved by other men and their religious and political schemes, not
by nature or by God. Moreover, Yahowsha did not come to liberate anyone from
the Torah, but instead to fulfill the Torahs promises and thereby provide eternal
salvation.
We come to know Yahowah through the Towrah and the Prophets, and yet
Paul has only presented mutilated snippets of five verses thus far from themall
of which he has twisted. And there is no reason to assume that his preaching (at
least in content) would have been any better than his writing.
Coming to know Yahowah as He presents Himself in the Torah, results in
God coming to know us. Yahowah doesnt, however, know those who dont know
Him. Respecting Yahowah and His revelation results in being valued sufficiently
by God to be adopted into His family. But those who dont revere God enough to
study His Word (a.k.a., the Towrah) are excluded from His family.
Those who dont know and understand the Towrah remain particularly
susceptible to Pauls doctrinal delusions. And that poses a particularly difficult
problem for Christians because they have been conditioned by Paul to ignore the
Towrah. They dont, therefore, know what they are missing, and they miss the
fact that by demeaning it, Paul was contradicting the God he claimed to represent.
This presents a conundrum. If we encourage Christians to study the Towrah
before rejecting Paul, they will not be open to it and thus will remain adverse to
Yahowah and His plan of salvation. And yet, the most effective way to encourage
Christians to reject Paul is to compare this mans letters with Gods teaching.
Those who are rational will adjust their perspective, thinking, and attitude,
recognizing that it is irrational to believe that God inspired a man to contradict
Him.
After falsely testifying that the recipients of his preaching knew God and
were also known by Him, the wannabe Apostle backtracked, suggesting that the
Galatians were now orphaned. If that were true, then our salvation would be
predicated upon our fidelity as opposed to Gods provision, and our spiritual
rebirth would be temporal, not eternal. If this were possible, heaven would have to
be equipped with a revolving door. And for Pauls pleading to have any merit, so
would hell.
But this egomaniacs errant theology pales in comparison to his abysmal
attitude toward God. By asking the Galatians how can you return to the
initial teachings (a.k.a., the Torah), Paul is implying that his preaching was vastly
superior to Yahowahs teachings. And by calling Gods plan a worthless and
incompetent initial step, he is suggesting that only a fool would choose to trust
Gods solution over his.
 To which the man who played his audience as if they were fools, said that by
choosing to observe the Torah, such individuals were choosing to be controlled as
if they were slaves. That means that rather than freeing His children from bondage
in Egypt, Paul would have you believe that Yahowahs domineering persona
dragged His people away from the liberty they enjoyed in the Promised Land and
then forced them to serve as slaves in Egypt.
But lets pretend for a moment that Shauwls view of Yahowah is correct,
that God was a despicable deity, that He was completely incompetent, even
counterproductive, and that His plan was incapable of freeing anyone, much less
saving them. Who then was Shauwl speaking on behalf of? Was Shauwl going
to save his believers based upon his authority and power, or were they going to
have to rely on the same mean-spirited, counterproductive, and unreliable God
Shauwl repeatedly demeaned?
If you have not studied, and thus do not intimately understand, the spirit
behind Yahowahs special day, the Sabbath (where we learn that we cannot work
for our salvation and come to appreciate the nature of Gods plan), the purpose of
Yahowahs seven special monthly meeting times, or Invitations (wherein God
delineates the path to salvation, adoption, and heaven), or Yahowahs Yowbel
years (whereby we are asked to forgive all debts and free all people as a way of
acknowledging that we appreciate what God is willing to do for us), then please
invest the time to read the first two volumes of Yada Yah found at
www.YadaYah.com.
Rather that facilitating our freedom from mans works-based religious
schemes, rather than providing the means to our salvation, rather than enabling
our adoption into our Heavenly Fathers family by way of His Covenant, Shauwl
would have you believe that we become controlled and enslaved by observing
and attending certain days, months, seasons and years. And yet the most
important elements in Yahowahs plan of adoption and of salvation are delineated
thereby. The very days, months, seasons, and years Yahowsha observed and
attended have been recast as Gods means to control and enslave His creation.
When it comes to twisting, even inverting, Yahowahs Word, and revising, even
contradicting, His plan, this is as bad as bad ever gets.
By connecting the message presented in verses nine and ten, as is required by
reason and the evidence found in the oldest surviving manuscript of Galatians, it
becomes impossible to overlook Pauls hatred of the Torah, and specifically his
antagonism toward observing and attending Yahowahs set-apart times for us to
meet each week and year. This passage cannot be seen as anything other than an
assault on the Sabbath, Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread, First-Born Children, Seven
Sabbaths, Trumpets, Reconciliations, Shelters, and the Yowbel years, whereby the
self-proclaimed Apostle would have those who believe him reject the core
aspects of Gods plan even though each element was described as an eternal and
everlasting prescription in the Torah.
Therefore, for Paul to be right, the God whose plan he had rejected and
demeaned would have had to have given Paul the authority to contradict Him. But
that would make Paul the opposite of Yahowsha and more competent than
Yahowah. Moreover, since Paul claims to speak for Him, it should be noted that
the endorsement of a god who needs correcting is as useless as is the advice of
that gods apostle.
Ive always wondered how Christians reconcile the fact that Yahowsha
meticulously observed the Sabbath, the seven Miqraey, and the Yowbel, and that
He endured Passover and Unleavened Bread to save us. Yet in complete conflict
with the Maaseyahs example, Christians justify Sunday worship, Lent, Easter,
Halloween, and Christmas based upon Pauls promises. And that means that Paul,
not Jesus Christ, is responsible for the faith of Christianity and serves as its
founder and guiding light.
While it is undeniably obvious that Paul was telling the Galatians not to
observe any of the key elements of Yahowahs plan of salvation, and to ignore the
relationship between these and Yahowshas life, that is not to say that there
werent other days, months, times, and years worth denouncing. For example,
the Galatians, as Celtic Gauls, would have been heavily influenced by the Druid
religion as well as the Babylonian belief system by way of the Persian influence
in the region. Even Greek mythology was spread throughout Galatia during the
conquests of Alexander of Macedonia. But by this time, the Galatians were also
Romansand thus compelled to honor the Roman pantheonwhich had come to
include seeing certain men as gods. Octavian Augustus, for example, had rebuilt a
temple in their midst to the Phrygian goddess, Cybele, calling it the Monumentum
Ancyranum, or the Temple of Augustus and Rome in Ancyra, to venerate himself.
It retains the extant text of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti, The Deeds of the Divine
Augustus, on its interior walls.
According to Acts 14, Paul and Barnabas were called Zeus and Hermes
during one of their visits after they had participated in the healing of a lame man.
Pagan priests offered sacrifices to them. But when they refused, Paul alleges that
Jews from Antioch persuaded the crowds to drag him out of town to stone him.
And if true, which I doubt, it would make these people highly impressionable.
In the context of worshiping Zeus (king of the gods) and Hermes (messenger
of the gods), it would have been appropriate for Paul to do what he did not do:
denounce the assimilation of Roman, Greek, and Babylonian mythological
holidays, and the celebration of them instead of observing Gods instructions as
Christians have done. For example, Dionysus, the god of grapes and wine, died
each winter and was said to be resurrected each spring. This renewal became an
annual religious festival celebrating the promise of resurrection from the dead.
Held over the course of five days each Spring, the Dionysia set the stage for the
Christian replacement of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, with Palm
Sunday (Passion Sunday), Maundy Thursday (institution of Communion),
Good Friday (death and burial of Jesus Christ), Holy Saturday (where Jesus
rested in the grave), and Easter Sunday occurring during the last week of the
Babylonian festival of Lent.
Similarly misguided practices are observed today in astrology, especially
with the horoscope. As evidence of this, those who promote astrology say: Days
of the week are also associated with Sun signs and Planets and have their own
Lucky Days, to which some list each astrological sign along with its propitious
time. And then they claim numerology can help you predict your Lucky Days,
and the destiny of your life based upon your birthday number, because it is your
life number. Recognizing that all of this was conceived in Babylon, and
assimilated into Judaism during their captivity, its worth noting that had Paul not
been so fixated on demeaning Gods Word, there were aspects of the Babylonian
religion which were incorporated into rabbinical Judaism which were deserving of
criticism.

Moving on to the next statement, Paul changes gears. We find him

momentarily tabling his animosity for the Torah in favor of promoting himself.
While these verses have no value spiritually, they are revealing, in that they paint
a troubling picture of a tormented individual.
The Nestle-Alands McReynolds Interlinear rendition of Galatians 4:11
reads: I fear you not perhaps without cause have labored in you. More
comprehensively translated (and recognizing that Papyrus 46 corrects the perfect
kopiao have labored to the aorist ekopiasa had labored), I think he was
trying to say:
I am afraid and fear (poboumai I am alarmed, frightened, and
concerned) for you (umas) that maybe (me perhaps expecting a negative
outcome) somehow (pos in some way) without reason (eike without purpose
or result in vain and for nothing) I have grown tired struggling and laboring
(kopiao I have grown weary, emotionally fatigued, and discouraged showing
effort) toward you (eis umas). (Galatians 4:11)
 As is the case with most annoying habits that simply wont go away, Shauwl
has misspoken once again. Those who faithfully present Yahowahs message
never labor in vain. Even when Gods Word is rejected, our witness serves a
purposeeven if it just leaves people without excuse.
And there is nothing to fear. Souls who ignore or reject Gods invitation to
participate in His Covenant arent punished as Christian mythology portends. So
there is great joy when someone comes to know Yahowah, but we are not
anguished even when a thousand choose otherwise.
Our job is to prepare ourselves by studying Yahowahs Word, so that when
we go out, we accurately convey His message. How Gods plan of salvation is
received isnt our responsibility. Therefore, Shauwls lament is inappropriate and
self-centered. He is once again wrong.
The KJVs take on this passage is peculiar: I am afraid of you, lest I have
bestowed upon you labour in vain. Albeit their misrepresentation should not be
surprising since its readily apparent that they translated the Latin Vulgate: I am
afraid of you, lest perhaps I have laboured in vain among you. While the NLT
isnt accurate, its less inaccurate: I fear for you. Perhaps all my hard work with
you was for nothing.
In the words which follow, Paul issues a command that would not even be
appropriate if he was God. And since every statement he has made thus far has
been inaccurate, ungodly, and injurious, since he may have been the most caustic
man who ever lived, by ordering everyone who reads this letter to become like
him, Paul has become delusional to the point of being psychotic, and his
statements have become counterproductive to the point of being suicidal. And this
is not the worst of it. He compounds this megalomania with a claim of perfection.
The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds
English Interlinear presents the command and proclamation as follows: Become
as I that also as you brothers I beg you. Nothing me you did unright. But this
rendition is both inadequate and incomplete, in that it fails to convey much of
what was actually scribed by Shauwl.
This command and this assessment are so outrageous, lets be especially
deliberate in our analysis and consider and convey the implications of every tense,
mood, voice, case, and particle. Therefore, completely and accurately recounted,
Paul wrote:
You all must become (ginomai (scribed ginesthe) you are all presently
commanded to come to be, continuing to exist (in the present tense the action
must commence at once and continue into the future, in the middle passive, the
reader is being acted upon and will be affected and influenced by their response,
in the imperative this is a command, and in the second person plural this is
directed at everyone reading this letter)) like (os the same as (conjunction
(making a connection) adverbial (functioning like an adverb elaborating on the
verb must become to reveal the purpose and the result) comparative)) I (ego me
(the nominative singular tells the reader that they are to become and be like the
writer)).
Then I (oti kago because also I namely by way of explanation (adverbial
causal emphatic demonstrating the basis or grounds for an active and
demonstrative prioritization and response to turn a direct assertion into an indirect
claim)) as a result like (os the same as (conjunction (making a connection)
adverbial (functioning like an adverb elaborating on the verb must become to
reveal the purpose and the result) comparative)) you all become (umeis all of
you becoming (nominative plural conveying you all to be) called brothers in the
faith (adelphoi fellow believers (in the vocative this indicates that they will
being directly addressed as religious brothers)), the means I want to compel, to
bind, and to control (deomai the way I ask to possess, so I beg and plead to
have supernatural power over and imprison, and I desire and want to throw into
chains and restrict, wishing to forcibly obligate; from deo to bind, tie, and
fasten, to restrict, chain, and imprison, speaking of satanic demon possession
through a controlling messenger, and to make ill and obligate to the authority of
another (present (now and in the future) middle passive (the writer is being
influenced by someone else and is being affected by his own desire to control)
indicative (the mood of reality and assertion) first person singular)) you all (umon
all of you (in the genitive case the pronoun is being restricted to a specific
characterization and marks a possessive relationship)).
In no way (ouden in not even one thing at all (adjective accusative
modifying a noun which is a direct object of a verb)) were you wronged,
harmed, or treated unjustly as a result of fraud (adikeo were you violated,
mistreated, or injured, were you deceived in a wicked, destructive, or sinful
manner; from adikos to violate and treat unjustly through fraud and deceit
(aorist active indicative at a point in time in the past as a result of something
done)) by me (me with myself (in the accusative the writer is the direct object of
the verb)). (Galatians 4:12)
Bereft of the Greek terminology and full amplifications, Paul conveyed:
You all must become and are commanded to exist like I. Then I as an
emphatic priority as a result like you all become called brothers and fellow
believers, the means I want to compel, to bind, and to control you all. In no
way were you wronged, harmed, or treated unjustly as a result of fraud by
me. (4:12)
 According to the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, when
ginomai speaks of persons, as it is doing here, they are being asked to be born
and appear in a certain way in this case, to appear like Paul and to be born of
the same spirit that possessed Paul. Not only would that be destructive, deadly,
and damning, the edict to make Paul, not Yahowsha, the example to be followed
and emulated was scribed in the imperative mood, making it a command. In the
second person plural, it is for you all and thus for everyone reading this letter.
The middle voice signifies that the subject, who in this case would be the reader,
is being affected, influencing themselves, by their response. And the passive voice
tells us that the reader is being acted upon as well. This voice is used by Paul as
the divine passive to infer that he is an agent of god.
Very few people would be sufficiently impressed with themselves to suggest
that others should imitate their behavior, as Paul is proposing here. In so doing, he
has crossed the line from pretending to speak for Yahowsha to pretending to be
the Maaseyah. Yahowshas life is the only one worth emulating. (Although,
based upon many of the emails I have received, most of those who tell others to
behave more like Jesus have no concept what He was like. After all, Christians
would have to be Torah observant to follow Yahowshas example.)
Pauls emphatic priority is to win back the souls who have rejected him. He
wants them to become brothers in the sense of fellow believers because as the
founder and sole advocate of the Faith, this gives Paul absolute control over them.
By writing deomai umon the means I desire to compel, possess, and control
you all, Shauwl left no doubt as to his purpose in promoting his Faith. Based on
deo to bind and tie (which is the basis of the Latin and English word
religion), to fasten and restrict, to throw into chains and thereby to forcibly
control and obligate, deomai simply adds desire to this end. If all Paul wanted
to convey was his will in this regard, he would have used thelo, because it does
not carry any of the oppressive religious baggage.
Paul also claimed that he did nothing wrong, writing: In no way whatsoever
were you wronged or treated unjustly as a result of fraud by me. But had he
proclaimed: I have said nothing right, it would have been much closer to the
truth making his remarks delusional and disingenuous in the extreme. And yet
setting his treachery aside, with these past two statements, the wannabe Apostle
has begun to sound more like a wannabe god. And that perhaps is why he felt no
compunction against telling us that his way was superior to Gods.
It should also be noted that in between these egotistical pontifications,
Shauwls positioning was duplicitous. As a chameleon, he was always willing to
change his colors based upon what he thought would win the favor of his
audience. If these folks were Gentiles, as is suspected, then apart from his new
religion, he was lying with then I like you become brothers, but if they were
Jews, who were Pauls adversaries in this community?
The Catholic and Protestant religious renderings of this passage read: Be ye
as I, because I also am as you brethren, I beseech you. You have not injured me at
all. (LV) And: Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are: ye have
not injured me at all. (KJV)
To help demonstrate the inaccuracy of the New Living Translation, here,
once again, is the Nestle-Aland rendering of this repulsive proposition: Become
as I that also as you brothers I beg you. Nothing me you did unright. Allegedly
rendering their translation from the same base text, the New Living Translation
published: Dear brothers and sisters, I plead with you to live as I do in freedom
from these things, for I have become like you Gentilesfree from those laws.
You did not mistreat me when I first preached to you. Once again, there is
almost no correlation between Pauls Greek and the words found in the NLT.
The more challenging Shauwls message is to decipher, the more
comfortable I am with the idea of introducing you to his terminology by way of
the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear. This isnt because I think that their
translation is particularly accurate, but instead, their grammatically literal, albeit
simplistic, approach to the Greek text helps reinforce just how difficult the task of
translating Galatians has become. Therefore, the NAMI reads: You know but
that through weakness of the flesh I told good message to you the former.
The one advantage of this proclamation is that it affirms that Shauwl,
himself, is to blame for the deficiencies in this letter that make it so difficult to
translate.
But (de) you realize (oida you recognize and acknowledge) that (hoti)
because of (dia by way of and through) an incapacity, weakness, and
limitation (astheneia an illness and timidity, a lack of strength and frailty, an
infirmity and ailment, a lack of insight and feeling of inadequacy) in the flesh (tes
sarx of the physical body or human nature), I announced the healing
messenger and beneficial message (euangelizo) to you all (umin) this (to)
previously (proteros before, formerly, or earlier in the first place). (Galatians
4:13)
Since Shauwl revealed precisely what was causing his timidity, incapacity,
and limitation in the flesh in his letter to Corinth, it is again pertinent here.
Because (gar) if (ean) I might want (thelo) to brag (dauchaomai),
truthfully (aletheia), I would not be (ouk esomai) foolish or imprudent
(aphron). For then (gar) I will say (ero) I am presently abstaining (pheidomai).
But (de) someone (tis) not (un) approaching (eis) me (eme) might ponder
(logizomai) beyond (hyper) what (o) he sees (blepo) in me (me), or (e)
something (ti) he hears (akouo) from (ek) me (emou), (12:6) and of the (kai te)
extraordinary superiority of the exaggerated (hyperbole ton) revelations
(apokalypsis). Therefore (dio), in order that (hina) I not become overly proud
and be lifted up (me hyperairomai), there was given to me (didomi ego) a
sharp goad and troubling thorn (skolops) in the body (te sarx), a spiritual
messenger (aggelos) of Satan (Satan), in order to (hina) strike and restrain
and incapacitate me (kolaphizo), so that as a result (hina) at the present time
there is the possibility that I might not be conceited, currently exalting myself
beyond what would be justified, so as not to be able to be insolent or
audacious, lifting myself up (me hyperairomai). (2 Corinthians 12:6-7)
Therefore, Pauls statement is troubling, especially in this context.
If we can get beyond the issues associated with demon-possession, this letter
continues to be more about Paul than about the nature of the message he should
have been proclaiming and explaining. And such is the case with all of Pauls
epistles. They focus on Pauls life not Yahowshas, and on Pauls message not
Yahowahs. Thus far, Paul hasnt accurately quoted a single line of Scripture, nor
has he conveyed anything which would help anyone understand Yahowahs
nature, Yahowshas purpose, Yahowahs Word or His plan of salvation. The
relatively few partially accurate statements he has made havent contributed to
anyones understanding because he hasnt supported any of his positions with the
proper citations. And the preponderance of what he has written has been
inaccurate and/or incomprehensible.
No matter which standard you deploy, whether it is Yahowahs Deuteronomy
13 or 18 tests or just the overall inconsistency with Gods Word, whether it is the
writing quality, the plethora of internal contradictions, or the onslaught of logical
fallacies, youd have to be ignorant, irrational, or religious to consider the
Galatians epistle Scripture, as in the sense of being inspired by God. But
worse, even as one mans opinion, Galatians isnt even remotely helpful. In fact,
this letter has been overwhelmingly counterproductive. Its only value has been to
artificially evaluate Paul. And in that light, the verdict is dire.
The Christian renderings of this latest proclamation are as follows. The
Catholic Latin Vulgate reads: And you know how, through infirmity of the flesh,
I preached the evangelizavi to you heretofore: and your temptation in my flesh.
The Authorized Protestant King James says: Ye know how through infirmity of
the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. And the Evangelical New
Living Translation published: Surely you remember that I was sick when I first
brought you the Good News.
 This next sentence is difficult to understand, not only because it is awkwardly
written, but because we do not know what occurred during Shauwls last visit
with these folks, nor do we know what has transpired since. So as hard as this
letter is to translate, it is even harder to interpret. And along these lines, Papyrus
46 replaces the initial umon with mou, changing you to me in the initial
clause. Further, it excludes oude ekptuo, nor reject in the middle of the
sentence, leaving us with the NAMI unwilling to acknowledge the oldest
manuscript, and preferring the majority rendering instead, publishing: And the
pressure of you in the flesh of me not you despised but not you spit out but as
messenger of God you welcomed me as Christ Jesus.
Continuing to complain about the restraints imposed upon him by Satan,
according to the oldest extant codex, Shauwl scribed: And (kai) my temptation
to prove my integrity (mou peirasmos my submission to another, my
examination and test regarding consistency, fidelity, and virtue, my enticement
which serves as the means to learn the true nature of my character of the reason
for trying to prove myself; from peirazo to try to see if something can be done,
to attempt and endeavor to make a trial or test to reveal ones thinking regarding
the other side) in (en) my (mou) flesh (sarx physical body or human nature),
you did not ridicule, despise, or reject (ou exoutheneo you did not disdain,
look down upon, make light of, treat with contempt, or disregard) [nor (oude)
reject (ekptuo scorn, spurn or loathe)].
To the contrary (alla certainly and by contrast) like (os because as in
such a way or in the same way) a spiritual messenger (aggelos a divine
representative and heavenly envoy who was sent with a message) of god (),
you received and believed (dechomai you welcomed, entertained, and
accepted) me (me) as (os one who is like) Christon Iesoun ( divine
placeholders for the Maaseyah (Implement Doing the Work of Yah) Yahowsha
(Yah Saves), but since this epistle has striven to disassociate Yahowsha from
Yahowah and the Maaseyah from the Towrah, it would be misleading to connect
that which the author has severed). (Galatians 4:14)
There are four problems with this statement, yet everything which was said
contributes to our understanding of Shauwla man named after the place he has
led billions of souls. First, he continues to be fixated upon himself. It would be
one thing for him to say that he was unqualified for this mission, as that would be
honest, relevant, and useful. But there is nothing to be gained by wallowing in
ones own temptations, especially when they reveal demon-possession, insanity,
violent hostility, and sexual decadence. But I suppose that it is Pauls way of
saying that his suffering was more important than Yahowshas.
In this regard, peirasmos is yet another in a long list of terms indicting
Shauwl and his Christian audience. As is often the case with Satans messengers,
they are so enamored with their perceived superiority and so dismissive of
humanitys lack of mental acuity, they flaunt their ability to beguile the faithful.
He, himself, is tempting readers because he knows that most will be unwilling to
examine his lack of consistency and integrity so as to learn the truth about his
character and his desire to present such a contrarian view.
Exoutheneo sets a very low bar. It is hard to imagine the founder of a
religion, arguably the most infamous man who ever lived, telling the Galatians
that they did not ridicule or reject him, neither despising or disdaining him.
Considering his propensity for ad hominem attacks on his opponents, thats
almost funny.
Second, aggelos is a loaded word, especially in this context. It implies that
Paul was a heavenly messenger, a divine representative, and spiritual envoy sent
by God, all of which was blatantly untrue. Aggelos was used in Luke 1:26 to
describe Gabriel / Gabryel when the spiritual envoy visited with Mary / Miryam.
It was used in Mark 1:2 to speak of the divine and prophetic witness of John /
Yahowchanan the Baptist. And it was used in Mattanyah 25:41 in the context of
the judgment awaiting those enduring the Tribulation, destining those estranged
from God to spend their eternity separated from Him along with the other
spiritual messengers aggelos who were in league with Satanbetter known
as demons.
Third, as we have just reminded ourselves, in a direct reference to Satans
aggelos spiritual messengers and representatives, Shauwl told the world in his
second letter to the Corinthians that the trial he endured in the flesh was a sharp
pointed stick (a goad used to control animals) which was wielded by one of
Satans aggelos demons. And in actuality, the evidence Shauwl personally
provides in his letters confirms that he was Satans implement, not Yahowahs.
So, the Galatians should have been repulsed by this, and as a result, they should
have rejected Shauwl. Fortunately, most did.
And fourth, Shauwls use of os, translated even as before Christon
Iesoun, is arrogant and inappropriate, because by using os, Paul is comparing
himself to Yahowsha. This notion is reinforced by the fact that the Greek word
os (spelled omicron sigma) is based upon os (this time spelled omega sigma)
which means who. Therefore, by using os, Paul has called himself: a spiritual
representative and heavenly messenger from God who is like (os) Christon
Iesoun. So even if Paul had not otherwise incriminated himself, the hubris
associated with making such a statement is grotesque.
Jerome wrote the following for his pope, recognizing that the religious
potentate viewed himself similarly to Paul: You despised not, nor rejected: but
received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. Serving an equally
deceived and egotistical political master, the KJV penned: And my temptation
which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel
of God, even as Christ Jesus.
While this isnt a translation of the Greek text, the NLT is rendered as Paul
intended, which is one of many reasons we should be so critical of him. But even
though my condition tempted you to reject me, you did not despise me or turn me
away. No, you took me in and cared for me as though I were an angel from God
or even Christ Jesus himself. And yet according to a manuscript written 1,900
years earlier than either the Nestle-Aland or the New Living Translation, it is
obvious that Shauwl said that the temptation was his trial, not a test for the
Galatians.
The best face we can honestly put on this discussion is that it was misguided
and it is irrelevant to our understanding of God or the path to Him. The message
quality remains as deficient as the writing quality. But dont take my word for it,
consider the NAMIs: Where then the fortunateness of you I testify for to you
that if power the eyes of you having dug out you gave to me. If that is the
inspired word of Shauwls god through his spiritual messenger, I opt for the God
who created the universe, conceived DNA, and authored the Towrah. And it just
gets worse the closer we look (at least while we can still look)...
Where (pou), therefore (oun accordingly and consequently then), the (o)
declaration of blessedness (makarismos the pronouncement of happiness and
joy) of yours (umon)? I witness and testify (martyreo I declare based upon
first-hand knowledge and confirm through eyewitness experience) because (gar)
of you (umin) that (oti) if (ei) possible (dynatos able and competent), the eyes
(tous ophthalmos) of you (umon) having dug out (exorysso having torn,
gouged, and plucked out) you gave (didomi you produced and assigned) to me
(moi). (Galatians 4:15)
Since Paul has twice called the Galatians ignorant and irrational, how is it
that he is expecting them to proclaim how blessed they feel. More curious still,
how is it that Paul equates joy to plucking out ones eyes? Why would the
living give their eyes to someone who can already see, unless it was to keep them
unaware, and thus blind?
But all of the ugliness vanishes when seen through the rose-colored glasses
worn by the NLT: Where is that joyful and grateful spirit you felt then? I am sure
you would have taken out your own eyes and given them to me if it had been
possible.
Their predecessors were more literal. LV: Where is then your blessedness?
For I bear you witness that, if it could be done, you would have plucked out your
own eyes and would have given them to me. KJV: Where is then the
blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye
would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.
Now that this has gone from demonic to sadistic, it is becoming ever more
difficult to share Pauls words without grimacing. But we are committed to seeing
this through, right to the bitter end. With our goal in sight, the next plank in
walking into the valley of death, the NAMI reads: So that hostile of you I have
become telling truth to you. So from brothers to victims and now to foes, this is
painful to read
So as a result (hoste), a hostile and despised adversary (echthros hated
enemy and odious foe) of yours (umon) I have become (ginomai) telling the
truth (aletheuo speaking no lies) to you (umin). (Galatians 4:16)
Paul had become what the Galatians had implied, but not for the reason he
suggested. Like the Adversary, Paul had lied to them.
With each new line, Galatians is becoming ever more like the Quran, both in
tone and style. The Meccan surahs read like a never-ending argument between
Muhammad and his neighbors, with the Allahs Messenger constantly protesting
that his signs and wonders were proof that he should be believed by a community
that considered him demon-possessed and crazy as a loon. But in all fairness, the
Qurans rants are easier to read, because in Muhammads recital, the arguments
on both sides are presented. With Paul, all we have is his response. But like the
Quran, Pauls letters are peppered with the names of Scriptural personages for
credibility sake, even though the narrative is otherwise self-serving, self-
aggrandizing, and argumentative.
The comparison of demonic doctrines noted, here are the translations for your
consideration. LV: Am I then become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
KJV: Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? NLT:
Have I now become your enemy because I am telling you the truth?
Since we only know one side of this argument, as we approach this next
statement, we do not know who was stirring the people up, or even what they
were promoting. Christian theologians will tell you that they were Judaizers,
but Jews have seldom if ever proselytized anyone. In all likelihood, Pauls
opponents were Yahowahs proponentsthose who loved His name and His
Word.
Since this was poorly written, even by Pauls deplorable standards, lets
consider the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear: They are jealous you not
well but to close out you they want that them you might be jealous. And so while
it requires altering the order of the words, this appears to be what Shauwl was
trying to convey...
 They are jealous (zeloo they are deeply concerned and envious, coveting)
of you (umas), not (ou) rightly (kalos good, morally, attractively, healthily, or
commendably), but to the contrary (alla), they want (thelo they desire and
propose) to exclude and separate (ekkleio) you (umas), in order that (hina) you
might be jealous (zeloo envious or deeply committed, coveting and desiring) of
them (autous). (Galatians 4:17)
This is the worst form of an ad hominem fallacy because the foe isnt even
identified. Unaware of what has transpired, or who has done what to whom, its
impossible to objectively ascribe meaning to this criticism. Moreover, since
Pauls opponents were promoting the Torah, they would have been trying to unify
their audience with Yahowah, not separate them. So it was Pauls domineering
nature which is being exposed here. He was afraid that he was losing his control
over these people.
Beyond the idiocy of this insult, those who observe the Torah never share its
wisdom in hopes that others will be jealous of them. We do it because we want
people to be zealous for Yahowah and His Word.
In this case, Jeromes Latin Vulgate is as incomprehensible as Pauls Greek:
They are zealous in your regard not well: but they would exclude you, that you
might be zealous for them. KJV: They zealously affect you, but not well; yea,
they would exclude you, that ye might affect them. This makes absolutely no
sense whatsoever. Excluding someone doesnt make them zealous nor does it
cause them to be affected.
Putting lipstick on this mythical, kosher pig, the NLT would have you believe
Paul said: Those false teachers are so eager to win your favor, but their
intentions are not good. They are trying to shut you off from me so that you will
pay attention only to them. To their credit, I also see this as Pauls desperate
attempt to retain his influence over the Galatians. It is one of the many symptoms
of insecurity. And had this been what Paul was saying, then we could close the
book on Galatians and return to the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. Separation from
Paul is irrelevant. Separation from Yahowah is life and death. If Paul was trying
to garner a following, he shouldnt be followed.
After condemning jealousness, Paul is now advocating it. But (de now)
good and right (kalos moral, attractive, healthy, and commendable) to be
jealous (zeloo to be deeply concerned and envious, coveting) in (en) good and
right (kalos morality and attractiveness) at all times (pantote always and
forever). And (kai) not (un) only (monon alone) in (en) my (me) presence (to
pareimi to be present) with (pros toward, against, or among) you (umas).
(Galatians 4:18)
 Therefore, according to Paul, whats bad for them is good for you. It is little
wonder virtually everyone on the planet rejected him prior to his death.
This has become akin to a campaign speech in which the audience is asked to
believe the candidate. And like them, Paul has consistently deployed the
dreaded negative advertising strategy which plagues most elections. It is as if
demeaning his opponents elevated his candidacy.
Directly from the Greek, the NAMI conveys: Good but to be jealous in good
always and not alone in the to be present me toward you. Jerome penned this in
his LV: But be zealous for that which is good in a good thing always: and not
only when I am present with you. Parroting what the Catholic wrote, the KJV
repeats: But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not
only when I am present with you. And in their own world, the NLT authored: If
someone is eager to do good things for you, thats all right; but let them do it all
the time, not just when Im with you.
If Pauls message had been about coming to know Yahowah, instead of
following him, then his continued presence would have been unnecessary. Its the
influence of Yahowahs Word which should have motivated the Galatians to be
passionate, not the cult of personality. But Shauwl was a self-promoter, so in his
mind his presence was more important than anything.
This continues to be about Paul, not God. The Galatians were now children
of mine, not our Heavenly Fathers sons and daughters. Even his mention of the
Maaseyah in this context is misleading, because it circumvents the role of the
Set-Apart Spirit.
Children (teknon) of mine (mou) whom (hos) also (palin furthermore and
again) I have birth pangs (odino I have engaged in the labor of childbirth) as
far as (mechri to the degree or until) that which (hos) might be formed
(morphoo may be fashioned) becoming Christos ( divine placeholder for
the Maaseyah (but without the definite article, the errant Christos used as a name
is a better grammatical fit than the appropriate title the Implement Doing the
Work of Yah) in (en) you all (umin). (Galatians 4:19)
This too is dead wrong. Men do not bear children, not even homosexuals like
Paul. Those who have been adopted into our Heavenly Fathers Covenant family
have been born anew from above by way of our Spiritual Mother, the Set-Apart
Spirit. They are adopted once they act upon the terms and conditions of the
Covenant relationship. And they receive the Covenants blessings through the
annual Invitations to meet with God. There are few aspects of Yahowahs Towrah
Teaching more important than this.
 In Yahowahs family, there is no pain associated with childbirth. And yet the
anguish and sorrow of being estranged from God will be all Pauls children,
known as Christians, will ultimately experience.
So by claiming to have suffered birth pangs for my children Shauwl has
once again portrayed himself as a twisted surrogate for God. He has established
himself as the mother of his Faith.
It is deeply troubling that the Nestle-Aland, after claiming that their 27th
edition manuscript was a near perfect representation of the original autographs,
ignored the placeholders found in all of the originals and then perpetuated the
myth that the Maaseyah was Christ. NAMI: Children of me whom again I
have birth pains until that might be formed Christ in you.
But 1,700 years of religious tradition was too much to buck and still make a
buck. After all, Catholicisms Latin Vulgate reads: My little children, of whom I
am in labour again, until Christus be formed in you. Of which the King James
translated to produce their Authorized Version: My little children, of whom I
travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you. These translations actually
say that Paul served as a surrogate mother until Christ who was the Son (i.e.,
male) fulfilled that role. The wannabe Apostle was wrong on both accounts.
Since these mistakes are ridiculous, one must ask: why would Shauwl write
something this divergent from Gods symbolism and from human nature? Did he
suffer from gender identity issues as the evidence suggests and Yahowahs
testimony affirms? Was this why he was opposed to marriage, and does it explain
why he was demeaning toward women? Is it why he expressed his love for
Timothya man he personally circumcised even though he was belligerently
opposed to circumcision? Even celibacy, which Paul promoted, is a perversion of
Yahowahs marriage and parental symbolism.
Apart from his animosity toward Gods symbols of the Covenant, which are
marriage and family, and the specific roles God assigned to the Spirit and Son,
Pauls sexual orientation is irrelevant, with a couple of caveats. According to
Daniels prophecy, Satans Messenger will be a homosexual and Yahowah told us
that Shauwl would be fascinated by male genitalia.
Swallowing Pauls repositioning, and regurgitating his delusion, the New
Living Translation affirms that he was the mother of the faithful, compounding
the authors vanity, and affirming that this man gave birth to the religion of
Christianity. Oh, my dear children! I feel as if Im going through labor pains for
you again, and they will continue until Christ is fully developed in your lives.
After removing Yahowah from their lives by renouncing the Torah, and after
negating the purpose of the Maaseyah by separating Him from the Torah, it is
Shauwls intent to personally fill the void he has created. This is the essence of
Pauline Doctrine.
A mother longs to be with her children, to comfort and nurture them, just as a
father longs to support them, but these are our Spiritual Mothers and Heavenly
Fathers roles in our lives, not Pauls. And just a moment ago, Shauwl was
demeaning these same individuals. He said that he had wasted his time with them.
But now feeling motherly...
But (de now) I would purpose (thelo I would desire and want) to be
present (pareimi to arrive and to come) with (pros to against, toward, or
among) you (umas) now (arti immediately) and (kai) to change (allasso to
cause a difference by altering the nature or character, exchanging or substituting,
transforming) my (mou) voice (ten phone the sound or tone of speech or the
language) because (hoti) I am at a loss (aporeo I am perplexed and puzzled,
doubting and embarrassed, uncertain and dont know what to do, even disturbed)
in (en) you (umin). (Galatians 4:20)
Paul would indeed change his tone, and deploy a different tactic. His second
and third letters, which were written to the Thessalonians, were sickeningly
syrupy and sweet, except for his ongoing hatred of his own race.
And yet, had he been telling the truth, the tone of Shauwls voice, his style,
would have been irrelevant. But deceivers deceive by pretending to be the
opposite of what they really are. The Towrahless One, known as the Antichrist,
isnt going to burst onto the scene by announcing that he is Satans envoy, but
instead will endear himself by pretending to be the worlds savior. Even in the
end, when the charade is no longer necessary, Satans ambassador is going to
present the fallen spirit who inspires him as God, rather than the Adversary.
We are witnessing similar duplicity in Shauwls testimony.
And dont miss the fact that Paul doesnt know what to do, what to say, or
how to react because he does not know Yahowah. When it comes to introducing
souls to our Heavenly Father and then to nurturing His children on His Word,
those who know Yahowah are never at a loss because He provided instructions
regarding what we should say and guidance on what we should do.
But with Paul it is much worse that just being befuddled. He is distraught and
embarrassed. He knows that he has ruined their lives, and worse, Yahowshas
Disciples exposed him for the fraud that he had become. It is why Paul would die
alone, without a single supporter.
One of the many problems associated with faith is that it is enhanced and
fades in relation to the source of the inspiration. The unthinking become
particularly susceptible to cults of personality. Religious sects also succeed by
insulating the participants, surrounding them with other believers, and isolating
them from skeptics. With this in mind, the Nestle-Alands McReynolds Interlinear
translation attests that Pauls faith was wavering as a result of his failures in
Galatia: I would want but to be present to you now and to change the sound of
me because I doubt in you.
Recognizing that such honesty would be bad for business, the Roman
Catholic Jerome penned the following for his pope: And I would willingly be
present with you now and change my voice: because I am ashamed for you. In
support of their potentate, the KJV published: I desire to be present with you
now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.
Always there for Paul, and thus willing to elevate him to the status of an
eloquent and sympathetic spokesperson for God, if not a manifestation of God
Himself, the NLT proposes that their Apostle actually said: I wish I were with
you right now so I could change my tone. But at this distance I don't know how
else to help you. But alas, if Paul were speaking for God, and not for himself, he
would have known what to write. So much for the claim that this was inspired by
God.
Pauls emotional interlude is now over. But during it he used I twelve times
and me many more over the course of nine verses to say:
I am afraid and fear for you that maybe somehow without reason and
for nothing I have grown tired and discouraged, struggling to demonstrate
effort toward you. (4:11) You all must become and are commanded to exist
like I. Then I as an emphatic priority as a result like you all become called
brothers and fellow believers, the means I want to compel, to bind, and to
control you all. In no way were you wronged, harmed, or treated unjustly as
a result of fraud by me. (4:12)
But you realize that because of an incapacity, timidity, weakness, and
limitation in the flesh, I announced this healing messenger and beneficial
message to you all previously. (4:13) And my temptation to prove my
integrity and my submission to another, my fidelity and true nature of my
character) in my flesh, you did not ridicule, despise, or reject. To the
contrary like a spiritual messenger of god you received and believed me as
Christon Iesoun. (4:14)
Where, therefore and consequently then, the declaration of blessedness
and the pronouncement of happiness of yours? I witness and testify because
of you that if possible and competent, your eyes having gouged and plucked
out, you gave to me. (4:15) So as a result, a hostile and despised adversary of
yours I have become telling the truth to you. (4:16)
 They are jealous of you, not rightly, but to the contrary, they want to
exclude and separate you, in order that you might be jealous of them. (4:17)
But good and right to be jealous in good and right at all times. And not only
alone in my presence with you. (4:18)
Children of mine whom also I have birth pangs, having engaged in the
labor of childbirth as far as that which might be formed becoming Christos
in you all. (4:19) But I would purpose to be present, to arrive and to come
with you now and to change, altering the nature and character of my voice
and language because I am at a loss, perplexed and puzzled, doubting and
embarrassed, uncertain and I dont know what to do in you. (4:20)
If you believe God inspired these words, your god is less capable than the
average man.

LE: YY 09-01-2013
 Questioning Paul
Volume 1: The Great Galatians Debate
Is Christianity Right or Wrong?

Douleia Bondage

Christianity: Bound to Paul

Shauwls next statement presents Yahs Towrah as public enemy number

one. This extraordinarily strange man is within four verses of his crescendothe
ultimate objective of his lifes work. We are on the cusp of witnessing the most
vulgar message ever spoken in the name of God.
But before we consider Pauls crowning, albeit indicting, achievement, since
it is based upon the myth that there are two covenants, with the second one having
already been established, lets first consider the truth in this regard. Yahowahs
one and only Covenant has not yet been renewed. And when He, Himself, restores
it, that affirmation will be predicated upon the wholesale integration of the Torah
in our lives not its repudiation.
Since there is nothing more foundational to knowing God than understanding
His Covenant and the role His Torah plays in our lives, lets let God speak for
Himself on this critical matter. For if there is but one Covenant, one familial
relationship which can be formed between God and humankind, presented and
promised in Scripture, and if its renewal and restoration is predicated upon the
Towrah, we are precluded from promoting the myth of a New Testament. So in
this regard, Yah, Himself, said...
Behold (hineh look, listen, and pay close attention to what follows), days
(yowmym times) are coming (bow will arrive and will return), prophetically
declares (naum foretells, predicts, and reveals) Yahowah ( - hwhy
Yahowah), when (wa) I will cut (karat I will create, completely establishing
and totally stipulating, I will actually make by way of separation (qal stem affirms
reality and perfect conjugation speaks of an act which is total, complete, and
indivisible)) relationally with (eth as an eternal symbol on behalf of) the
household and family (beyth the home) of Yisrael (yisrael those who strive
and contend with, engage, persist, and endure with, are set free and are
empowered by God) and relationally with (wa eth as an eternal symbol on
behalf of) the household and family (beyth the home) of Yahuwdah
(Yahuwdah Yah is Abundantly Sufficient, Of Yah, From Yah, and Those Who
Are Related to Yah) a renewing and restoring (chadash a repairing, and
reaffirming) Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth nurturing and
engaged relational agreement established on the foundation of beyth family and
home, a mutually binding partnership promise, solemn oath, and active alliance,
and a participatory pledge based upon a marriage vow which fosters and
encourages). (Yirmayahuw / Yahowah Uplifts / Jeremiah 31:31)
The part of this verse which Christians, desperate to justify their New
Testament, miss is that the renewal and restoration of the beryth Covenant
isnt with Gentiles, and thus cannot be with their church. It is, instead, with
Yahuwdah and Yisrael. This promise, therefore, cannot apply to Christians or
Christianity. Replacement theology is torn asunder. Its game over. And further
aggravating the problem Christians face, this reconciliation has not yet transpired,
therefore a Renewed Covenant is premature and a New Testament will never
occur.
As a result, the only question worth debating in this passage is whether
chadash should be translated new or renewed, as both are etymologically
acceptable. Is God going to renew and restore, reaffirm and repair, the Covenant
presented in the Towrah with Yisrael and Yahuwdah, or is He going to scrap the
Towrahs definition of this relationship and create an entirely new agreement?
To put this question to rest, you should know that the primary meaning of
chadash is to renew, to restore, to repair, and to reaffirm. Of the ten times this
verb is scribed in the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms, it is translated: restore and
reaffirm in 1 Samuel 11:14, renewed and repaired in 2 Chronicles 15:8, to
repair in 2 Chronicles 24:4, to repair and mend in 2 Chronicles 24:12,
renewed in Job 10:7, renew in Psalms 51:12, renewed in Psalms 103:5,
again as renewed in Psalms 104:30, repair in Isaiah 61:4, and renew and
restore in Lamentations 5:21.
As further affirmation of renewed and restored being an appropriate
translation of chadash in this context, we find that within the prophetic writings of
Yirmayah and Yashayah, each time Yahowah inspired either man to scribe
chadash, by rendering it renewed, or especially restored, we achieve a
substantially more enlightening result than translating this word new.
 These things known, the next line seems to suggest that there will be a new
covenant, one different than the one whose terms and conditions were delineated
in the Towrah. But is this even possible? Could God do such a thing without
seriously contradicting other statements He has made, and in so doing, rendering
Himself capricious, and His Word unreliable?
It will not be exactly the same as (lo ka it will not be identical to) the
(ha) Covenant (beryth familial relationship, marriage vow, binding agreement,
and pledge) which relationally (asher) I cut (karat created through separation)
with (et) their fathers (abowtam) in the day, when (ba yowm) firmly grasping
Me (hazaq I repaired, renewed, and restored them, I established, sustained and
supported them, I caused them to prevail and grow, as they were strengthened and
encouraged by My power and authority) in their hand (ba yad by them taking
initiative, engaging, and reaching out), I led them out (yasa I descended,
extended Myself, and I served them by guiding them away) from (min) the realm
(erets) of the crucible of Egypt (mitsraym a metaphor for human religious,
political, economic, and military oppression and divine judgment), which
relationally (asher) they broke, disassociating themselves (parar they
violated and nullified, they frustrated, tore apart, and shattered, and they split
away) from (eth) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth My
nurturing and engaged relational agreement established on the foundation of beyth
family and home, My mutually binding partnership promise, My solemn oath
and active alliance, and My participatory pledge based upon a marriage vow
which fosters and encourages), though (wa) I (anky) was married to them (ba
baal hem I was their husband), prophetically declares (naum) Yahowah
( - hwhy- Yahowah). (Yirmayahuw / Jeremiah 31:32)

This affirms that the original Covenant was honored by God when He hazaq
reached out to His people and when He grasped hold of them to renew and
restore them, yasa min leading them away from mitsraym the crucible of
religious and political oppression and divine judgment. But, now, since Yisrael
and Yahuwdah subsequently parar eth beryth broke their end of the
agreement, and disassociated themselves from the relationship, the beryth
Covenant Agreement must be chadash reaffirmed, repaired, renewed and
restored to be viable again.
The question now becomes: how is God going to do this without
contradicting Himself? And what we find is a solution which is not only
marvelous in its implications, but also one which completely destroys the
Christian religion generally and Pauls testimony specifically. Yahowah said:
Indeed (ky surely and truly) with this (ha zoth in conjunction with
these conditions and provisions the) Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth
reciprocal partnership, active alliance, and engaged agreement, mutually binding
and nurturing promise, solemn oath and participatory pledge, based upon a
marriage vow) which relationally (asher) I will cut (karat I will create and
establish through separation) with (eth and alongside) the House (beyth
household and family) of Yisrael (yisrael those who strive and contend with,
who engage, persist, and endure with, who are set free and are empowered by
God) after (ahar following) those days (ha yowm hem that time),
prophetically declares (naum predicts and promises) Yahowah ( -
hwhy), I will actually give My Towrah, completely providing and producing
My Teaching and Instruction (natan eth Towrah I will reliably bestow and
totally devote My Direction and My Guidance as a gift, putting it (here the qal
stem affirms that this will actually occur and the perfect conjugation tells us that
the gift of the Towrah will be whole and complete, indivisible and uninterruptible
throughout time)) within their inner nature (ba qereb internally, inside their
person, within their core and midst, becoming part of their psychological makeup,
thoughts, and emotions).
And (wa) upon (al as the Almighty concerning) their heart (leb
speaking of their source of life, and the seat of love, volition, feelings, attitude,
and character), I will actually write it (katab I will genuinely engrave and
inscribe it (written in the qal relational stem, telling us that we can rely upon this
occurring, and in the imperfect conjugation, affirming that it will produce ongoing
results throughout time, with the first person singular prefix, saying that God,
Himself, will be doing the writing, and with the third person feminine singular
suffix, telling us that it is the Towrah, which is a feminine noun, which will be
inscribed)).
And (wa) I shall be (hayah I will always, reliably, and without interruption
or exception be (qal stem perfect conjugation)) God (elohym) to and for them
(la la), and (wa) they (hem), themselves, shall be (hayah they will always and
reliably exist, eternally receiving the complete benefits of (qal relational stem
affirming the genuineness of this promise, and imperfect conjugation which tells
us that there will be ongoing and unfolding assistance and advantages associated
with being considered)) to and for Me as (la la) family (am). (Yirmayahuw /
Jeremiah 31:33)
With this statement, the basis of Christianity and the fulcrum of Pauls
argument disintegrate. It would be irrational for Yahowah to establish His
Towrah, then annul His Towrah, replacing it with a New Testament, only to go
right back to His Towrah. So if you are a Christian, now would be a good time to
wave goodbye to Paul and to your faith. It was over long before it began.
 The insights provided by the depth of meaning inherent in each of these
words and unique relational aspects of Hebrew tenses require greater diligence on
our behalf, but they are worth the investment of our time, especially in passages
like this one. It wouldnt be a stretch to suggest that the affirmations they provide
regarding the unfolding and continuous results we can expect from God giving
His Torah to us, placing His Instructions inside of us, are as essential to our
inclusion in Gods Covenant Family as anything ever written.
For example, by interspersing three references to the beyth house, family,
and home of yisrael those individuals who engage and endure with God,
with four references to His beryth Covenant, Yahowah has defined the nature
of the relationship He wants to establish with us. That is because this beryth
relationship is based on a beyth family and home. Yahowah is our Heavenly
Father. The Set-Apart Spirit is our Spiritual Mother. And we are Gods children.
Our purpose is to engage and endure with God as part of His am family.
Everything important to Yahowah is separated and thus set apart. This is why
the Covenant was karat cut through the process of separation. Most people
will be excluded from Yahowahs family, because to be included a person must
first separate themselves from the world of religion and politics. This concept of
cutting and separating is conveyed through circumcision, which is why God
calls it the sign of the Covenant.
In the Towrah Teaching Volume of An Introduction to God, readers
discovered that Towrah is Yahs: tow (Strongs #8420) signed, written, and
enduring, towrah (8452) way of treating people, tuwr (8446) giving us the
means to explore, to seek, to find, and to choose, yarah (3384) the source from
which instruction, teaching, guidance, and direction flow, which tuwb (8421)
provides answers which facilitate our restoration and return, even our response
and reply to that which is towb (2895) good, pleasing, joyful, beneficial,
favorable, healing, and right, and that which causes us to be loved, to become
acceptable, and to endure, tahowr (2892) and tohorah (2893) purifying and
cleansing us, towr (8447) so as to provide an opportunity to change our
thinking, attitude, and direction. As such, there is no more important document.
With regard to the next insightful term, qereb ( ) is a noun which depicts
the inner part or inward nature of an individual. As such, it speaks to our
thoughts and emotions, which is where Yahowahs Towrah will be placed. Like
most nouns, qerebs meaning is derived from its verb form, qarab () , which is
pointed differently, but spelled identically. Qarab means to approach and to
come near, to draw near and to enter the presence. Qarab is the operative verb in
Yahowahs presentation of the Mowed Miqra Invitation to Meet on Yowm
Kippurym the Day of Reconciliations, whereby we are invited to qarab
come near and approach, coming into the presence of our Spiritual Mothers
light. The same request is made twice again during Sukah Shelters,
reinforcing its contribution to our wellbeing. This connection provides an
essential clue when it comes to understanding the sweeping panorama painted in
this prophetic passage.
Leb, which is the Hebrew word for heart, conveys many of the same ideas
as its counterpart does in English. We say that someone has a good heart to infer
that they are of good character. We say that our heart belongs to someone to infer
that we love them. We speak of the heart of a matter to describe its very essence.
We say that in our heart we feel a certain way to infer that we have exercised our
volition and have made a choice. Our heart is used to describe our attitude, and it
is the organ whose beats we monitor to determine if someone is alive or dead.
And so it is, especially in this context, that we must read leb heart to say all of
these things, if we want to understand why Yahowah is writing His Torah upon
that which makes us who we are.
The end of this passage deploys parallel poetry to explain the reason God is
going to restore and renew His relationship with His Children by giving us His
Torah, placing it inside of us, and writing it upon our hearts. Stripping these
words to their core, God wrote: hayah la la elohym hayah la la am. In
English, this reads: I shall be (hayah) God (elohym) to and for them (la la),
and (wa) they (hem), themselves, shall be (hayah) to and for Me (la la) family
(am).
With the verb tenses more fully developed, God revealed: I shall be (hayah
I will always, reliably, and without interruption or exception be (qal stem
perfect conjugation)) God (elohym) to and for them (la la), and (wa) they
(hem), themselves, shall be (hayah they will always and reliably exist, eternally
receiving the complete benefits of (qal relational stem affirming the genuineness
of this promise, and imperfect conjugation which tells us that there will be
ongoing and unfolding assistance and advantages associated with being
considered)) to and for Me as (la la) family (am).
This is wholly reciprocal on multiple levels. Those who consider Yahowah to
be their God will be considered family by God. Yahowah will serve as God for
those who consider Him to be God. Further, while existing as part of Yahowahs
family is a benefit for us, it is presented here as a benefit to and for God as well.
Building a family, engaging with His children and helping us grow, is the sole
reason our Heavenly Father created the universe. His family brings Him pleasure
and causes Him to grow.
When Hebrew words are repeated, as they are here on two occasions with la
la, it strengthens their meaning exponentially. Typically, la serves as a
prepositional prefix, and conveys to and for. It speaks of approaching
someone, of moving toward a goal, and of doing something in order to
achieve an expected result. In addition to these thoughts, la can be translated:
toward, among, so that, by means of, concerning, on behalf of, and according
to. La draws a connection between correspondence (the Torah) and a
relationship (the Covenant). And in actuality, every aspect of la fits this context.
So now that we understand the meaning of these words, what do all of these
words mean? To begin, the Covenant Relationship and Yahowahs Torah
Teachings are inseparable. Without the Torah, the Covenant is completely
unknown, as are its terms and conditions, rendering it impossible for anyone to
participate in a relationship with God. But, and this is the biggest but in the
universe, it currently remains possible for us to separate ourselves from the Torah,
and therefore from its Covenant. In fact, God structured it this way by design.
We were created with nadah freewill, which is an uncompelled
opportunity to move in the direction of our choosing: to God or away from Him,
to observe or ignore His Torah, to accept or reject His Covenant, to revere or fear
our Heavenly Father, to love or despise Yahowah. And this is why we find that
the first two of seven men listed, who along with Moseh, received the Torah on
Mount Horeb bore names directly associated with freewill: Aharown
enlightened freewill from aw to desire, ow to choose and to prefer, and owr
light and enlightenment, and Nadab one who willingly, freely, and of his own
volition chooses, from nadah.
Since thoughtless volition is nothing more than an exercise in random
chance, we were also given a nesamah conscience. It enables us to rationally,
logically, thoughtfully, morally, and judgmentally evaluate the evidence God has
provided in His Torah, thereby, facilitating wise decisions.
And while this has been the state of affairs throughout the millennia, that is
about to change. A time is coming when everybody who survives Yahowahs
return will have chosen to live in harmony with the Torah and its Covenant.
Therefore, the only thing which differentiates the existing Covenant relationship
from its reaffirmation and restoration in the future is that the choice to reject
Yahs Covenant and Towrah will no longer be applicable.
Our current mortal existence affords us the opportunity to choose God based
upon His terms and conditions or reject Him and them. Our immortal existence is
predicated upon having made the choice to accept the Covenant in accordance
with the Torah. But there is a day on our horizon in which the last person will
make their decisionthat being Yowm Kippurym during Armageddon.
God could have avoided religious competition long ago, and mankinds woes
would have been nonexistent. But this could not have occurred without a
consequence so severe, it would have negated the very purpose of our very
existence.
The reason Yahowah hasnt yet placed His Towrah inside of us, nor written
His instructions on our hearts, is because freewill is sacrosanct. Today, everyone
has the ability to choose to know, to love, and to trust God, to ignore God, to
reject Him, or to replace Him with a divinity of mans making. If the Torah had
been mandated, had it been unrivaled, had it been incorporated into our
personalities, there would have been no possible way for any religious alternative
to have emerged. And without options, there would have been no choice. Without
choice, loving relationships cannot exist. Therefore, while the Family-Oriented
Covenant Relationship and Yahowahs Towrah Teachings have been inseparable,
it remains possible for us to separate ourselves from them.
This option, which is the choice to reject Yahowahs instructions and to
disassociate from Him, has to end for eternal life with God to begin. So once all
who will choose to know and respect Yahowah have decided to do so, once all
who remain alive on this planet are part of Yahowahs family, there is no need for
the bane or pain of religion. And yet, even once everyone has been adopted by
Him, even when we have all become eternal and are empowered and enriched by
our Heavenly Father, then, more than ever, we will still need His Guidance. The
universe becomes ours, as does all of Gods power and authority. So, it will be
especially important that we understand how to exercise these gifts and wield our
power. By giving us His towrah - guidance, by placing all of it within us, by
writing it upon our hearts, we will be equipped with the knowledge we will
require to exercise our newfound freedom appropriately. And that is wonderful,
landscape changing, news. It explains how we will retain freewill throughout
eternity, and yet keep from doing something foolish.
Therefore, this explains what will occur upon Yahowahs return during
Yowm Kippurym the Day of Reconciliations at the end of the Tribulation. It
illustrates how God will fulfill His Torah promise to reconcile His relationship
with Yisrael and with Yahuwdym. And it tells us when the Covenant will be
renewed, because that is the only day in all of human history in which this
transformation, this restoration, can occur without conflicting with Gods
previous testimony.
This passage also affirms the role of the Torah in our salvation, because it
associates the Torah and Covenant with us being included in Gods family. And
reading between the lines, it reveals how Yahowahs Torah will continue to guide
us during the Millennial Sabbath and beyond into eternity. It even explains that
the purpose of the Covenant is to establish Gods family, so that we can live with
our Heavenly Father as His children.
 And yet, with all of these affirmations, it is astonishing that Christians
routinely mistranslate this passage, truncate it, and remove it from its context, to
justify Pauls proclamation of a new covenant, one based upon faith, one
unrelated to the Torah or its God. I dare say, the Christian misinterpretation of this
passage ranks among the most debilitating crimes ever perpetrated in the name of
religion.
Speaking of this and other crimes, Yahowah revealed the benefit of making
His Torah our undisputed and unrivaled instruction manual: And (wa) they will
not teach or learn (lo lamad they will not be trained in nor indoctrinate,
instruct or respond to) mans (iysh mankinds and individual peoples) errant
pronouncements, thoughts, thinking, or reasoning (ra evil ways and
improper principles, bad judgment, false pretenses, and regrettable
communications) any longer (owd ever again), or mankinds (iysh)
despondency and grief (ah his tale of woe) claiming (amar saying,
boasting, and declaring) to actually know (daat to be acquainted with and be
aware of the evidence regarding) Yahowah ( - hwhy). Because then, indeed
(ky rather surely and truthfully at that time), they all (kol) will actually know
and recognize Me (yada owty they will be familiar with, be aware of, respect,
revere, and acknowledge Me, and they will be known to Me), from (min) the
smallest, youngest, and least significant (qatan) up to (ad) the biggest, oldest,
and most influential (gadowl), prophetically declares (naum predicts and
promises) Yahowah ( - hwhy). For indeed, then (ky), I will have forgiven
(salah will have pardoned and removed) their sin (awon their guilt, liability,
and consequence of perversity) and accordingly (wa la) their offenses against
the standard (hatath their sinfulness and wrongdoing, their propensity and
history of missing the way) will not (lo) be remembered (zakar recalled or
mentioned) any longer (owd now or ever again). (Yirmayahuw / Jeremiah
31:34)
Should you be mentally jumping ahead in time to the Day of Reconciliations
(Yowm Kippurym in the year 6000 Yah, which will commence at sunset on
October 2, 2033), and be wondering about the state of freewill after we bear
Yahs Torah and Signature, it will endure, but within a framework which will
allow us to enjoy our Heavenly Fathers company and explore the universe
without doing damage to ourselves or it. By this time, the only souls alive will be
those who have previously chosen to rely upon and love Yah, making the freedom
to reject, counterfeit, or loathe Him moot.
As a result of this announcement from God, it would be misguided to refer to
the Greek eyewitness accounts as the Renewed Covenant, much less the New
Testament. The Covenant has not yet been renewed. There will never be a
new one. And since it is His Word, I think its reasonable to use His
instructions in this regard.
Before we return to Pauls twisted repudiation of Yahowahs Covenant so
that he can create a second covenant of his own, lets see if we can learn
something additional about Yahowahs most important title by observing it in the
language of revelation. The first letter of beryth Covenant is Beyt , which is
contracted from beyth, the Hebrew word for family and home. This letter was
drawn depicting the floor plan of a home with a single entrance. And, as such, it
conveyed the idea of providing a singular solution to sheltering and protecting a
family.
The second letter, Rosh , which was originally pronounced Resh, was
drawn to reveal the head of a person. As does the word resh today, the Ancient
Hebrew character was symbolic of being the first, best, and foremost, as well as
leadership and birth. We are therefore born into the first and foremost family. The
human head also focuses our attention on our eyes and ears as means to observe
and listen, and our brains as the means to understand.
Turning to the third letter, we find a Yad , todays Yowd, pictured by way
of an arm reaching down and out to us with an open hand. It conveyed the ideas
of authority and power, as well as engaging productively to accomplish
something. As the first letter in Yahs name, it reveals His willingness to reach
out to us and lift us up.
The final character in beryth is either a Theth or Taw , as these letters
were originally one. If Theth, the pictograph was of a woven container, which was
used to communicate the idea of being surrounded and enclosed, as well as being
transported from one place to another. And if Taw, the character was drawn as an
upright pole with a horizontal beam. It spoke of a doorway, of foundational
support, and of a sign and a signature particularly in its Paleo Hebrew form: t.
Bringing all of these images together, the picture they paint of the beryth
Covenant is of a singular doorway into the protected and sheltered home of first
and foremost family, and of God reaching out to those of us who observe and
listen to His testimony, to His signed invitation.

Cognizant of Yahowahs thoughts and promises regarding His Towrah and

its centerpiece, the Covenant, we are better prepared to consider Pauls contrarian
view. He wrote:
 Speak (lego say) to me (ego) those (oi) under (hypo subject to the
control of and submissive to) Towrah (nomon nourishing allocation and
allotment which leads to an inheritance; consistently used throughout the
Septuagint to translated towrah) proposing and deciding (thelo wanting and
desiring, wishing and intending) to exist (eimi to be), the (ton) Towrah (nomon
the source from which instruction and teaching, direction and guidance flow) do
you not hear (ouk akouo not you listen)? (Galatians 4:21)
Before I rearrange the order of the words in the opening clause so that they
read better in English, lets try to make sense of the verbal phrase, ouk akouo,
literally translated not you hear. It was scribed in the second person plural (you
all or all of you), present (the action is current and ongoing) active (the subject, or
Torah, is performing the action) indicative (the author is indicating this situation
is real). So in conjunction with ouk, which is both a negative particle, negating the
action, and an interrogative, raising a question, the concluding phrase could be
trying to say: cant you all hear the Towrah? or the Towrah cannot hear
you all.
As for the opening phrase, it seems to flow better with the words rearranged
to read: Speak to me those proposing and deciding to exist under the control
of Towrah,... And as such, it is being used to taunt Pauls adversaries. After all,
Paul has never demonstrated the inclination to listen to anyone, much less his foes
not even to God. Therefore, from that mindset, Paul is either questioning the
Towrah observant, to suggest that they dont listen to the Towrah, whereby he is
suggesting that his knowledge is superior to theirs, or to say that the Towah is
unable to hear, thereby, suggesting that since he has that capacity, he is again
superior to Gods Word. And since both approaches are nonsense, thats the best I
can do with this.
If Paul were writing for God, which he obviously wasnt, he would not have
said speak to me. Nor would he have begun by suggesting that the Towah
observant are hypo controlled and submissive. Most important of all, the
Towrah was not designed to listen to us, but for us to listen to what God has to
say through it. When we qara read and recite the towrah teaching of
Yahowah, we shamar observe and shama listen to the Word of God. So
once again, Paul had this all wrong.
Even if Paul were writing about Rabbinical Law, his approach would still be
wrong. The problem with the Oral Law is that it differs from the Torah. But thus
far, there hasnt been any instruction from Paul in this regard. The former
Pharisee has not bothered to delineated the differences between Yahowahs Torah
and mans traditions.
 Therefore, the problem is much deeper than the deplorable writing quality.
Affirming this, the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear conveys: Say to me the
under law wanting to be the law not you hear.
Jerome ignored what Paul wrote, hoping not to destroy the wannabe apostles
credibility. The Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate therefore says: Tell me, you that
desire to be under the law, have you not read the law?
The Authorized, and thus official, Protestant version of the New Testament
proposed this unique spin in the King James: Tell me, ye that desire to be under
the law, do ye not hear the law?
Unable to improve on the KJVs corruption, the English Standard Version
copied it: Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the
law? The literal New American Standard Bible could do no better, also
claiming Paul wrote: Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to
the law?
So when all hope of understanding is lost, we can always turn to the New
Living Translation for a novel accounting: Tell me, you who want to live under
the law, do you know what the law actually says? And therein lies the problem.
Most Christians dont know what the Torah says. Therefore, they dont
understand Gods Word, they dont understand Yahowshas sacrifice, and they
dont understand that Paul was contradicting it and Him.
Just two chapters ago, we considered a number of statements Yahowah made
about listening which conveyed exactly the opposite message. If you recall, God
said: Listen (shama) children to the correct instruction of the Father and
pay attention so as to know and understand. For indeed, such teaching and
learning is good, beneficial, and helpful. For this reason, I have given you My
Towrah. You should not forsake, neglect, or reject it.... Focus upon and
closely observe (shamar carefully examine, thoughtfully contemplate,
thoroughly evaluate and consider) My terms and conditions and live, being
restored to life. (Masal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 4:1-2,4)
And then, further assailing Pauls credibility, Yah proclaimed: The one who
turns away his ear from hearing (suwr ozen min shama the one who avoids
listening and paying attention to) the Towrah (Towrah the source of instruction
and direction, guidance and teaching), his prayers and requests (taphilah his
pleas and petitions for intervention) also (gam) will be considered detestable
(towebah will be seen as a disgusting abomination). (Masal / Word Pictures /
Proverbs 28:9)
Now that Paul has taken a rather lame swipe at Yahs Torah, he is ready to
commence his most diabolical attack on its heart and soul the Covenant. He
begins with a half truth, with a verse which isnt totally inaccurate. But by
framing his assault using a corruption of the Torah, Paul has identified the
supposed Law which he claims cannot hear, and to which the Galatians were
enslaved. Listen to one of the most successful schemers of all time twist the
truth: It has been written for n/a Abraham two sons had one from the servant girl
and one from the free.
For indeed (gar because), it has been written (grapho it has been
inscribed and engraved) that (hoti) Abram (Abraam a truncated transliteration
of the pre-Covenant Hebrew name Abraham, meaning Merciful and Enriching
Father) two (duo) sons (huios) had (echo possessed), one (heis) from (ek) the
slave girl (tes paidiske) and (kai) one (eis) from (ek) the free and independent
(tes eleutheros freeborn person, unbound, and exempt). (Galatians 4:22)
In actuality, it is not written that Abraham had two sons, because from
Yahowahs perspective Abraham only had one son. That is why God asked
Abraham in Baresyth / Genesis 22:2 to take your son, your only son, whom you
love, Yitschaq, and go to the land of Mowryah Ishmael was expressly
excluded from the Covenant and demonstrably banished from the Promised Land.
Therefore, the son of the slave girl should only have been mentioned if Shauwl
had been illustrating these factswhich we shall soon discover is the opposite of
his intended purpose.
There are few individuals as important to Yahowah and His Covenant as
Sarah or her son, Yitschaq, and yet Shauwl doesnt even bother to mention them
by name. Moreover, Sarahs status as an eleutheros independent and freeborn
individual was extraneous to her role in the Covenant. She mattered because she
was Abrahams wife and Yitschaqs mother. She was so important to the
Covenant, when she and Abraham differed on a matter, Yahowah told Abraham
to listen to his wife and do what she said. And by contrast, when Abraham asked
Yahowah to make an exception on behalf of Ishmael, God said absolutely not.
When Sarah laughed at something Yah said, God joined in, telling Sarah to name
her son Laughter, which is Yitschaq in Hebrew.
But with Sarah it goes well beyond this. Just look at Yahowahs name
whereby the final three letters following Yahowahs outstretched hand
represent Abraham And Sarah, with the Hebrew letter conveying the
conjunction wa and between them. Yahowah was thereby telling them, and us
through them, that they individually as well as their family would be increased
and that their home would grow and become secure. Yahowahs favorite place on
Earth, Yisrael, is based upon Sarahs name and means: Individuals who Engage
and Endure with God. Therefore, being married, which is the antithesis of being
eleutheros independent and unbound, is why Sarah matters to the beryth
marriage covenant and family-oriented relationship.
 But lets remember, Pauls affections were never directed at women. He
would never know our understand the joys of marriage or of raising children. And
perhaps that is why Paul imagined those he had beguiled into the Faith becoming
his children, for whom he endured birth pangs.
Paul has reprised his for indeed it has been written, introductory line to
deceive his audience into believing that God had an ongoing relationship with
both sons. He is doing this so that he can deceive readers into believing that there
were two covenants. But there arent, which is why Paul did not cite any portion
of the story which begins in Baresyth / Genesis 17 and is advanced through 21st
chapter. He created his own imagined passage and tried to pass it off as if it were
Scripture. And he did so because Yahowahs testimony is incompatible with his
proposition.
And this was not the only time he would foist this fable. He parades it out
again in Romans 9, where he boasted again that I am not lying, that there are
multiple covenants, with one yielding children of the flesh, while the other
begat children according to the promise. But in Romans, he would bury himself
somewhat differently, writing: for I could wish that I myself were accursed from
Christou for the sake of my brethren, and but not as though the Word of God
has failed, for they are not all Yisraelites who are from Yisrael.
The reason for Pauls duplicity in Galatians, as well as in Romans, is that
Pauline Doctrine is built upon the following ungodly precepts: 1) God established
two covenants, not one. 2) The covenant memorialized in the Torah on Mount
Sinai was formed with Hagar and Ishmael rather than with Sarah and Yitschaq. 3)
The covenant depicted in the Torah enslaves those who observe it. 4) The verbal
promises made to Abraham bypass the Torah. 5) There is no relationship between
Yahowsha and the Torah. 6) Christians become Gods children by way of the
verbal promise alone. 7) Believing the promise necessitates rejecting the Torah.
Shauwls entire argument is erroneous and preposterous, but yet it serves as
the foundation of Christianitya religion set apart from the Torah and its God.
He was as Yahowah called him the plague of death.
Promoting this deadly deception to Evangelical Christians, the New Living
Translation lied and said: The Scriptures say that Abraham had two sons, one
from his slave wife and one from his freeborn wife. The authors of this sentence
knew that there was no basis for wife in the Greek text once, much less twice,
but that did not stop them from copyediting something they were passing off as
Scripture, doing so in order to artificially elevate Abrahams morality. The reason
they are assisting in this way is because Pauline Doctrine is based upon Abram, at
the expense, and thus exclusion, of the Torah. It is like Islam in this way.
 Sarah was Abrahams wife and Hagar was not. (So that you know, the
Hebrew word translated wife in most bibles at the end of Genesis 16:3 relative
to Hagar is isah, which means woman.) This distinction, which Shauwl has
blurred and the NLT has obliterated, is critical because it serves to underscore the
importance of marriage and fidelity in Yahowahs Familial Covenant
Relationship. The problem obviously wasnt with Hagars enslaved status,
because she was freed, as was her son. At issue, and the reason her son was
disqualified from the Covenant, is the simple fact she was not Abrahams wife.
The moral standard Yahowah established with You should not consistently
commit adultery (Shemowth / Exodus 20:14) is symbolic of His Covenant, and
yet it is banished from Pauline Doctrine, and is thus lost on Christians. Also lost
on Christians, as a result of their affinity for Paul, is the meaning behind the
Second of Seven Instructions Yah etched on the Second of Two Tablets, whereby
we are encouraged to highly value our Heavenly Father and Spiritual Mother to
live a prolonged life with God in the Promised Land.
Yahowahs Covenant is about marriage, about family, about a husband and
wife raising children in a loving and supportive home. So since Sarah was
Abrahams wife and Hagar was not, the Egyptian was disassociated and her son
was disqualified. But these insights are absent from Pauls letter, allowing, even
motivating, the New Living Translation to corrupt Yahowahs symbols.
As for the older Christian witnesses, the Protestants simply copied the
Catholics. The Latin Vulgate reads: For it is written that Abraham had two sons:
the one by a bondwoman and the other by a free woman. So the KJV wrote:
For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by
a freewoman.
Pauls case against the Torah hinges upon the faulty notion that the
conversation Yahowah enjoyed with Abraham at the initiation of the Covenant
was completely different than the Torahs commemoration of it, creating a
contrived distinction between the promise God announced and God asking that it
be written down so that the terms and benefits of His Covenant would be known
to everyone.
After foisting this lie, Paul reinforces it before returning to his central ploy.
Not only would his faith be based upon an unrecorded and unknown promise, and
thus be wholly disassociated with Yahowahs Towrah, Pauls new covenant
would be based upon another false premise. So while I recognize that this
statement lacks fluidity, it isnt my fault. Paul was evidently learning to write
while learning to lie. Consider the Nestle-Alands Interlinear: But the indeed
from the servant girl by flesh has been born the but from the free by promise.
 Removing the extraneous words, and reporting those found in the oldest
manuscript more accurately, Shauwl wrote...
Certainly (alla nevertheless and to the contrary) [this affirmation (o men
the indeed; not extant in P46] from (ek) the slave girl (tes paidiske) according
to (kata by) flesh (sarkos physical human body and nature) has been born
(gennao has been procreated and given birth), [but that (o de then this; not
found in P46)] from (ek) the free and unbound (tes eleutheros the freeborn
person, independent, and exempt) by way of (dia through) a proclaimed
promise (epaggelia verbal announcement and agreement). (Galatians 4:23)
Both boys were conceived and born the same way, only by way of different
mothers. And they were both circumcised (albeit only Yitschaq experienced it in
accordance with the Torahs instructions). But the inference here is that if you are
Torah observant, then you are a slave. Whereas Paul is attempting to associate his
preaching to the promise of freedom, and thereby usurping Yahowahs claim in
the First of Three Statements etched on the First of the Two Tablets.
It is instructive to know that while most lexicons include promise among
epanggelias definitions, the words etymology suggests that this rendering is
somewhat of a legacy of Pauls argument. In the general sense, the noun
epaggelia means announcement. It was primarily used as a legal term in ancient
Greece, and denoted a summons. Not surprisingly, it is derived from the verb,
epaggello, which means to announce a summons.
Epaggelia is a compound of epi, meaning upon, by, and before, and
aggelos messenger. So in our attempt to be accurate, according to our fledgling
writer, the freeborn child was literally by messenger, and figuratively by
summons or announcement.
Ever the clever one, Pauls ploy was designed to kill two birds with a single
stone. By artificially differentiating the conception of Ishmael through Hagar as
of the flesh and Yitschaq through Sarah (albeit neither were named) by way of
a proclaimed promise, Shauwl was able to disregard the Towrah while
demeaning it. He reinforced his view that the Torah enslaved while at the same
time denouncing it as being of the flesh, and thus corruptible. This would then
lead to him condemning circumcision, which was also of the flesh. So while this
is nothing more than a string of half-truths and lies, to Pauls credit they are
woven together in a clever way.
Therefore, as is the case with all effective deceptions, just enough of this
statement was accurate to gave Pauls ploy a veneer of credibility, making the
ruse sufficiently beguiling to conceive a new religion. Sarahs solution to Gods
announcement was to use a surrogate mother (of the flesh). But since
Yahowahs Covenant is based upon the importance of fidelity in marriage, the
human remedy (as is the case with all religions, not so coincidently) was not
acceptable. The Covenant (which is a mutual vow) would therefore be consistent
with Gods plan, not with mans plans.
Pauls Christian troubadours scribed the following in support of the false
prophets scheme. The Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate promotes: But he who was
of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh: but he of the free woman was
by promise. So then the Authorized Protestant King James Version published:
But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the
freewoman was by promise.
The NLTs recasting of Pauls statement is inaccurate with regard to the
Torah (Hagar was not Abrahams wife), and also inconsistent with the Greek text
of the epistle. The son of the slave wife was born in a human attempt to bring
about the fulfillment of Gods promise. But the son of the freeborn wife was born
as Gods own fulfillment of his promise.
Being accurate here is actually a big deal, because the Covenant is the most
important thing in the universe to Yahowah. Further, the original announcement
of the Covenant agreement made with Abraham is found in but one place: the
Torahwhich is the foundation of Gods Word. And even today, it serves as
Yahowahs summons to us, one where we are afforded the opportunity to choose
to appear before God as His children rather than appear before Him as our Judge.
Now that Shauwl has laid the foundation for his faith upon the shifting and
desolate sands of deceit, he is set to erect the most beguiling straw man in human
history. And since Im very, very, uncomfortable with (read revolted by) Pauls
next statement, lets approach the edifice of his religion by way of the Nestle-
Alands scholastic rendering of the text though the McReynolds Interlinear:
Which is being allegorized these for are two agreements one indeed from hill
Sinai to slavery giving birth who is Hagar.
Before I comment, Id like you to contemplate the Roman Catholic,
Anglican, and Evangelical portraits of Christianitys straw man. Jeromes Latin
Vulgate, compiled on the authority of his pope, reads: Which things are said by
an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from Mount Sina,
engendering unto bondage, which is Agar. Sir Francis Bacons political
enterprise on behalf of King James published: Which things are an allegory: for
these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to
bondage, which is Agar. And the Evangelical paraphrase, mislabeled the New
Living Translation, authored the following to tickle the fancy of their target
market: These two women serve as an illustration of Gods two covenants. The
first woman, Hagar, represents Mount Sinai where people received the law that
enslaved them.
 Now here is a more literal and complete translation of Shauwls Greek text
for your consideration:
Whatever (hostis whoever or anything that) is being (eimi) spoken of
allegorically (allegoreo a form of speech which should be taken figuratively, an
illustrated discussion in which a comparison, illustration, or metaphor are used),
these (autos) then (gar) exist as (eimi) two (duo) covenants or testaments
(diatheke dispositions or promised agreements between parties which settles
affairs and facilitates inheritances through a will), one (heis) indeed (men surely
and by way of affirmation and concession) from (apo) Mount (oros) Sinai (Sina
a transliteration of the Hebrew Cynay) into (eis to) subservience, slavery,
and bondage (douleia), giving birth to (gennao) whoever (hostis) exists as
(eimi) Hagar (Agar transliteration of the Hebrew Hagar, from hagah, meaning
to moan). (Galatians 4:24)
In context, it appears as if Shauwl scribed: Speak to me those proposing
to exist under the control of Towrah: cant you hear the Towrah? (4:21) For
indeed because it has been written that Abram two sons had, one from the
slave girl and one from the free and unbound. (4:22) Certainly from the slave
girl according to flesh has been born, from the free by way of a promise.
(4:23) Whatever is being spoken of allegorically, these then exist as two
covenants or testaments, one indeed from Mount Sinai into subservience,
slavery, and bondage, giving birth to whoever exists as Hagar. (4:24)
As I read these words, my hands are paralyzed above the keyboard. I want to
scream and cry all at the same time. My stomach churns, my heart breaks, and my
head is bowed in shame. How is it possible that the worlds largest religion was
erected upon something so obviously false? Why wasnt this letter discarded as
rhetorical rubbish? Why did anyone believe Paul?
Unlike his previous statements, this is neither a credible counterfeit nor a
plausible ploy. It is an outright liethe kind of thing which only fools fools,
hoodwinking the ignorant or irrational.
Paul has postured a deception which pierces the heart of God. He has crossed
the point of no return and taken Christians back into the wilderness to die.
Nothing ever written was as demonic nor deadly.
There is only one covenant, not two. The Hebrew word beryth upon which
the Familial Covenant Relationship is based is never plural. It was established
between Yahowah, Abraham and Sarah, and then affirmed with Yitschaq and
Yaaqob after them. Ishmael (who was freed, incidentally) was expressly
excluded from the Covenant, and was banished from the Promised Land, as was
his mother (who was also freed).
 This singular Covenant begat the Children of Yisrael. It led to the liberation
of the Chosen People during the Exodus. Yahowahs one and only Covenant was
memorialized in the Torah on Mount Sinai and serves as the foundation of Gods
Word. According to Yahowsha, the Torahs presentation of the Covenant
delineates the narrow path to a relationship with God and to our subsequent
redemption. Yahowsha said that there is no life apart from the Torah. For it is
this very Torah which gives meaning to Yahowshas life and which dictates the
timing of His return. In fact, according to Yahowchanan, Yahowsha is the Word
made flesh, which is equivalent to calling Him: the living embodiment of the
Torah.
There is no association between Hagar and the revelation of the Torah on
Mount Sinai, nor between the Covenant memorialized in the Torah, and being
placed into bondage. So what Paul has done by speaking of the Covenant in these
terms, by referencing bondage, and by dropping the names Sinai and Hagar, is
wrap his overt lie in a corruption of the truth, making it particularly insidious.
And in so doing, he established the model Muhammad, Satans second most
effective messenger, would follow. Both religions would be based upon
caricatures of Abraham, at the exclusion of the Torah and Yahowah.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism have been made to appear
credible by weaving twisted elements of truth through overt distortions of it, and
thereby making outright lies appear credible to the unsuspecting and unthinking
to the ignorant and malleable. That is what has occurred here. Shards of this are
true, albeit horribly misshapen to suit Satans agenda.
Scripture has many allegorical elements because Yahowah loves to compose
word pictures. There is a Covenant. It was codified on Mount Sinai. And while
Hagar and her son were excluded from it, Islam, the Arabic word for
submission, did in fact emerge from them, leading billions into subservience,
slavery, and bondage. In their rage, todays Muslims have become the
embodiment of Yahowahs prediction when He said about Ishmaels descendents:
They will be wild asses of men. Their hand will be raised against their brother
and their brothers hand will be raised against him. And they will live in hostility
with the whole world.
Unfortunately for billions of souls, the Christian religion was established
upon Shauwls allegory, whereby their Lord Jesus Christ died for them on a
cross. It did not matter that the Lord was the Adversary, that this wasnt His
name or title, or that God cannot die, because the Torah was now dead and the
truth slaughtered, having been replaced by Pauls illusion. Thereby, the purpose
and benefits of Yahowshas sacrifice were annulled. For Christians, as a direct
result of Paul, it became sufficient to believe to be saved. A profession of faith
in something that is not true replaced trust in the truth Yahowah had established.
 But why were so many people fooled by something which was diametrically
opposed to that which God had communicated in His Word? It is preposterous to
correlate the Covenant promises memorialized on Mount Sinai with Hagar, or to
suggest that Gods Word enslaves. The Torahs codification of the Covenant
celebrated Yahowahs ability to lead His childrenall of usaway from human
religious and political oppression, and to freedom.
Before we wrestle with the devastating blunders Paul has articulated, some
words about the words. Allegoreo didnt need to be translated because the Greek
term was transliterated into English. It is from allos, meaning other or another,
and agoreo, meaning to address an assembly by speech or in writing. So an
allegory is another way of communicating with people.
Unfortunately, however, Paul is saying that no matter what the allegory or
word-picture God was painting in the Torahs depiction of Hagar and her
banished child, that it was irrelevant to the point he, Paul, was now making:
which is that there are two covenants, with the one codified with Moseh on Mount
Sinai leading to slavery. In other words, Shauwl is saying: Regardless of the
intent of Yahowahs parable, my interpretation is all that matters. Never mind
the fact that the Covenant codified with Moseh was written during the Exodus,
when Yahowah was leading the Children of Yisrael, the descendents of Yitschaq,
out of house of slavery and the realm of bondage.
If you believe Paul and rely upon his epistles, you are a Christian. And when
you die, your soul will cease to exist as a result of being beguiled by a pathetic lie.
If you trust Yahowah and rely upon His promises as delineated in His Word, you
are Gods child and will live forever with Him. But you cannot have it both ways.
To believe Paul is to distance yourself from Yahowah. To trust Yahowah is to
distance yourself from Paul. Because of what Shauwl wrote, there is no
connection between Christianity and the Torah, and thus between Christians and
God.
Moving on to the next interesting word, in addition to meaning covenant,
diatheke describes a testament or will used to transfer property to ones heirs. It
is from the verb, diatithemai: to arrange ones affairs in such a way that by
entering into an agreement they are assured to inherit something valuable. The
verb is a compound of dia, by way of, and tithemi that which is set aside and
set in place. Thithemi also conveys the idea of having money laid aside to help
establish someone, and as a result, it foreshadows the concept of redemption.
So there is nothing wrong with the term. The problem here is that Paul rendered it
in the plural and then he built the most deadly of all straw men upon it.
During my first pass through this material, I had hoped to somehow
exonerate Paul by suggesting the confusion was between the Sinai desert and
Mount Sinai, but not only is opous mount presented before Sinai in the text,
every lexicon at our disposal links the Sinai with Mount Sinai/Horeb, and thus
with the place Yahowah dictated the Torah to Moseh. Moreover, Paul ends any
doubt that he was speaking of Mount Sinai, not the Sinai Peninsula, again in the
next verse.
That is not to say there arent two Sinais. There are, and they are not
coterminous. The Sinai Peninsula is a desert sandwiched between the two arms of
the Red Sea. The Children of Yisrael crossed this wilderness en route to Mount
Sinai, which is on the other side of the Gulf of Aqaba in Arabia. Hagar, however,
was never in one or on the other.
Mount Sinai, also known as Mount Horeb, was the place Yahowah
introduced Himself to Moseh, and where He subsequently revealed the Torah to
him. But Hagar wandered aimlessly toward Shur before Ishmael was born. Shur,
we learn from Baresyth / Genesis 16:7, 20:1, 25:18, and Shemowth / Exodus
15:22 was within walking distance of what is todays southeastern border of
Israel. That places Shur east of Egypt, east of the Sinai, and east of the Gulf of
Aqaba crossing of the Red Sea. It was therefore in northwestern Arabia. Then
after Ishmael was born, Hagar and her son were banished to the desert of Paran,
which is similarly located.
Rather than associating the wilderness of Sin (a.k.a. the Sinai Peninsula) with
Pauls four references to Sina (three in Galatians and one in Acts), Strongs
Lexicon defines Sina as a mountain or rather a mountainous region in the
Arabian Peninsula made famous by the giving of Mosaic Law. They are mostly
right, which makes Paul completely wrong.
The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament says of Sina: the
mountain or mountain range in the peninsula of the same name, between Egypt
and modern Arabia. Unaware that the peninsula was and remains part of Egypt
today, they would be wrong on both accounts. The Mount Sinai Moseh visited
before he entered Egypt, and again after he had left Egypt, was on the eastern side
of the Red Sea crossing, and thus not in Egypt but instead on the Arabian
Peninsula.
The Complete Word Study Dictionary also exacerbates Pauls dilemma,
saying that Sina refers to the site of the burning bush. It is the name of a
peninsula and a mountain range. In that they go on to associate the location of
Mount Sinai within the Sinai Peninsula, they would also be wrong, as there would
have been no sea to cross and the Exodus would have stalled in Egypt.
The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament cites Acts 7:38 which digs
Paul into a still deeper hole. It reads: They are the ones who became the called-
out assembly in the desert with the messenger speaking to him in the Mount Sinai
(Sina) and our fathers who welcomed the living words given to us.
But we really didnt need the help of the scholastic tomes to hang Paul. He
hung himself. As mentioned, in the very next statement he acknowledges that the
Sina with which he is associating Hagars covenant is Sinai mountain existing in
Arabia. And that is the site upon which Yahowah provided the Torah to Moseh.
So, lets be clear. Paul has proposed two covenants and God has said there is
one. Paul wrote that there was a covenant formed with Hagar, and God has said
that His Covenant was formed with Abraham and Sarah. Further, Paul has said
that the covenant codified on Mount Sinai enslaves us while God has
demonstrated that it liberates us. So, since there is an irreconcilable divide
between Paul and Yahowah, one of the two must be wrong.
Moreover, consider the preposterous notion of using the Torahs central story
to advance a doctrine designed to destroy the credibility of that same Torah. And
yet, since the Torah is the only place that Abraham, Sarah, and the Covenant are
known, that is exactly what Paul has done.
Now, since I am stating categorically, not allegorically, that Paul, the mother
of the Christian Church, is lying, and that his thesis is in direct opposition to God,
lets consider Gods side of this story. He was opposed to establishing a covenant
relationship with Hagars son: Then Abraham said to God, What about
Ishmael? Could he exist in your presence? (Baresyth / In the Beginning /
Genesis 17:18) God said, Absolutely Not. (Baresyth Genesis 17:19) There
would be no covenant of any kind with the son of the slave woman. Sorry Paul.
The Covenant is singular and eternal. It was established with Yitschaq as
opposed to Ishmael: Sarah, your wife, shall have a child, bearing your son,
and you shall call his name: Yitschaq. I will stand up and establish My
Covenant Relationship with himan eternal and everlasting family
relationship with his offspring after him. (Baresyth / Genesis 17:19)
Yahowahs Word and Pauls letter are irreconcilable, as are those who pronounce
their faith in Pauls lies.
In direct opposition to Pauls claim that indeed from Mount Sinai into
slavery, on Mount Sinai, and in His own hand, Yahowah wrote: I am
Yahowah, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the
house of slavery. (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 20:2)
The following passage obliterates the notion that Paul had poetic license to
delete portions of the Towrah he did not like, or add his own commandments:
With all the words (debar communications and statements) that relationally
I instruct you with (sawah eth provide by way of direction to you), closely
observe and carefully consider them (shamar focus upon them). Do not add
(yasap make any increase or addition) to them and do not decrease or reduce
(gara subtract from) them. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 13:1)
As for Pauls assertion that the Torah had a limited shelf life, Yahowah
inspired Yashayah / Isaiah to write: The grass dries up and the flower withers
but the Word (dabar) of our God stands and is established (quwm
encourages, supports, raises up, and restores) forever (owlam eternally).
(Yashayah / Salvation is from Yah / Isaiah 40:8)
Because of the unchanging nature of God, His Covenant Promise will be
honored (which is to say it will be fulfilled even in our future): Because I,
Yahowah, have not changed, you, the children of Yaaqob will not perish or
be destroyed. (Malaky / Messenger / Malachi 3:6)
Why do Christians believe Pauls anti-Torah rhetoric when his statements are
diametrically opposed to Yahowshas? The diminished corporeal manifestation of
Yahowah said: You should not think or assume (me nomizomai you not
consider, expect, nor suppose at any time even the possibility of the commonly
held or popularly established presumption, never accepting the prevailing precept
or justification (negative particle, aorist active subjunctive verb)) that (hoti
namely) I actually came (erchomai I in fact appeared then, now, or in the
future (aorist active indicative)) to tear down, invalidate, put an end to, or
discard (kataluo to dissolve, destroy, disunite, subvert, overthrow, abrogate,
weaken, dismantle, or abolish, releasing or dismissing any of the implications,
force, influence, or validity of) the Towrah (ton nomon that which has been
assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) or the Prophets (e tous prophetes
those who are inspired to speak and write based upon divine inspiration, making
Gods thoughts and plans known even before they happen). I actually came not
(ouk erchomai) to create a division, to dismiss, to invalidate, or to discard
(kataluo to tear down, to dissolve, to destroy, to disunite, to subvert, to
overthrow, to abrogate, to weaken, to dismantle, or to abolish, dismissing any
implication or its influence), but instead (alla to the contrary, emphatically
contrasting that to the certainty), to completely fulfill (pleroo to proclaim and
complete, conveying the true meaning and thinking, to liberally supply, carrying
out, accomplishing, and rendering it totally and perfectly). (5:17)
Because (gar for this reason then so that you understand) in deed and in
truth (amen truly and reliably), I say to you (lego sy), until (hoes up to the
point that) with absolute certainty (an) the heaven and the earth (o ouranos e
ge the universe and the surface of the planet) cease to exist (parerchomai pass
away, disappearing), not ever under any circumstance shall (ou me there is no
way whatsoever, not even so much as a possibility that) one aspect of the
smallest letter (eis iota shall a single Yowd, the first letter in Yahowahs name
and the smallest character in the Hebrew alphabet) nor (e) a single stroke of the
pen (mia keraia one of the smallest line distinguishing any aspect of any
Hebrew letter) cease to be relevant (parerchomai be averted or neglected, have
any chance of being ignored or disregarded, being passed over or omitted,
perishing) from (apo being disassociated, separated, or severed from) the
Towrah (tou nomou that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an
inheritance) until with absolute certainty (hoes an) everything (pas every last
aspect, all and the totality of it) might take place (ginomai happens and occurs,
becoming a reality). (5:18)
Therefore (oun indeed and as a result), whoever may at any time (hos ean
if at any moment anyone introduces a contingency or condition whereby
individuals) dismiss or attempt to do away with (luo may seek to toss aside,
invalidate, or abolish, tearing away or asunder) one of the (mian ton) smallest
and least important of these (houtos ton elachistos) prescriptions and
instructions which are enjoined (entole rules, regulations, and authorized
directions, precepts, and teachings), and (kai) he may instruct or indoctrinate
(didasko he might teach, delivering moralizing discourses while conceiving and
instilling doctrine, expounding or explaining so as to enjoin) people (anthropos
humanity or mankind) in this manner (houto thusly and likewise), he will
actually be provided the name and will be judicially and legally summoned
as (kaleo he will be referred to and called by the proper name, literally and
passively summoned, called to task and designated) Little and Lowly (elachistos
Paulos in Latin, meaning: small and inadequate, insignificant and insufficient,
irrelevant and unimportant, immaterial and inconsequential (Paulos, the Latin
name Shauwl adopted as his own means elachistos little and lowly)) by the
kingdom of heaven (en te basileia ton ouranos by, within, among, and with
regard to the reign and royal authority of the heavens).
And then (de but by contrast), whosoever (hos an) might act upon it
(poieomai may engage through it, making the most of it, attempting to carry out
its assigned tasks (aorist active subjunctive)) and (kai) teach it (didasko try to
provide and share its instructions, expounding upon it), this (houtos these
things) will properly be referred to and named (kaleo it will be judiciously
and appropriately called and designated) great and important (megas
astonishingly valuable, splendid and sensible, albeit surprisingly uncommon)
among those who reign within the heavens (en te basileia ton ouranos by and
with regard to the kingdom and royal authority of the heavens). (Mattanyah /
Yahowahs Gift / Matthew 5:19) The Maaseyah Yahowshas statement regarding
the Towrah is the antithesis of Pauline Doctrine.
And yet God was not done. Yahowsha would conclude His Instruction on
the Mount with this announcement regarding the connection between the Torah
and life: If (ei introducing a condition which must occur or be met before the
resulting event can be manifest), therefore (oun), you all (umeis) presently and
actively being (ontes currently existing and in the process of being (present
active participle)) troublesome and morally corrupt (poneros seriously
flawed, evil and annoying, blind and diseased) have in the past been familiar
with and have actually known how (oida have perceived and have shown that
you are genuinely aware of, having recognized how (perfect (a completed action
in the past) active indicative)) to give (didomi to provide) good and beneficial
(agathos moral, generous, and useful) gifts (doma presents) to your children
(tois umon teknon to your descendants and offspring), how much more by
contrast will (posos mallon) your Father (o umon pater), the One in the
Heavens (o en tois ouranos), actually give (didomi personally respond to
reliably produce, grant, and bestow (future active indicative)) something good,
moral, generous, and beneficial (agathos that which is upright and worthy,
capable and substantial, valuable and kind) to those asking Him (tois aiteo auton
actively responding to Him making a request of Him (present active
participle))?
Anything (pas everything), therefore (oun then), whatever to the
degree or extent (ean hosos whenever and as far as) you might want or may
enjoy (thelo you might decide or presently desire, you may propose or be of the
opinion or currently think something might be so, perhaps personally being fond
of or taking pleasure in your will, your intent and your purpose (present active
subjunctive)) as a result of (hina that) men being human (oi anthropos
individuals representing mankind and humankind (nominative plural)) doing to
you (poieo umin actively attempting to perpetrate this against you, fashioning
and assigning these things with regard to you, trying to make you do them
(present active subjunctive dative)), also (kai) in this way (houto likewise in
this manner, thusly) you (umeis) should choose to actively do to them (poieomai
autois you may elect to perform and behave unto them (present active
imperative)).
This (houtos) then (gar for this reason) actually and presently is (estin
exists as) the Torah (o nomos becomes the means to being nourished by that
which is bestowed to become heirs, existing as the precepts which were
apportioned, established, and received as a means to prosper and to be approved,
and prescriptions for an inheritance; from nemo that which is provided,
assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them (nominative)) and the Prophets
(kai oi prophetes) ): Under the auspices of freewill, you all should choose at
some point in time to enter, personally engaging by moving (eiserchomai at
a moment in time you ought to want to personally act by electing to go in,
beginning the journey by choosing to experience (aorist active imperative))
through (dia by way of and on account of) the narrow, specific, seldom-
tread, and exacting door (tes stenos pule the doorway with strict requirements
which is highly restrictive, the passageway which is unpopular and seldom
walked, an infrequently-trodden gateway whereby a stand will be taken to enable
others to stand, to be firmly established, and to be upheld (note: stenos is based
upon histemi which provides the concluding insights)) because (hoti for the
reason that namely) broad, man-made, and crafted to be wide open (platys
molded, malleable, plastic, and easily crafted and plied, a wide and artificial
thoroughfare; from plasso formed and molded by man, serving as the basis of
plastic) is the door (pule is the gate) and spacious (eurychoros as
encompassing as nations, widely regional, and broadly societal; sharing a base
with eusebeia especially religious, speaking of belief systems and their devout
and pious practices) is the way (e hodos is the path and journey, the popular
way through life, the well traveled road and route, the common course of conduct)
which misleads and separates (e apago that takes away, leading through
deception; from ago directs, leads, and guides to apo separation) into (eis)
utter destruction (apoleia needlessly squandering and ruining the valuable
resource of ones existence, causing it to perish; from apollumi to be put
entirely out of the way, to be rendered useless and to be abolished, coming to an
end and ceasing to exist), and a great many (kai polys the vast preponderance,
an enormous number, and to a very great degree, serving as a superlative of great,
many, much, and a large number) are those (eisin are actually the ones (present
active indicative)) who are influenced into moving while suffering the
consequences of entering (oi eiserchomai who as a result of being acted upon
are affected by taking the first step toward and then going in, manipulated in the
process of beginning a journey while experiencing the effect of going out (present
middle passive participle nominative)) through it (dia autos by way of it).
Certainly (tis it is certain that), the specific doorway has strict
requirements, it is narrow, seldom-tread, and it is an exacting passageway (e
stenos pule the doorway is highly restrictive, the passageway is unpopular and
infrequently walked whereby a stand is taken to enable others to stand, to be
firmly established, and to be upheld), and it completely goes against the crowd
to the point of persecution (kai thlibomai it is so totally unpopular the past act
influences the future to the point of hardship and harassment, even to oppression
and affliction (perfect passive participle nominative)), the one way (e e hodos
the specific journey through life, the singular route and the path) which leads,
separating those guided (apago) unto (eis) life (zoe vigorous and flourishing
living, the fullness of a restored and active existence), but (kai) very few (oligos
an extremely small quantity over a very short time) are those (eisin o exist the
ones) finding it (heuriskomai autos presently learning and actively discovering
the location of it, themselves experiencing it). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift /
Matthew 7:11-14) Therefore, according to God, the Torah is the source of life,
while mans ways lead to death.
Yahowshas final words to His Disciples echoed this same thought: He said
to them, These are My words which I spoke to you while I was with you,
because it is necessary to (inevitable and logical, beneficial and proper, as
part of the plan to) completely fulfill (carry out fully, totally perform,
accomplish, proclaim, giving true meaning to, realizing the prophetic
promises of) everything that is written in Scripture in the Mosaic Towrah,
the Prophets, and the Psalms about Me. Then He opened their minds so that
they would be intelligent and have the capacity to understand the written
Scriptures. He told them, Because, in this way, it is written that the
Implement of Yah must undergo and experience suffering and be enabled to
arise from being separated the third day. And it should be announced
publicly in Yahowahs name, Change your perspective, attitude and
thinking to be forgiven and pardoned for wandering from the path and
missing your inheritance, to all nations, races, and places, commencing and
leading from Yaruwshalaym. You are witnesses to this. And behold, I have
prepared and sent you off as Apostles to convey the message of My Fathers
announced and promised agreement upon you. But now, you remain in the
city until which you are clothed in power and ability from above. (Luke
24:44-49) Yahowsha and the Torah are inseparable. One is simply the
manifestation of the other.
In direct opposition to Paul, Dowd (who most know as David) wrote the
following lyrics for a Song in which he proclaimed the value of the Torah: Day
unto day pours out answers, and night unto night reveals knowledge which
lead to understanding. Nothing exists without the Word. Nothing exists when
and where the spoken and written message of the voice which calls out is
corrupted or negated, becoming unimportant to be heard. (Mizmowr / Song /
Psalm 19:2-3)
Yahowahs Towrah is wholly complete and entirely perfect, returning,
restoring, and transforming the soul. Yahowahs eternal witness and
restoring testimony is trustworthy and reliable, making understanding and
obtaining wisdom simple for the receptive. (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:7)
Not only is this the antithesis of Pauline Doctrine, but more than that, if Christians
compared this passage to Pauls epistles, they would reject everything the man
wrote.
But Dowd / David wasnt finished affirming what Paul attempted to belittle.
Yahowahs directions for living are right, causing the heart to rejoice.
Yahowahs terms and conditions are morally pure, shining a light toward
understanding. (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:8) Dowd didnt find the Torah to
be an unbearable burden as Paul has alleged.
If this is right (and it is), the basis of Pauls manifesto is wrong. This speaks
of Gods purpose, which is to form a relationship with us, and of His promise,
which is to make such a thing possible and enduring. Both of which require Him
to make us acceptable. So in a way, this is a summation of the Towrah:
Revering and respecting Yahowah is cleansing and restoring, sustaining
and establishing forever. The just means to resolve disputes of Yahowah are
trustworthy and reliable, enduring and dependable. They are wholly
vindicating, making the recipient to be righteous and innocent. (Mizmowr /
Song / Psalm 19:9) So much for Pauls notion that Gods Towrah never justifies
and always enslaves.
Moreover, your co-worker is admonished and enlightened, being
taught by them. And in carefully observing them, there is a great benefit and
reward. (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:11) This was and remains the purpose of
the Torah. Its our Makers Operating Manual, telling us through words and
pictures how to get the most out of this life and make it to the next. Those who
carefully observe what our Heavenly Father had to say will be rewarded, because
they will become His children and inherit the universe.
The most debilitating sin became Shauwls Achilles heel. Also, keep your
co-worker away from arrogance, not letting this rule over me, then I will be
completely prepared and blameless, ready for action, upright, and lacking
nothing, and I will be considered innocent, distanced from the great
transgression of rebellion. (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:13)
If God is right, Paul was wrong. Observing the Torah is the source of
wisdom, renewal, joy, enlightenment, being eternally established in Yahowahs
presence, justification, and innocence, in addition to providing a great reward. All
we need be wary of is being arrogant, and thus self-reliant or self-assured,
because the key to our redemption is our attitude toward God. If we are self-
directed, then we are not in a position to rely upon Yahowahs provision. In this
light, it is especially worth noting that Dowd / David listed rebellion as the
great transgression, something Paul should have considered before he spoke so
defiantly against God.
Dowds closing line is particularly noteworthy. Let the words of my
mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable and pleasing in your
presence, Yahowah, my Rock and my Redeemer. (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm
19:14) The best way to accomplish this is to observe the Torahthe very thing
Paul told his believers not to do.
 Therefore, since Pauls message and Yahowahs are diametrically opposed,
there is but one informed and rational conclusion: Paul lied. He was a false
prophet. While the issue of whether or not Yahowah can be trusted is life and
death to all of us, and is easily answered, it is irrelevant to Paul, because he
claimed to speak for the God he contradicted.
This is the end of the line for Shauwls credibility. He has proven beyond
any doubt that he was not trustworthy, that he was not speaking for God, that his
epistle was not inspired and thus is not Scripture, and that he was a complete
fraud.
Had Paul not repeatedly made the arrogant claim that he was speaking for
God as His authorized apostle to the world, had Paul not claimed that he could not
lie, had he not said that his preaching saved those who believed him, or that they
were his children, and that they should follow his example, then Pauls errant
statements would have been no different than thousands of other misguided
religious advocates. But he made these claims, and as a result, Pauls lifeless
deceptions were placed in the heart of the book canonized by the faith he
conceived. The consequence of his arrogance has been catastrophic.
Now that there is a rational comparison, it should be noted that Yahowah
used precisely fulfilled prophecy, brilliantly conceived imagery, a masterfully
designed plan and a consistent, multi-faceted, intertwined message, along with the
creation of the universe and the conception of life, to prove beyond any doubt that
His Word could be trusted. But Paul could neither write intelligently nor credibly
recount his own personal history. This contest has not been David versus Goliath;
it has been a speck of dust against the Creator of the Universe. So why is it then
that nearly two billion Christians believe Paul over Yahowah?
There is no question that Christians have been deceived, or that they are
wrong, but the question remains: are they in this horrid position because they are
ignorant or because they are irrational, are they apathetic or delusional? Has
Pauls faith corrupted their attitude, perspective and thinking to the point that
truth no longer matters?
Whatever the cause, their condition cannot be resolved until they are willing
to change their attitude, their perspective, and their thinking to reflect that of the
Torahto view our existence and means to salvation from the vantage point of
Gods Word. But to do so, Christians will have to drain their religious swamp of
Pauls delusions; otherwise, the seeds of truth will not take root and grow.
 We will continue to plod our way through Pauls letter, recognizing that he
was a fallible individual writing on his own behalf. There will be no pretense of
Galatians being Scripture. We will credit God when Paul affirms something
which is true, and which enhances our understanding of Yahowah and His plan of
salvation. And we will expose and condemn Paul when he errs, recognizing that
the cost of his corruptions can be counted in the millions, even billions, of human
souls.
Shauwls next statement reads: So now (de but) Hagar (Agar) exists as
(to estin is) Mount (oros) Sinai (Sina) in (en) Arabia (te Arabia a
transliteration of the Hebrew Arab), therefore (de), corresponding to
(sustoicheo stands in parallel with, is aligned with, and resembles) the present
(te nun) Yaruwshalaim (Ierousalem a transliteration of the Hebrew
Yaruwshalaim, meaning source from which guidance regarding reconciliation
flows). She is enslaved (douleuo she is subjected to slavery) because of (gar)
being associated with (meta among) the children (ton teknon the sons and
daughters) of her (autes third person singular feminine and thus referring to
Hagar). (Galatians 4:25)
I am growing weary of trying to make sense of that which is senseless, so
other than to make a few obvious points, Im going to let Pauls devotees have
this poison all for themselves.
Speak to me those proposing and deciding to exist under the control of
Towrah: cant you hear the Towrah? (4:21) For indeed because it has been
written that Abram two sons had, one from the slave girl and one from the
free and unbound. (4:22) Certainly from the slave girl according to flesh has
been born, from the free by way of a promise. (4:23) Whatever is being
spoken of allegorically, these then exist as two covenants or testaments, one
indeed from Mount Sinai into subservience, slavery, and bondage, giving
birth to whoever exists as Hagar. (4:24)
These things are certain. Paul has perverted the concept of observing the
Towrah, which is to closely examine and carefully consider its Teaching and
Guidance, to become being under the control of the Torah, which is to obey it
through compulsion. Paul is setting up two straw men, the first by contriving an
artificial distinction between the birth of Ishmael being of the flesh and being
enslaved and Yitschaq being free based upon a promise. Paul is then errantly
associating the Towrahs Covenant, which was revealed on Mount Sinai and lived
out in Yaruwshalaim, with Hagar and with slavery even though Hagar was freed
and banished, and Ishmael was expressly disassociated with that Covenant. And
although God says that there is only one Covenant, Paul wants the faithful to
believe that there are two the second being his own. This then leads Paul to say
that everything associated with Yahowah His Towrah, His Covenant, His
Mountain, and His City enslaves, even though according to God the opposite is
true. And it is upon these lies that Shauwl conceived the religion of Christianity.
Contradicting God once again, Paul has left no doubt this time. According to
this false prophet, the message Yahowah conveyed from Mount Sinai in His
Towrah was as counterproductive as was the place where Gods Word was
fulfilled: Yaruwshalaim. In Pauline Doctrine, Gods work in these places enslaved
humankind. Only Satan would inspire a man to say such a thing.
Arab has several negative connotations in Hebrew, such as dark and
desolate, but it also conveys the positive idea of offering a pledge of pleasing
fellowship. And that is indeed what happened on Mount Sinai (also known as
Mount Horeb) in Arabia. And Paul has used it here to take his believers back to
the dark and desolate wilderness of lifelessness and ignorance.
Sustoicheo is from sun, meaning with and together and stoicheo,
proceeding to march as soldiers in a row, to walk, and to direct ones life. It
literally conveys to be in a series with, to be in the same row or rank, and to
stand in the same line. Figuratively, sustoicheo is used in logical discussions of
things which have distinctive features which fit in the same category, and thus it
means to correspond. Therefore, in the context of an allegory, the
corresponds rendering seems the most appropriate. And that means that Paul is
associating Hagar, the Covenant memorialized in the Torah on Mount Sinai, and
Jerusalem, with slavery when there is no connection between Hagar and the
Covenant or the Towrah with being enslaved. But Paul never let the truth get in
his way. In fact, the reason that Shauwl was opposed to the present
Yaruwshalaim is obvious: he was rebuked there for his opposition to
circumcision.
I would be remiss if I didnt remind you that sustoicheo is related to
stoicheion, which Shauwl used in Galatians 4:3 to demean the Torah, saying:
And also, in this way, it follows that when we were infants, under the
elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology, we
were subservient slaves.
He deployed stoicheion again six verses later, this time in context with
douleuein to be controlled as a slave, to further demean the Torah when he
wrote: Certainly on the other hand, not having known or acknowledged god,
you were enslaved to nature, not existing as gods. (4:8) But now having
known god, but whats more, having been known under god, how have you
returned, changing your beliefs back upon the incapacitating and
incompetent, the worthless, belittling, and terrifying elementary teachings
and rudimentary principles of religious mythology representing the
inadequate, simplistic, and improperly formed first step which back again
and again from above you are choosing to be controlled as a slave (4:9) by
observing and carefully attending days, and months, and seasons, and
years? (4:10)
It was during our review of these earlier Galatians statements that we
discovered that stoicheo conveyed a host of derogatory connotations, from
demonic supernatural powers or spirits to that which is basic, improperly
formed, underdeveloped, and simplistic. Something which is stoicheo is initial,
rudimentary and natural and thus associated with the elements which comprised
the universe. Stocheion suggests that somethings usefulness has come to an
end. It conveys the idea of a first step as well as something which is
primitive, underdeveloped, childish, and worldly. Because stocheion is
indicative of the command and control aspects of a military regime, and of
soldiers following orders, and marching in conformity, it is the antithesis of
freewill.
In reality, everything Paul has written here is wrong. There is one Covenant
not two. The Covenant was formed with Abraham and Yitschaq after him, not
with Hagar or her son Ishmael, who were specifically excluded from the
Covenant and expelled from the Promised Land. And the only reason this
Covenant is known to us is because it was announced and memorialized in the
Torah which was handed down and recited on Mount Sinai/Horeb. This Covenant
commemorated the emancipation of the Yisraelites from religious, political, and
economic oppression, and it provides the means to our salvation. Many of the
Covenants promises were then fulfilled and enabled by Yahowsha in
Yaruwshalaym, which is why its name means the source of reconciliation. And
curiously, Hagar and her son were freed from slavery, making Paul wrong on all
accounts.
The things which actually correspond between the Covenant forged with
Abraham and memorialized on Mount Sinai with Moseh, and that which was
fulfilled in Yaruwshalaim by Yahowsha, is that all those who rely on Yahowahs
Word are liberated from mans religious schemes and adopted by God. But Paul is
saying the opposite, that the Mount Sinai Covenant codified in the Torah is
associated with Hagar, and that it leads to slavery. He is also saying that
Yaruwshalaym is no different than Sinai in this regard. Rather than standing for
the Source of Salvation, in Pauls twisted mind, Yaruwshalaym is now a
coconspirator in the enslavement of humankind. After having pierced Yahowah in
the heart, Paul has now poked his finger in Gods eye.
Before we move on, Id like you to consider the Nestle-Aland McReynolds
Interlinear and other renditions of Pauls ongoing thesis. The but Hagar Sinai hill
is in the Arabia it lines up together but in the now Jerusalem she is enslaved for
with the children of her. LV: For Sina is a mountain in Arabia, which hath
affinity to that Jerusalem which now is: and is in bondage with her children.
KJV: For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which
now is, and is in bondage with her children. Then the NLT augmented Pauls
words to more accurately convey his blasphemy: And now Jerusalem is just like
Mount Sinai in Arabia, because she and her children live in slavery to the law.
Based upon this letter, the Christian Church would have nothing to do with
the Covenant, with the Torah, with Jerusalem, or with the Invitations to Meet with
God. There would now be total separation, known in Scripture as damnation.
Pauls next statement is nearly incomprehensible, which I suppose is better
than being totally inaccurate. So now that he has annulled the work of Yahowah
(which is Yahowsha) in Yaruwshalaim, effectively negating all of the
Covenants benefits by failing to acknowledge the reasons behind fulfilling
Pesach Passover, Matsah Un-Yeasted Bread, Bikuwrym First-Born
Children, and Shabuwah the Promise of the Sabbath, Paul creates a pretend and
opposing Jerusalem to go along with his imaginary and contrarian covenant...
But (de) the (e) Yaruwshalaim (Ierousalem) above instead (ano
upwards and opposite; from anti in opposition), free and independent
(eleutheros released, unbound, and exempt) is (eimi exists) who (hostis) is
(eimi) our (emon) mother (meter). (Galatians 4:26)
Without the Miqraey, which were fulfilled in Yaruwshalaim by Yahowsha,
there is no way to engage the Set-Apart Spirit in our lives, so a new mother was
also required. So if we are reading this correctly, Pauls faithful, after he has
suffered birth pangs on their behalf, are born a third time from the free and
independent Yaruwshalaim above which is in opposition.
And the duplicity here isnt a function of the translation, but instead in the
Greek text. Consider the NAMI: But the up Jerusalem free is who is mother of
us. After a steady diet of lies, it would be unreasonable to attempt an
interpretation which would make sense of this.
Shauwl, and the dark spirit he was serving, came to despise what occurred
on Mount Sinai with the revelation of the Towrah, and what occurred in
Yaruwshalaim with the fulfillment of some of its most important promises, so,
just as they had created their own covenant in opposition to God, they conceived a
mythical city, one floating in the sky, that was also opposed to Him. And then to
add insult to injury, they demeaned the role of our Spiritual Mother by associating
Sarah (a.k.a. the freeborn) with their replacement realm, calling her/it our
mother. She was now the Queen of Heaven, reprising the role of the Madonna
and Child in the Babylonian religion.
 And if you think Im pushing the envelope here, consider the NLT: But the
other woman, Sarah, represents the heavenly Jerusalem. She is the free woman,
and she is our mother. They are wrong, of course, as was Paul. Posturing the
false notion that Sarah serves as our mother was simply part of Pauls ploy to
bypass the Torah. Sarah was the mother of one: Yitschaq. Moreover, the NLT just
contradicted their patron saint. In the previous verse, Paul associated Jerusalem
with the enslavement of children.
Here is the Catholic and Protestant translation. LV: But that Jerusalem
which is above is free: which is our mother. KJV: But Jerusalem which is above
is free, which is the mother of us all.
Moreover, the heavenly Jerusalem is not yet established. It will be
constructed by Yahowah as part of His new heaven and earth at the end of the
Millennial Sabbath.
And just when we thought it couldnt get any worse, Pauls Greek
deteriorates to the point where we once again need to use the Nestle-Aland
Interlinear as a compass to navigate Pauls twisted realm. It has been written for
be merry sterile the not giving birth rip and cry aloud the one not having birth
pains because many the children of the desert more or of the having the man.
This brings to mind one of my favorite sayings: I know that you think you heard
what you believe I said, but Im not sure that you realize that what you heard is
not what I meant. So now for the living embodiment of that conundrum, please
consider:
For indeed (gar for because then), it has been written (grapho), Be
glad (euphrainomai celebrate and rejoice) infertile (steira barren and sterile
incapable of childbirth) the (e feminine singular article (referring to
Yaruwshalaim) nominative (conveying to be or to become)), not (ou) giving
birth (tikto bearing a child, being productive, growing, or producing), violently
lacerating (rhegnymi throwing an angry fit, viciously ripping things to pieces,
distorting and convulsing while breaking apart) and (kai) cry aloud (boao
crying and shouting), becoming the (e) not (ou) suffering birth pains (odino
in great anguish, labor, and physical effort, engaging in long and hard work)
because (hoti that and namely) many (polys) the children (ta teknon) of the
desolate (tes eremos of the forsaken and deserted, of the solitary and lonely, and
of the abandoned and lifeless), more (mallon instead and by contrast as an
alternative) than (e or) of the (tes) possessing (echo holding on to, having,
and experiencing) the man (ton andra the human). (Galatians 4:27)
While thats not decipherable, or even discernible, without a large dose of
secret mythos and religious jargon or, failing that, a decoder ring, the citation is
allegedly from Yashayah / Salvation is from Yahowah / Isaiah 54:1.
 Cognizant of the wannabe apostles reprehensible tactics, its rather obvious
that Shauwl is trying to fool his audience into believing that Yahowahs
prophecy regarding the Set-Apart Spirit was actually about a new replacement
covenant. So in our quest for verification, well have to go back in time seven-
hundred and fifty years and consider what God revealed through a prophet named
Salvation is from Yahowah to see if we can affirm that Yashayah 54 was
actually about our Spiritual Mothers enactment of Seven Sabbaths in
Yaruwshalaim, following Yahowshas fulfillment of Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread,
and First-Born Children, to demonstrate how this stanza in Pauls ill-conceived
thesis twists Gods intent.
In that context is always an essential component of understanding, the cited
passage follows the most vivid portrayal of Yahowshas redeeming sacrifice
found anywhere in the Torah or Prophets. The last statement of the 53rd chapter
speaks of what He did for us on Pesach and Matsah: Yet He, Himself, bore the
sin of many, and He interceded for the transgressors. This leads to a
celebration of the healing and beneficial message and its consequence.
Sing for joy (ranan choose to convey the lyrics of a delightful and happy
song in a melodic and rhythmic manner, actually focusing on the joy being
expressed (the qal imperative conveys that which is both genuine and is an
expression of freewill)), woman who has not yet given birth (aqar female
who has not yet experienced motherhood and thus without descendants).
She who has not yet borne a child (lo yalad she who has not become
pregnant and delivered a baby (the qal perfect conveys the actual situation
associated with a completed, and thus not ongoing, condition)), choose to be
genuinely serene (patsach be at peace, without worries or distress, actually
electing to be sparkling and happy, gleaming, bright, and cheerful (qal
imperative)), singing and rejoicing (rinah shouting for joy, expressing elation
in having overcome).
And (wa) elect to shine (tsahal literally choosing to reflect light, shouting
that the time is neigh (qal imperative)), not lingering (lo yachal not waiting
(qal perfect)).
For indeed (ky), many are the children (rab beny abundant and
numerous, even abounding in influence, is the offspring) of the dazed, desolate,
and destitute (shamem the devastated and deserted, the destroyed and damned,
the stupefied and appalling) among children (min beny from and part of the
offspring, by means of and because of the sons) controlled by Baal, the Lord
(Baal who have become betrothed to the Adversary, who are possessed and
ruled by Satan, who are lorded over and owned by the Lord, and who are slaves to
their master (in the qal passive participle this is literally done to them)), says
(amar answers and promises) Yahowah ( ). (Yashayah / Salvation is
from Yahowah / Isaiah 54:1)
While we will compare Yahowahs statement to Shauwls misappropriation
of it in a moment, lets linger long enough to consider what Yahowah predicted
would occur as a result of Bikuwrym First-Born Children following His
fulfillment of Passover and Un-Yeasted Bread:
Enlarge (rahab choose to joyfully take advantage of the opportunity to
expand and make roomy (in the hiphil imperative, the subject, who is the Set-
Apart Spirit, enables the object, who are those who campout with God, to
participate in the action)) your shining and sheltered place, your protected
home for the upright (ohel / ahal maqowm camping site at the standing place
and covered tabernacle of light), and (wa) the curtain and shelter (yaryaah) of
the tabernacle (mishkan the large home and dwelling place) continuously
spread for them under the auspices of freewill (natsah outstretch and extend
on an ongoing basis so that they can choose (the hiphil stem, imperfect
conjugation and jussive mood shows the Set-Apart Spirit constantly facilitating
this result on behalf of those who elect to participate)), not withholding or
sparing (lo chasak not holding back (qal imperfect jussive)) elongating (arak
lengthening) the cords (mythar the ropes which hold up, enlarge, and secure a
tent), and (wa) the tent pegs (yathed stakes used to hold up a tent, holding the
cords securely to the ground) fasten firmly and powerfully (chazaq strengthen
and allow to grow strong) because, indeed, to the right and on the left (yamyn
wa simel right and left hand; speaking of Yisraelites and Gowym), you will
spread out (parats you will increase, bearing more children), and your
descendants (zera your seed, offspring, and children), people from different
races and places (gowym), will become heirs (yarash). And (wa) the desolate
and deserted (shamem the devastated and destroyed) towns (iyr) they will
inhabit (yashab settle and dwell within, living and staying). (Yashayah /
Salvation is from Yahowah / Isaiah 54:2-3)
Our Heavenly Fathers family would be enlarged and would be made even
more secure as promised as a result of what He would do and now has done in His
beloved city. There was no reason to worry. His promises all come true. And
while God goes on to speak of His mercy and faithfulness when it comes to the
redemption of His children, and of bringing them back home, He has put us on
notice that most people will opt to be influenced by Satan, foregoing His light.
Christian apologists, steeped in the poisonous brew of Pauline Doctrine, will
tell you that the self-pronounced Apostle cited this verse to suggest that Sarah,
who was once barren, would become fertile, and that as such, she became the
mother of the faithful. In their mind, this in turn explains why there are so many
Christians, and why they became so powerful, in that Pauls troubadours saw
themselves as the children who would be greater in number and status. But
Sarahs infertility was resolved 1,300 years before Yashayah penned these words
(which would have made him a prophet predicting the past), and 2,000 years
before the fulfillments of Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread, First-Born Children, and
the Promise of the Sabbath in Yaruwshalaim enabled this celebration of the
Covenants growth. Since Sarah had long since experienced labor, not only was
she specifically excluded from this prophecy, the birth of Yitschaq was now
history. Moreover, Sarah had but one child, and he was the patriarch of the
Yisraelites, not to mention, the designated heir to the Covenant Paul has
condemned.
If we distance ourselves from Pauls polluted mantra, it becomes obvious that
the Mother being described in Yashayah 54 is someone very special. This
prophecy is telling us that following the fulfillment of the first two Invitations to
Meet with God by the Suffering Servant (prophetically described in Yashayah
53), our Spiritual Mother would give birth to the Covenants children on First-
Born Children, enriching and empowering them Seven Sabbaths later on the
Miqra of Shabuwa. God was telling us that the Set-Apart Spirit would adorn us
in light, facilitating our spiritual birth into His family.
Specifically, our Spiritual Mother adorns us in a Garment of Light, which
is suggested in tsahal let your light shine. She is responsible for enlightening
us as well, illuminating the path to God. She also empowers the Covenants
children to rinah sing out the lyrics of Yahowahs message to people the
world over. And She is the power behind Yowm Taruwah, where we are called to
joyously proclaim the Way to God, while also shouting out a warning to
those headed in the wrong direction. Reinforcing this, on Shabuwah, Taruwah,
Kippurym, and twice on Sukah, we are expressly asked to approach the Maternal
aspect of Gods Light so that we can enjoy all of the rights and privileges of being
part of the our Heavenly Fathers Covenant Family.
As an interesting aside, once we understand the promise and purpose of
Yahowahs Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God, we recognize that
each resolves an aspect of our current nature, preparing us for adoption into
Yahowahs family and for camping out with our Heavenly Father. Therefore,
those who answer Gods engraved Invitations, and those who observe the seven
Miqraey in accordance with Yahowahs Towrah instructions, receive the
promised benefits.
Ohel, meaning covered shelter, describes pitching a tent to campout. It
is indistinguishable in the text from ahal, to shine a pure and clear light. So we
have within this word a depiction of how our Spiritual Mother protects Her
children. It becomes even more obvious when we recognize that ohel is a
dwelling place, a household, and tabernacle. Addressing this, the next word,
maqowm, and its root, quwm, describe the standing place where Yahowah
stood up for us so that we could stand with Him. The Maaseyah Yahowsha is
the living embodiment of quwm. And of course, maqowm the standing place
would be YaruwshalaimPauls coconspirator along with Sinai in our
enslavement.
Also, too affirm the Christian affinity for Pauls Lord, all you have to do is
open your favorite Bible. No matter the translation, you will find Yahowahs
name replaced by Satans (a.k.a. Baals) title, the Lord, 7,000 times.
And fortunately there is a bright side to all of this. One of the benefits of
having Paul routinely misquote the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms is that it gives us
the chance to spend some quality time reading something which is enlightening
and uplifting, not to mention, comprehensible, in the midst of the Pauline
rhetorical rubbish. At least it keeps our brains from turning to mush and our souls
from withering.
In this light, I am particularly fond of the 5th verse of the 54th chapter: For
you are married to your Maker. Yahowah of the assembled implements is
His name. He is your Redeemer, the Set-Apart one of Yisrael, called God of
all the earth.
Therefore, Paul not only misquoted Yashayah, he improperly associated
Sarah with a prophecy depicting our Spiritual Mothers fulfillment of the
Invitations to Meet with God. In this light, please consider how different Pauls
Greek is from Yashayahs Hebrew:
Shauwl: For indeed, it has been written, Be glad infertile, the not
giving birth, violently lacerating throwing an angry fit, viciously ripping
things to pieces while distorting and convulsing, cry aloud, becoming the not
suffering birth pains because many the children of the desolate, forsaken and
deserted, more than of the possessing the man. (Galatians 4:27)
Yahowah: Sing for joy, woman who has not yet given birth. She who
has not yet borne a child, choose to be genuinely serene, singing and
rejoicing. And elect to shine, not lingering. For indeed, many are the children
of the dazed, deserted, and destroyed among children controlled by Baal, the
Lord, says Yahowah ( ). (Yashayah 54:1)
While our intent was to discern what Paul tried to say, and then determine
why he said it, the one thing I know for sure is that Yahowah is articulate, and is
indeed a profound communicator, and Paul is neither.
Recognizing that Shauwl once again misquoted, twisted, and misapplied
Yahowahs Word to infer that he had Divine authority for his blasphemous
position, lets consider how the religious community handled his mistakes. The
Catholic Latin Vulgate reads: For it is written: Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest
not: break forth and cry thou that travailest not: for many are the children of the
desolate, more than of her that hath a husband. The Protestant King James
therefore says: For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth
and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she
which hath an husband.
The Evangelical New Living Translation accurately assessed Pauls intent,
but misrepresented his Greek text by attempting a paraphrase of the Hebrew
passage instead: As Isaiah said, Rejoice, O childless woman, you who have
never given birth! Break into a joyful shout, you who have never been in labor!
For the desolate woman now has more children than the woman who lives with
her husband! In a moment, Ill share the Christian interpretation of Pauls
message so that you will be able to more fully appreciate how this lie was woven
into the fabric of his faith.
Continuing with the Galatians epistle, please note that the following
statement contains a pronoun, a conjunction, a preposition, four nouns, and one
lone verb hanging out at the end of the sentence. Of these elements of speech,
the NAMI composed: You but brothers by Isaac promise children you are. Its
hard to explain Pauls point when his words dont make any sense.
Examining the same words, I concur, that is what the self-proclaimed mother
of the Christian faith wrote. Too bad it required Paul to contradict himself. Just a
moment ago, he equated the Towrah memorialized on Mount Sinai with Hagar,
Ishmaels mother. But now, he would like you to forget all of that and consider...
But (de) you (umeis) brothers (adelphos) according to (kata literally
down from or opposite of) Yitschaq (Isaak a transliteration of the Hebrew
Yitschaq, meaning laughter) of promise (epaggelia of announced declaration or
agreement) children (teknon) you are (eimi). (Galatians 4:28)
Even if Paul hadnt mangled and denounced the Towrahs Covenant, this
wouldnt be true. The only promises that matter are the ones Yahowah made to
Abraham, all of which He recorded for our benefit in His Towrah. Yitschaq was
himself a beneficiary of those engraved vows, just as are we.
And last time I checked, Yitschaq had two childrentwins as it turns out, not
hundreds, thousands, millions, or billions of children. One of his two sons, his
first born, Esau, Yahowah despisedso thats not an appealing option. Although
in this regard, Shauwl and Esau share the distinction of being the only two
individuals Yahowah calls out by name to demean.
Yitschaqs second son, Yaaqob, became Yisrael, and thus he represents the
nation and the race Shauwl has been denouncing. Yaaqob was the father of the
twelve tribes known collectively as Yisrael. And yet Galatians has established,
and Thessalonians will affirm, that Jews and Israel were Pauls mortal enemy, so
Yaaqob isnt a viable option either. Therefore, even the details which comprise
Pauls attempted recasting of Yahowahs message are inaccurate, inappropriate,
and contradictory. As such, his argument was designed to fool those prone to be
religious, the ignorant and the irrational.
Even metaphorically, the Gowym who are adopted into Yahowahs family
arent Yitschaqs children, but instead we are the product of our Heavenly Father
and Spiritual Mother. And this adoption process is only possible when we accept
the terms and conditions of Yahowahs Covenant, the one memorialized in the
Torah, something Paul rejected as have Christians after him. And thus, Shauwls
statement is wholly fraudulent.
We find the following in Jeromes Latin Vulgate: Now we, brethren, as
Isaac was, are the children of promise. Which was then reflected in the King
James: Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. And then
this was augmented in the NLT to convey: And you, dear brothers and sisters,
are children of the promise, just like Isaac. It was a case of money see, monkey
do. Unwilling to admit the announced promise is contained in the Torah, and
that the assured agreement was the Covenant, each religious tome parroted
Pauls inaccurate and uninspired drivel.
Since nothing more need be said with regard to exposing Christians to the
fact that Paul should not be trusted, lets move on to his next line. The Nestle-
Aland McReynolds Interlinear proposed the following: But as indeed then the by
flesh having been born pursued the by spirit thusly also now. Perhaps if I was
insane, like Paul, or demon-possessed, this would make so much sense it would
appear inspired. But since Im not, this is the best I can do...
Otherwise (alla on the contrary, nevertheless, or certainly) just as
(hosper) at that time (tote then) this (o) accordingly (kata), flesh (sarx the
physical body) having given birth (gennao having been born) pursued,
persecuted, and expelled (dioko hastily pressed forward, putting others to
flight, running over them and driving them away, harassing and oppressing) this
(ton) according to (kata down from) spirit () and so it continues (kai
houto also likewise it follows) even now (nyn at the present time). (Galatians
4:29)
Lets be honest in our appraisal. This sentence is incomprehensible. So
rather than attempt to comment on what Paul actually wrote, lets consider the
Roman Catholic interpretation of his words. Jerome ventured: But as then he that
was born according to the flesh persecuted him that was after the spirit: so also it
is now. I wouldnt know where to begin if asked to translate this.
 The King James appears to be taking a racist approach, suggesting that
Yahowahs Jews were persecuting Pauls Christians: But as then he that was
born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is
now. While there was a very limited history of Jews harassing Jews, there is no
indication that Jews persecuted Gentiles.
As we have come to expect, the authors of the New Living Translation
embraced this potentially anti-Semitic slant and made the most of it: But you are
now being persecuted by those who want you to keep the law, just as Ishmael, the
child born by human effort, persecuted Isaac, the child born by the power of the
Spirit. While I cant quarrel with the realization that this may well encapsulate
Pauls intent, it isnt even remotely close to what he actually wrote.
There is no association between to observe and to keep or between the
Towrah and law. There is no correlation between the Covenant and
Ishmael, and both Ishmael and Isaac were conceived by the human effort
of Abraham. Further Isaac was not persecuted, nor was Yitschaq born by the
power of the Spirit. So while Ishmael is said to have teased Yitschaq, thats a
world away from dioko persecution. Moreover, since dioko means to
persecute by hastily pursuing someone, to oppress and harass them, and thereby
cause the victim to flee and ultimately be expelled, its the wrong verb to apply
to the intermittent taunts Ishmael launched in Yitschaqs direction, especially
since it led to Ishmaels, not Yitschaqs, expulsion from the Promised Land. So no
matter how Pauls message is interpreted, it is consistently wrong. And speaking
of mistaken...
Otherwise (alla on the contrary, nevertheless, or certainly) what (tis) says
(lego) the Writing (e graphe), Throw out and expel (ekballo cast, drive, and
send out) the (ten) slave girl (paidiske) and (kai) the (ton) son (huios) of her
(autes) [not (me the first of the two negations is not extant in P46)] for (gar
because then) will not receive (me kleronomeo will not gain possession or
inherit through a chance throwing of lots; from kleros to cast or draw lots) the
son (o huios) of the slave girl (tes paidiske) with (meta) the son (tou huios) of
the free (tes eleutheros free, unrestrained and not bound). (Galatians 4:30)
Once again, Pauls attempted citation of the Torah was garbled and
inaccurate. But so that we have another perspective from which to consider his
misquotation of Genesis 21:10, lets turn to the Nestle-Aland McReynolds
Interlinear and consider what they have published: But what says the writing:
Throw out the servant girl and the son of her not for not will inherit the son of the
servant girl with the son of the free.
Jeromes Latin Vulgate reads: But what saith the scripture? Cast out the
bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the
son of the free woman. So we should not be surprised that the KJV conveys the
same thing: Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and
her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the
freewoman. Other than confirm that Paul was attempting to quote the Torah, the
NLTs rendering is very similar: But what do the Scriptures say about that? Get
rid of the slave and her son, for the son of the slave woman will not share the
inheritance with the free womans son.
The Torah passage Shauwl cited begins similarly, but ends differently. Most
importantly, it is in Sarahs voice, not Gods: And (wa) she said (amar) to (la)
Abraham (Abraham from ab father and raham enriching and merciful),
Banish (garas remove and expel) the female servant (ha amah the maid)
and also this one, accordingly, her son (ha zoth wa eth ben), for (ky indeed)
the maids son (ha amah ben), he will not be an heir (lo yarash he will not
receive an inheritance) along with (im) my son (beny), Yitschaq (Yitschaq
Laughter).(Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:10)
But Galatians reads: Throw out and expel the slave girl and the son of her
for will not receive by lots the son of the slave girl with the son of the free.
Therefore, why do you suppose Paul removed And she said to Abraham from
the beginning of this sentence? After all, he was positioning Sarah as the Mother
of the faithful so her words should have carried Divine authority. But, more
importantly, why did Paul corrupt the ending of the sentence, changing what
Sarah said: and also this one, accordingly, her son, for the maids son, he will
not be an heir along with my son, Yitschaq? Pretending to quote the Towrah,
Shauwl concluded: for will not receive by lots the son of the slave girl with
the son of the free.
Beyond the fact that it is inappropriate for the creation to misquote the
Creator, its obvious that he misappropriated and misrepresented Gods statement
because he wanted the passage to fit his thesis. So when Sarah didnt differentiate
between the son of the slave girl and the son of the free, Shauwl changed the
text to create the illusion that he had a Divine sanction for his faith.
Whats so deeply troubling about all of this is that Shauwl knew that this
particular passage was one of many which affirm that there was no covenant
established with Hagar or Ishmael. They were banished into the desert, and were
separated from God and from the Children of Yisrael. Thus the basis for
Shauwls adversarial covenant, the one allegedly memorialized on Mount Sinai
with Hagar, which enslaves us, is torn asunder.
It is, therefore, once again evident that Paul was playing his audience for
fools, banking on the hunch that they were too poorly informed and too irrational
to connect these things and thereby rebuke him. And as it turns out, his
assessment was accurate. So perhaps this explains one of the reasons Shauwl
spurned Jews. They knew the Torah and would have held him accountable for
twisting it. Recognizing that his ploy wouldnt prevail before an informed
audience, Paul marketed his ideas exclusively to Gentiles who didnt know any
better. It is one of the reasons there are so few Jewish Christians today.
Before we move on, Id like you to consider something. If we were to put
aside the big picture for a moment where Pauls message has been the antithesis
of Yahowahs, how can anyone believe that this poorly written and illogical letter
is Scripture, the inspired and inerrant Word of God? All one has to do is compare
Pauls quotations to the original source and it becomes obvious that they are
inconsistent and inaccurate. And by definition, inaccurate is not inerrant, thereby,
destroying the most important percept of the Christian faith.
If you are a Christian, your options to resolve this problem are limited. They
include blaming the source of inspiration. That is to say, you can accept the fact
that Paul wasnt inspired by the Spirit who revealed the Torah. But that means
Paul didnt speak for God, and was thus a liar.
You can also blame scribes, thereby, claiming that they changed Pauls
words. But this justification is devastating, because only Papyrus 75, which
covers part of Luke and most of Yahowchanan / John, is more reliable. And it was
written one hundred years after Papyrus 46, which documented all of Galatians in
the late first-, or early second-century. So if scribal error significantly changed the
text of Galatians over the course of thirty to fifty years, then nothing in the so-
called Christian New Testament could be considered remotely reliable, save
perhaps isolated portions of Yahowchanan. As such, the entire foundation of
Christendom crumbles.
The only other option is to side with Marcion, and believe that God, Himself,
was so incompetent and senile that He could no longer remember what He said
and, therefore, was no longer relevant. Worse, that God, if He was still alive,
came to realize that His original plan was so hopelessly flawed that He needed to
have someone correct it for Him. But how is that possible since the Maaseyah
affirmed every aspect of Yahowahs Word and plan, and Paul has alleged that his
message is the same as Yahowshas? Besides, if God authorized Paul to
contradict Him, and change His message and plan of salvation, why is Paul
quoting from the failed plan which has been annulled?
Considering the options, its little wonder Paul based his faith on
believing him. Those who are informed, and who are willing to think for
themselves, will overwhelmingly conclude that he was untrustworthy. Removed
from a religious context where the faithful will believe most anything, Pauls
thesis isnt the least bit credible.
 Returning to the Towrah, so that we might come to appreciate what Shauwl
was hoping his religious audience would ignore, we read: God (elohym) said to
(amar el) Abraham (Abraham Merciful and Enriching Father), Do not
show a distressed or troubled outward appearance regarding (al raa ba ayn
al) the young man who went astray (ha naar the teenager who was a lost
sheep). And regarding the maid (wa al amah), everything which (kol ashar)
Sarah (Sarah meaning to Engage and Endure, Contend and Strive) says to you
(amar el), listen to what she says (shama ba qowl). Indeed (ky), through
Yitschaq (ba Yitschaq by Laughter), your offspring (zera descendants and
family) will be invited to approach (qara la will be called out and welcomed,
summoned to meet). (Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:12)
Qara, which means to call out, to invite and to summon, to meet and to
greet, as well as to read and to recite, serves as the basis of Miqra, the name
Yahowah selected to describe His Called-Out Assemblies telling us that they are
Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God. And the Miqraey in turn serve
as the basis of the ekklesiaor Called Out.
In this simple and direct statement, Yahowah undermined the whole of
Pauline Doctrine. Hagar was excluded from Abrahams family and from
Yahowahs Covenant negating the crux of Shauwls argument which claimed
that the Towrahs Covenant was enslaving because it was based upon the slave
woman. Further, to suggest that the Towrah accurately records a conversation
where Yahowah intervened between Abraham and Sarah, but did not record the
promise Paul alleges was the basis of his faith, is preposterous.
Also, since Paul makes women subservient to men, his credibility in doing so
is undermined by God asking this man to listen to his wife. But most revealing of
all, Yahowah told us that it would be through Yitschaq that the children of the
Covenant would be called out, invited to approach, and welcomed by God. And
this means that it is the promises actually recorded in the Towrah, especially those
associated with the Miqraey, that apply, not Pauls imagination.
This was followed by Yahowahs affirmation that Ishmael was sent away,
and thus excluded from the Towrahs ongoing narrative and Covenant: And also
(wa gam so then besides), accordingly (eth), the son of the maid (ben ha
amah), concerning pagans of different races (la gowy to approach other
places and nations, expressly Gentiles, and thus the heathen, uncultured, and
pagan), I will put him (sym I will appoint, list, place, and set him) because (ky)
hes your descendant (huw zera). (Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis
21:13) To be consistent then, the Gentile church, born out of Pauls letters, would
be the descendants of Ishmael. They were and still embody every aspect of gowy.
 While Yahowah was resolute regarding the exclusion of Hagar and Ishmael,
He, Himself, was not harsh. Per His instructions, Abraham responded quickly and
decisively, but he didnt send the maid and child out into the desert to die. They
were freed, thereby, negating another plank in Pauls ploy.
Getting up early (shakam taking action at daybreak), Abraham
(Abraham Merciful and Enriching Father) in the morning (ba ha boqer at
daybreak) obtained and grasped hold of (laqah) a loaf of bread (lechem) and a
skin of water (wa chemeth mym), and he gave them to (wa natan el) Hagar
(Hagar meaning to Flee), placing them on her shoulder (sym al shekem)
along with the boy (wa eth ha yeled) and he sent her away (wa salah). Then
she walked (wa halak) and she wandered in error (taah she went astray,
deceiving herself, staggering around without understanding) in the desert
wasteland (midbar in a place devoid of the word) of Beersheba (Baer Sheba
Well of the Sevenfold Oath). (Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:14)
Directly contradicting Shauwls testimony, Hagar and Ishmael were freed.
They were no longer slaves and therefore could not represent the concept of being
enslaved. Furthermore, they were sent away many centuries before Yahowah
dictated His Towrah Teaching on Mount Sinai, expressly disassociating them
from the Covenant He codified therein.
Excluding both mother and son from the Covenants promise of eternal life in
Gods family was one thing, but robbing him of his earthly life would have
violated the oath Yahowah made to his father. And she walked (wa halak),
settling down opposite him (yashab la min), about as far away as you could
shoot an arrow from a bow (neged rachaq ka tachah qesheth), then she said (ky
amar), I do not want to be a witness (al raah) at the death (ba maweth) of
the boy (ha yeled). So sitting opposite him (wa yashab min neged), she raised
her voice (nasa eth qowl) and wept (wa bakah). (Baresyth / In the Beginning
/ Genesis 21:16)
It is a bit strange, seeing that Ishmael was a taunting teenager, that his
survival instincts and his will to live were surpassed by his mother. It does not
speak well of his work ethic or character. And in this regard, since Yahowah said
that Ishmaels descendents would be wild asses of men, their hand raised against
their brother and their brothers hand raised against them while living in hostility
against the whole world, that Islams every flaw was being manifest before our
eyes. But nonetheless, adjacent to a spring, todays troubadours of trouble gave
up.
Aware of the boys plight, God did not send him back to Abraham or
Yisrael. He simply did as Abraham had doneHe had an envoy provide for him.
This messenger offered some encouragement, and then sent mother and son on
their way.
Then the Almighty heard reports of (wa shama elohym) the sounds of
the teenage lost sheep (eth qowl ha naar the voice associated with the young
man who had gone astray), and summoned a messenger of the Mighty One (wa
qara malak elohym) to Hagar (el Hagar) from the spiritual realms (min ha
shamaym). And he said to her (wa amar la), What concerns you, Hagar (mah
la Hagar)? You have chosen not to be respectful (al yare), but indeed (ky), to
the Mighty One (el elohym) have come audible reports of (shama) the
young mans voice who has gone astray (ha naar qowl) wherever he is
around here (ba asher huw sham). (Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis
21:17)
Unlike His encounters with Abraham and Sarah, Yahowah didnt meet with
Hagar or Ishmael. They would not enjoy a familial covenant relationship with
God. The Almighty sent a messenger and a troubled one at that.
This rather harsh spiritual being went on to say: Stand up (quwm), lift up
the lost teenager (nasa eth ha naar), and with your strong and resolute
hand (wa hazaq eth yad with your harsh, hard, and severe hand) upon him,
indeed (ba ky), I will cause him (sym I (the spiritual envoy said) will appoint
him and place him) to approach many pagans of different races seeking status
(la gowy gadowl to move toward other relevant places and important nations,
expressly Gentiles, and thus the heathen, uncultured, and pagan). (Baresyth / In
the Beginning / Genesis 21:18) While we are not told the identity of this spiritual
envoy, considering what he said, who he was speaking to, and what he ultimately
achieved through Muhammad, Ishmaels descendent, we have every reason to
suspect that this was Satan.
And: Then the Almighty (wa elohym), He existed against (hayah eth)
the lost young man who went astray (ha naar the teenager who was a
wayward sheep) and so he became boastful and exalted (gadal). Settling down
in the desert (wa yashab ba ha midbar so inhabiting the lifeless place devoid of
the word), he existed (wa hayah) hunting and fighting as a great archer (rabah
qashath). (Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:20)
The story of the Covenant was just beginning, but the story of Ishmael was
over, at least in relationship to God, His Towrah, and His Covenant. The next
time we hear of Ishmael, we discover that he was specifically excluded from
inheriting any portion of Abrahams estate. Then we learn that Esau earned
Yahowahs wrath for having married one of Ishmaels daughters. From that point,
the bastard child fades into oblivion, only to be resurrected by Muhammad to
serve Allah and Islam.
 Paul knew all of this. He knew that there was no covenant established with
Hagar or her son. He knew that Hagar wasnt associated with the revelation of the
Torah on Mount Sinai. And that is why it was so unconscionable for him to state
otherwise.
I suppose that Pauls parting salvo on the mythical second covenant might be
valid if it were prophetic, and not historic, and you darted six centuries ahead in
time, and associated Ishmael with Islam.
Therefore (ara so then [as found in P46 as opposed to dio in the NA]),
brothers (adelphos), we are not (ou eimi) children (teknon) of slave girl
(paidiske), to the contrary (alla), the free (tes eleutheros). (Galatians 4:31) In
reality, neither Sarah nor Hagar conceived again. But a religion was conceived
from these wordsone which would be astonishingly anti-Semitic and ardently
opposed to the Torah.
Regarding this concluding statement, the NAMI offered: Therefore, brothers
not we are of servant girl children but of the free. Jerome embellished his Latin
Vulgate with: So then, brethren, we are not the children of the bondwoman but
of the free: by the freedom wherewith Christus has made us free. Surprisingly,
the KJV removed the reference to Christus: So then, brethren, we are not
children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
Rather than simply consider the New Living Translations rendition of this
passage, a more comprehensive view seems appropriate. Interpreting and
trumpeting Pauls blasphemous manifesto, these Evangelical Christians wrote:
Tell me, you who want to live under the law, do you know what the law
actually says? The Scriptures say that Abraham had two sons, one from his slave
wife and one from his freeborn wife. The son of the slave wife was born in a
human attempt to bring about the fulfillment of Gods promise. But the son of the
freeborn wife was born as Gods own fulfillment of his promise.
These two women serve as an illustration of Gods two covenants. The first
woman, Hagar, represents Mount Sinai where people received the law that
enslaved them. And now Jerusalem is just like Mount Sinai in Arabia, because
she and her children live in slavery to the law. But the other woman, Sarah,
represents the heavenly Jerusalem. She is the free woman, and she is our mother.
As Isaiah said, Rejoice, O childless woman, you who have never given birth!
Break into a joyful shout, you who have never been in labor! For the desolate
woman now has more children than the woman who lives with her husband!
And you, dear brothers and sisters, are children of the promise, just like Isaac.
But you are now being persecuted by those who want you to keep the law, just as
Ishmael, the child born by human effort, persecuted Isaac, the child born by the
power of the Spirit. But what do the Scriptures say about that? Get rid of the
slave and her son, for the son of the slave woman will not share the inheritance
with the free woman's son. So, dear brothers and sisters, we are not children of
the slave woman; we are children of the free woman. (NLT Galatians 4:21-31)

In my quest to understand the Christian justification for Pauls fictitious

improvisation regarding a second covenant, with his view that the one formalized
on Mount Sinai was associated with Hagar, as opposed to Yaaqob/Yisrael, and
of it leading to slavery, as opposed to liberation, I found uniformity. It was as if
someone wrote a plan for how to deal with Pauls willingness to demean the
Torah and contradict God, and thereafter everyone thoughtlessly parroted the
same script. Each of the scores of Christian religious sites I scoured said that Paul
was condemning the Judaizers, as if there actually were such people. But since
it sounds nasty, and because hating Jews has become a religious obsession,
Judaizers became the ubiquitous explanation for Pauls mythical second
covenant.
Before we delve into Christian apologetics, so that Pauls thesis is fresh in
our minds, here is a recap of his position: Speak to me those proposing and
deciding to exist under the control of Towrah: cant you hear the Towrah?
(4:21) For indeed because it has been written that Abram two sons had, one
from the slave girl and one from the free and unbound. (4:22) Certainly from
the slave girl according to flesh has been born, from the free by way of a
promise. (4:23) Whatever is being spoken of allegorically, these then exist as
two covenants or testaments, one indeed from Mount Sinai into subservience,
slavery, and bondage, giving birth to whoever exists as Hagar. (4:24) So now
Hagar exists as Mount Sinai in Arabia, therefore, corresponding to the
present Yaruwshalaim. She is enslaved because of being associated with her
children. (4:25)
But the Yaruwshalaim above in opposition, free and independent is who
is our mother. (4:26) For indeed, it has been written, Be glad infertile, the
not giving birth, violently lacerating throwing an angry fit, viciously ripping
things to pieces while distorting and convulsing, cry aloud, becoming the not
suffering birth pains because many the children of the desolate, forsaken and
deserted, more than of the possessing the man. (4:27)
But you brothers according to Yitschaq of promise children you are.
(4:28) Otherwise just as at that time this accordingly, flesh having given birth
pursued, persecuted, and expelled this according to spirit and so it continues
even now. (4:29) Nevertheless, what says the Writing, Throw out and expel
the slave girl and the son of her for will not receive by lots the son of the slave
girl with the son of the free. (4:30) Therefore, brothers, we are not children
of slave girl, to the contrary, the free. (4:31)
According to Protestant Christianity: the allegory of Hagar and Sarah was
written to persuade us (along with the Galatians) not to follow the Judaizers into
slavery with Hagar and Ishmael. This comes courtesy of the Baptist Church. And
yet, Scripture says that at Yahowahs insistence, Hagar was freed, and Ishmael
was never a slave. Therefore, if this is what Paul meant to say, he chose the wrong
examples.
From a site operating under the acronym CCEL.org (Christian Classics
Ethereal Library at Calvin College), and under the heading, Sermons from
Galatians, we find: It is important to note that Paul does not deny the actual
historical narrative, but he simply uses it in an allegorical sense to illustrate his
point for the benefit of his readers who are tempted to go under the burden of the
law. Yet in fact, Pauls hypothesis contradicts every aspect of the Torahs
presentation of Hagar, Ishmael, the Covenant, and Mount Sinai, and thus
represents a complete denial of the actual historical narrative.
They write: Our threat today might not be from Judaizing teachers, but from
those who would have us turn away from Christ, such as voices in the world and
false religions. For example, they might follow Christian preachers and come to
believe the false religion of Christianity.
The Sacra Eloquia provided this twist: The Apostle Paul, like Morpheus in
the film The Matrix, had been a slave to his former religion of Judaism. And the
Judaizers wanted the Galatians to be slaves as well. In actuality, it appears that
Paul never escaped religion, and stepped from one into another.
The Lectionary Studies of the New Testament provided this perfectly
prepared presentation of Pauline Doctrine: By the use of the Hagar-Sarah
illustration Paul makes his strongest argument: forward in the Christian life, or
backward to Jerusalem and Mount Sinai. The message is that the Torah enslaves
and condemns us. Yet the Judaizers argue that only those who submit to the Sinai
covenant share in the promised Abrahamic blessings and thus Gentile believers
must submit themselves to the Mosaic Law if they are to share in Isaacs
blessings, as opposed to being cast out with Ishmael. As is the case with Paul,
this is wrong from beginning to end. And yet, in these words we find the religious
script unveiled which has been deployed to pit Christianity against the Torah,
against Yahowah, its author, against His one and only Covenant, against His
Seven Invitations, against the Ten Statements He etched in stone, and lest we
forget, against Yisrael and Yahuwdym His Chosen People. And it is a plot
whose mythological origins are rooted in Pauls letter to the Galatians.
Spreading the Light Ministries Network under the heading Sermons,
protests: Paul illustrates the difference between believers who rest in Christ only
and Judaizers who trusted in the law, by a comparison taken from the story of
Isaac and Ishmael. But Pauls story isnt from the account of Yitschaq and
Yshmael, but is instead a corruption of it. Moreover, there is no comparison or
association whatsoever between the banishment of Hagar and the Covenant
memorialized in the Torah. Further, Yahowsha, Himself, consistently told those
interested in knowing Him and understanding what He came to accomplish that
they must ground their perspective in the Torah.
The Christian organization says: He tells the Galatians that they are making
a big mistake by falling away from the truth. And yet, according to Yahowah,
and thus, Yahowsha, the Torah is the truth.
These things Paul said are an allegory, besides being literal and historical.
Its hard to believe that the proponents of this plot are so stupid that they dont
recognize that Paul wasnt calling his version allegorical, but instead
Yahowahs, and that Pauls thesis was neither literal nor historical.
Hagar represents the Mosaic Law, slavery. This is only true in Pauls
twisted mind and in the hearts of those sufficiently ignorant and irrational to
believe him. Yahowah says just the opposite.
Spreading the Light Ministries Network protested: Mount Sinai represents
Jerusalem under slavery to Rome and the Jewswho are under the curse of the
Law. The only association between Mount Sinai and Jerusalem is that one
predicts, explains, and leads to the other. They are linked, not in curses or
slavery, but in being steps along the path to our salvation. The Torahs
Covenant promise was honored on Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread, First-Born
Children, and the Promise of the Sabbath in Yaruwshalaimthe Source of
Reconciliation.
The Bible Study Guide to Galatians suggests: Paul uses the story of Hagar
and Sarah as a picture of the relationship between God and man. Paul tells the
Galatians that Hagar represents the covenant given on Mt. Sinai, which is the law
that the Jews pride themselves on keeping. In so doing, Paul warns us about
complying with the Judaizers. The opposite of this is actually true. Abraham, and
through him, Yitschaq and Yaaqob (who became Yisrael) represent the
Covenant between Yahowah and His family, not Sarah. And Hagar was
specifically disassociated from the Covenant centuries before it was codified in
the Torah on Mount Sinai. Further, the law that the Jews pride themselves on
keeping isnt the Towrah, which means Teaching, but instead, Jewish Oral
Law, know as Rabbinical Law, which has now been codified in their Talmud.
Bereft of the notion that proof requires evidence, McGarvey and
Pendletons Commentary published: Paul proves that Christians are not required
to keep the Jewish Sabbath or festivals of Judaism even though the Judaizers
insisted upon them. The only thing Paul has proven is that his Greek is
impoverished and that he feels no qualms about contradicting God. Equally
uninformed, McGarvey and Pendleton as anti-Semites want Christians to believe
that the Sabbath, Passover, Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits, Seven Sabbaths,
Trumpets, Reconciliations, and Shelters are the customs of Judaizers rather than
being Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God.
M&P wrote: Paul imagines that the Galatians are seeking the instruction of
the Judaizers, as they had once sought him. While Paul has a vivid imagination,
there is no evidence for Judaizers, much less that the Galatians actually sought
Pauls instructions. To the contrary, the text of the epistle indicates that the
Galatians rejected Paul and his message. (If only the rest of the world had as
well.)
Reading Galatians through glasses fitted at a Christian bookstore, McGarvey
and Pendleton wrote: And Paul, knowing the passion of the Judaizers for
allegory, meets them with their own weapon, and presents his case
argumentatively and logically. Nothing Paul has said has been logical, albeit his
rhetoric has been plenty argumentative. There is no indication that Rabbis used
allegory. It is Yahowah who has a passion for parables, metaphors, and word
pictures. And they are not weapons, but instead teaching aids. But by saying
this, these Christians have demonstrated their disdain for God.
Further, they have demonstrated that Christianity renders its victims unable to
think. Anyone who has read this passage in Greek understands that Paul
specifically differentiated the allegorical meaning of the story, whatever it may
have been, from his personal interpretation of it. Paul didnt say that the two
covenants were allegorical, but instead said these then exist as two covenants.
And while Paul is undeniably argumentative, he is the antithesis of logical.
From an organization called From Pentecost to Patmos, we find confusion
between religious rhetoric and sound argument: Pauls thesis, presented in
Galatians chapter 4, verses 8-31, provides a series of arguments for his conviction
that justification comes by faith alone, and he contrasts this with the improperly
motivated zeal of the Judaizers. This begins well. Galatians is Pauls thesis.
And therein lies the problem. Pauls thesis and Yahowahs message differ on
every essential issue.
 Pentecost to Patmos insistence that justification comes by faith alone is
invalid according to God. But it is true that faith operates alone, without evidence
or support. Whereas trust, which is based upon knowledge and understanding,
requires a foundation of supporting evidence.
The longest, most errant, and yet most unapologetically Christian,
comparison between Genesis 17:15-21 and Galatians 4:21-31 is found on a
Presbyterian site. A pastor on behalf of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church,
wrote the following anti-Semitic rant: The Judaizers [in actuality, Jews have a
history of seldom, if ever, attempting to convert anyone to their way of thinking]
entered the Galatian churches [there is no reference to a church in these Greek
manuscripts, but instead an ekklesia, referring to the Called Out], which were
primarily Gentile [while this excuse is ubiquitous, the content of Galatians
demonstrates that the audience was aware and fond of the Torah, meaning that
they were mostly Yahuwdym, not Gowym], and argued that true believers [true
believer is an oxymoron, moreover, God wants us to know and understand so
that we can trust and rely upon the truth He revealed in His Torah] had to be
engrafted into the lineage through circumcision and obedience to the Law of
Moses. This misses the symbolism of circumcision. And it misconstrues
observance with obedience. Observance leads to knowing and understanding.
Obedience leads to submission. Further, the Law of Moses is akin to calling the
prophecies Yahowah revealed to Yashayahuw the Edicts of Isaiah. Moseh was
simply the scribe who wrote Yahowahs teaching unto a scroll. It is a wonder
these theologians dont attributed the Declaration of Independence to the
calligrapher.
Failing to appreciate the difference between stating and demonstrating,
the Presbyterian pastor exclaimed: But Paul demonstrates that the Mosaic Law
itself has come to an end with the coming of the true seed, Jesus Christ. Jesus
Christ is the end of the Law. Paul does make this claim, but by doing so, he
directly contradicts Yahowshas position on the Torah. Therefore, since
Yahowsha said that He did not bring an end to the Torah, Paul proved that he
was wrong and should not be trusted.
But sadly the Galatians had begun to buy into the Judaizers argument.
[Galatians only hints at the nature of Pauls foe and the arguments they proposed.]
They had already capitulated and were being told to observe the fasts and festivals
of the Jewish calendar. [Wrong again. There are no fasts, and the festivals are
Yahowahs and dated on His calendar, not a Jewish one.] But we are no longer
slaves to the Law of Moses, and are no longer regulated by it commandments. If
the Torah isnt guidance for liberation, then Yahowah is a liar and Yahowsha
fulfilled Passover and Unleavened Bread in vain. Under this condition, there
would be no freedom from human oppression nor vindication from sin.
 I was appalled not long ago to see the Presbyterian Church release a
stunningly immoral and inaccurate press release following their General
Assembly against Jews and Israel and in favor of the Muslims who were
terrorizing them. And now, I understand the source of their anti-Semitism. So
Paul turns the Judaizers use of the Old Testament against them. Calling the
Torah, Prophets, and Psalms the Old Testament demonstrates that Christians
have remained mired in Pauls and Marcions polluted rhetoric. Scripture,
according to Yahowsha, begins with the Torah, and it concludes with the
Prophets. Further, Paul misquoted and misapplied Scripture. And that means
that Paul used the Old Testament against himself.
According to Orthodox Presbyterian Church: Paul tells them that the
Covenant made at Mt. Sinai where the Law was mediated through Moses in the
presence of the angels was a covenant of slavery and bondage. There are no
angels in Scripture, and the Torah was not mediated through Moses. To
mediate is to intervene. Yahowah spoke for Himself. More importantly,
Yahowah as Yahowsha acted on His own behalf. Further, the explicit purpose of
the Torah is to detail the role Yahowah played in the liberation of the children of
Yisrael from the crucible of human religious and political oppression and
bondage in Egypt, leading them to a life of freedom in the Promised Land.
Yahowahs seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet delineate this same path
for the rest of us.
Pauls gospel is not related to Hagar, the Judaizers are. Paul can be blamed
for many things, but gospel isnt among them. He used euangelion, meaning
healing messenger and beneficial message. Gospel is a Christian myth based
upon pagan nomenclature.
This same Presbyterian entity demonstrated its ignorance when they
postured: The message of the Torah is one of slavery. According to Paul, this is
true, but not according to Yahowah. Therefore Gods Torah instructions and
mans religious teachings on this foundational issue are diametrically opposed.
How is it then that Christians remain oblivious to this conflict? Search as I might,
I was unable to find a single theologian who even attempted to reconcile this
catastrophic problem.
The Christian apologist, having skipped the lecture on the Instruction on the
Mount at seminary school, wrote: Since the city of Jerusalem had become a
symbol for the Mosaic Covenant, when that Covenant/Law came to an end, so did
all the hopes that were rooted in that city, including the land and temple.
Yaruwshalaim is the symbol of salvation, not the symbol of the Covenant. And
according to Yahowah, His Word is eternal, never ending. As such, the hope of
reconciliation, and the return of Yahowsha, will occur on the Mount of Olives
just east of the Temple Mount in the one and only Yaruwshalaim.
 Presbyterian Christians have separated themselves from Yahowah, from His
Torah, from Gods Path home, from Yaruwshalaym the source of reconciliation,
and thus from the Promised Land, symbolic of heaven. No longer for the
Christian is Jerusalem, the land of Israel, and the law of Moses the center of our
hope. The Christians hope is not to be found in whether or not a nation today
called Israel locates itself in the Middle East, or if they are able to slaughter
enough Arabs to take over the city of Jerusalem, or if they are able to take control
of the temple Mount and rebuild the Temple. These things are all vain hopes.
They are Jewish empty dreams. They are simply the confused dog chasing his
shadow in the yard. While its hard not to envision Yahowahs anguished
expression at the trial of the Christian pastor who scribed these words, it would do
these fellows a world of good to read the Prophets sometime.
Rather the Christian has become heirs of the realities, not the shadows. Let
the Jews continue to place their hopes in the shadows which have come to an end.
Amen And yet, Christianity remains mired in the myths of Mystery Babylon,
confused by Satans shadows, his counterfeits. Amen, indeed.
For Pauls thesis to be true, for the Torah to be an agent of enslavement, and
for it to be annulled, Yahowah, the God who created the universe and conceived
life, the author of the Towrah and architect of the plan of salvation delineated
therein, would have to have come to the conclusion that He was wrong and that
He was incapable of resolving mans condition. As a result, He would have had to
recognize that Paul was superior in intellect and ability to Himself, and to His
human manifestation, Yahowsha. Then, God would have had to have asked Paul
to correct Him, and to solve these problems a different way. If you believe that is
what occurred, that Paul had the authority and ability to correct God,
congratulations, you are a Christian.

LE: YY 09-13-2013
 Questioning Paul
Volume 1: The Great Galatians Debate
Is Christianity Right or Wrong?

10

Pharmakeia Poisoned

Have You Ingested Pauls Poison?

Weve come to a place I could never have imagined. Once upon a time, I had
expected that errant translations and misinterpretations of Galatians had been
responsible for Christendom promoting the myth that the Torah had been
annulled. But in actuality, Paul, himself, has been responsible for this deadly
delusion. He has gone well beyond simply relegating the Torah to a bygone era.
He has assailed the Covenant codified therein, calling it a source of slavery, rather
than liberation.
Paul has hung himself with his own words. And if that were it, so be it. But
unfortunately, Pauls noose was woven into a net which has ensnared billions of
Christian souls. And for that reason, we will press on, unraveling his trap.
As we turn the page and open the fifth chapter of Galatians, Shauwl remains
fixated on the distinction between the liberty he promises and the servitude he has
associated with observing the Torah. And in the context of having made
Yahowahs Covenant mans mortal enemy, the concluding clause is exceptionally
demeaning, even for Shauwl.
This (te) freedom (eleuthera liberty) of ours (ego) being Christos (
Divine Placeholder for the Maaseyah (without the definite article, the errant
name Christos is a better grammatical fit than the title the Implement Doing the
Work of Yah) it freed (eleutheroo liberated, exempt, and unrestrained) you all
are directed to stand firm (steko you must persist steadfast). Therefore (oun
then), also (kai), not again (me palin) in yoke (zygos) of subservience and
slavery (douleia bondage and subjugation) you are held based upon a grudge
against you all (enechomai are submitting based upon hostility toward you all,
burdening, opposing, and controlling you all, forcing you to surrender to someone
who bears ill-will, is resentful, violent, and quarrelsome). (Galatians 5:1)
 There is a rather complex grammatical situation occurring in the initial clause
which can only be appreciated through close scrutiny of the cases, moods, and
pronouns. Christos, for example, was written in the nominative case which
conveys to be or to become, thereby, renaming the subject, in this instance,
the reader, so that they become Christos. Eleutheroo was written eleutherosen, in
the third person singular, conveying it, and then scribed in the past tense using
the aorist indicative. This requires a rendering of it freed, but what was it?
The associated verb, steko, was written stekete, in the second person plural,
making it you all or all of you, and then in the present tense imperative mood
which expresses a command. This communicates: you all are directed to stand
firm. And yet that command is rather a-Paul-ling. You see, the self-proclaimed
apostle wrote that Christos it freed. Then he commands believers to stand
firm in this false realization. And while separating Yahowsha from Yahowah
and the Towrah is Shauwls modus operandi, it is the exact opposite of what
actually occurred since, as the Maaseyah Yahowsha observed the Towrah as an
example for the rest of us to follow.
Because the rest of Shauwls statement is equally deplorable, lets consider
the Nestle Aland McReynolds Interlinear interpretation of it before we dig any
deeper: In the freedom us Christ freed stand then and not again in yoke of
slavery be held in. Youll notice these scholars ignored much of the prevailing
Greek grammar and then translated the verb enechomai inadequately, perhaps
even inaccurately. According to the ten most respected lexicons, its primary
meaning is to bear a grudge against someone and to violently control, harass, and
burden them against their will in a hostile fashion. It speaks of the hatred and
resentment which flows from being ensnared and entangled in a trap, and thus
having to surrender and submit to a hostile foe.
And keep in mind, Shauwl has relentlessly sought to identify this yoke of
slavery which ensnares, burdens, and controls its victims as being Yahowahs
Towrah. So now this is personal. Paul has gone so far as to slander God and
demean His character.
To remove any doubt that enechomai was properly translated, and that
Shauwl inappropriately associated its perverse connotations with Yahowah, and
His influence over humankind from this preposterous Pauline perspective, the
most respected lexicons render it: to bear a grudge against someone, to be
resentful and hostile, to burden and harass someone violently, to control and
subjugate others, and to ensnare and entangle them in a trap. Also recognize that
this verb was written as enechesoe, in the second person plural, present passive
imperative. The passive voice signifies that you all (from the second person
plural) are being acted upon by a verb which is in this case quite maniacal. And
since the imperative mood is used to express a command, Shauwl is saying that
our forced submission is the intended result of Gods announced declaration.
Therefore, the opening stanza of the fifth chapter of Galatians actually
conveys: This freedom and liberty of ours being Christos, it freed, so you all
are directed to stand firm. Therefore, also, not again in yoke of subservience
and slavery, you are held based upon a grudge against you all, controlling
you and forcing you to surrender to someone who bears ill-will, is resentful,
violent, and quarrelsome. (5:1) That was hard to write, much less read.
So, based upon Pauls attitude, and the nature of his insane and inverted
thesis, it wasnt much of a stretch for the New Living Translation to suggest: So
Christ has truly set us free. Now make sure that you stay free, and dont get tied
up again in slavery to the law. Pauls intent is obvious. Therefore, as a thought
for thought paraphrase, the NLT nailed it.
By comparison, the KJV was a bit slow on the uptake: Stand fast therefore
in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with
the yoke of bondage. At least the King James accurately reflected one aspect of
enechomai with entangled. And it was even a slight departure from the Latin
Vulgate which is rare. Jerome wrote: Stand fast and be not held again under the
yoke of bondage.
Galatians continues to be as painful as it is pernicious. This is blatantly I
Paul am more credible and important than God. What you are about to read is a
lie...
You pay attention (ide you (no second person singular) look right now,
listen and see, noticing this), I (ego), Paulos (Paulos transliterated Paul, whom
Strongs called the most famous of the Apostles; the name is of Latin origin
meaning Lowly and Little), myself, say (lego I individually assert, declaring) to
you all (umin) that (hoti because) if (ean on the condition) you may be
circumcised (peritemno), Christos ( being the Maaseyah (but without the
definite article, Christos is a better grammatical fit than the correct title the
Implement Doing the Work of Yah) for you (umas) nothing (oudeis totally
worthless and completely meaningless, annulling the possibility and negating the
idea that) will be helpful (opheleo will provide assistance or benefit, will be
useful or valuable). (Galatians 5:2)
According to this statement, to believe Pauls word, you must reject Gods
Word. Yahowah said the opposite. You pay attention, I, Paulos, myself say to
you all that if on the condition that you may be circumcised, Christos is
totally worthless and completely meaningless, not in the least bit helpful or
useful for you.
 Since this is blasphemous in the extreme, with Paulos saying, if you follow
Yahowahs guidance in the Towrah, you cannot be saved by Yahowsha, lets
examine the three verbs carefully. The first one, lego I say, pits Paul against
Yahowsha: the logos word made flesh. It was written in the first person
singular, present active indicative. So, even though the pronoun I or myself is
designated in the verb, Shauwl added ego I separately, in addition to his
personally chosen name, Paulos, to emphasize that he alone was the source of
this declaration, narration, command, assertion, and report.
The present tense indicates that Paulos, as the writer, was portraying his
statement as being currently valid and remaining so into the future. In the active
voice, the verb confirms that Shauwl was the sole source, and solely responsible
for this assertion and for its consequence. The indicative mood attests to the fact
that Paul wanted his audience to believe that what he was portraying was
completely accurate. As such, he has negated the notion that he was speaking for
Yahowsha. Paulos, in speaking for himself, is annulling the purpose of
Yahowshas life, making it impossible for anyone who believes him to be saved.
Peritemno you may be circumcised was written as peritemnesoe in the
second person plural, present passive subjunctive. The passive voice combined
with the subjunctive mood signifies that there is somewhere between a possibility
and a probability that the subject is being acted upon, suggesting in this case that
Shauwl wanted us to believe that those who are Towrah observant may have
been either hoodwinked or compelled into being circumcised.
Moving on to the next word, at first blush, it appears as if oudeis, rendered
nothing, was misused in this text. It is actually an adjective (meaning that it
should be modifying the noun Christos), not an adverb, coloring the nature of
opheleo will be helpful. Oudeis is defined as the negation of a noun, as no
one, nothing, and nobody, all of which are rather demeaning when associated
with Yahowsha. But, as hard as this may be to believe, everything Yahowsha
said and did is completely negated, making Him a nobody and His sacrifice
for nothing when Yahowahs Towrah instructions regarding His Covenant
generally, and circumcision, specifically, are ignored, or worse, rejected.
Similarly, oudeis conveys the idea that a noun, in this case a misnomer for
the Maaseyah, is in no respect valid, totally worthless, of no account
whatsoever, and completely meaningless, all of which is true when Christos is
disassociated from Gods Word as Shauwl has done.
Oddly, noting that umas, designating the pronoun you, was rendered in the
personal (referring to a person) second person plural (and thus all of you or
you all) accusative (marking it as the direct object of the verb), opheleo will
be helpful was written in the third person singular, denoting it will not provide
assistance or benefit. Therefore, to properly convey Shauwls convoluted
citation into English, we need to move umas you from between Christos
and ouden (as it appears in the Greek text), to the end of the sentence, as I did
for you in the statements summation.
While I dont want to sound like a boring fourth grade grammar teacher, you
should know that rendered in the future active indicative as ophelesei, the
concluding verb conveys the notion that its negated benefit will not actually be
accomplished in the future by the subject, who is Christos. And the future
negated benefit is defined as: being of help, assistance, or value, being useful or
profitable, and being advantageous.
It should be noted here that as an Yisraelite / Jew, and as the son of a
Pharisee, Shauwl would have been circumcised eight days after he was born. So
by writing this sentence, Paul is either saying that his rules dont apply to him (as
was the case with Muhammad and is the case with most politicians and religious
leaders), or he is publicly announcing that Yahowshas life and Yahowahs
Towrah are of no value to his Faith. Ill let you ponder whether one or both of
these realities is actually true.
Before we consider Yahowahs position on circumcision, here is a
consortium of English translations for your consideration. NAMI: Look I Paul
say to you that if you might be circumcised Christ you nothing will benefit. LV:
Behold, I Paul tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you
nothing. KJV: Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ
shall profit you nothing. NASB: Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive
circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
In this case, the NLT has actually moderated what Paul has said: Listen! I,
Paul, tell you this: If you are counting on circumcision to make you right with
God, then Christ will be of no benefit to you. While Paul wrote that you have no
hope of salvation if you are circumcised, the evangelical text softened that
considerably to suggest that circumcision isnt beneficial when it comes to
salvation.
Since I am bereft of words when it comes to Pauline commentary, lets
ponder Yahowahs position on circumcision as it was articulated in the Towrah.
Gods message is so unambiguous and unwavering, there is no reason to interrupt
Him with my commentary. He said...
And (wa) I will stand up and establish, restoring and fulfilling,
accomplishing and confirming (quwm I will ratify and affirm (written in the
hiphil stem, whereby the subject (God) is causing the object (Abraham and his
offspring) to become established and stand upright)) with (eth) My Familial
Covenant Relationship (beryth My family and household agreement (feminine
singular, suffixed in the first person singular gender inclusive My Covenant)) as
a means to recognize Me and as the source of understanding with regard to
an association between Me (byn as the way to understand this association with
Me) and (wa) between you, to help you observe, think, and respond (byn for
you to examine, consider, understand, and reply appropriately to this
relationship), and between your offspring, so that they might be observant
and responsive (wa byn zera and with your seed, your extended family,
encouraging them to explore and comprehend by making connections) after you
(achar following you), regarding and on behalf of (la concerning) their
dwelling places and generations (dowr their protected households and
extended families, elevating and elongating their lives), for an eternal and
everlasting (owlam always enduring and eternally existing) Family-Oriented
Covenant Relationship (beryth familial association (feminine singular)), to
literally be and to actually remain (la hayah to genuinely exist yesterday,
today, and tomorrow (scribed in the qal relational stem denoting reality and in the
infinitive construct giving the verb the qualities of a noun)) approachable as
your (la) God (elohym) and (wa) for your offspring to approach (la zera
your seed and descendants to come near) after you (aharown until the very last
of you). (Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:7)
And (wa) God Almighty (elohym) said (amar promised) to (el as
God to) Abraham (Abraham Loving, Merciful, and Enriching Father), So
(wa) as for you (eth atah regarding you), you should actually and
continuously observe (shamar you should carefully consider, diligently and
consistently paying especially close attention to the details so that you understand,
genuinely care about, revere, and literally keep your eyes focused upon (scribed in
the qal stem which addresses that which is literal and relational, and in the
imperfect conjugation which conveys the idea that this close examination is to be
ongoing, continuing throughout time so as to always explore)) My Family-
Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth-y My mutually binding familial
agreement, My household promise, My relational accord, My marriage vow based
upon home and family (feminine singular, scribed in the construct form, eternally
binding, connecting, and associating the beryth covenant with shamar you
should carefully observe; written with the first person singular suffix: My
telling us that the Covenant is Gods)), you (atah) and (wa in addition to) your
seed (zera your offspring (singular construct)) after you (achar following
you) throughout (la) their generations, dwelling places, and eras of time
(dowr their families, related births, and lives (plural construct)). (Baresyth /
Genesis 17:9)
This one and only (zeth this particular, singular, unique, and specific
(feminine singular)) Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship of Mine (beryth-y
 mutually binding familial agreement of Mine, My household promise, this
relational accord of mine, My marriage vow based upon home and family
(feminine singular and written with the first person singular suffix, thereby
reminding us that this one and only Covenant is Gods)), which relationally and
beneficially (asher by way of making a connection, developing an association,
benefiting and blessing) you should actually and continuously observe (shamar
you should carefully and literally consider, you should diligently and
consistently pay especially close attention to the details so that you genuinely
understand, care about, and revere what you witness throughout the whole fabric
of time and that by focusing upon this you are kept safe and secure (qal stem and
imperfect conjugation)) between Me (byn for the purpose of coming to know
and understand Me as a result of being perceptive, prudently considering the
insights which are discernible regarding Me) and between you (wa byn to
cause you to be aware and to understand, making connections), and between (wa
byn for the purpose of coming to know and relating to) your offspring (zera
your seed (singular construct)) following you (achar after you), for you to
actually circumcise (muwl so that you literally cut off and remove the foreskin
of the penis (scribed using the niphal stem which is used to convey the voice of
genuine relationships where the subject, which is you, receives the benefit of
the verb, which is circumcision, and the infinitive absolute, which intensifies the
action)) accordingly your every (l-cm-kol) male for them to remember (zakar
masculine human individual who recalls and remembers (singular and
absolute)). (Baresyth / Genesis 17:10)
And (wa) you all shall cut off and separate (muwl you shall circumcise
(scribed in the niphal stem which is used to convey the voice of genuine
relationships where the subject, which is you expressly as a parent, receives the
benefit of the verb, which is circumcision, in the perfect conjugation designating
that this instruction and resulting action should be considered whole and
complete, and in the consecutive thereby associating it with our basar flesh))
your foreskins (aralah the fold of skin covering the conical tip of the
masculine genitalia) association with (eth) the flesh (basar the physical body
and animal nature). And (wa) this will exist (hayah this was, is, and forever
will be (scribed in the qal perfect, signifying the relationship is genuine and
unchanging) as (la) the sign to remember (owth the example to visually
illustrate and explain, the symbol and standard, the pledge and attestation of the
miraculous nature (singular, as in one and only sign, construct form, linking the
sign to the...)) the Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth mutually
binding familial agreement, household promise, relational accord, marriage vow
based upon home and family (feminine singular, scribed in the construct form,
eternally associating the beryth covenant with owth the sign of muwl
circumcision)) between Me for the purpose of making a connection (byn for
the purpose of coming to know and understand Me as a result of being perceptive,
prudently considering the insights which are discernible regarding Me) and
between you, promoting understanding (wa byn to cause you to be aware and
to comprehend the association). (Baresyth / Genesis 17:11)
And (wa) a son (ben a male child) of eight (shamonah from shamen,
meaning olive oil, which is symbolic of the Spirit, of light, of being anointed, and
of being rooted in the land and living a long time) days (yowmym), you shall
circumcise (muwl you shall cut off and separate his foreskin (scribed using the
niphal stem denoting a relationship which is genuine and indicating that parents
benefit from doing as God has requested, and in the imperfect conjugation which
tells us that this must continue to occur over time and that it is designed to
produce ongoing results)) with regard to your (la) every (kol) male (zakar
masculine individual; from zakar: to commit to memory, to remind, and to
remember) to approach throughout (la) your dwelling places and generations
(dowr your protected households and extended families, elevating and
extending your lives), those naturally born (yalyd those naturalized as a
member of an extended family through natural childbirth) in the home (beyth
into the household and family (singular absolute)), and also (wa) those really
wanting to be (kasap those deeply desiring, strongly yearning, and passionately
longing to be) acquired and included (miqnah purchased and obtained
(speaking of adoption)) of (min) every (kol) son (ben male child) of foreign
lands (nekar of places where they are not properly valued and appreciated) who
relationally (asher by way of making a connection) are not (lo) from (min)
your seed (zera). (Baresyth / Genesis 17:12)
He (huw third person masculine singular pronoun, addressing fathers)
must absolutely circumcise him, definitely cutting off the foreskin (muwl
muwl he must cease what he is currently doing, he must turn him around to face
the opposite direction, to ward off threats to his wellbeing by changing his
priorities while making a binding promise (scribed with the niphal stem denoting
the genuineness of this relationship while stressing the benefit accrued to the
parent, in the infinitive absolute which intensifies the importance of the act, and in
the imperfect conjugation, telling us that this instruction on circumcision will
endure uninterrupted throughout time)) of the naturally born (yalyd
naturalized as a member of an extended family through natural childbirth) in your
home (beyth into your household and your family (singular construct)) and also
(wa) those really wanting to be (kasap those deeply desiring, strongly
yearning, and passionately longing to be) included (miqnah acquired,
purchased, and obtained) / as well as those who are acquired (miqnah
purchased through adoption and included) with your money (kesep your
precious metals; born out of a deep longing and love for adoption).
 This shall be (hayah this was, is, and always will be, this exists as (scribed
with the qal stem, denoting a genuine relationship between the subject and the
action of the verb which is existence, in the perfect conjugation telling us that this
act is complete, lacking nothing, in the singular conveying that there are no other
options or contingencies, and in the consecutive form, associating our existence
with the beryth family-oriented covenant relationship and its sign muwl
circumcision)) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth-y My
mutually binding familial agreement and relational accord), in (ba) the flesh
(basar physical realm with humanity), serving as a means to approach
toward (la to the goal of) an everlasting and eternal (owlam forever
existing and never ending) Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth
mutually binding agreement and household promise, relational accord and
marriage vow based upon home and family (feminine singular)). (Baresyth /
Genesis 17:13)
And (wa) the uncircumcised (arel the stubborn and unresponsive, the
untrusting and un-reliant, those who neither listen nor observe, and therefore, the
forbidden who are not set apart) male (zakar man who fails to remember to do
this) who relationally and beneficially (asher who by association and by way
of a blessing) is not (lo) circumcised (muwl willing to change his direction and
priorities and make this binding promise) with regard to (eth) the flesh (basar
physical, human, and animal nature) of their foreskin (aralah), those souls
(nepesh speaking of what makes us unique individuals, alive, aware, and
conscious) shall be cut off, be excluded, and banished (karat shall be severed
and cut out, shall be uprooted from the land, shall die, perishing, shall be
destroyed, ceasing to exist) from (min) Her (huw speaking of our Spiritual
Mothers Covenant) family (am people who are related biologically and
through language).
By way of association (eth), they violated and broke, disassociating
themselves from (parar they nullified the agreement, revoking its promises,
tearing asunder and thwarting its benefits, splitting away and injuring themselves
in the process by severing) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship
(beryth-y My mutually binding familial agreement, My household promise, My
relational accord, My marriage vow based upon home and family (feminine
singular, scribed in the construct form, connecting and associating the beryth
covenant with Gods am family; written with the first person singular suffix:
My reminding us that this specific and unique Covenant is Gods to give or not
give as He so chooses)). (Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:14)
There can be no doubt; according to Yahowah circumcision and the Covenant
are related and inseparable. A New Covenant of any kind, much less one where
circumcision is considered counterproductive, is therefore a nonstarter. Dont
believe anyone who tells you otherwise, and that includes Paul. Also, if someone
condemns the flesh, calling it evil, as Paul is wont to do, please note that
Yahowahs Covenant was cut with us in the flesh and there is nothing God
prizes more highly.
Therefore, our Heavenly Father is serious about circumcision. So we should
be as well. His statements are as enlightening as they are unequivocal. And
especially relevant is arel, a word which when fully amplified explains the nature
of those who are uncircumcised. Those who do not embrace this, the fifth and
final Covenant requirement, are considered: stubborn and unresponsive, they
are untrusting and therefore un-reliant because they do not listen and refuse to
be observant, so as a result, they are forbidden because they are not set apart
unto God.
Rather than Shauwls if you might be circumcised, the benefit of
Yahowsha is nullified, God said: if you are not circumcised, your soul will be
cut off and separated from My family because you have broken and nullified My
Familial Covenant Relationship. Therefore, those who believe Paul must reject
Yahowah, who just happens to be God. Or we can trust Yahowah, which means
rejecting Paul. The truth is undeniable: this mans positions are the antithesis of
Gods relative to the Covenant.
There are so many questions which are answered by this discussion, lets
linger here and consider them one at a time. First, karat, like so many Hebrew
terms, has a dark and light side. The words divergent implications influence us
differently depending upon the choices we make. On the bright side, karat is
routinely used by Yahowah to tell us that He has karat cut His beryth
agreeable familial covenant relationship with usone which separates those
who accept it from those who do not.
But as for those who ignore Yahowahs Covenant, who reject it, or try to
change it, they will endure the cutting and divisive side of karat. They shall be
cut off and thus separated from Yahowahs Family. They will be excluded
from His Covenant. And they will be banished from His Home. Those who
choose not to sign their acceptance of Yahowahs Covenant by way of
circumcision, those who are unwilling to muwl change their direction and
priorities, will be karat uprooted from the Promised Land a metaphor for
Heaven. They will karat die and their souls will perish, ceasing to exist.
Second, while muwl circumcision is a physical act in the flesh, our
nepesh souls are everything but physical. The nepesh represents our
consciousness. So while it is an essential part of our animal nature, as all
animals have a nepesh soul, a unique personality and an awareness of our
environment, this consciousness has no physical properties. It has no mass and it
is not matter. And yet, by failing to be circumcised in the flesh, our soul dies,
because it is expressly excluded from Yahowahs Covenant Family. Therefore,
the choices we make in our mortal, material bodies influence whether or not we
are elevated to a spiritual status.
Third, circumcision is not the means to reconciliation. But it can be a barrier
to salvation. While not all of those who are circumcised will be adopted into
Gods family, men and boys who have not been circumcised will be excluded.
Fourth, we either agree to Gods terms or we nullify the opportunity He has
given us to survive our mortality and to live with Him. There is no hint of
leniency here, no sense of compromise, no opportunity for a future revision to
alter this requirement. We either accept it or not. No circumcision, no Covenant.
No Covenant, no relationship with God. No relationship with God, no salvation.
And therein is why such souls die.
God isnt about to negotiate. He not only isnt going to change the terms of
His agreement, He cannot change them without becoming unreliable. There is a
singular path to life, and we either walk to God along it without wavering, or it is
goodbye and good riddance. There is no accommodation for individual
approaches, or for the collective appeal of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.
The implication here is something no Christian or Muslim, both who claim
that the Towrah was inspired, seem willing or able to acknowledge. Most believe
that it does not matter if their faith is in compliance with Gods instructions,
because they have been led to believe that He knows the content of their heart.
Contradictions, therefore, become irrelevant. To them, God is God no matter what
you call Him. To them, Friday prayers and Sunday worship are perfectly
acceptable. Jihad and Grace are both embraced by the faithful, and many paths are
thought to lead to God. Sure Christmas and Easter are pagan, but since that is not
what they mean to the celebrant, they believe that their god will be understanding.
For them, mercy invokes a level of capriciousness which they do not see as
inappropriate. Their god wouldnt reject them for getting some of the details, well
actually almost everything, wrong.
And yet, all of these musings are inconsistent with the God who inspired
these words. With Yahowah, you accept the Covenant on His terms or not at all.
Not only are we in no position to negotiate with God over something integral into
His very nature, we have everything to gain if we agree to His terms, and He loses
nothing if we dont.
Fifth, the nepesh souls of those who do not rely upon Gods instructions
karat die, they perish and cease to exist. Throughout Scripture, this is the
prevailing outcome for the vast preponderance of human souls. At the end of most
peoples mortal lives, when they die, they will cease to exist, because their souls
will simply perish. But this is not a penalty or a Divine punishment. In fact,
Yahowah has little to do with this eventuality. It is by karat disassociating
from God that this fate occurs because eternal life with God is predicated upon
us associating with Him in the specific manner He has delineated. If we dont
accept His terms, if we dont avail ourselves of the path He has provided, then our
souls, disconnected from the source of life, perish, which means that an
individuals consciousnesses will simply cease to exist.
Most all religions, but most especially Christianity and Islam, seek
submission among their adherents by threatening eternal suffering and fiery
tortures in hell for all of those who dont acquiesce to their edicts. But not a
person among such believers pauses to think that if their god actually said love
me and agree with me or Ill see to it that you suffer forever, such a spirit would
not be lovable. In fact, a god who would make such statements would be sadistic.
And that is why there is an alternative fate awaiting souls which is neither heaven
nor hell, neither a reward nor a punishment. And yet, since such an outcome is
neither something to be coveted nor feared, since ceasing to exist cannot be used
effectively to threaten masses of people into submission, religious leaders almost
universally deny the fact that God has such a provision.
That is not to say that there isnt a place of eternal separationthere is. But
there are no fires blazing or physical tortures perpetrated therein. Sheowl is a
lightless place which exist only in the dimension of time. And it is only for Satan,
fellow demonic spirits, and for those who lead others astray by associating with
them. This is the place of separation, filled with the most outspoken and notorious
religious, political, economic, and military advocates. It is for those who victimize
others, oppressing them, and leading them away from the Towrah and its
Covenant.
While eternal separation from God is a penalty, having ones soul perish is
not. Each individual is given the gift of life and freewill. Everyone can do with
them as they please. If a person chooses to avail themselves of Yahowahs
Covenant, to walk away from Babylon and to walk to Him along the path He has
provided, God has promised eternal life, merciful forgiveness of sins, adoption
into His family, empowerment, and enrichment.
But those who choose instead to ignore Yahowahs provision, to rely on a
different scheme, to alter the deal He has cut with us, or simply reject it, they will
be ignored by God and remain unaltered by His Covenant promises. Its ashes to
ashes and dust to dust. Such souls dont know God and God does not know them.
For them, death will be the end of life.
The sixth lesson we can learn from this Towrah presentation brings us back
to Shauwl. Circumcision is the fulcrum upon which those who rely on
Yahowahs Word move in a different direction than those who believe the self-
proclaimed Thirteenth Apostle. In Acts, the moment we are introduced to Paul,
we learn that he was preaching against circumcision. As a result, he was called to
Yaruwshalaim by the actual Apostles to explain his departure from Yahowahs
Covenant instructions. They told Paul that he was wrong, so in his initial letter,
the one he wrote to the Galatians, Paul demeaned Yahowshas Disciples,
especially Shimown, Yahowchanan, and Yaaqob (Yahowshas brother, who was
renamed James to flatter an English king). In Galatians, Paul ruthlessly attacks
the Towrah, demeans the Covenant, and then denounces circumcision, inferring
that Gods plan enslaves and is a curse, incapable of saving anyone.
Therefore, Christians have a choice. They can trust Yahowah, or they can
believe Paul. Their claims are diametrically opposed and irreconcilable.
It is also instructive to know that we cant blame this conflict between
Yahowah and Paul on scribal error. These specific passages from Baresyth /
Genesis on circumcision are not only extant among the Qumran scrolls, they are
unchanged. There isnt a single discrepancy between the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating
to the second century BCE, and the Masoretic Text from Baresyth 17:12 through
the end of the chapter. And on the other end, we have a complete copy of Pauls
letter to the Galatians dating to the late first century CE.
Moreover, the preposterous notion that Paul didnt write Galatians, a book he
claims to have written, a book which is universally attributed to him, a book
which provides the most sweeping panorama of his life, and a book which serves
as the most direct rebuttal to the Disciples regarding his animosity toward
circumcision, the Covenant, and the Torah, does not exonerate Paul. He is equally
opposed to circumcision, the Covenant, and the Torah in Acts and in Romans.
And that means that the conflict between Yahowah and Paul cannot be
resolved. If you side with Paul, you will invalidate the benefits of the Covenant.
You will be excluded from Gods family. And your soul will cease to exist. And
that is why the choices we make in the flesh, while we retain our physical and
animal nature, are so important.
The seventh lesson we can learn from Gods definitive statement is not to
trust English bible translations. Yahowah actually said: And (wa) the
uncircumcised and unresponsive (arel) male who fails to remember this
(zakar), who relationally and beneficially (asher) is not (lo) circumcised and
changed (muwl) with regard to (eth) the flesh (basar) of their foreskin
(aralah), those souls (nepesh) shall be cut off, be excluded, and be banished,
ceasing to exist (karat) from (min) Her (huw) family (am). By way of
association (eth), they violated and broke, disassociating themselves from
(parar) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth-y). (Baresyth
17:14)
While not as revealing or complete, the Roman Catholic Vulgate was
accurate up to the point of identifying whose family a soul would be excluded
from. The male whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul
shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant. Not
only is the pronoun Her scribed independently in the Hebrew text via hy, am
family was suffixed in the third person feminine singular, reinforcing the fact
that it is Her family. Also, the reference to his people suggests banishment
from the villages and land of Yisrael rather than from the beryth Covenant,
yet another feminine noun.
The King James Version reads identically, and thus promotes the same myth.
It is one which would reinforce the ability of the church to excommunicate those
whom they opposed.
Recognizing that the translators had both made a mistake, the New Living
Translation, not knowing how to deal with Her, added a second covenant and
substituted it for Her. Any male who fails to be circumcised will be cut off
from the covenant family for breaking the covenant. Since it is Gods Word, and
since accuracy is therefore important, you should know that there is no basis for
any in the Hebrew text. They combined arel uncircumcised and
unresponsive with lo muwl is not circumcised or changed, as if only one of
these words were spoken by God. Then they completely ignored eth basar
aralah with regard to the flesh of their foreskinostensibly to avoid
destroying Pauline Doctrine. But in their conclusion, reversing course, they not
only repeated beryth covenant twice even though it was written once, they
neglected to convey that beryth was scribed inclusive of the first person singular
suffix, making it My Covenant.
Simply stated, as a sign of our desire to participate in Yahowahs Covenant,
males are to be circumcised. The covering of the male genitalia responsible for
consummating a marriage and producing children is to be cut off and
separatedset apart. Our Heavenly Fathers Covenant is about bearing children
and building a family set apart from the world of corrupt institutions by way of a
monogamous marriage relationship. Yahowah does not want anyone to miss these
points.
In that seven long chapters have come and gone since we reviewed
Yahowahs prophetic pronouncements regarding circumcision, and since
Christian apologists errantly protest that Baresyth / Genesis only pertains to
Yisrael (which incidentally is based upon Sarahs name and means individuals
who engage and endure with God), lets reconsider Yahowahs position on
Gentile circumcision as it was articulated through the prophet Yachezqel /
Ezekiel. That discussion begins by acknowledging the role the Towrah plays in
our lives...
And (wa) Yahowah ( ) said to me (amar el shared with me), Son
of man (ben adam child of Adam), place upon your heart (sym leb), look
with your eyes (raah ba ayn), and listen with your ears (wa shama ba ozen),
accordingly, to (eth) everything (kol) which, relationally and beneficially
(asher as a blessing), I (any) have spoken (dabar have communicated orally
and in writing using words) with regard to (eth la) all of (kol) the clearly
communicated and inscribed prescriptions for living (wa chuwqah the
written arrangements regarding life and abiding; from choq the shared and
nourishing thoughts associated with an allocation of something from one who is
set apart which is designed to cut us into a relationship) in Yahowahs Family
Home (beyth the household, temple, and tabernacle of Yahowah).
And so with all of (wa la kol) His Towrah teachings (Towrah towrah His
Towrah instructions, His Towrah guidance, and His Towrah directions (scribed in
the singular as a specific and unique title and then in the plural as a word to
indicate that the Towrah is comprised of many teachings, directions, and
instructions)), therefore indeed (wa), you should choose to place them on your
heart (sym leb you should decide to set and examine them in your core (qal
stem indicating a literal reading is preferred, perfect conjugation telling us that
this should be done without reservation, and consecutive form indicating
volition)) in order to approach the entrance (la mabow so that you gain
entrance into) the Family and Home (ha beyth the house and household, the
temple and tabernacle) with regard to (ba) every (kol) stage of the journey
(mowtsa step along the way) to this set-apart place (ha miqdash the
separated and dedicated sanctuary). (Yachezqel / God Grows / Ezekiel 44:5)
By stating that He wants us look at and listen to everything He has
communicated to us regarding His inscribed prescriptions for living in His home
and being part of His family, in addition to placing everything God wrote in His
Towrah on our hearts, Yahowah is encouraging us to go beyond looking at and
listening to what He has said and written. He wants us to accept His instructions,
to embrace His guidance, and to incorporate His directions into the fabric of our
lives. He wants us to love and cherish what He has promised as much as we love
Him for who He is and what He has done. Those who do these things, who go
beyond listening to God and reading His Word, and who embrace the terms and
conditions of the Covenant, will be invited to live in Yahowahs Family Home
forever. This is Gods relational plan which leads to our salvation. It is the
journey which leads us home.
 Recognizing that most would ignore, or worse, reject, these instructions, is
what caused Yachezqel to pen the following words on behalf of Yahowah...
And you shall say to (wa amar el) the rebellious and contentious (mary
the revolting and embittered who resist My position and guidance, and those
displaying animosity who are insubordinate and opposed), regarding (el to and
about) the House of Yisrael (beyth yisrael the home of those individuals who
strive, engage, and endure with God), this is what (koh) My Foundation, the
Upright Pillar, Yahowah (edon ), says (amar): The greatest of all of
your (rab la min kol) detestable abominations (towebah your repulsive,
loathsome, immoral, and abhorrent practices) in the House of Yisrael (ba beyth
yisrael home of those individuals who strive, engage, and endure with God)
(44:6) is your inclusion of (bow bringing in) the male offspring (ben sons)
of foreigners (nekar strangers) who are uncircumcised (arel stubborn and
forbidden, unobservant and unresponsive) of heart (leb) and uncircumcised (wa
arel unobservant, unresponsive, and forbidden) of flesh (basar body) to exist
(hayah) in My Sanctuary (ba miqdash in My Home, from qadash purifying
place which is set apart) to defile and profane it (la halal huw to desecrate and
pollute it, treating Him with contempt (written with the third person masculine
singular suffix this refers to Him, serving to unify Yahowsha and the Temple))
along with (eth) My Home and Family (beyth House and Household), in
your coming near and approaching (ba qarab) My finest oil, bread, and My
chosen blood (cheleb lechem wa dam symbolic of His fulfillment of Pesach
and Matsah).
And also (wa) they broke (parar they severed, violated, and nullified, you
revoked, frustrated, and thwarted) My Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth)
by way of all your detestable abominations (el kol towebah all of your
repulsive, loathsome, and abhorrent acts of idolatry), (44:7) and (wa) by not
observing, closely examining and carefully considering (lo shamar by not
focusing upon being aware of, paying especially close attention to and
contemplating) the requirement and responsibility (mishmereth function and
purpose, the expression, condition, and accountability) of My Set-Apart Ones
(qodesh set apart ones includes Gods Home, His Temple, the Children of the
Covenant, Yahowsha, and the Set-Apart Spirit in addition to Yisrael, the Shabat,
and the Miqraey).
And you were appointed (wa sym and you were put in place and
established) to (la to approach, to come near, and to) observe (shamar to
closely examine and carefully consider) My conditions and requirements
(mishmereth My purpose, expression, and terms) in (ba) My Set-Apart Home
(miqdash My Set-Apart Sanctuary and Place) for you to draw near (la on
your behalf for you to approach). (44:8) Thus says (koh amar this is what is
communicated by) My Foundation, the Upright Pillar (edon the Upright One
of the Tabernacle), Yahowah ( ): Every (kol completely all) foreign
male (nekar ben non-native son) who is uncircumcised (arel stubborn,
unhearing, and forbidden) of heart (leb) and uncircumcised (arel stubborn
and forbidden) in the flesh (basar), he shall not come to or be included inside
(lo bow el he shall not arrive at or be brought to) My Set-Apart Home
(miqdash My Set-Apart Sanctuary and Place) this concerns the approach of
(la) every non-native son (nekar ben foreign male) who is in the midst (asher
ba tawek) of the Children of Yisrael (beny Yisrael sons who engage and
endure with God). (Yachezqel / God Grows / Ezekiel 44:6-9)
That was unequivocal. If a man is not circumcised, he is expressly excluded
from Gods home and thus from heaven. And therefore, when Shauwl wrote that
being circumcised nullified the work of Yahowsha, he lied. The opposite is true.
Circumcision, as this statement affirms, is one of the requirements of the
Covenant, one of the five conditions, as is being observant, that we must embrace
if we want to participate in this relationship with God. But circumcision is the
only one which is also a responsibility in that Yahowah asked parents to perform
this on behalf of their sons. And make no mistake, this instruction was expressly
written for Gowym Gentiles, and thus to Pauls audience. And that leaves no
doubt that Yahowahs anger is directed toward a Jew who personally invited
uncircumcised Gentiles to heaven. And no one in human history is more infamous
for doing this very thing than Shauwl.
Therefore, considering Yahowahs position on this particular topic, and
Pauls, it would be inappropriate to spin Galatians to infer anything other than
Paul is overtly opposed to God and to His Covenant. Satans Apostle is not only
assailing Gods instructions regarding circumcision, Pauls position states that if
you rely on Gods Word you cannot be saved.

Continuing to assail Yahowahs Covenant, whose sign remains circumcision,

and Gods Torah, whose living embodiment is Yahowsha, the man who
considered his testimony more vital than the Almightys, according to the NAMI
ineloquently opined: I testify but again to all man being circumcised that debtor
he is whole the law to do. Lets be perfectly clear so that no one is misled: this is
Pauls testimony, not Gods.
So then (de) once again (palin furthermore, repeating myself), I testify
(martyromai I solemnly declare as a witness, I affirm, insist, and protest) to
every (pas) man (anthropos) being circumcised (peritemno) that (hoti) he
actually is (eimi) obligated (opheiletes in debt and required) to do and
perform (poieomai to work, toil, and carry out the assigned tasks of) the entire
(holos all of, the whole, total and complete) Towrah (ton nomon the
nourishing allotment which leads to an inheritance; used throughout the
Septuagint to convey Towrah the Source of Teaching, Guidance, Instruction,
and Direction). (Galatians 5:3)
There are only five requirements in the whole of the Towrah, and they all
pertain to participation in the Covenant. Everyone is free to accept these
conditions, reject them, or ignore them. But for those who act upon them, the rest
of the Towrah exists to liberate, enlighten, and empower these Children of God.
The best example of this is Dowd (errantly known as David). He responded to the
terms of the Covenant as they were presented in the Towrah, and God responded
by vindicating the man who violated much of His Towrahs guidance on how we
should live our lives among men. So the very fact that Yahowah calls Dowd
righteous, a man after His heart, demonstrates that Pauls premise is wrong.
In that this is an important distinction, since Yahowah called Shauwl the
plague of death, since God affirmed that Dowd was righteous, lets contrast
what we have been reading to Dowds testimony to determine why one flawed
individual was despised and the other was loved.
The following lyrics represent the initial sixteen verses of the one-hundred-
seventy-six which comprise Dowds ode to the Towrah...
Enjoyable, favorable, and blessed (ashry) is the Way (derek) to
becoming innocent, perfect, and entirely blameless (tamym) by walking
(halak) in (ba) the Towrah (Towrah) of Yahowah (Yahowah).
Properly guided (ashery) are those who are saved and preserved (natsar)
by His enduring and restoring testimony (edah). They genuinely seek to have
a relationship with Him and His witness (darash) for all (la kol) time (dowr).
Therefore (ap), they do not carry out (lo paal) that which is harmful or
wrong (eowlah) by walking in His ways (ba derek halak).
You (atah), Yourself, provided and ordained (sawah) Your precepts,
these instructions which You have entrusted to us, encouraging us to respond
appropriately to You (piquwdym) so that they would be diligently examined
and carefully considered (la maod shamar).
So that (achalay) my path through life (derek) would be properly
prepared and firmly established (kuwn), approaching by (la) observing
(shamar) Your truth, Your consistent, never changing, enduring, and reliable
testimony (emeth).
 Then (az), I will not be ashamed (bowsh) by (ba) looking at (nabat) all of
(kol) Gods (el) terms and conditions as they relate to Your binding covenant
contract (mitswah).
You, I will publicly acknowledge and thank, expressing my gratitude
while professing Your attributes (yadah) directly in an upright attitude (ba
yashar leb) when (ba) I learn and properly respond to (lamad) Your righteous
and vindicating (tsadaq) means to resolve disputes (mishpat).
According to (eth) Your clearly communicated and inscribed
prescriptions of what we should do in life to live (choq), by being observant
(shamar), I will not be forsaken by You. I will never be neglected or
disassociated from You (azab), not for one hundred (meah) eternities (ad).
In what way (ba mah) can a young man (naar) keep his path pure so as
to be acquitted (zakah eth orah)? By being observant, closely examining and
carefully considering the associations in (ka) Your Word (dabar).
In all my heart and with all my being (ba kol leb), I seek to form a
relationship with You, seeking to learn more about You (darash). You do not
want me to be misled or stray (shagah) from (min) the terms and conditions
of Your relationship agreement (mitswah).
In my heart (ba leb), I have genuinely treasured (tsaphan) Your
instructions and promises (emrah) so that (maan) I will not fail to reach You
as a result of going astray and missing the way, nor by my wrongdoing or
guilt (lo chata la).
Yahowah (Yahowah), You (atah) have knelt down in love to bless and
provide divine favor (barak). Teach me so that I respond properly to (lamad)
Your clearly communicated prescriptions of what I should do to live (choq).
With my lips and in my spoken words (ba saphah), I consider and
proclaim from the written text (caphar / cepher) all of (kol) the means used to
achieve justice, resolve disputes, and exercise sound judgment (mishpat)
which come from Your mouth (peh).
In the Way (ba derek) of Your Witness regarding our restoration
(eduwth), I am pleased and delighted, enjoying the ensuing relationship
(suws), as if (ka) before all of the Almightys abundance, Gods sufficiency
and substance (al kol hown).
Concerning Your precepts and directions (ba piquwdym), I will choose to
meditate on them and speak of them (syach). And (wa) I will choose to
consistently observe so that I understand (nabat) Your ways and Your path
through life (orah).
 Concerning Your clearly communicated and inscribed prescriptions of
what I should do to live (ba choq), I find them fun, even enjoyable (shaa). I
will never overlook or ignore (lo shakah) Your Word (dabar). (Mizmowr /
Song / Psalm 119:1-16)
Dowd loved the Word of God, especially His Towrah, and wrote songs to
extol its virtues. Yahowah loves Dowd, calling him righteous. Shauwl hated
the Word of God, especially His Towrah, and wrote letters to demean and discard
it. Yahowah despises Paul, calling him the plague of death. And that leaves us
with only one question: why is this comparison to difficult for Christians to
understand?
In order to control his audience, Paul wants the faithful to believe that he is
the foremost authority on the Torah as well as the worlds leading expert
regarding salvation. And in the case with his most recent proclamation, the myth
he is promoting is that if someone does anything Yahowah asks, they have to do
everything He asks, or they are dead men walking. But as we just noted with
Dowd, that clearly is not the case.
In this regard, the third condition for those desirous of participating in the
Covenant relationship with God is that we walk to Him along the path He has
provided to make us perfect. This path comprised of seven invitations to meet
with God is presented in the heart of the Towrah, in the book aptly named Qara
Invitation to be Called Out and Meet. Yahowah offers His remedy for our
inadequacies immediately after formalizing the Covenant with Abraham. And
along His Way, Yahowah does all of the work so that nothing other than
attendance is required of us. This was the very purpose of Yahowsha.
But that is not to say that Pauls myth, one born out of a hatred for God, isnt
persuasive. Christians the world over and throughout time have been deceived by
Shauwls arrogance into believing that the problem with the Torah is that its
restrictive and antiquated rules require perfection. But lets say for the sake of
argument that Paul was right: how can disobeying everything God request endear
a person to the One making those recommendations? And that is precisely what
Paul is insisting upon. The self-proclaimed messenger of god wants Christians to
reject Gods entire Towrah all of it from beginning to end. Now, I ask you: who
do you suppose inspired him to say such a thing?
Paul is wrong and he knows it. He was aware that the Ark of the Covenant
was unavailable, and that according to Yahowsha the Temple itself would soon
be destroyed. He also recognized that the people were under the yoke of Roman
law. So, Paul knew that there were many things which were prescribed in the
Torah which could not be done. Therefore, salvation could not have been a matter
of doing everything the Torah prescribed, but instead understanding its
prescriptions sufficiently to trust Yahowahs remedy.
Seeing religion among the rubbish, the NLT again interpreted Paul correctly,
which of course put them in opposition to God. Ill say it again. If you are trying
to find favor with God by being circumcised, you must obey every regulation in
the whole law of Moses. Nowhere does God state that men find favor with
Him as a result of being circumcised. Circumcision is prescribed as the sign of
the Covenant, not the symbol of salvation or reconciliation. Moreover, for the
vast preponderance of people, circumcision isnt a choice, but instead something
done to them when they are eight or fewer days old. Not a single newborn in
human history has said or thought: I want to have someone cut off the end of my
external plumbing so that I can earn favor with God? And as a result, Pauls
animosity against circumcision is misplaced.
For consistency sake, here are the Roman Catholic and Protestant versions of
Pauls poison. The LV reads: And I testify again to every man circumcising
himself that he is a debtor to do the whole law. And the KJV says: For I testify
again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
The operative term in this next statement from Satans Apostle is apo. It
describes the separation of something from an object which it was previously
united but is now disjoined. In this case, Shauwl is speaking of the purported
separation of Christou from the Towrah. So now, addressing those who had
chosen to follow Yahowahs Torah instructions regarding circumcision, the
Devils advocate testified:
You have invalidated and rendered inoperative (katargeo you have put
an end to, made inactive and useless, and abolished the purpose and function of)
the separation of (apo the movement away and disassociation of) Christou
( a Divine Placeholder for the Maaseyah (but without the definite article,
the errant misnomer, Christou, is a better grammatical fit than the correct title
meaning the Implement Doing the Work of Yah) whosoever (hostis) is in
unison with (en) the Towrah (nomo the nourishing allotment with enables an
inheritance).
You all having been declared righteous (dikaioo you having been
acquitted, put right, and vindicated) with the (tes) Charis / Gratia / Graces
(Charis a transliteration of the name of the Greek goddesses known as the
Gratia or Graces in Roman mythology), you all have fallen away and have been
forsaken (ekpipto you have become inadequate and have descended from a
higher place to a lower one, you have bowed down and prostrated yourselves).
(Galatians 5:4)
 Shauwl was a man on a mission. Too bad it involved promoting pagan
deities and demeaning the only actual Deity on behalf of the Adversary.
The Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear renders the Greek text somewhat
differently, albeit the resulting message is no less inaccurate: You have been
abolished from Christ who in law are made right the favor you fell out. This is
perhaps more incomprehensible than the more literal and exacting presentation of
the same words.
But as you probably anticipated, this poorly expressed thought has been
interpreted by Christendom to say: For if you are trying to make yourselves right
with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen
away from Gods grace. To the contrary, it is only by observing the Torah that
we come to know the Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah, and that we come
to understand the work He performed. This in turn enables us to rely upon His
merciful gift. Those who disassociate the Torah from Yahowsha separate
themselves from Yahowah. Therefore, the New Living Translation has become an
agent leading the faithful away from God.
But they were not the first to commit this heinous crime. There was a long
line of false witnesses before them, starting with Paul. The Latin Vulgate reads:
You are made void of Christo, you who are justified in the law: you are fallen
from Gratia. The King James Version parroted this thought by publishing:
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the
law; ye are fallen from grace. It is interesting, however, that not one of these
variations has properly translated katargeo you have invalidated and rendered
inoperative in the initial sentence, and most either ignored or misstated the
meaning of apo the separation of. But its Pauls grammar that is to blame for
the variant renderings of the second sentence.
Considering the onslaught of lies that preceded it, in context, Paul is now
saying that, since the Towrah cannot save anyone, only those who accept his Faith
have hope. Even if his premise was true, and it is not, accepting it would not lead
to this conclusion. Proving one thing wrong does not demonstrate that another
thing is right, even if there were only two options available to humankind.
Therefore, Paul has compounded the problem, moving from deceitful statements
to logical fallacy.
Because (gar for then, because, and indeed) we (emeis) in spirit ( a
Divine Placeholder used to convey ruwach spirit) out of (ek) faith (pistis
originally conveyed trust and reliance but migrated as a result of Shauwls
epistles to mean belief) hope (apekdechomai). Righteousness (dikaiosyne
being acceptable, virtuous, and innocent) we hope for (elpis we expect and
await patiently). (Galatians 5:5)
 If nothing else, Shauwl has defined his use of pistis for us. With faith there
is never anything beyond hope. The faithful are left to hope that their religion is
right. They never know.
The NAMI suggests that Paul said: We for in spirit from trust hope of
rightness we await. LV: For we in spirit, by faith, wait for the hope of justice.
And the KJV edits the Apostles words this way: For we through the Spirit
wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
While faith is counterproductive, the Spirit indwells those who come to
know, trust, and rely upon Yahowah. But the instant the Set-Apart Spirit takes up
residence in us; we are purified, and thus instantly become right with God. This
isnt something that we hope for, or eagerly anticipate, but instead enjoy.
Even more confused than Paul, and completely missing the purpose of the
Spirit, the NLT conveys: But we who live by the Spirit eagerly wait to receive by
faith the righteousness God has promised to us.
Since this is literally life and death, it is worth repeating. We not only obtain
the cleansing benefits of the Spirit immediately upon being born anew from
above, but nothing comes to us by way of faith. Yahowahs promises are
knowable because they are all memorialized in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms.
And we know that we can trust them because they are all enveloped in prophetic
predictions which have proven to be accurate. As such, those who know the Torah
are in a position to trust Yahowah and rely upon His provision. Those who dont
understand Gods Word are relegated to faith, while those who understand Gods
Word recognize that faith is irrelevant.
Using the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear as a handrail in this upside
down, backwards, and twisted realm of Pauls mind, we find: In for Christ Jesus
neither circumcision some is strong nor uncircumcision but trust through love
operating.
Or, more precisely: [For (gar indeed because then) omitted from P46] In
(en) Christo Iesou ( Y Divine Placeholders for the Maaseyah (the
Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah) and Yahowsha (Yahowah Saves); but
since this epistle has disassociated Yahowsha from Yahowah and the Maaseyah
from the work of the Towrah, its misleading in this context to connect that which
Paul has severed) neither (oute) circumcision (peritome) is someone (ti) is
capable, powerful, and mighty (tis ischuo is able, competent, strong, or
healthy) nor (oute neither) un-circumcision (akrobystia a word Paul made up
comprised of akron the uttermost part of and posthe penis), on the
contrary (alla), through (dia) faith (pistis belief) love (agape) operating
(energeo functioning and working). (Galatians 5:6) (Papyrus 46 renders
energeo working in the genitive participle rather than the nominative, and
therefore, it modifies the noun, agape love, not pistis trust.)
This is to say that everything God conveyed in the Torah and Prophets
regarding His Covenant and its sign, circumcision, was a complete lie. Even the
Christian Christ Jesus was not Torah observant. Everything He said during the
Sermon on the Mount was untrue. He did not fulfill the Torahs promises because
He loved us, because the Torah had been abrogated and it had no influence
anyway. His crucifixion on Pesach was pure happenstance, as was the
reunification of His soul with the Set-Apart Spirit on Bikuwrym. He was wrong
when He said that we could come to know Him through the Torah and Prophets.
Even worse, knowing was actually irrelevant. Ignorance was bliss. Just believe
Paul and hope that he was right to contradict God.
It is impossible to trust and rely upon someone known only by name (and an
errant, meaningless name at that). In this regard, Pauls representation of Christo
Iesou is inferior to MTVs presentation of a rock star, because with their videos,
the fan gets to listen to the performers lyrics. But both breed an ignorant and
irrational fascination with a celebrity the audience knows only by genre. They
dont know the star, they dont have a relationship with him, and he has none with
them. Jesus Christ Superstar, indeed.
Should Paul have been saying that our faith expressing itself in love was
the means to our salvation, as the NLT claims, then he would have been wrong on
all accounts. Our redemption is predicated upon relying upon Yahowahs
demonstration of His love for us as proposed in His Towrah. For when we place
our faith in Christ Jesus, there is no benefit in being circumcised or being
uncircumcised. What is important is faith expressing itself in love. KJV: For in
Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith
which worketh by love.
Christian apologists will no doubt protest that its time to give Paul a break.
After all, they believe that he was preaching about faith expressing itself in
love. What could possibly be wrong with that? The problem is that rejecting our
Heavenly Fathers advice, which is what Paul is asking, is the opposite of loving
God. And placing ones faith in Pauline Doctrine, which is what Paul is
demanding, is the opposite of knowing God.
Here then is a summary of the Devils Advocates most recent assault on the
truth. These are the most deceitful, destructive, deadly, and damning words ever
written:
This freedom and liberty of ours being Christos it freed, so you all are
directed to stand firm. Therefore, also, not again in yoke of subservience and
slavery you are held based upon a grudge against you all, controlling you and
forcing you to surrender to someone who bears ill will, is resentful, violent,
and quarrelsome. (5:1)
You pay attention, I, Paulos, myself say to you all that if on the condition
that you may be circumcised, Christos is totally worthless and completely
meaningless, not in the least bit helpful or useful for you. (5:2) So then,
furthermore, repeating myself, I testify, insist, and protest to every man
being circumcised that he actually is obligated to do and perform the entire
and complete Towrah. (5:3)
You have invalidated and rendered inoperative, abolishing the purpose
of the separation of Christou whosoever is in unison with the Towrah. You
all having been declared righteous, and having been vindicated with the
Charis / Gratia / Graces, you all have fallen away and have been forsaken.
(5:4) Because indeed, we in spirit out of faith hope. Righteousness we await
patiently. (5:5) In Christo Iesou neither circumcision is someone is capable,
powerful, and mighty nor uttermost part of the penis, on the contrary
through faith love operating. (5:6)

I suppose one would have to be a Christian to believe or even understand

this: You were running well who you hindered in the truth not to be persuaded.
(Courtesy of the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition McReynolds Interlinear)
A verbatim rendering looks more like this: You were running (trecho
you were trying and were progressing) well (kalos in a fine moral way that was
pleasing). Who or what (tis) you (umas) it prevented and impeded (egkopto it
hindered, offended, and troubled, it thwarted, delayed, and detained, it cut into,
knocked and severed; from en in, by, or with and kopto to cut, strike,
smite, or beat) of the truth (te aletheia of the validity which is in accord with
the facts and corresponds to reality) not (me so that not) to be persuaded, to
obey, and to follow along faithfully (peithos to be convinced, influenced, and
converted, to agree, to mind, and to conform)? (Galatians 5:7)
First, we know that this has nothing to do with objective truth, because the
Galatians epistle has been neither objective, nor truthful. Paul has lied about
everything from his name to his calling, from his personal history to his ongoing
testimony. So the issue here is that Shauwl was so convinced that he was smarter
and more persuasive than everyone else, the realization that the Galatians had
rejected him and his message was inconceivable and unacceptable. As an
extraordinarily insecure individual, Shauwl imagined his personal foes sneaking
in behind him to undermine his influence and credibility. And for this crime, he
would stop at nothing to squelch them.
Second, based upon his words alone, it is now obvious that Shauwl was
completely irrational, clinically insane, and borderline illiterate. It is a wonder this
poorly written letter, filled as it is with inaccuracies and contradictions, errant
citations and logical fallacies, wasnt tossed into the trash by the first Galatian to
read it. And perhaps it was. It is Shauwls personal copies of his letters that were
enshrined in the Christian New Testament, not the ones he sent away. But its a
bigger wonder altogether that billions of people henceforth have been beguiled
into believing that this verbal diarrhea is the word of the God who created the
universe. By any reasonable standard, the writing quality on display in this letter
is as retarded as the message presented therein is perverted.
Lets turn to the charter members of the Pauline fan club to see how they
deciphered Shauwls message. The Catholic Vulgate promoted: You did run
well. What hath hindered you, that you should not obey the truth? The inclusion
of obey is telling, especially considering the oppressive rule of cleric and king
under the dominion of Roman Catholicism. Therefore, it is not surprising that the
Protestant potentate, King James, relished that notion as well. The KJV reads:
Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? It is
ironic that Paul insists that the problem with the Towrah is that it condemns if not
obeyed perfectly and yet he has a tizzy fit when he is not obeyed.
But obey is not a term that the pro-democracy, evangelical Christians
promoting the New Living Translation felt comfortable advocating. So they insist
Paul actually said: You were running the race so well. Who has held you back
from following the truth?
I have suggested before that Pauls epistles might have had some value had
he actually presented some evidence which could be evaluated to persuade
rational people to trust Yahowahs Word and Yahowshas deeds (as opposed to
disassociating and demeaning them). But there is no evidence delineated in this
letter. So how does one come to know the objective truth if it isnt shared? His
singular citation from Yahowsha was erroneous, as were all of his quotations
from the Torah and Prophets. And more recently, he has created a completely
incongruous and revisionist history of the Covenant.
Its no wonder the Galatians wandered away from Paul. While his preaching
may have been more compelling than his writing, the emotional charge of
impassioned oratory only lasts a short while. Adolf Hitler comes to mind as a
modern analog in this regard. Having studied Hitlers Mein Kampf for the purpose
of comparing it to Muhammads Quran and Hadith in order to demonstrate how
similar Nazism and Islam actually are, I have examined der Fuehrers speeches
for the purpose of understanding how delusional egomaniacs like Paul manage to
spellbind their audiences with an emotional mix of racist drivel and an unfounded
sense of hope in their fanaticized future. Having looked into the faces of
thousands of Germans while Hitler was passionately lying to them, I came to
realize just how susceptible people are to deceptions which tickle their ears
telling them what they want to hear.
But to this particular point, Hitlers written and spoken messages were
remarkably similar with regard to their conclusions, but not with regard to the
volume of rhetoric underpinning them. And I suspect that the same thing is true
with Paul, that his preaching was even thinner on support than were his letters. So
long as the impassioned orator was in their midst playing to their emotions, the
Galatians listened and were thus perceived to be running well and following
along in Pauls parlance. But the moment he left, and when informed rational
individuals pointed out the flaws in his reasoning and the inconsistencies in his
message, the air came out of their religious balloons, and they floated back down
to earth, dismayed that they had been so easily deceived. And perhaps this is the
actual reason behind why the Galatians tracked Shauwl down and tried to stone
him.
Since the choice Paul has given us is to believe him and reject God, or reject
him and trust God, a rational and informed individual would have every incentive
to dismiss Paul based upon this letter. And in all likelihood, this letter is much
better supported than was his preaching. In this regard, next we find:
The (e) enticing persuasion (peismone solicitation and inducement) not
from (ouk ek) the one (tou) providing a name (kaleo / kalountos summoning
and calling by name) to you all (umas to all of you). (Galatians 5:8)
Other than their preference for the secondary connotation of kaleo and their
reluctance to acknowledge when you was scribed in the plural form, the Nestle-
Aland Interlinear is in accord, not that it helps: The persuasion not from the one
calling you.
Since that isnt any clearer, lets turn to the father of translations, the Latin
Vulgate for elucidation: This persuasion is not from him that calleth you. Other
than introduce the flourish of Elizabethan English, the KJV copied the Catholic
text: This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
So, clearing all this up for us, the NLT authored: It certainly isnt God, for
he is the one who called you to freedom. Even for them, this is a stretch. How
can the New Living Translation present itself as a translation when they
supplied ten of fourteen words without textual support and only rendered the
definite article tou accurately? Even with called, kalountos was scribed in the
present tense, not in the past tense. If you own a NLT, you may want to return it
because it is defective.
While Gods Word stands forever, one of the things that it stands for is
freewill, and thus the freedom to choose to reject God and His Word as Shauwl
and Christians have done. But fortunately for them, the Galatians chose God and
rejected Paul. But since the source of the enticing persuasion and inducement
and the identity of the individuals who provided a name were unspecified, we
dont know what was said to undermine the Devils witness. So other than
acknowledging that Paul was miffed that someone was exposing him, interpreting
this beyond that is a fools folly.
At least, his next line is comprehensible. Little (micros) yeast (zyme) whole
(holos) of the (to) batch (phyrama a lump of clay or dough which is mixed,
kneaded, and grows) it yeasts (zymoo ferments or leavens). (Galatians 5:9)
But while this reads sensibly, in this context, the message is devastating. The
only thing which we could possibly attribute to a little yeast in this section of
Galatians is Pauls disdain for circumcision in verses two, three, and four. So he is
saying that those who observe even a small part of the Torah are completely
corrupted by it.
Here we find that the Nestle-Alands rendition of this verse is essentially
identical: Little yeast whole the mixture yeasts. The Latin Vulgate went into
interpretive mode with corrupteth: A little leaven corrupteth the whole lump.
Other than altering the word order, KJV toed a more literal line: A little leaven
leaveneth the whole lump. And consistent with their custom, the NLT authored
their own bible with: This false teaching is like a little yeast that spreads through
the whole batch of dough! And in this case, their errant translation created an
accurate interpretation of Pauls intended message.
But while Pauls statement is comprehensible (albeit condemning in this
context), it doesnt add to our comprehension. Therefore, in order that you might
appreciate the distinction between unsupported, errant, and poorly worded, human
opinions and Godly instruction, lets consider what Yahowsha had to say about
yeast. At the very least, we will learn something valuable in the process. This
message, which was spoken and recorded in Hebrew by Yahowshas Disciple
(meaning one who learns) Mattanyah (meaning Yahs Gift), who was an
eyewitness, is now presented for your consideration translated out of Greek into
English...
And (kai) of the Pharisees (ton Pharisaios the religiously conservative
rabbis) and (kai) Sadducees (Saddoukaios worldly-minded, liberal political
leaders) having come to pressure and test Him, asked Him (proserchomai
peirasontes eperotesan auton having approached to examine and trap Him,
interrogating Him, they requested of Him) to show a sign from heaven or the
sky (semeion ek tou ouranou). (1)
So then (o de) the One having answered, said to them (apokritheis eipen
outois the One having previously responded, providing a reply [which they had
not considered in the Torah and Prophets which He had authored], spoke to
them), Having become evening (epias genomenes), you say, beneficial weather
(legete eudia), for indeed the sky reddens (purrasei gar o ouranos). (2)
And in the morning (kai proi oemeron), stormy weather (cheimon), for the
sky is fiery red, becoming threatening, gloomy, and overcast (gar pyrrazo
stugnazon o ouranos).
So this shows (to men) the appearance of the atmosphere (prosopon tou
ouranou the face, person, and presence of heaven) you recognize and know
how to judge and interpret (ginoskete diakrinein you are familiar with and
understand how to evaluate carefully, thinking judgmentally, making a proper
distinction), and yet the miraculous signs of this occasion, opportunity, and
period of time you are incapacitated (ta de semeia ton kairon ou dunasthe but
for the signs of these moments in the history of time you are incapable and
powerless). (3)
A worthless and wicked adulterous generation (genea ponera kai
moichalis a race and age of related people who are evil and morally corrupt,
even disloyal, untrustworthy, lustful, and treacherous) seeks a sign (epizetei
semeion desires and wants a miracle), but a miraculous sign (kai semeion) will
not be given to it (ou dothesetai aute will not be produced and experienced by
it), except for (ei me if not) the sign of Yownah (to semeion Iona the
miraculous symbolism of Yownah (meaning Dove, and thus symbolic of
reconciliation through the Spirit of God)). Then He left them behind and He
went away (kai katalipon autous apelthen so He abandoned them, neglecting
them because He could not relate to them, and He ceased to exist for them,
passing away). (Mattanyah 16:1-4)
You have to love Gods sense of humor. The religious and political
establishment had dispatched some of their own to interrogate and trap God. They
requested a miracle, a sign from heaven, even though the miraculous
manifestation of heaven was standing right before them. So Yahowsha, the living
embodiment of the Torah and Prophets, told them that He had already done so,
predicting His arrival long ago. Then He coined the old sailors adage, Red sky
at night, sailors delight. Red sky in the morning, sailors warning, to make a
point. It showed that they could interpret the appearance of the atmosphere but
could not recognize the very face, person, and appearance of heaven. They knew
from the sky what the next few hours would bring, but could not deduce from the
Torah and Prophets that God had appeared in their midst and right on schedule.
He even specified the miracle that would be produced by heaven in their midst.
Like Yownah (Jonah), He had come to warn them about the futility of their
religious and political institutions while providing the means to reconcile their
relationship with Yahowah.
And just like Yownah, Yahowshas miracle would transpire over three days
and three nights. He would arrive in Yaruwshalaim to celebrate Passover with His
Disciples before the sunset beginning the 14th day of Abyb in year 4000 Yah, a
Thursday in 33 CE by our reckoning. On Friday, which was a continuation of
Pesach, He would serve as the perfect Passover Lamb as His Spirit returned to
Yahowah. Then as the sunset, commencing the Miqra of Matsah, Friday
evening, and thus the beginning of the Shabat, His soul entered Sheowl to
remove the yeast of religious teaching and political indoctrination from our souls.
It remained there throughout the most important Sabbath, or Saturday in our
corrupted parlance, in all of human history. And then on the first day of the week,
before sunrise, once liberated from Sheowl, Yahowshas soul and Yahowahs
Spirit were reunited in a celebration of the Invitation to be Called Out and Meet
with God of First-Born Children. He remained in Yaruwshalaim on a day we call
Sunday until late in the afternoon, when He would be shown talking with some
fellows on the road to Emmaus. Three days and three nights, just as had been the
case with Yownah. And during them, God would perform the ultimate miracle:
enabling His flawed creation to become immortal and perfect children adopted
into His Covenant family.
It is interesting to speculate, but I suspect that if God walked into the Vatican
today, the Roman Catholic royalty wouldnt recognize Him, and theyd most
likely question Him, just as was done two-thousand years ago. The same would
be true with any Christian church, Muslim mosque, or political statehouse. The
Creator is largely unknown to His creation.
It is also interesting to consider that since Yahowah revealed everything we
need to know about Him, prophetically presenting His purpose and plan in His
Torah and Prophets, those who are unwilling to look for Him there will not
recognize Him or His timing when He returns on Yowm Kippurym the Day of
Reconciliations in year 6000 Yah October 2nd, 2033 on our pagan calendars.
The difference between Gods teaching and Shauwls proclamation is
stunning. So the ultimate communicator continued by encouraging us to carefully
consider religious rhetoric and political propaganda so that we can turn away from
it, distancing ourselves from their corruptive culture. And youll notice, having
walked away from the religious and political establishment as a result of their
inability to understand, He approached those who were still receptive and willing
to learn...
 And having come to the Disciples / Learners (kai elthontes oi mathetai
so then having approached those who were students, eager to learn and willing to
follow), crossing to the other side (eis to peran with reference to the opposite
side), they were bothered by having forgotten to bring a loaf of bread
(epelathonto artous they neglected and overlooked selecting, receiving, and
grasping hold of a loaf of bread). (5)
So then (o de) Yahowsha ( a placeholder used by Yahowshas
Disciples like Mattanyah and in the Septuagint to convey Yahowsha, meaning
Yahowah Saves) said to them (eipen autois), Pay attention and understand
(orao). So now (kai) you all should carefully consider, watch out for, be
alerted to, and turn away from (prosecho apo all of you should beware of and
guard yourselves against, and distancing and separating yourself from) the yeast
(tes zyme the leavening fungus and culture of pretentious hypocritical teaching)
of the Pharisees (ton Pharisaoios a transliteration of the Hebrew parash,
meaning to separate, to pierce, and to scatter; a conservative, overtly religious
order of rabbis who observed their Talmud) and (kai) Sadducees (Saddoukaios
a transliteration of the Hebrew sadah, meaning to lie in wait and to lay waste; a
worldly-minded, liberal political party who promoted the notion of an enlightened
aristocracy, rejected religious laws, and promoted their own manifest destiny).
(Mattanyah 16:5-6)
By saying this, Yahowsha illuminated an extraordinarily profound truth
one of the most important things in all of the universe for us to understand. The
corruption He removed from the souls of the Covenants children on the Miqra
of Matsah was the culture of religious teaching and political pontifications. The
moment you understand this, you can appreciate why Yahowah asked us to walk
away from religion and politics before engaging in His Covenant. And you realize
the purpose of the Miqra Invitation to be Called Out and Meet of Matsah
Un-Yeasted Bread. The Covenant and the Invitations are seen working in
harmony to achieve the desired result which is a relationship with God instead of
pursuing the religion of men.
However, even for those who walked in Yahowshas footsteps, these lessons
would not come easily. They would have to be prompted to think before they
would understand. The same is true with us today.
But then (de oi) reasoning and conversing among themselves
(dialogizomai en eautois), they said by way of engaging in the discussion
(legontes oti), We neither acquired nor received any bread (artous ouk
elabomen). (7)
So having known this (gnous de o), Yahowsha said (eipen), What kind
of thinking and reasoned discussion is this amongst yourselves (ti dialogisesoe
en), those lacking confidence and conviction (eautois oligopistos those whose
trust and reliance is comparatively lacking; from oligos, meaning to have little
and diminished, pistis, conviction in the truth, trust, and reliance) just because
(oti) you dont possess any bread (artous ouk echete)? (8)
You are still unwilling to think (oupo noeite even now you are not able to
direct your mind and be perceptive and judgmental, to reflect rationally and
consider evidence logically so as to comprehend and understand, to ponder and
then reach a valid determination). And you do not even remember (oude
mnemoneuete neither do you recall, contemplate, or properly respond to) the
five loaves of bread for the five thousand (tous pente artous ton
pentakischilion), and then how many baskets you received (kai posous
kophinous elabete), (9) nor the seven loaves of bread (oude tous epta artous) for
the four thousand (ton tetrakischilion), and how many baskets you collected
(kai posas opuridas elabete). (Mattanyah 16:7-10)
In other words, pay attention, observe the evidence, think, and learn to trust
what God has revealed. If you want to understand, you will have to pay attention
and engage your brain. So lets do that very thing and see what we can learn.
How is it that you did not think so as to understand (pos ou noeite) that
it was not concerning loaves of bread (oti ou peri arton) when I said to you
(eipon umin), You all should watch out for, be alerted to, and turn away
from (prosecho apo all of you should beware of and guard yourselves against,
and distancing and separating yourself from) the yeast (tes zyme the leavening
fungus and culture of pretentious hypocritical teaching) of the Pharisees (ton
Pharisaoios a transliteration of the Hebrew parash to pierce and scatter; a
conservative, overtly religious order of rabbis who observed their Talmud) and
(kai) Sadducees (Saddoukaios a transliteration of the Hebrew sadah to lie in
wait and to lay waste; a worldly-minded, liberal political party who promoted the
notion of an enlightened aristocracy, rejected religious laws, and promoted their
own manifest destiny)? (11)
Then, at that moment (tote), they put the pieces together, using their
intelligence to understand (ounekan they drew connections in their minds,
bringing the facts together, and they came to comprehend, clearly perceiving,
gaining insight, realizing, and recognizing) that namely (oti) He had not implied
(ouk eipen) to be on guard against or turn away from (prosechein apo) the
leavening yeast in bread (tes zymes ton arton the fungus which grows in a loaf
of bread), but instead (alla to the contrary), to separate from (apo to
disassociate from, leaving and walking a distance away from) the doctrines and
teachings (tes didaches the instructions, explanations, and content of the
discourse) of the Pharisees (ton Pharisaios the religious rabbis) and (kai)
Sadducees (Saddoukaios worldly-minded, liberal political leaders).
(Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 16:11-12)
There are few symbols more important than yeast, few days more essential
than Unleavened Bread, and few lessons more meaningful than knowing that
religious and political doctrines corrupt our souls. Fortunately, once they were
chided, the disciples came to recognize by making all of the appropriate
connections what politicized Christians fail to understandeven unto this day.
There is an indivisible connection between the Covenant and the Invitations to
Meet, between the Towrah and Yahowshas life, between the delineation of the
path to God and its enablement on behalf of the Covenants children.
Just as yeast is a metaphor, the seven Miqraey are signs, all designed to help
us recognize the path God has provided home. As we look at these signs then, let
us not fall into the same trap Yahowshas disciples initially did, of being focused
upon the mundane rather than the spiritual, and of not trusting Yah to do
everything He has promised and more. Let us dig beneath the surface as we
continue to explore what Yahowah is really teaching us through His Word. Lets
come to appreciate the promise of Un-Yeasted Bread, knowing that Yahowsha
soul saved us from the consequence of yeast (as a metaphor for religious and
political doctrines) on this day.

Leaving the realm of Godly instruction and returning to the poison of Pauls
pen, we find this incomprehensible diatribe:
I (ego) have been persuaded to coax and convince you, winning you
over (peitho eis umas I have been entrusted on your behalf to win you over,
inducing and seducing you to listen and obey) in (en with) the Lord (kurio
the supernatural master who owns people, controls slaves, and possesses
spiritually, a.k.a., Satan) because (oti) nothing (oudeis no one) different (allos
other than this) may you all regard or ponder, potentially holding as a belief
(phroneo may you all of possibly place your faith in, acknowledge as an
opinion, demonstrating a favorable attitude regarding [aorist subjective in P46
versus future active indicative in the NA27]).
So now (de) the one (o) stirring you up and causing you great distress,
confusing you (tarasso umas troubling and agitating you, bewildering and
mystifying you) will undergo and endure (bastazo will experience and bear)
the (to) judgment (krima sentencing, condemnation, and punishment) whoever
this individual (ostis ean) may be (e). (Galatians 5:10)
 Thus far all of the verbs pertaining to Pauls foe continue to be exclusively
singular, and thus they cannot be Judaizers as Christians protest. And since Paul
has already told us who contradicted his preaching in this region, and has told us
who he believes stands convicted and condemned, we dont have to speculate
as to the identity of Pauls foe. It is the Disciple and Apostle Shimown Kephas,
more commonly known as Peter. You may recall: But when Kephas came to
Antioch, I was opposed and against his presence. I stood in hostile opposition
because he was convicted and condemned (kataginosko judged to be guilty, to
lack accurate information, and to be devoid of understanding; from kata
opposed to and against and ginosko knowing and thus ignorant). (Galatians
2:11)
In the case of the final verb in Galatians 2:10, e is the third person singular
present active subjunctive of eimi, he may be. And since ostis this
individual was masculine singular, the third person singular of e must be he.
The present tense infers that this individual is presently agitating the Galatians,
and there is no assessment of when or if he will stop troubling themat least
from Shauwls jaundiced perspective. The subjunctive mood of the verb
indicates uncertainty, thus conveying the idea that Paul wants Yahowshas most
trusted Disciple to endure condemnation and punishment no matter who he
might be. If it was an accurate assessment, and its not, it would make Galatians
2:11 a case of premature evisceration.
There are a couple of reasons Shimown Kephas would be the least
appropriate person on earth with whom to feud. First, Yahowsha said that upon
the Rocks understanding, He would build His ekklesia / miqra Invitation to
be Called Out and Meet with God. And second, the conclusion of
Yahowchanans eyewitness account is devoted entirely to the proposition of
Yahowsha asking Shimown Kephas to tend His sheep, to feed them and to
protect them from predatorsfrom wolves in sheeps clothing.
The scholars associated with the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear
believe Paul said: I have been persuaded to you in master that nothing other you
will think the one but troubling you will bear the judgment who if he might be.
Since that is even more difficult to understand, lets consider Jeromes Vulgate: I
have confidence in you in the Lord that you will not be of another mind: but he
that troubleth you shall bear the judgment, whosoever he be. The KJV reports: I
have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded:
but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. While that
isnt what Paul wrote, and we cant say for certain if it is what Paul meant, at least
it makes sense. And along these lines, the paraphrase known as the NLT authored:
I am trusting the Lord to keep you from believing false teachings. God will judge
that person, whoever he is, who has been confusing you.
 Bringing this cluster of concerning and confusing passages together we read:
You were trying, running, and progressing well, in a fine way that was
pleasing. Who or what you it prevented and impeded, it offended and was
beaten of the truth not to be persuaded, to obey, and to follow along
faithfully? (5:7) The enticing persuasion and soliciting inducement not from
the one providing a name to you all. (5:8) A little yeast whole of the batch it
yeasts. (5:9) I have been persuaded to coax and convince you, winning you
over in the Lord because nothing different other than this may you all regard
or ponder, potentially holding as a belief. So now, the one stirring you up and
causing you great distress, confusing, bewildering, and mystifying you will
undergo and endure the judgment, condemnation, and punishment, whoever
this individual might be. (5:10)

As we press on to Shauwls next statement, we once again need to call on

the Nestle Aland McReynolds Interlinear to get the lay of the land. I but brothers
if circumcision still I announce why still am I pursued. Then has been abolished
the offense of the cross.
But now (de), I (ego), brothers (adelphos), if (ei on the condition)
circumcision (peritome) nevertheless still (eti yet and still in addition) I
preach (kerysso I announce and proclaim in an official capacity, I urge and
persuade), why and for what (ti) further (eti besides and yet) am I pursued
and persecuted (dioko am I oppressed and harassed, made to flee and run, put
to flight and driven away; from deilos timid and fearful and diakonos
executing the commands of another)? As a result (ara then therefore perhaps
it is possible), invalidated (katageomai abolished and annulled, rendered
useless and impotent, inactivated and rendered inoperative) this (to) offending
trap and scandalous stumbling block (skandalon obstacle which causes sin,
ensnares, and is offensive) of the (tou) crucifixion ( Divine Placeholder
from stauros-staurou indicating that the Upright One, the Upright Pillar upon
which Yahowsha was affixed, the Central Beam of the Tabernacle, and the
blood-smeared Doorway of Passover are all Divine symbols). (Galatians 5:11)
I am convinced based upon his rhetoric that Paul did not personally deploy
the Divine Placeholders that are now found throughout the oldest scribal copies of
his letters. I think that they were added in the scriptorium in Alexandria, Egypt to
make his epistles appear similar to the Septuagint and the popular eyewitness
accounts written by Yahowshas beloved Disciples. So rather than
serving to depict the Upright One affixed to Passovers Door, Paul meant to
convey the gruesome spectacle made infamous by Roman crucifixions.
While why and for what further am I pursued and persecuted is the most
sensible rendering of ti eti diokomai clause at the end of the first sentence,
recognizing that it was scribed in the first person singular, present passive and
indicative, Shauwl wasnt being persecuted, but instead was pursuing his alleged
foes. Further, he wasnt still preaching circumcision and never had done so,
eliminating any reason for him to be harassed for not stopping what he had never
started.
And yet this contradictory and hypocritical introduction is the easy part of
this passage to decipher linguistically. There is nothing offensive, scandalous, or
ensnaring associated with Mount Mowryahs Upright Pillar. What
happened on the Doorway to Heaven serves as the first step in Yahowahs path
home. The fulfillment of Passover was not a trap, a stumbling block, or an
obstacle, but instead the Way God provided to save us. Yahowshas Miqra of
Pesach sacrifice was neither a sin nor a temptation. The Upright
Pillar is the embodiment of one of the Torahs most essential promises, because
it enables the Covenants children to live foreverjust as it did forty Yowbel
earlier with Abraham and Yitschaq. No Upright Pillar, no eternal life
as death retains its sting.
Nothing Shauwl or anyone could say or do could ever katageomai
invalidate, abolish, or render inoperative the value of what Yahowsha achieved
by enduring the punishment of the Upright Pillar on Passover. Although to be
perfectly honest, by disassociating Yahowsha from Yahowah, His life from the
Towrah, and Passover from Gods plan of salvation, Shauwl has effectively
rendered Gods Word mootat least for all of those who believe him. What
Shauwl has written has been scandalous and offensive, creating a stumbling
block which has caused billions of souls to fall needlessly short of Heavens
Door.
Passover apart from the Torah is nothing more than a gruesome and deadly
sceneone unrelated to life. Unleavened Bread is meaningless to those who do
not understand its purpose, which is to remove the culture of religion and politics
from our souls, redeeming us. Shauwl has concealed, corrupted, contradicted,
and condemned these truths which comprise the lone, narrow path to life
everlasting, in our Heavenly Fathers home.
This known, I still have a question. Why was the self-proclaimed messenger
of god running away, timid and fearful of the commands of another? Was his
god impotent and incapacitated? Or perhaps this question: does Paul want us
to believe that he is so important that his negative personal circumstances actually
annul and invalidate Yahowshas sacrifice?
As a reminder, if we were to use the Nestle-Aland Interlinear as a guide, we
would understand Shauwl to have said: I but brothers if circumcision still I
announce why still am I pursued. Then has been abolished the offense of the
cross. Consulting with those who felt at liberty to copyedit and interpret Paul, we
find the Roman Catholic Vulgate proclaiming: And I, brethren, if I yet preach
circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the scandal of the upright
pole [later changed to crucis/cross] made void. The KJVs rendition states: And
I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is
the offence of the cross ceased. Methinks we need more interpretation and
copyediting, so lets turn to the novelists at the NLT: Dear brothers and sisters, if
I were still preaching that you must be circumcisedas some say I dowhy am I
still being persecuted? If I were no longer preaching salvation through the cross of
Christ, no one would be offended. In actuality, most everyone is offended by the
truth.
After having endured an onslaught of horrendous writing, a dearth of
reasoning, and a pitiful attitude, we are now subjected to verbal diarrhea as
revolting as the worst found in the Quran.
And also (kai) how I wish (ophelon if only it would be possible it would
be my desire) that (oi) they might castrate and emasculate themselves,
suffering amputation (apokoptontai they may cut off their own penis, arms,
legs, and testicles (rendered in the aorist subjunctive in Papyrus 46 rather than
future indicative in the NA27), those troublemakers among you who stir you
up to rebel (anastatoo umas those disseminating religious error or political
seditions, unsettling you (rendered anastatountes (present active masculine
plural)). (Galatians 5:12)
By moving from a singular foe to multiple antagonists, perhaps Shauwl was
being inclusive and counting Yaaqob and Yahowchanan among his rivals. But if
I understand this correctly, according to Paul, circumcision was too brutal to
endure, so he would prefer castration. Yet I suppose that it is ironic in a way.
Yahowah told us in His Towrah that He karat cut His beryth Covenant
relationship with Abraham, separating him from religion and to Himself, which
is why circumcision became the sign of this Familial Covenant Relationship. So
now Shauwl would like to amputate those who advocate participation in the
Covenant.
Sanitized and scholarly, the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear portends:
Would that also will cut off themselves the ones upsetting you. Even Jerome
was hesitant to convey the full force of what his patron saint had scribed. I would
they were even cut off, who trouble you. And as is their custom, the KJV simply
left bad enough alone: I would they were even cut off which trouble you. Then
while the NLT translated the operative verb accurately, they grossly
misrepresented Pauls intent: I just wish that those troublemakers who want to
mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate themselves. But you have to give
them credit for creative thinking. A politician who has just tripped on his own
tongue would love these guys.
Unfortunately, Pauls statement gets even worse for those considering
Papyrus 46, the oldest witness to his letter, where ara I pray is written in
place of ophelon how I wish. In addition to conveying prayer, ara describes
an earnest request to impose an evil, malicious curse.
Therefore Galatians 5:12 actually reads: And also how I wish and pray for
a malicious curse, that they might castrate and emasculate themselves,
suffering amputation of their penis and testicles, those troublemakers among
you who stir you up to rebel by disseminating religious error and political
seditions. (5:12)
As such, I invite you to compare Pauls recital on behalf of his Lord to
Muhammads on behalf of Allah. Quran 5:33 reads:
Noble Quran: The recompense of those who wage war against Allh and
His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or
crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled
from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in
the Hereafter.
Pickthal: The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His
messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or
crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be
expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the
Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.
Yusuf Ali: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His
Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is:
execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides,
or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment
is theirs in the Hereafter.
Prior to reading Pauls words in the original Greek, I had thought that Quran
5.33 was the most repulsive verse ever written in the name of God. And while
Muhammads words are a bit more graphic, the spirit behind Pauls message is
worse, so it appears that I owe Muslims an apology.
 Leaving the Quran and returning to the Christian New Testament, we find
that according to the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear, which dutifully
reflects Pauls actual word sequencing, Satans messenger reported: You for on
freedom were called brothers alone not the freedom into opportunity to the flesh
but through the love slave to one another.
Or would you prefer, the man who despised circumcision, preferring
castration, said:
For (gar because) you (umeis) upon (epi) freedom (eleutheria
freedom) you all were named and were called (kaleo you all were summoned
and invited by the name) brothers (aldelphos). Only (monon just) not (me) in
the (ten) liberty (eleutheria freedom) to (eis to the point of or in reference to)
the starting point of the original violent attack (aphorme the beginning or
base of operations for a pretext for an opportunistic assault, as an excuse for the
original impetuous to harm through separation; a compound of apo separation
and horme to impetuously assault while inciting savage violence) of the (te)
flesh (sarx). To the contrary (alla nevertheless), through (dia by) of the
(tes) love (agape) you all are slaves (douleuo all of you serve and are
controlled by) each other (allelon one another). (Galatians 5:13)
Im really beginning to despise this man. He has told believers that they are
free of the Towrah and from its enslaving god, but they are not free to return to
the Towrah, which was the source of this violent assault against humanity.
According to Shauwl, mankind does not have the liberty to return to the starting
point where this walk with God known as the Covenant began. Even worse, the
original opportunity God provided was now being presented as violent,
impulsive, impetuous, vehement, and savage, according to the man who just
prayed that his rivals be castrated and mutilated. And the sadistic fellow who just
one sentence ago wished savage acts of violence to be perpetrated upon the bodies
of his brothers, and a man who built his reputation by brutalizing the first
followers of The Way, tells those who are not his brothers to be love slaves to
one another as opposed to being Gods coworkers, following the examples of
Noah, Abraham, Moseh, Dowd, Yahowsha, Shimown, and Yahowchanan.
And while God is Spirit, according to the self-proclaimed Apostle,
Yahowahs plan is of the flesh. As such we are witnessing hypocrisy and
psychosis on a grand scale.
But to his credit, the Devils Advocate has just come full circle and reprised
his use of stoicheion in Galatians 4:3, when the Lords witness wrote: And also,
in this way, it follows that when we were infants, under the initial elementary
teachings and rudimentary principles representing the first steps of religious
mythology (stoicheion), we were subservient slaves. Therefore, according to
Shauwl, the Torah is the one place man cannot go, because its vision was
inadequately and improperly developed when compared to the liberties he has
taken.
In a way, its a shame that Christians are unaware of the clever scheme Paul
and Satan conceived to lure them away from God. While schizophrenic and
sadistic, it is breathtakingly bold.
Unfortunately, the only way to make any sense of this verse is to scramble
the order of the words, which is what Jerome has done: For you, brethren, have
been called unto liberty. Only make not liberty an occasion to the flesh: but by
charity of the spirit serve one another. By inadequately translating aphorme
the violent and impulsive starting point (a.k.a. the opportunity), they missed out
on Pauls cleverness.
Following the Catholics lead, the King James Authorized Version presents:
For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an
occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. Francis Bacon, the occultist
at the helm of the KJV translation, was more than clever enough himself to have
appreciated the irony of Pauls ploy.
Operating in their own universe, the NLT contrived: For you have been
called to live in freedom, my brothers and sisters. But dont use your freedom to
satisfy your sinful nature. Instead, use your freedom to serve one another in love.
In that these folks claim that Paul was inspired by their god and was writing
Scripture, their interpretation surely takes precedence over my own.
There was a small shred of truth in Shauwls last statement. The faithful are
slaves to one another. They congregate together, serving each other the same
deadly and enslaving concoction of religious lies.
Next, the perverted and savage sadist, who just prayed for the mutilation of
his brothers, offered this fantasy which the scholarly Nestle-Aland McReynolds
Interlinear scribed as: The for all law in one word has been filled in the you will
love the neighbor of you as yourself. Or more literally, the man who hated
Yahowshas Disciple and who despised the Towrah they observed, the very same
guy who a moment ago condemned his foes and advocated amputation, wrote:
Because of this then (gar o) all (pas the entirety of) the Towrah (nomos
the nourishing allotment which enables an inheritance; used throughout the
Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word towrah source of instruction,
teaching, direction, and guidance) in (en) one (heis) word (logos) has come to
an end (pleroo has been completed and finished) in (en) the (to) you loving
(agapeseis) of the (ton) nearby neighbor (plesion friend and a fellow
countryman who is close by) [of you (sou) was omitted from P46] as (os)
yourself (seauton). (Galatians 5:14)
Once again, its obvious that Paul cant count. Even in the Greek text he used
six words.
In Papyrus 46, we find that the generic agapao to love was rendered in
the aorist instead of the future tense as agapesai. If it is correct, that a previous
act of you loving continues to provide the desired effect. As such, if not for the
second person singular pronoun, you, it would indicate that the Torah was
fulfilled because of a prior commitment to love, one which still prevails. But set
in this context where the Towrah is finished, wed be giving Paul too much
credit by suggesting that this was his intent.
Instead, the man who never knew the love of God, a wife, or children, now
wants us believe that he is an expert on such things. And even though a critic
might complain and say that Paul was a pro when it came to loving himself, the
verbose self-adulation which emanates from insecure individuals like Paul is
nothing but a mask to hide their personal self-loathing.
But one thing is for sure, Shauwl wasnt an expert on anything pertaining to
Yahowah or His Word. Beyond the fact that the Towrah will not come to an end
until its every promise and prophecy is completely fulfilled, and until the universe
no longer exists, loving ones neighbor isnt even remotely a summation of it,
much less its fulfillment. Moreover, the primary purpose of the Towrah and its
Covenant is to encourage us to love Yahowah. Loving our neighbor does not even
compare to its benefits.
Yahowahs most earnest request is that we: Hear, O Yisrael, Yahowah is
our God. Yahowah is one. And you should choose to love Yahowah, your
God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. And
these words which I am instructing you today, they should be part of your
inner nature. And you shall teach them diligently to your sons and talk of
them in your homes. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 6:4-7)
Yahowsha also favored this version. When asked Teacher, what is the
greatest instruction in the Torah, He quoted this statement from His Towrah.
This was the first time, but not the last time Shauwl would err on this
subject. In his letter to the Romans, he wrote: Owe nothing to no one, except
love one another, for indeed loving another completes and brings an end to
(pleroo) the Torah (nomon). Because the not committing adultery, not
murdering, not stealing, not lusting and coveting, and also whatever other
commandments are in the Word, this is summed up in the coming to love the
nearby neighbor as yourself. (Romans 13:8-9) Its okay, you can scream and
yell and vent your frustration at Paul for writing and also whatever other
commandments are in the Word. I did. His attitude is appalling.
Im sure that you noticed that Shauwl left some of the Instructions Yahowah
provided off of his list. Do you suppose that this was because he didnt know
them or because he didnt want his audience to know that he was guilty of
violating them?
The answer to that question is found in the Statements Paul omitted. So lets
turn to Shemowth / Names / Exodus 20 and see what the messenger of god failed
to disclose.
And (wa) God (elohym the Almighty) conveyed (dabar
communicated, spoke, and wrote, provided instruction and direction with) all of
(kol) these statements using words (dabar words and statements), providing
perspective (eleh from a relatively close vantage point) in our presence (eth
in association with us and in proximity to us), saying (amar explaining,
claiming, answering, counseling, warning, and promising): I am (anky)
Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym the Mighty One (suffixed in the second
person singular)), who relationally (asher and who as a favor) brought you
out and delivered you (yatsa I descended to serve you, extending Myself to
guide you, doing everything which is required to lead those who respond away)
from the realm (min erets out of the land and region) of the crucible of Egypt
(mitsraym the smelting furnace where metals are refined and tested (a metaphor
for judgment and oppression)), out of the house (min beyth from the home,
household, family, and place) of slavery (ebed servitude, bondage, worship,
and working for ones salvation). You shall not exist with (lo hayah la you
shall not be moving towards) other (aher someone elses, different, extra, or
additional) gods (elohym) in relation to (al near, before, or in proximity to, or
in addition to) My presence (paneh). (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 20:1-3)
Shauwl served the Adversary who wanted to be God. And Shauwl has painted
Yahowah as an enslaver, not as a liberator.
You should not ever do anything which associates yourself with (lo
asah la you should never attend to, act upon, engage with, or profit from, you
should never conceive or fashion on your behalf (qal imperfect conveying a
literal interpretation and ongoing implications)) a carved image or idol (pesel a
religious icon or object of worship representing any god), or any (kol) visual
representation of something (tamunah likeness, appearance, picture, drawing,
painting, or form which depicts or resembles anything), which is (asher) in (ba)
the heavens above (samaym min maal the spiritual realm on high including the
sun, moon, planets, and stars above), or (wa) which is (asher) on (ba) the earth
(erets land and ground, even the material realm) below (tahath), or (wa) which
is (asher) in (ba) the waters (mayim) beneath the land (tahath erets).
 You should not ever bow down and worship them or speak for them (lo
hawah you should never prostrate yourself in obeisance and homage to them,
show any allegiance to them, or promote their message because doing so will
influence you), and (wa) you shall not serve them (lo abad you should not
work or labor in their cause as their ministers, nor should you submit to them in
servitude, neither should you act upon them or engage with them).
For indeed (ky because and emphasizing this point), I (anky), Yahowah
( ), your God (elohy), am a zealous and jealous God (qana el a God
who is desirous of exclusivity in a relationship, a God who is emotionally
passionate and extremely protective of those He loves), counting and reckoning
(paqad literally taking stock of and actually recording, assigning, and
depositing) the perversity and sin of twisting and distorting (awon the
depravity of perverting and manipulating, deviating from the way, the guilt and
punishment derived from delusion and depravity, the liability for unfaithfulness
and wrongdoing) of the fathers (ab) upon (al) the children (ben sons)
concerning (al) the third and the fourth generations (silesym wa al ribea) of
those who genuinely hate and are hostile to Me (sane of those who actually
abhor, detest, and loathe Me, literally striving maliciously against Me, shunning
Me).
But (wa) I will genuinely act and actually engage to literally prepare,
perform, and produce (asah I will actively effect and appoint, offer and
celebrate, and I will demonstrate by doing what is required to deliver on behalf of
those who respond) unmerited and unfailing mercy, unearned favor, and
undeserved kindness (checed steadfast and loyal love, a totally devoted and
affectionate relationship, faithfulness and goodness) on behalf of (la to enable
the approach of) thousands (eleph) who move toward Me and love Me (la
ahab who form a close and affectionate, loving and friendly, familial
relationship with Me as a result of being concerned about Me and therefore come
to know Me) and also (wa in addition) who approach Me by closely
observing and carefully considering (la shamar who enter My presence by
becoming observant and actually focusing upon, thoroughly examining, and
thoughtfully evaluating) My terms (mitswah the conditions of My Covenant,
My authoritative directions and instructions which serve as prescriptions for My
relationship agreement). (Shemowth / These are the Names / Exodus 20:4-6)
Shauwl wanted his rival spirit idolized and worshiped, and more than anything,
he hated Yahowah. He wanted his followers to adore him, not God. He promoted
the pagan Graces over Yahowahs mercy. And Shauwls primary message was to
ignore, even reject, the terms of Yahowahs Covenant.
You should never deceive or delude (lo nasha you should not ever
deploy clever tricks to enrich oneself by indebting others, and never beguile
people, causing them to miss the Way / lo nasa you should never lift up or
bear, you should not ever actually support or advance, nor literally forgive or
tolerate, nor promote yourself) through the (eth with or by way of the) name
or reputation (shem) of Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), advancing
worthless and lifeless deception (la ha showa (errantly transliterated shav)
deploying that which advances devastating dishonesty, nullifying ones existence,
leading to emptiness and nothingness, deceitful and lifeless lies which are
ineffectual, futile, and ruinous).
For indeed (ky because), Yahowah ( ) will never forgive or leave
unpunished (lo naqah will not purify or pardon, acquit or free from guilt,
exempt from judgment and sentencing or release) those who (eth asher in
accordance with that which they associate) consistently deceive, actually
beguile, and habitually delude (nasha use clever trickery to continually
mislead / nasa advance, lift up, or promote themselves) in association with
(eth through) His name (shem renown and reputation) to promote and effect
(la to advance accordingly) vain and ineffectual lies which lead to lifelessness
and destruction (showa devastating deceptions which nullify our existence
leading to emptiness, worthlessness, and nothingness, deceitful, desolate, futile,
and ruinous vanity). (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 20:7) Shauwl made his
reputation hunting down and punishing those who pronounced Yahowahs name.
And as the troubadour of lifelessness, his every word has been deceitful.
Remember (zakar recall, reflect upon, recognize, and be earnestly
mindful) that the Sabbath (eth ha shabat the seventh day, the time of promise
where our debts are settled so we can settle down with Him based upon the oath)
day (yowm) is set apart (qadash is separated unto God for purifying and
cleansing and thus special (piel stem (where the object endures the action)
infinitive construct (serving as a verbal noun))). (20:8)
Six (shesh speaking of that which is bleached white or adorned in fine
linen) days (yowmym) you can actually and continuously work (abad you
can engage in labor (qal stem and imperfect conjugation)) and (wa) you can
genuinely act upon in the totality of (asah you can do all of, prepare and
produce the full extent of, fashion and finish, advance, assign, and accomplish,
institute, and celebrate (qal stem perfect conjugation)) all of (kol the entirety of)
your service of representing the Messenger and proclaiming the Spiritual
Message (malakah your usefulness as a spiritual envoy; from malak spiritual
messenger and heavenly envoy). (20:9)
But (wa) the seventh (shabyy the solemn promise which fulfills and
satisfies those who listen and are observant of the role of the seventh) day
(yowm), the Sabbath (ha shabat the seventh day, the time of observance, of rest
and reflection, and of ceasing and desisting from ordinary labor to consider the
promise to settle all disputes and settle down) of (la associated with so as to
approach) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), you should never actually
engage in (lo asah you should not habitually do, consistently prepare or
produce, and you should not consistently fashion or finish, advance or assign,
accomplish or act upon (qal stem imperfect conjugation)) any part of (kol) the
work of Gods Representative and Messenger (malakah from malak, the
ministry and mission of the heavenly envoy, the Divine endeavors and labor of
Gods corporeal manifestation) yourself (atah), your son (ben), your daughter
(bat), your male and female servants and staff (ebed wa amah your
employees and those men and women who work for and with you), your means
of production (behemah your animals and beasts of burden), as well as (wa)
those visitors (ger foreigners) who relationally (asher) are in your home,
property, or community (ba saar are inside an area enclosed by a door or
gate, a household, assembly, city, or nation). (20:10)
For indeed (ky because) in six (shesh symbolic of mankind being
bleached white and purified on the sixth) days (yowmym), Yahowah ( )
acted and engaged, preparing and producing everything associated with
completing (asah totally fashioning, instituting, advancing, accomplishing,
doing, celebrating, and attending to the full extent of (qal stem perfect
conjugation)) accordingly (eth) the heavens (ha shamaym the spiritual realm)
and the earth (wa ha erets the material world), and the seas (wa ha yam), and
all (kol everything) which relationally (asher) is in them (ba).
And (wa) He became completely settled (nuwach He rested after settling
all unresolved issues) during (ba) the Almightys seventh (ha shabyy al
Gods solemn promise which fulfills and satisfies those who listen and are
observant of the role of the oath of the seventh) day (yowm).
Therefore (ken consequently, this is true and correct), Yahowah ( )
blessed and adored (barak knelt down and lowered Himself to greet those He
had created, and did everything to lift them up on (piel perfect)) everything
associated with this day (eth ha yowm), the Sabbath (ha shabat the seventh
day, the time of observance, of rest and reflection, and of ceasing and desisting
from ordinary labor to consider the promise God has made to settle our debts and
settle us in His home), setting it apart (qodesh separating it from others,
dedicating it to separation, cleansing, and purifying). (20:10) (Shemowth /
Names / Exodus 20:8-11) Shauwl has expressly denounced Yahowahs Sabbath,
telling his audience that observing it does not earn favor with God.
You should choose to carefully consider, view as worthy, enormously
valuable, and significant (kabed I want you of your own volition to elect to
respect and honor, and to perceive as awesomely impressive, intensely relevant,
extremely great, and massively important, even glorious so as to influence and
engage (written in the piel stem revealing that our Heavenly Father and Spiritual
Mother are influenced by and respond to our perceptions of them, and in the
imperative mood which expresses either a command, an intent, or an exhortation
which is subject to volition)) accordingly the symbolism of (eth that which is
represented by) your Father (ab biological, adoptive, or heavenly father) and
(wa) that which is represented by your (eth the symbolic nature of your)
Mother (em biological, adoptive, or spiritual mother) for the purpose of
(lemaan for the intent of) continuously lengthening (arak choosing of your
own volition to constantly elongating and always prolonging, growing and
continuing (written in the hiphil stem, imperfect conjugation, and paragogic nun
ending)) your days (yowm) within and upon the Almightys (al) land
(adamah ground; from adam, the name of the first man created in Gods
image with a nesamah conscience) which relationally and as a blessing
(asher) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), has actually given to you
(natan la has literally produced, provided, and genuinely bestowed freely to you
as a gift (qal participle)). (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 20:12) Dissolving and
dismantling Yahowahs Towrah in the process of corrupting Gods adoption
process so as to diminish the size of Gods covenant family is the antithesis of
highly esteeming our Heavenly Father and Spiritual Mother.
And lastly, Shauwl neglected: You should never respond and testify (lo
anah you should not ever question, answer, or make a declaration) against (ba)
your neighbor (rea countryman, friend, companion, or associate) as a
deceptive or misleading (seqer false, conniving, clever, mistaken, vain, or
unreliable) witness (ed source of evidence by way of testimony). (Shemowth /
Names / Exodus 20:16) Shauwl was the most dishonest and deceptive witness in
human history. Its little wonder he skipped over the sixth of the seven
Instructions on the second of two tablets.
So that was telling. Pauls preaching was overtly hostile to six of Yahowahs
ten most essential statements. But thats not even the end of the bad news. He
committed adultery by entering into a covenant with Satan. His preaching and
letters are responsible for the death of over a billion souls. By dispensing with the
Towrah, he stole the most valuable thing in the universe: the hope of salvation.
And that leaves coveting, which is what made Shauwl susceptible to Satan in
the first place. But even if we were to replace Gods list with Pauls, the Devils
Advocate not only didnt love his neighbors, he attacked them savagely and
wanted the best of them mutilated.
Returning to Galatians 5:14, here is what the English translations had to say.
The Catholic Vulgate published: For all the law is fulfilled in one word: Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. In the Protestant King James, we find: For
all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself. And the New Living Translation proposed: For the whole law can be
summed up in this one command: Love your neighbor as yourself, They were
all wrong, because Paul was wrong.
But alas, we have returned to incomprehensible. The words actually read:
But (de) if (ei) each other (allelon one another) you all bite (dakno you
chomp on with your teeth, you harm and lacerate, wounding and irritating) and
(kai) you eat up (katesthio you all devour and consume, you exploit and
destroy), you see (blepo you all watch out) not (me) under (hypo) one another
(allelon each other) you might be consumed (analoo you may be destroyed
and eaten up). (Galatians 5:15)
And yet, dont take my word on the fact that his diatribe isnt Scripture. The
Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear published: If but one another you bite and
you eat up see not by one another you might be consumed. Nearly 1,700 years
ago, Jerome blended a host of Old Latin texts together to render: But if you bite
and devour one another: take heed you be not consumed one of another. The
Protestant Christians composing the KJV could do no better, so they promoted:
But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of
another. This pearl of wisdom was then buffed and polished by the NLT to say:
But if you are always biting and devouring one another, watch out! Beware of
destroying one another.
Since commenting on this cannibalistic drivel would be a waste of time, lets
simply summarize this interlude in Shauwls ongoing assault on Gods Word:
But now, I, brothers, if conditionally circumcision nevertheless still I
preach, why and for what further besides am I pursued and persecuted,
made to flee timid and fearful at the commands of another? As a result,
therefore perhaps it is possible, invalidated and annulled this offending trap
and stumbling block which ensnares and is offensive of the crucifixion. (5:11)
And also how I wish and pray for a malicious curse, that they might
castrate and emasculate themselves, suffering amputation of their penis and
testicles, those troublemakers among you who stir you up to rebel by
disseminating religious error and political seditions. (5:12)
For you upon freedom you all were named and were called brothers.
Only not in the liberty to the point of the starting point of the original violent
attack of the flesh. To the contrary, by of the love you all are slaves of each
other. (5:13) Because of this then all the Towrah in one word has come to an
end and is finished in the you loving of the nearby neighbor as yourself.
(5:14) But if each other you all bite and you devour, you all watch out, not
under one another you might be consumed. (5:15)
 As we move past mutilation and cannibalism into the second half of the fifth
chapter of Pauls epistle to the Galatians, we find our wannabe apostle
differentiating between the flesh and the spirit. This will become a major
theme in his letters, one designed to further demean the sign of the Covenant.
Thankfully, the wording gradually improves. Regrettably, the message does
not. And that is because the source of Shauwls inspiration remains the same.
This begins with Paul acknowledging that he was conveying his opinions.
Although that is not entirely accurate. What follows would have resonated
with the Greeks in Paulos audience because it reflects the Platonic and Socratic
spiritual mysticism of Gnosticism. They believed that the material world, which
they referred to as the cosmos or the flesh, was created by the Demiurge, a
practitioner of public works who fashioned the evil associated with the physical
universe. Pauls association of stoicheion kosmos the rudimentary principles
representing the basic elements of the universe in the worlds religious
mythology with the Author of the Towrah was evidence that he was headed in
this direction. His contrasting presentation of the flesh versus the spirit is
proof, as is his fixation on enslavement versus liberation.
In the Gnostic faith, the Demiurge was malevolent and enslaving just as
Paul has been seen depicting the God of the Torah. Growing out of the
consciousness of man, the One who was Spirit usurped the power and authority
of the Demiurge. This Monad, using Platos terminology, represented the
Good Spirit who came to reign above the original, but now old and arcane,
Demiurge. The Spiritual One, consistent with Pauls presentation, is the
dunamis power which is found through contemplation, is revealed through
rhetoric, and is accepted through faith.
As a result, in Gnosticism, just as is the case in Paulos letters, the Creator
should be shunned so that the spiritual world of the One God can be embraced,
enlightening, emancipating, and saving all those who believe, achieving a oneness
with the Deity. Personal poverty (achieved by donating ones wealth to the cults
spiritual guides), sexual abstinence (as opposed to marriage and family), and
helping other initiates (being slaves to one another in Pauls words) were
hallmarks of the Gnostic religion.
Believers were told that the flesh was evil and that the one true God had no
association with the physical world. So when the secret knowledge of the spiritual
realm was revealed and accepted, the faithful could rise up, transformed by
believing the promises made by the Ones messengers.
It is interesting to note that the English word demiurge is from a Latin
transliteration of the Greek word demiourgos, meaning public worker, which is
manifest in Pauls works of the Torah theme. Also revealing, the oldest known
pictorial depiction of a Gnostic deity is a lion-faced serpent whose head was
superimposed on the sun, and who was flanked by images of the moon and stars.
Making matters worse, not only was this depiction found in Mithraic literature,
the body of the snake superimposed on the sun forms an inverted cross. It is from
a similar image that Constantine, an initiate in the cult of Mithras, created Roman
Catholicism.
In Gnosticism, mystical experiences led the faithful to direct participation
with the divine. Sufficient for salvation was an acquaintance with the One through
spiritual doctrine presented in the faiths scriptures...
But (de) I say (lego I speak, I narrate, and I tell the story, I communicate,
providing meaning, I report, I convey, I imply, and I infer (the present tense
portrays the narrative as current and ongoing, the active voice makes Paulos
responsible for the implications of his words, and the indicative mood reveals that
the writer wants the reader to accept the assertion as true)) in spirit ( /
pneumati the Divine Placeholder is a symbol for the ruwach (however, since
Shauwls spirit bears no resemblance to the Ruwach Qodesh of Yahowah, the
lowercase spirit is appropriate)), you are all commanded to advance
(peripateisoe you must go about and regulate the conduct of your life; from
peri concerning and pateo advancing (with the imperfect tense [from
P46], Paulos is portraying the process as a state of being which began in the past
without any assessment of its completion, the active voice reveals that the subject
is advancing, while the imperative mood expresses a command)).
And so (kai also) the desire and passion of lustful craving (epithymia
the forbidden strong impulse, longing, and evil coveting) of the flesh (sarx
physical body) deny (ou negating a proposition), lest (me if not) you may
come to an end (teleo you might be finished, reaching a terminus or conclusion
(the aorist tense conveys at some time, the active voice reveals that this
conclusion is a result of the readers actions, and the subjunctive mood expresses
a mere possibility)). (Galatians 5:16)
This is a perfect presentation of Gnosticism. Paul finally got something right.
Too bad he was advocating on behalf of a false religion.
Since the oldest extant copy of Galatians was written by a professional scribe
in Alexandria, Egypt, we know that he would have been schooled in the
application of Divine Placeholders from having read and made copies of
Yahowchanans and Mattanyahs eyewitness testimonies (by far the most popular
Greek texts). It is therefore likely that the scribe of Papyrus 46, written thirty-five
to eighty years or more after Galatians was originally penned by Shauwl,
replaced his Greek words with these Divine Placeholders so that his letters would
harmonize with the revered eyewitness accounts. Harmonization, which is the
process of creating consistency in the presence of diversity in style and substance,
was the most common way scribes intervened in the text. And while Divine
Placeholders were ubiquitous, since Ruwach Qodesh is the Torahs terminology,
it would have been an abomination to Shauwl. Moreover, because Shauwls
Gnostic spirit is the antithesis of Yahowahs Spirit, it would be inappropriate to
dignify his spirit with an uppercase S.
The Nestle Aland McReynolds Interlinear published the following rendition
of Paulos Gnostic inspiration: I say but in spirit walk around and desire of flesh
not not you might complete. Jeromes Latin Vulgate, like the more recent Nestle
Aland 27th Edition, correctly renders pneumati in lowercase: I say then: Walk in
the spirit: and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Ad-libbing a bit, the KJV
wrote: This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the
flesh. Authoring their own epistle, the Greek scholars working on behest of the
New Living Translation imagined that Paul meant to say: So I say, let the Holy
Spirit guide your lives. Then you wont be doing what your sinful nature craves.
I suspect that these Christian institutions were all desirous of hiding the Gnostic
leanings of their religions founder.
That leads to this, another referendum on Gnosticism:
For indeed (gar because then), the (e) fleshs (sarx the physical nature
of the bodys) desires and passions against (epithumeo kata forbidden
impulses, evil longings and impulsive lusts are in opposition to) the spirit (tou
/ pneumatos Divine Placeholder for the Ruwach (however, since
Shauwls Gnostic spirit bears no resemblance to the Ruwach Qodesh Set-Apart
Spirit of Yahowah, the lowercase spirit is appropriate)), and so then (de) the
spirit (to A / pneuma) in opposition to (kata against) the flesh (tes sarx
that which is physical), because (gar for) of these (houtos) one another
(allelon) it is hostile and adversarial (antikeimai it is opposed and adverse) in
order to (hina as a result) negate (me) what (hos) conditionally (ean when)
you might presently propose and want (thelo you all may currently desire
and enjoy, taking pleasure in the opinions of what) of these (houtos) to possibly
behave and do (poieomai you all might perform an assigned task). (Galatians
5:17)
If you are wondering if Paul could have been this blatant regarding his
endorsement of Gnosticism over the Towrah, the Nestle-Aland McReynolds
Interlinear isnt any more forgiving: The for flesh desires against the spirit the
but spirit against the flesh these for one another lie against that not what if you
might want these you might do.
But we can always rely on the King James to dignify Paul: For the flesh
lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary
the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. Not a word of
this is true. God did not make our bodies to be opposed to the Set-Apart Spirit, but
instead designed us so that we could accept the Ruwach Qodesh. As such, body,
soul, and Spirit are complementary, celebrating life in harmony with Yahowahs
design. And God never negates His purpose by interfering with freewill.
Christians treating Pauls letters as if they were Scripture is proof of this.
Therefore, the Authorized King James Version is wholly errant.
For consistency sake, here is the Latin Vulgates take on this passage: For
the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh: For these are
contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would. Its
strikingly similar to the KJV, which is telling considering the incomprehensible
nature of Pauls Greek.
Turning a convoluted sentence into a mini drama, the NLT authored the
following theory: The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of
what the Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are the opposite of what
the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, so
you are not free to carry out your good intentions. I suppose youd have to ask
them what they meant by us not being free to carry out our good intentions.
After all, I had thought that Paul had meant to say that our intentions were of the
flesh, and thus both bad, and in opposition to the spirit.
Since it is apparent that Shauwl is pitting the spirit against the flesh in
pristine Gnostic fashion, Id like to point out a hole in his reasoning. According to
Yahowchanan, Yahowsha is the Word (logos) made flesh (sarx). And may I
remind you, there is a spirit opposed to Gods Word (and thus His Towrah) and
to Yahowsha: Satan. With this in mind, and from this perspective, lets consider
the Devils Advocates case in favor of his spirit, and against Demiurge
represented by the Towrah.
But (de) if (ei on the condition) in spirit (I / pneumati) you all are
not guided (ou ago you are not led and carried), you are (eimi you exist)
under the control of (hypo subject to) the Towrah (nomon nourishing
allotment which facilitates an inheritance). (Galatians 5:18)
The circle is complete. According to Shauwl his spirits guidance is good
and liberating while the Towrah is of the flesh and is controlling. But at least by
putting his spirit in opposition to the Word of God, we now know for certain that
Pauls spirit is demonic.
 The facts in this case are clear. Our Spiritual Mother is introduced early in the
Towrah, initially in Baresyth / Genesis one. She plays a starring role throughout
Gods testimony. The Ruwach Spirit, as Her title affirms, is Qodesh Set
Apart from Yahowah. That means the Ruwach Qodesh Set-Apart Spirit is
part of the Author of the Towrah. The Spirit and Yahowah can, therefore, never
be in opposition because the Spirit and Yahowah are one and the same.
Therefore, in his continued hatred of Gods Word, Paul wants Christians to
believe that the only way to walk in the spirit is to walk away from the Towrah
when the opposite is true. And Paul also wants Christians to associate the flesh
with the Towrah and the spirit with his Faith.
Therefore, all of the comparisons between the flesh and the spirit which
follow are specifically designed to read like a campaign speech. Shauwls wants
Christians to view his rivals Torah from the bleakest and most derogatory
perspective while considering his advocacy for change we can believe in
through the rose-colored glasses of faith. And as is the case with politicians,
Shauwl will not only lie with most every stroke of his poisonous pen and
movement of his putrid lips, but as a hypocrite, he, himself, is opposed to the
position he extols.
Since Jerome was familiar with the fact that the Septuagint universally
translated towrah teaching and guidance using nomos, his rendering of this
statement was contrived to support of Pauls assault on Gods Word: But if you
are led by the spirit, you are not under the law. Not surprisingly, the KJV played
along: But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. The Christian
NAMI knows better, but it did not seem to matter: If but in spirit you are led not
you are under law. And from this the NLT extrapolated: But when you are
directed by the Spirit, you are not under obligation to the law of Moses. It is no
wonder Christians are lost souls.
Because we cannot remove the following list from this context, where Gods
Towrah is presented as being of the flesh, the most impoverished qualities
attributable to the human experience are now being associated with the Torah by
its Adversary. And youll notice, this continues to read like Gnostic scripture...
But now (de) evident, clearly seen, and widely known (phaneros
manifest and apparent) are (eimi) the works and assigned tasks (ta ergon the
job and result) of the flesh (tes sarx of the physical realm (now being used as a
metaphor for the Towrah)) which indeed (hostis whatever) exist as (eimi)
sexual promiscuity (porneia immoral fornication), impure materiality
(akatharsia decayed flesh which is filthy, unclean, and worthless and wasteful),
sensuality (aselgeia licentiousness and lewdness, unrestrained lust and
debauchery), (Galatians 5:19)
 The only reason this Pauline list of things associated with the flesh was
phaneros clearly evident and widely known is because this audience was far
more familiar with Gnosticism than they were with the Towrah. And here, ta
ergon tes sarx the works of the flesh is being presented in parallel with ta
ergon tes nomos the assigned tasks of the Towrah.
If you recall, in his first reference to the Old System in Galatians 1:4,
Paulos used poneros, instead of the closely related, porneia, to demean
Yahowahs Towrah, writing: He might possibly gouge or tear out (exaireo) us
(emas) from (ek) the (tou) past inflexible and unrelenting circumstances of the
old system (aionos the previous era, the long period of time in history operating
as a universal or worldly system; from aei circumstances which are incessant,
unremitting, relentless, invariable, and inflexible) which (tou) had been in place
in the past (enistamai) which is disadvantageous and harmful (poneros
which is wicked and worthless, evil and faulty, immoral and corrupt, annoying
and mischievous, laborious and criminal, unprofitable and useless, unserviceable
and malicious, malevolent and malignant) down from and in opposition to
(kata) the desire, will, and intent (to thelema) of the (tou) God ().
In this case, the God is the One of Gnosticism, and the laborious,
disadvantageous, and harmful Old System is from its Demiurge. Therefore, we
should not be surprised to see porneia appear first in Pauls list because the most
prevailing trait of the Gnostics was their disdain for sexual impropriety.
While akatharsia is often translated immorality, that is not what the word
actually means. It is a far more Gnostic than that, because as a derivative of
akathartos, it is a compound of a, serving as a negation of kathairo being clean
and pure. It speaks of the worthlessness of that which is material, and most
dramatically of decaying flesh.
Even aselgeia, rendered sensuality, has deeper Pauline overtones. In that he
is associating the Towrah with the flesh because of circumcision, note that based
upon its etymology, aselgeia literally means incontinent.
Ever the hypocrite, Paul wallowed in his personal lasciviousness in chapter 7
of Romans. Further, by his own admission, he knew nothing of the love of a
woman, much less the beauty of loving and romantic sensuality between husband
and wife. Further, anyone who has ever read the Song of Solomon knows that
God isnt opposed to sensuality. After all, He designed the object of our affection
and brought us together for this purpose.
As we are beginning to witness, Pauline Doctrine is overly fixated on the
avoidance of sexuality, as opposed to relational fidelity. Yahowah doesnt want us
to commit adultery, because it corrupts the exclusive nature of His Covenant. Paul
simply wants Christians to abstain from the loving marriage it was predicated
upon.
Additionally, Shauwl has obscured the role of Qodesh Set-Apart,
Purifying, and Cleansing Ruwach Spirit in Yahowahs redemptive process. She
is the Torahs remedy for our immorality. Moreover, the most immoral thing a
person can do is what Paul has done: deceive others in the name of God.
These renderings are somewhat consistent, save the wide variations in
definitions. NAMI: Evident but are the works of the flesh which is sexual
immorality, uncleanness, debauchery, LV: Now the works of the flesh are
manifest: which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, KJV: Now
the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication,
uncleanness, lasciviousness, NLT: When you follow the desires of your sinful
nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures,
Considering Pauls devotion to the Greek and Roman goddesses of Charity
and Grace, his condemnation of Shimown, his enmity toward the Disciples
Yahowchanan and Yaaqob, his hostility toward the Covenant, his animosity
toward Yahowahs Towrah, his desire to mutilate his rivals, his opposition to
marriage, and his willingness to contradict the Word of God, this also oozes
hypocrisy:
the likeness manifesting what can be observed (eidololatria typically
rendered idolatry and worship of idols, but based upon its etymology, it is an
eidolon image or likeness eidos representing the external and outward
appearance or manifestation of eido that which can be seen, perceived,
discerned, and observed), the use and administering of drugs (pharmakeia
use of medicines, poisons, sorcery, witchcraft, black magic, and seductive
deceptions), hatred and hostile antagonism (echthra enmity toward ones foes
or opposition, discord and feuds, animosity), strife and dissension (eris
conflict, contentious variance, discord, arguing, debate, wrangling, and
quarrelling), deep devotion and jealousy (zelos earnest concern, enthusiastic
zeal, warm support expressed through emotional feelings, ardor, the excitement of
the mind, and indignation), the desire to make sacrifices (thumos that vital
source which moves us which wells up from within, boiling with passion and
intense desire, which can lead to anger, rage, or wrath; from thuo to make a
sacrifice), selfish ambitions (eritheia hostile rivalries, specifically
electioneering while running for office), discord and division (dichostasia
standing apart, taking another stand, dissension and disunity; from dis a
second stasis stand), the freedom to choose for oneself (hairesis the
option to chose or hold a divergent opinion, separatist teaching, factions and
diversity, selecting a religion using heretical tenants; from haireomai to prefer,
choose and accept for oneself, to vote or elect), (Galatians 5:20)
 I continue to be fascinated by etymological investigation. And here we find
pure gold in eidololatria because it is based upon eidolon image or likeness,
which in turn is derived from eidos representing the external and outward
appearance or manifestation, of which eido that which can be seen, perceived,
discerned, and observed provides the basic meaning. Yahowah created
humankind in His image, in His likeness. And therefore, God can be perceived
through the image and likeness of man. Further, Yahowsha is the external and
physical, and therefore corporeal manifestation or appearance of Yahowah. We
can observe Him, discern His nature, and see His purpose by closely examining
and carefully considering the Towrah. Therefore, the likeness manifesting what
can be observed is from the Towrah and thus evil according to Shauwl.
And even if we buy into the commonly rendered religious connotation of
eidololatria idolatry, we find Pauls faith based upon Faith in the Gospel of
Grace, noting that the Charis, known as the Gratia in Rome, were the Greek
goddesses of licentiousness. So while Yahowah is unabashedly opposed to all
forms of idolatry, including the memorialization of the names of false gods, Paul
has based his religion on Grace, a transliteration of the Roman Gratia.
Moving on to the second term in this the second installment of derogatory
concepts Paul is associating with Yahowahs Towrah, we find pharmakeia, from
which we get the English word pharmacy. Its primary meaning is to administer
drugs, and to provide medicines. Since there is no reason to believe that the
Spirit is opposed to medicine, we must assume that Paul meant the use of illicit,
mind-altering drugs, or that he was against the use of potions in the practice of
magic. And yet, he has told us that he was demon-possessed and Yahowah
revealed that Shauwl would cause his companions to drink, thereby,
associating them with his poisonous antagonism and wrath in Chabaquwq /
Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:15, because of Shauwls fixation on observing the
male genitalia.
Third, Yahowsha was extraordinarily echthra hostile to the government
and religious leaders of His day, so being antagonistic and indignant towards
clerics and their false teachings cannot be inappropriate. But it is the epitome of
hypocrisy for Shauwl of all people to criticize displaying enmity toward ones
foes or engaging in feuds. He has picked a fight Yahowah, Yahowsha, and
His Disciples. Apart from the Quran, it would be hard to find a religious text
filled with so much animosity.
And fourth, speaking of the Quran, Pauls Galatian epistle is similarly eris
quarrelsome and divisive. So if arguing, discord, and contentious variances
are wrong, so is Paul.
 Fifth, zelos is most often used in a positive sense. It defines the fervor and
passion Yahowsha desired, but found lacking, in the Laodicean Assemblythe
very people who lacked the Spirit. Zelos speaks of pursuing a mission with great
zeal and to warmly embrace a loved one. So, since Yahowsha considers zelos to
be a good thing, methinks Paul was ad-libbing here. Moreover, Yahowah
expressly states on the first of the two tablets He etched in stone that He is
jealous. So if Pauls right, God is wrong.
Sixth, and along these lines, like zelos, thumos, which speaks of that which
motivates us from within, also supports a dichotomy of connotations. But when
we examine its root, thuo, which means to make sacrifices, an etymological
investigation leads us to the realization that Shauwl was opposed to Yahowahs
desire to make the sacrifices needed to fulfill His Towrah promises.
Seventh, Muhammad was the only person in all of human history who rivaled
Paul in his pursuit of eritheia selfish ambitions which led to hostile rivalries.
Shauwl, in particular, spent much of his time campaigning against Yahowshas
Disciples, presenting himself as being superior to those He chose and taught.
Also, since the primary meaning of eritheia is electioneering and the process
of running for an elective political office, by using it, Paul is demonstrating his
hostility to representative government and democracy. And this position is further
reinforced in the 13th chapter of Romans, where Paulos orders the faithful to
submit to governmental authority an abomination from Yahowahs perspective
considering the repulsive nature of Rome. Further, eritheia defines Paul, a man
fixated on rehabilitating his public image.
Eighth, dichostasia, translated discord and division, is predicated on a
compound of dis a second stasis stand. So it was okay for Shauwl to
propose a New or Second Covenant without Divine sanction, but its not okay for
someone else to take another stand against him. But just on the face of it,
dichostasia standing apart through dissension and disunity summarizes most
everything we have read thus far.
And ninth, that brings us to hairesis, which literally means choice. It
defines the act of choosing and is thus foundational to freewill. Based upon
haireomai, it means to select for oneself, to prefer, to choose, to vote, and to
elect. From Yahowahs perspective, freewill is unassailable. And from Pauls,
believers are to have no choice in the matter of their religion. So once again, we
find similarity between Galatians and the Quran which makes the same claim.
If you dig a bit deeper, most lexicons eventually define hairesis as what we
have thus far found throughout Galatians: forming a divergent opinion, selecting
a religious faith, becoming part of a sect, false or separatist teaching, and religious
tenets. The remaining definitions describe what Christianity has done with
Galatians: choosing a form of religious worship, making decisions which result
in a diversity of religious factions, and taking people as captives.
In this case, the lexicons are more instructional than English bibles. But, for
consistency sake, here is the list of notable translations. NAMI: idol service,
magic, hostilities, strife, jealousy, furies, selfish ambitions, divisions, sects
LV: Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels,
dissensions, sects, KJV: Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations,
wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, And last but least, the NLT: idolatry, sorcery,
hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension,
division,
While he has gotten far more wrong than right, the Gnostic listing of things
Paul believes are associated with the flesh, and therefore with the Demiurge
who authored the Towrah, continue with:
envious corruption (phthonos jealous destruction; from phtheiro to
corrupt and destroy), drunkenness (methe intoxication), public partying
(komos a festive assembly featuring feasting and merrymaking), and (kai) that
(ta) similar to (homoios) this (houtos) which (hos) I previously spoke (prolego)
to you (umin) inasmuch as (kathos when) I said before (proepo) that (oti) the
likes of such (oi ta toioutos this kind) carrying out and committing these
practices (prasso preoccupation with such experiences), the reign and
kingdom (basileia) of God (), they will not inherit (ou kleronomeo they
will not receive or gain possession of from father to child). (Galatians 5:21)
The problem with phthonos jealous destruction and envious corruption, at
least in the midst of Pauls initial letter, is that the envy Satan has for Yahowah
has cause Shauwl to corrupt Gods testimony throughout this epistle. And
Shauwls jealousy toward Yahowshas Apostles has prompted him to destroy
their credibility and message.
Methe intoxication is only a problem because in Chabaquwq / Embrace
This / Habakkuk 2:5, Yahowah accuses Shauwl of being an intoxicating man
of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal, revealing that whomever is
open to the broad path associated with Shauwl will discover that he and his
soul are like the plague of death.
Komos, translated public partying, is a problem for another reason. It
actually describes a festive assembly featuring feasting and merrymaking. It is
therefore synonymous with the Hebrew word, chag, which Yahowah uses to
describe the nature of His seven Invitations to Meet, calling them Festival
Feasts. Paul may be a kill joy, but God likes to party.
 In Pauls defense, komos was associated with the festival honoring Bacchus,
the counterfeit for Yahowsha, whose annual winter celebration was renamed
Christmas. But, as with most of what Paul has to say, his lack of specificity is
his curse. Moreover, Shauwl quoted Bacchus during his conversion experience.
When we bring this list together with its conclusion we have a serious
problem. By saying that those who demonstrate these behaviors will not inherit
Gods kingdom, Paul has increased Yahowahs list of unforgivable sins from
two (dont promote false and lifeless dogmas in Yahowahs name and dont
belittle our Spiritual Mother) to fourteen. Not only does he lack the authority to
limit Yahowahs mercy, many of the things on Pauls list, God encourages. And
there isnt a single item on Shauwls list which is also found among the Ten
Statements Yahowah etched in stone. This dichotomy is especially relevant in the
context of Paul repeatedly associating the Towrah with the flesh, and thus his list
with the Towrah.
Turning to the translations, we find this in the NAMI: envies,
drunkenness, carousing, and the like these that I say before to you just as I said
before that the ones the such practicing kingdom of God not will inherit. LV:
Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell
you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the
kingdom of God. KJV: Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such
like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they
which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. NLT: envy,
drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I
have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of
God. Just as Shauwl has repeatedly associated the Torah with the flesh, he has
also disassociated inheritance from the Torah. His parting line was therefore
designed to reinforce this aspect of his thesis: the Torah of the flesh (i.e.,
circumcision, Hagar, and slavery) precludes inheritance.
So that there is no misunderstanding, God has said that those who do not
observe His Towrah, those who do not embrace the terms of His Covenant, those
who do not attend His seven annual Invitations to Meet, those who deceptively
promote lifeless teachings, those males who are not circumcised, and those who
do not rely on Him to free them from the religious and political culture of man,
will be excluded from His home. Dowd violated many of the things on Pauls list,
and he is in heaven.
Before we move on to the spiritual side of Gnosticism, here is a review of the
things Paulos says will restrict a believers entry into heaven: But now evident,
clearly seen, and widely known are (eimi) the works and assigned tasks of the
flesh which indeed exist as sexual promiscuity, impure materiality,
sensuality, (5:19) the likeness manifesting what can be observed, the use and
administering of drugs, hatred and hostile antagonism, strife, dissension, and
quarrelling, deep devotion and jealousy, the desire to make a sacrifice, selfish
ambitions and hostile rivalries, discord and division, taking another stand,
the freedom to choose for oneself, (5:20) envious corruption, drunkenness,
public partying, and that similar to this which I previously spoke to you
inasmuch as I said before that the likes of such carrying out and committing
these practices, the reign and kingdom of God, they will not inherit. (5:21)
But how can that be if faith in the Gospel of Grace cures all ills? To be
considered rational, Paul can either claim that our behavior is irrelevant to our
salvation, as he has done previously, or claim that we are saved based upon it, as
he is doing here, but cannot have it both ways.
With his almost entirely errant list of damning behaviors out of his system,
Paul sponsors a list of attributes he associates with the spirit of his faithone
which must favor hypocrisy (at least based upon this letter).
But (de) the (o) fruit (karpos harvest and result) of the (toe) spirit (
/ pneumatos) is (estin): love (agape an appreciative attitude resulting from a
conscious evaluation and choice, familial affection and devotion, good will,
benevolence, and fellowship festival feasts; from agapao welcoming and
affectionate, entertaining and pleasing), happiness (chara gladness and joy),
peace (eirene harmony and tranquility), patience (makrothymia forbearance
and longsuffering), mercy from an upright implement (chrestotes productive
kindness, moral and upright goodness, and a useful and honest beneficial attempt
to do what is right; from chrestos a fit and merciful implement), being good
through generosity (agathosyne being pleasant and kind, being right and
upright, being salutary and distinguished), faith and belief (pistis originally
conveyed trust and reliance but migrated over time as a result of Shauwls
epistles to mean belief and faith), (Galatians 5:22)
Was it not Paul who told the Galatians that they should be as he was? And
yet his attitude and mannerisms were the antithesis of the characteristics he
attributes to his spirit. Moreover, fruit is a physical product, not a spiritual one.
At the same point in His Instruction on the Mount where Yahowsha spoke of
the wolf in sheeps clothing who would lead many away from the Towrah, He
presented an in depth analysis of the nature of trees and the fruit they produce.
And He was emphatic, especially unequivocal, saying that good fruit is never
found on a bad tree, just as bad fruit never grows on a good tree. Therefore, the
presence of the fourteen rotten lemons Shauwl has hung before us thus far,
preclude him from consideration as a worthy source. God does not grade on a
curve. So the presence of love, happiness, and peace in this second list, does not
exonerate him. The little he got right, serves only to make the bad fruit he has
offered seem more appealing.
Chrestotes is a term that should give Christians shivers. It is based upon
Chrestus, the title Shimown Kephas and the three most credible Roman
historians of this day associated with Yahowsha, not Christos, which speaks of
the application of drugs. The proper Greek translation of Yahowshas title,
Maaseyah Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah, is Chrestus Merciful
and Useful Implement.
In this light, other attributes associated with chrestotes are instructive. It
describes a merciful, compassionate, kind, and forgiving attitude which is
expressed honestly and morally by someone who is steadfastly upright.
Chrestotes speaks of someone who as a tool or implement is engaged in that
which is useful and beneficial because he or she is doing that which is right. It
combines moral perfection and honesty with usefulness and effectiveness, all
under the auspices of loving kindness. Chrestotes conveys the idea that the
Upright Ones mercy generously and fortuitously provides the gifts of
redemption and reconciliation. Even in common profane Greek, it was only used
to characterize persons who were honest, upright, respectable, worthy, useful,
kind, merciful, loving, and pure morally, and whose works were beneficial and
productive.
You may have noticed that the last two spiritual accoutrements are listed
prominently among Gnostic attributes generosity and faith. But as is the case
when we compare Yahowahs list of the ten things He is most concerned about
with Shauwls, there is no commonality.
But if we are to believe that these attributes systematically represent the
Spirit of God, then based upon Galatians, we can be certain Paul did not represent
the same Spirit. And while that may sound harsh, even judgmental, there is no
denying that Pauls letter is hateful, not loving. He is unhappy, not glad. His
words are divisive, not tranquil. He is impatient, as opposed to being calm or
restrained. Most of Pauls words have not been useful or beneficial, but instead
debilitating and destructive. His false testimony regarding the Torah has been the
antithesis of being upright, especially in his portrayal of the Covenant. As a result,
most of what we have read cannot be trusted or relied upon. Simply stated, Paul
was the antithesis of what he presented as being good.
But as we noted a moment ago, not everything he wrote was misleading. And
this passage is a good example of that so lets celebrate this refreshing change of
scenery. For example, agapes etymology helps illuminate the path to the beryth
familial covenant relationship Yahowah seeks to establish with us. Agape
denotes an appreciative attitude in the context of familial affection and devotion
which results from making a choice following a conscious process of evaluation.
It even embodies the Festival Feasts, and it was therefore used by the first
followers of The Way to describe their participation in Yahowahs seven annual
Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God.
But for there to be love, there must be choice. And for choice to be genuine,
not compelled or capricious, there must be options and evidence to evaluate. And
that is why freewill remains mankinds most inalienable God-given right, and
why the Towrah is Gods most valuable gift. It is also the reason that God didnt
stop Paul from writing, or Christians from immortalizing him.
But Paul has this backwards. The attitude and choice of agape is what comes
before the Spirit enters our lives. Using the evidence Yahowah has provided in
His Towrah, we are encouraged to revere and respect Yahowah sufficiently to
want to become part of His family, and ultimately love Him as our Father. That is
why the Great Instruction reads: And you should choose to love Yahowah,
your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might.
And these words, which I am instructing you today, they should be part of
your inner nature. And you should teach them to your sons and talk of them
in your homes. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 6:5-7)
If we were to summarize Yahowahs instruction regarding the fruit of the
Set-Apart Spirit, Her influence in our lives would include: providing spiritual
birth from above into Gods family. This enables us to become our Heavenly
Fathers children, live in His home, and inherit all that is His to give. Our
Spiritual Mother adorns us in Her Garment of Light which shelters and protects us
from the sting of death and the consequence of sin. Her Garment of Light makes
us appear perfect in Yahowahs eyes and enables us to exist in His presence. The
Set-Apart Spirit enlightens us by nourishing us in the Word of God, and
interpreting it for us, so that we might know our Father better. The Ruwach
Qodesh is responsible for empowering us, enabling us to be effective and
courageous, convincing witnesses on behalf of Yahowah and His message. And
our Spiritual Mother facilitates our communication with our Heavenly Father,
turning our humble pleadings into a compelling stream of consciousness before
God.
Both manifestations of Yahowahthe Son and Spiritwork together. As a
result of what God has done and is doing through His Son and Spirit, those of us
who have chosen to know Yah and to love Yah by closely observing His Word,
and who have chosen to rely on Yahowahs path, have been saved from
ourselvesfrom human oppression and bondage, from death and separation.
Similarly, chara happiness isnt a product of the Spirit, but instead the
result of coming to know Yahowah and being part of His family. Also, the Set-
Apart Spirit does not bring eirene peace between men, as is implied in Pauls
list. She, like the Son, brings division. And while the Son also brings division
among men, it is His role, not the Spirits, to bring reconciliation between
individual men and women and Yahowah.
Pistis, however, has served as the fulcrum of Pauls deception. While it
originally meant trust and reliance, it was translated faith and belief in
Galatians 5:22, because the content of Pauls epistles, and his legacy, allow no
other rational option. Before Paul corrupted the word and made it synonymous
with his religious beliefs, pistis presupposed coming to know the evidence so as
to become convinced, and then relying upon that which you understand. As
such pistis trust and reliance has to precede the indwelling of the Spirit. It is
something which is required of us. But since nothing is required for pistis faith
and belief, it can operate in the vacuum of reason and evidence that we find in
this epistle. But, to be clear, there is no correlation between faith and the Spirit as
Paul is suggesting.
As it relates to this verse, these four translations arent so much inaccurate
as incomplete. NAMI: The but fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long temper,
kindness, goodness, trust, LV: But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy,
peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, KJV: But the fruit of the
Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, NLT: But
the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience,
kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Its hard not to shout hypocrite when Paul, of all people, promotes a word
most often translated meekness and humility. But nonetheless, Shauwls list of
spiritual fruit continues with:
gentleness, meekness, and humility (prautes considerate friendliness),
self-control over ones sexual appetite (egkrateia temperance, being self-
sufficient relative to controlling passions), with regard to (kata down from, in
accord with, and against) the such (ton toioutos) there is no (ouk estin there
exists no) Towrah (nomos the nourishing allotment which leads to an
inheritance). (Galatians 5:23)
Shauwl is saying that the fruit of the spirit is incompatible with the
Towrah. And so long as you recognize the demonic nature of Pauls spirit, he is
right.
But there is a benefit of Shauwl coming full circle once again and returning
to the Towrah. He began listing derogatory insults to slander the Towrah and now
has said that everything he considers spiritual, and thus good, is in opposition to
the Towrah. He has, in essence, cast Yahowahs Towrah in the corrupt material
role of the Gnostic Demiurge while associating his Faith with the Gnostic One.
 At some point, inadequacy becomes errancy. Consider the NAMI:
gentleness, inner strength against the such not there is law. LV: Mildness,
faith, modesty, consistency, chastity. Against such there is no law. KJV:
Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. NLT: gentleness, and
self-control. There is no law against these things!
The lesson to be learned from Pauls lists is that if they are right, then Paul is
wrong. His letters ooze the activities of the flesh, and they seldom reflect the
fruit of the spirit. So regardless of the fact that his categorization of attributes is
overwhelmingly wrong, the only unassailable conclusion is that Paul is a fraud on
a massive scalequite similar to Muhammad.
Here is the next installment of Gnosticism for your consideration:
But the fruit of the spirit is: love, happiness, peace, patience, mercy
from an upright implement, being good through generosity, faith, (5:22)
gentleness, meekness, and humility, self-control over ones sexual appetite,
with regard to such there is no Towrah. (5:23)
The oldest witness of Shauwls next statement expressly differentiates the
Towrah from Christou, confirming this heinous albeit obvious aspect of Pauline
Doctrine.
But (de) the ones (oi) of the (toe) Christou ( Divine Placeholder for
Useful Tool, Upright Servant, and Maaseyah (the Implement Doing the Work of
Yah); but since this epistle has disassociated the Maaseyah from the Towrah, its
misleading to connect that which he has severed) the (ten) flesh (sarx the
physical nature) has been crucified (TAN) with (syn) the (tois) sufferings
and passions (pathema misfortunes and impulses, calamities and afflictions)
and (kai) the (tais) deep desires and longings (epithymai lusts and cravings,
coveting and angry responses). (Galatians 5:24)
This would be news to Yahowsha because He saw Himself as the living
embodiment of the Towrah. He is the Towrah in the flesh.
Yahowshas crucifixion was irrelevant apart from Him as the Passover Lamb
enabling the Towrahs promise to make us immortal. And His sacrifice on this
day has nothing whatsoever to do with our sufferings, our passions, our
misfortunes, our impulses, our desires, or our longings. Not only are passions,
desires, and longings considered appropriate in a loving family, the only suffering
that mattered on Passover was that of the Lamb of God.
Pauls statement here in Galatians is understood similarly to the one he made
in Colossians 2:14, which is cited by Christians to infer that the Torah
(represented by the flesh) was nailed to the cross.
 Since Shauwls proclamation suffers from some linguistic inadequacies, lets
see how the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear renders it. The ones but of the
Christ Jesus the flesh crucified with the sufferings and the desires. The
placeholder XY was written instead of /Christou, and /Iesoe isnt
found in the text of the oldest witness, not even by way of a placeholder. Further
/estaerosan was rendered TAN.
In this regard, the King James is actually more accurate than the Nestle-
Aland. They got one of these three things right. KJV: And they that are Christs
have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. But it was only because the
Protestants copied the Catholic Vulgate: And they that are Christi have
crucifixerunt/crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences. And
should you have wondered how English bibles came upon the word crucifixion,
now you know. As for concupiscences, you are on your own.
Having published a handful of books on the oldest Greek manuscripts, Phil
Comfort ignored them when he authored the NLT: Those who belong to Christ
Jesus have nailed the passions and desires of their sinful nature to his cross and
crucified them there. There is no reference to Christ Jesus or cross in the
Greek manuscripts scribed before the rise of Constantineand he knows it.
Of course, it is true that the Maaseyahs flesh had been affixed to the
Upright Pillar to honor the promise of Passover, but that wasnt remotely close to
what Shauwl was saying. And the fulfillment of Passover only resolved the
consequence of religious and political rebellion which is death. Our perversions
were actually redeemed the following day, during the Miqra of Matsah.
Yahowshas soul went to Sheowl to pay the penalty so that we might receive His
gift of perfectionall in accord with the Towrah and its Covenant.
Contrary to what Shauwl wrote, our flesh still exists. Our mortal bodies
still suffer pain, and we all endure misfortune. While our deep desires,
longings, and angry responses, when appropriate, are good things, even our
cravings persist. Therefore, if the New American Standard Bibles rendition of
this verse is accurate, then Paul is wrong once again: Now those who belong to
Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
Moving on to Shauwls next statement, since kai and or also is omitted
from P46, since Paul didnt write en in once, much less twice, since the
placeholders for Ruwach are side by side, and since stoichomen
advances in a line was rendered in the plural, present, active tense, the Nestle-
Aland Interlinear isnt even remotely accurate. If we live in spirit in spirit also
we might walk. So while admittedly less unintelligible, this is at least a little
more consistent with the original text:
 If (ei) we live (zao) for spirit ( / pneumati), for spirit ( / pneumati)
we march in a line (stoichomen we proceed to advance in a row, and we live in
conformity, and we behave by imitating). (Galatians 5:25)
The use of stoichomen, a cognate of stoicheion, in this context is a bit of a
problem. First, it speaks of soldiers following their leader in a militaristic
regimen, never stepping out of line, which is reminiscent of Onward Christian
Soldiers marching off to war. And while that depicts the submit and obey realm
of religion which is devoid of freewill, it also represents the command and control
structure a spiritual envoy like Satan would have known. Yahowahs spiritual
envoys, messengers, and representatives following orders in a militaristic regimen
devoid of freewill. But this is not the realm man was designed to live in nor
similar to the realm we are headed to. Yahowah gave us the gift of freewill, one
that we all currently enjoy. And even with the presence of the Set-Apart Spirit, we
do not live in conformity, but still enjoy the full benefits of freewill.
And even if we were to jettison all of stoichomens inappropriate baggage,
and consider it to mean live in conformity, we have to ask ourselves:
conformity to what? And the answer, according to Paul, is to behave by
imitating him.
Also troubling, stoicheion was used twice in Galatians and once in
Colossians to describe the demonic powers associated with the fundamental
elements of religious mythology, so this is conflicting, taking believers to that
which Paul has condemned.
Jeromes conclusion as manifest in the King James reads: If we live in the
Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. The LV clearly supplied the text: If we live
in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. And the NLT simply marched the
thought a little farther down the field: Since we are living by the Spirit, let us
follow the Spirits leading in every part of our lives.
Thankfully, we have arrived at the last verse of the fifth chapter. Now if only
this was the last chapter and last of his letters.
Not (me) we might come to exist (ginomeoa) vainly boastful (kenodoxos
glorifying ourselves without reason, being conceited, while sharing opinions
which are baseless), one another (allelous) provoking and irritating
(prokaleomai calling forth to challenge others to combat), each other (allelous)
jealous and envying (phthonoentes corrupt and defiled). (Galatians 5:26)
Kenodoxos is a tough word to translate. It is comprised of kenos, meaning
empty and vain, which either means failed or egotistical, and also devoid of
truth, and doxa which conveys opinions, conclusions, and judgments, but also
brilliant splendor and praise. So, does it mean failed judgment, devoid of
light, undeserved egotistical appraisal, or baseless opinions? Our lexicons
suggest that kenodoxos means proud or glorifying without reason, conceited,
boastful, or falsely enlightened. In that it defines a person who is void of real
worth but who wants to be admired by others, it is hard not to see the self-
absorbed author of Galatians in kenodoxos. So why is he opposed to it?
After all, it would be hard to find a letter containing more irritating, more
combative, or filled with more provocative rants than Galatians. So if these
things no longer exist for those who live in the spirit, this epistle does not
conform either.
Not that I understand it any better, the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear
suggests Paul said: No we might become empty splendor one another provoking
one another envying.
If the KJV is right, based upon his letter, Paul would be the poster child for
wrong: Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one
another. But its not the Protestants fault; they just copied the Roman Catholic
Latin Vulgate: Let us not be made desirous of vain glory, provoking one another,
envying one another. NLT: Let us not become conceited, or provoke one
another, or be jealous of one another. In other words, lets not act like Paul.
As is our custom, lets give Shauwl the last word:
This freedom and liberty of ours being Christos it freed, so you all are
directed to stand firm. Therefore, also, not again in yoke of subservience and
slavery you are held based upon a grudge against you all, controlling you and
forcing you to surrender to someone who bears ill will, is resentful, violent,
and quarrelsome. (5:1)
You pay attention, I, Paulos, myself say to you all that if on the condition
that you may be circumcised, Christos is totally worthless and completely
meaningless, not in the least bit helpful or useful for you. (5:2) So then,
furthermore, repeating myself, I testify, insist, and protest to every man
being circumcised that he actually is obligated to do and perform the entire
and complete Towrah. (5:3)
You have invalidated and rendered inoperative, abolishing the purpose
of the separation of Christou whosoever is in unison with the Towrah. You
all having been declared righteous, and having been vindicated with the
Charis / Gratia / Graces, you all have fallen away and have been forsaken.
(5:4)
Because indeed, we in spirit out of faith hope. Righteousness we await
patiently. (5:5) In Christo Iesou neither circumcision is someone is capable,
powerful, and mighty nor uttermost part of the penis, on the contrary
through faith love operating. (5:6)
You were trying, running, and progressing well, in a fine way that was
pleasing. Who or what you it prevented and impeded, it offended and was
beaten of the truth not to be persuaded, to obey, and to follow along
faithfully? (5:7) The enticing persuasion and soliciting inducement not from
the one providing a name to you all. (5:8) A little yeast whole of the batch it
yeasts. (5:9)
I have been persuaded to coax and convince you, winning you over in the
Lord because nothing different other than this may you all regard or ponder,
potentially holding as a belief. So now, the one stirring you up and causing
you great distress, confusing, bewildering, and mystifying you will undergo
and endure the judgment, condemnation, and punishment, whoever this
individual might be. (5:10)
But now, I, brothers, if conditionally circumcision nevertheless still I
preach, why and for what further besides am I pursued and persecuted,
made to flee timid and fearful at the commands of another? As a result,
therefore perhaps it is possible, invalidated and annulled this offending trap
and stumbling block which ensnares and is offensive of the crucifixion. (5:11)
And also how I wish and pray for a malicious curse, that they might
castrate and emasculate themselves, suffering amputation of their penis and
testicles, those troublemakers among you who stir you up to rebel by
disseminating religious error and political seditions. (5:12)
For you upon freedom you all were named and were called brothers.
Only not in the liberty to the point of the starting point of the original violent
attack of the flesh. To the contrary, by of the love you all are slaves of each
other. (5:13) Because of this then all the Towrah in one word has come to an
end and is finished in the you loving of the nearby neighbor as yourself.
(5:14) But if each other you all bite and you devour, you all watch out, not
under one another you might be consumed. (5:15)
But I say in spirit you are all commanded to advance. And so the desire
and passion of lustful craving of the flesh deny, lest you might come to an
end. (5:16) For indeed, the fleshs desires and passions against the spirit, and
so then the spirit in opposition to the flesh, because of these one another it is
hostile and adversarial in order to negate what conditionally you all might
presently propose and want of these to possibly behave and do. (5:17) But if
in spirit you all are not guided, you are under the control of the Towrah.
(5:18)
 But now evident, clearly seen, and widely known are (eimi) the works
and assigned tasks of the flesh which indeed exist as sexual promiscuity,
impure materiality, sensuality, (5:19) the likeness manifesting what can be
observed, the use and administering of drugs, hatred and hostile antagonism,
strife, dissension, and quarrelling, deep devotion and jealousy, the desire to
make a sacrifice, selfish ambitions and hostile rivalries, discord and division,
taking another stand, the freedom to choose for oneself, (5:20) envious
corruption, drunkenness, public partying, and that similar to this which I
previously spoke to you inasmuch as I said before that the likes of such
carrying out and committing these practices, the reign and kingdom of God,
they will not inherit. (5:21)
But the fruit of the spirit is: love, happiness, peace, patience, mercy from
an upright implement, being good through generosity, faith, (5:22)
gentleness, meekness, and humility, self-control over ones sexual appetite,
with regard to such there is no Towrah. (5:23)
But the ones of the Christou the flesh has been crucified with the
sufferings, passions, the deep desires, and longings. (5:24) If we live for spirit,
for spirit we march in a line, behaving by imitating, living in conformity.
(5:25) Not we might come to exist vainly boastful sharing opinions which are
baseless, one another provoking and irritating, each other jealous and
envying). (5:26)

LE: YY 09-16-2013
 Questioning Paul
Volume 1: The Great Galatians Debate
Is Christianity Right or Wrong?

11

Prautes An Appropriate Response

How Are You Going to Respond

The longer the sentence, the more challenging it can be to comprehend. That
is especially true with Paul. So, as we begin our review of the sixth chapter of his
thesis and rebuttal to the Galatians, consider this rendition of his next
pronouncement as it is rendered in the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition McReynolds
Interlinear: Brothers if also might be taken before man in some trespass you the
spiritual ones put in order the such in spirit of gentleness looking carefully
yourself not also you might be pressured. It is almost as if Paul cleverly selected
twenty-three words and strung them together as a puzzle to tantalize his fellow
Gnostics.
While I am not exactly sure what this is supposed to mean, I know that it
does not contribute to knowing Yahowah or to our understanding of His
Covenant. And therefore, the following exercise in linguistics is for naught...
And also (kai) brothers (adelphos), if (ean) a man (anthropos) may have
previously detected or caught (prolambano might have previously held)
someone (tini) in (en) a false step (paraptomati a slip up, misdeed, or
deviation, trespass or transgression), you all (umeis), the spiritual ones (oi
pneumatikoi the ones who bear and bring forth the spirit), you must be
prepared to completely restore (katartizo you are commanded to make and
render wholly mended; from kata according to and artios perfectly fit)
the one (ton) such as this (toioutos) with (en in) a meek and gentle (prautes
humble) spirit ( / pneumati Divine Placeholder for the Ruwach (however,
since Shauwls spirit bears no resemblance to the Set-Apart Spirit, the lowercase
is appropriate)), carefully observing (skopeo focusing on, closely watching,
being concerned, and thinking about) yourself (seauton), so then (kai) you,
yourself, may submit and be tempted (ou peirazo you, yourself may or may
not be tested or trapped having tried to catch a mistake). (Galatians 6:1)
 Ever the paranoid hypocrite, Paul knew that he had been caught lying to the
Galatians. And yet unlike his response to Shimown Kephas, he wanted those he
deliberately deceived to cut him a break. But since he has told us that he cannot
lie, he couched his message in a generic instruction, one that everyone in his
original audience would have seen right through.
There are so many things wrong with Shauwls last proclamation, with an
eye to exposing errant Christian theology, lets tackle these one word at a time.
The problems begin with prolambano may have previously detected or
caught. This is very similar to the Quran asking Muslim children to spy on their
parents and turn them in to the authorities if they suspect them of rejecting any of
Muhammads commands. It was how most everyone in Stalins Russia and
Hitlers Germany were controlled. It was the spirit behind the Salem Witch Trials
in America. And it is how professors, politicians, priests, preachers, and media
spokespeople are compelled to walk a conforming path today. It is the operating
mechanism behind Political Correctness. It is the spirit behind: We are watching
you, and if you step out of line (remember stoichomen march in a conforming
line following the leader), we will send you off to be reprogrammed. It is why
the National Security Agency is spying on the phone calls and internet clicks of
ordinary Americans.
Moving from Pauls police to the paraptomati false step, we discover that
in the Pauline Faith deviations from Pauline Doctrine would not be tolerated.
No one will be allowed to slip away or turn aside from the path which has been
articulated by the self-proclaimed messenger of god. It is especially telling that
paraptomati is a compound of para, meaning from, and pipto, to descend,
being thrust down, prostrating oneself. Paul is establishing a religion, which like
this letter, will not tolerate a rival, nor any challenge to his authority or
instructions. All those who rebel and offer dissenting views must be caught and
thoroughly dealt with. Welcome to the impetus behind the Inquisition.
By the way, Yahowsha encouraged us to carefully examine the rhetoric and
platitudes of religious and political leaders, but not ordinary people. And His
standard for this review was anything that deviated from His instructions in the
Torah and Prophets. As a result, if we were to follow Yahowshas advice and
example, we would all be holding Shauwl accountable for his deliberate
deviations from the Word of God.
Prior to examining this passage, I had wondered how pneumatikoi being
spiritual and acting spiritually became synonymous with the Christian religion.
But now I realize as do you that the concept was sponsored by Shauwl. And
unfortunately, like faith and belief, it has given rise to a host of erroneous
concepts and errant behaviors.
 God never asks anyone to be spiritual, because the most active spirit on
this planet is Satans. Instead, the standard God wants us to observe is the
Towrah, which is why the example we are encouraged to follow is Yahowsha
the Word made flesh.
Christians demonstrate what it means to act spiritual when they wave their
arms in the air at praise services, and when they point to the heavens after
achieving some success in an athletic event. Spirituality is on display when
someone, ignorant of the purpose of freewill, says God has a plan for your life,
or says it was all part of Gods plan, in an ill-advised attempt to blame their
misfortune on God, suggesting that their failures were His will. Spirituality is
manifest again at funerals when someone claims that a deceased friend was called
home. Worse, Christians think that they are demonstrating their spirituality when
they insist others do what Jesus Christ, did, not recognizing that the Christian
caricature they worship was crafted by Paul, and thus is unrelated to God.
Also interesting in this regard, this is one of the few Greek passages where a
form of pneuma was actually written out, as opposed to being represented by a
Divine placeholder for Ruwach (as it is the second time in this sentence). The
only thing which distinguishes pneumatikoi from pneuma is the tikoi suffix. Tikto
means to bring forth, to bear, and to produce. It is used in the context of a
woman giving birth.
If it were not for the fact that katartizo you must be prepared to completely
restore was written in the second person plural as katartisete, then it would have
been a worthy instruction. But this is not our job. Its the Qodesh / Set-Apart
Ruwach / Spirits responsibility to repair and renew our souls, making us
totally complete and entirely sound. Worse, katartisete was written as an active
imperative, and thus as a command or commandment that the subject of this
order must perform at the insistence of Paul.
Both times we have encountered prautes, I have translated it in accord with
the primary definitions found in most every lexicon: gentile, meek, and timid.
And that is because the favored meanings, while wildly hypocritical, fit Pauls
presentation of Gnostic attributes. However, the secondary connotation is
consideration. Therefore, prautes an appropriate and considered response is
what Questioning Paul was written to inspire. You have been encouraged to
carefully evaluate the evidence and then respond appropriately.
With regard to prautes, Aristotle said that the word stood in the middle
between getting angry without reason and not getting angry at all. Prautes
describes a measured and considered reaction which is suitable to the
circumstance. It isnt passivity or aggression, but instead the fitting reply based
upon adequate knowledge and proper understanding.
 Prautes is most often rendered meekness or humility but the word does not
suggest weakness, being impotent, or being lowly or impoverished, because all of
that misses the point. Prautes is the courage and character to do what is right
regardless of the consequence. It was used by Yahowsha in the Sermon on the
Mount to describe those who understand the appropriateness of relying upon
Yahowah as opposed to themselves. Therefore, prautes isnt about meekness as
we use that word, but instead about understanding the human condition relative to
Yahowahs Word, and then engaging appropriately.
The merit of prautes is that it encourages us to consider the evidence
thoughtfully before we respond. It is an informed and rational reply. So, now
that you know that Shauwls message is the antithesis of Yahowahs, who are
you going to trust?
The key, or course, to making the right decision is focus. We must skopeo
carefully observe, be concerned and think about Yahowahs Word. But
unfortunately Paul told Christians to skopeo seauton focus upon, carefully
observe, and think about yourself.
The reason Shauwl wants Christians to be self-aware, guarded, and
circumspect is so that ou peirazo you, yourself, may not be trapped by trying to
catch a mistake another has made. His message, therefore, cuts both ways. He
wants his spies to toe the line he has drawn, so that they arent tempted to reject
his dogma. And he is equally insistent that they dont test his instructions so as to
ascertain the truth for themselves.
Peirazo is from peira, to conduct a trial. But it also means to know by
way of personal experience. It is often translated to put to the test, to
examine, or to prove. But keep in mind; while these concepts are appropriate
when it comes to evaluating a message or messenger, peirazo written in the
second person singular, you, was coupled with ou yourself in this text
which negated all of these things.
Without the clutter of the Greek, and without excessive amplification, the
opening verse of the sixth chapter reads: And also brothers, if a man may have
previously detected or caught someone in a false step, you all, the spiritual
ones, you must thoroughly prepare and completely restore the one such as
this with a meek and gentle spirit, carefully observing yourself so then you,
yourself, may submit and be tempted, having tried to catch a mistake. (6:1)
In the Latin Vulgate, Jerome blazed the trail all others have followed:
Brethren, and if a man be overtaken in any fault, you, who are spiritual, instruct
such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be
tempted. Based upon this interpretation, the King James Bible, as a translation of
the Latin, and not the Greek, reads: Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye
which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering
thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
Moving into the more modern translations, the literal New American
Standard Bible scribed: Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you
who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to
yourself, so that you too will not be tempted.
In spite of the fact that there is no reference to sisters, believers or
godly in the entire epistle, much less in this verse, the New Living Translation
authored: Dear brothers and sisters, if another believer is overcome by some sin,
you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right
path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself. In other words,
adhere to church doctrine and dont you dare think for yourself.
After that romp into the realm of religion, we encounter this pearl of fluidity.
In it, Paul introduces yet a third Torah. We had Sarahs promised liberation
from the Torah, Hagars enslavement to the Torah, and now the Torah of
Christou. And yet, like Yahowah and His Covenant, there is only one Torah. But
beyond a Trinity of Torahs, the preamble to the myth may be even worse than its
conclusion.
Of one another (allelon), the (ta) weighty burdens (baros hardships,
heaviness, and oppressive sufferings) you carry, remove, and endure (bastazo
you undergo, bear, and take away) and (kai) thus in this way (houto) you all
complete (anapleroo provide, fulfill, enable, supply, replace, and obey; from
ana in the midst and pleroo make full, complete, furnish, and supply) the
(ton) Towrah (nomon) of the (tou) Christou ( / Christou). (Galatians 6:2)
Yahowsha and the Towrah are one wholly inseparable. The former cannot
be known, appreciated, understood, or capitalized upon without the latter.
Yahowsha is the corporeal manifestation of the Word of God: the Word made
flesh. But since Paul has condemned the Torah transcribed by Moseh on Mount
Sinai, its obvious that his mythical Torah of Christou is an imaginary
replacement crafted to fit his Faith.
And speaking of fantasies, the notion that ordinary people complete and
fulfill the Torah is only possible in Pauls religious realm. But in the world
Yahowah created, He alone fulfills and completes His Wordand He does it His
Way and on His schedule.
No man bastazo endures or carries, removes or bears, the baros
burdens of others. We cannot remove our own burdens, much less someone
elses. This is Gods job. He alone is qualified. And this makes every aspect of
Pauls instruction fraudulent. Frankly, since Yahowsha endured pain and
separation beyond imagination to fulfill the Towrah on Passover and Unleavened
Bread explicitly to remove and bear our burdens, Paul asking others to perform
this same job is presumptuous and insulting.
It is telling to note that Rabbis like Shauwl were told to avoid reading
Yashayah / Isaiah 53, so Shauwl would never have considered its message while
studying to be a Pharisee. And yet it affirms the Maaseyahs role in our
redemption. Please consider:
Surely our sickness and maladies He, Himself, lifted from us, accepted,
and bore (nasa lifted up, sustained and carried away), and our pain (makob
physical suffering and emotional anguish) He carried away (cabal sustained
the load, dragging our burden away). (Yashayah / Salvation is from Yah / Isaiah
53:4)
All of us like sheep have gone astray (taah erred by wandering away,
staggered while intoxicated, deceived ourselves, and have been misled). Mankind
has turned to his own way. But Yahowah has caused the guilt and
punishment (aown the liability, perversity, depravity, iniquity, and the
consequence of twisting and distorting) of us all to fall on Him (paga to
encounter Him for Him to make intercession). (Yashayah / Salvation is from
Yah / Isaiah 53:6)
This next statement speaks of Yahowshas soul enduring Sheowl on our
behalf on the Invitation to be Called Out and Meet with God on Un-Yeasted
Bread. When, as a concession, He shall render His Soul as a guilt offering
(asham to be declared guilty, offensive, and desolate, suffering the punishment)
for sin He will be numbered with those who rebel, Himself lifting up and
bearing (nasa taking and carrying away) the crimes and penalties of many.
And He will intercede for those who are in rebellion. Shout for joy.
(Yashayah / Salvation is from Yah / Isaiah 53:10-12 - 54:1)
The contrast between Yahowahs Word and Pauls drivel is monumental. It is
the difference between God and man. So why is it that billions believe Shauwl?
The Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear published: Of one another the
burdens bear and thusly you will fill up the law of the Christ. It is what Jerome
wrote in the Vulgate as well: Bear ye one anothers burdens: and so you shall
fulfill the law of Christ. So, we should not be surprised to see this repeated in the
KJV: Bear ye one anothers burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. Good luck
with that.
Recognizing the hubris and pain associated with even pretending to do what
the Maaseyah had done, the NLT arbitrarily changed complete to obey.
Share each others burdens, and in this way obey the law of Christ. But that
would require observing the Torah.
Having digressed from utter nonsense to utterly wrong over the course of two
sentences, lets approach the third with a touch of skepticism. Therefore, in our
quest for accuracy, please note that we find eiper since if / if indeed in
Papyrus 46 in place of the Nestle Alands ei gar because if, at the beginning
of the next sentence.
Since if (eiper if indeed or if after all) someone (tis) supposes and
presumes (dokei is of the opinion or is reputed) to be (einai) somebody (ti) he
is (on) nothing (meden). He deceives (phrenapatao) himself (eauton).
(Galatians 6:3)
Paul should have worn this as a sign around his neck. He claimed to be Gods
exclusive apostle to the world, deceiving all who believed him.
He wrote this for the same reason that he used dokei previously in this letter,
besmirching the authority Yahowsha vested in the Disciples Shimown, Yaaqob,
and Yahowchanan. He viewed those God chose and trained as rivals and as a
threat.
And from this reprisal, this new statement indicts Shauwl. It affirms that he
was fully aware of the derogatory implications of dokei supposes and
presumes when he wielded it against the Disciples in order to demean their
status. So, since Shauwl seems to know what the word meant here, he knew what
it meant there. Remember Galatians 2:9: And having recognized, becoming
familiar with the Grace of the one having been given to me, Yaaqob,
Kephas, and also Yahowchanan, the ones presently presumed and supposed
(dokei the opinionated and imagined) to be leaders, the right place of honor
and authority they granted to me, and to Barnabas fellowship as a result. We
to the nations and ethnicities, but they to the circumcision. Therefore, those
who would cut Paul a break there, cannot use the word correctly here without
foregoing their integrity.
As for the established translations, we find this in the NAMI: If for thinks
some to be some nothing being he deceives mind himself. From this, Jerome
wrote: For if any man think himself to be some thing, whereas he is nothing, he
deceiveth himself. Once again demonstrating that the KJV was a translation of
the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek text, we find: For if a man think himself to be
something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. Writing their own bible,
the NLT scribed: If you think you are too important to help someone, you are
only fooling yourself. You are not that important.
After incriminating himself, the Devils Advocate boasts:
 But (de) the (to) work (ergon deeds, assigned tasks, accomplishments,
and performances) of himself (heauton) he must examine (dokimazo he is
commanded to scrutinize and demonstrate worthy, proving meritorious (present
active imperative third person singular)) [each (ekastos every) omitted from
P46], and (kai) then (tote) to (eis into) himself (auton) alone (monos to the
exclusion of all others) the (to) boast and brag (kauchema justification for
pride and praise, exaltation and glory) that person will possess and hold (echo
will have and experience (future active indicative third person singular)) [and
(kai) omitted in P46], not (ouk) to (eis) the (ton) other (heteron another).
(Galatians 6:4)
Playing with the pieces of the same puzzle, the NAMI assembled: The but
work of himself let approve each and then in himself alone the brag he will have
and not in the other. The LV proposed: But let everyone prove his own work:
and so he shall have glory in himself only and not in another. Parroting Jerome,
the KJV said: But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have
rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.
Smoothed out and streamlined a bit, my interpretation of Pauls last two
combined statements are quite similar to the translations, even though we would
view the implications very differently: Indeed if someone supposes and
presumes to be somebody, he is nothing. He deceives himself. (6:3) But the
work, performances, and accomplishments of himself, he must examine and
prove meritorious, and then to himself, alone, at the exclusion of all others,
the boast and brag, the justification for pride and praise, the exaltation and
glory that person will possess and experience, and not for any other. (6:4)
So, if this is what Paul meant to say, and it probably is, then we have to
question his mental stability. The last two verses are at cross purposes with each
other. One says that if someone presumes that they are important, then they are
deceiving themselves. But then he says that we should examine everything we
have done so that we can boast and glorify ourselves.
Beyond the duplicity, there is an additional problem. We shouldnt be about
the business of boasting in what we have done. We arent to glorify or exalt
ourselves. Our mission should never be about us, especially to the exclusion of
others. Our words and deeds should be focused on encouraging people to consider
Yahowahs words and deeds.
And yet, knowing Paul, the first of these two statements was designed to
impugn his rivals, Yahowshas Disciples. And the second was postured for Pauls
benefit. He is trying to justify boasting, claiming that if you consider the scope of
his work that he is worthy of exultation.
 Recognizing this problem, the NLT simply changed the text to keep Paul
from looking like an egomaniacal lunatic who had just contradicted himself. Pay
careful attention to your own work, for then you will get the satisfaction of a job
well done, and you wont need to compare yourself to anyone else.
Speaking of hallucinogenic schizophrenia, after telling his audience that they
should remove and bear other peoples burdens, as if they were, themselves,
fulfilling the Towrah, Shauwl says that everyone will carry their own load. Some
would call that an internal contradiction.
For (gar because then) each and every one (ekastos) their (to) own
individual and distinct (idion unique and separate, belonging to oneself)
burden (phortion load, cargo, and obligations) will carry and bear (bastazo
will accept, undergo, endure, and remove). (Galatians 6:5)
In the real world, Yahowah has already removed the burdens of all those who
have engaged in His Covenant. But to know that, youd have to read His Towrah.
Beyond the fact that Paul has contradicted himself regarding a command he
has just issued, and beyond the fact that this negates Yahowshas fulfillment of
Unleavened Bread, bastazo was rendered in the future tense and the indicative
mood (making it a reality from the writers perspective). That means that Paul is
saying that they will actually continue to bear and endure their burdens into
the future. In other words: there wont be any forgiveness. And unfortunately, for
those who believe Paul, there will not be any.
These translations are an accurate reflection of Shauwls errors. NAMI:
Each for the own pack will bear. LV: For every one shall bear his own
burden. KJV: For every man shall bear his own burden.
But in league with those who benefit financially from Christianity, and
therefore willing to alter the words which were written in Galatians to make Paul
appear credible, the New Living Translation not only perpetuates the deception
that Shauwl was inspired by God, they published a text that they knew was not
accurate: For we are each responsible for our own conduct. There is no possible
way the Greek scholars responsible for translating Galatians actually thought that
phortion burden meant responsible, or that bastazo carry meant
conduct. This is fraud, a knowing and willful deception perpetrated for money.
It is criminal.
Now that the first paragraph of the sixth chapter is complete, lets review
what Shauwl has said thus far:
And also brothers, if a man may have previously detected or caught
someone in a false step, you all, the spiritual ones, you must thoroughly
prepare and completely restore the one such as this with a meek and gentle
spirit, carefully observing yourself so then you, yourself, may submit and be
tempted, having tried to catch a mistake. (6:1) Of one another, the weighty
burdens you carry, remove, and endure and thus in this way you all supply
and complete the Towrah of the Christou. (6:2)
Indeed if someone supposes and presumes to be somebody, he is nothing.
He deceives himself. (6:3) But the work, performances, and accomplishments
of himself, he must examine and prove meritorious, and then to himself,
alone, at the exclusion of all others, the boast and brag, the justification for
pride and praise, the exaltation and glory that person will possess and
experience, and not for any other. (6:4) For each and every one their own
individual and distinct burden will carry and bear. (6:5)

No matter how one slices and dices these words, written as a command, this
next statement is a problem, especially in this context.
But (de) one must share (koinoneito one is ordered to participate together
as a partner and in association with others, must take part in) the one (o) making
the ears ring, verbally informing (katechoumenos reporting the instruction
and teaching orally; from kata according to and echos loud-mouthed
rumors and noisy reports) the (ton) word (logos), orally instructing
(katechounti verbally communicating and loudly teaching) in (en) all (pas)
good (agathois worthy, excellent, useful, beneficial, and right). (Galatians 6:6)
We are in the sixth chapter, and there havent been six passages cited from
Yahowahs Word thus far. And recognizing that the Torah verses which have
previously been cited have all been misquoted and twisted, its obvious that the
word Shauwl wants promoted is his own.
His purpose has been to demean the Word of God, obsolescing and
besmirching the Torah. So there is no chance whatsoever that Shauwl was
motivating the Galatians to share the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. And at this
point, Mark and Luke had not been written, and Mattanyahs eyewitness account
wouldnt have been of any value to the Galatians because it was initially written
in Hebrew. Also, while Yahowchanans testimony was composed around this
time, it had not yet been widely distributed. Therefore, the Devils Advocate was
ordering, actually commanding since koinoneito was written in the imperative
mood, the Galatians to recite what he had preached and written.
 If the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear is right, then Paul was also
saying that the one being instructed should do the instructing. Thats like asking a
class of children to educate their teacher (a.k.a. a liberal American classroom).
NAMI: Let be partner but the one being instructed the word to the one
instructing in all good. Jerome agrees with them in the LV: And let him that is
instructed in the word communicate to him that instructeth him, in all good
things. And therefore, the KJV regurgitates this same upside down notion of the
student informing their instructor: Let him that is taught in the word
communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. Apparently suffering
writers block, the NLT serves as a revision of the King James: Those who are
taught the word of God should provide for their teachers, sharing all good things
with them. This unique twist of the text is quite revealing. It says that those who
are taught the word of God, which is code for Evangelical Christians, should
provide for their teachers, sharing all good things with them, which is code for
pay your pastor a generous salary and provide him with a nice house and a
munificent living allowance. Not surprisingly, the authors of the NLT were
money-grubbing preachers.
This next line comes out of the wild blue yonder. Devoid of context or an
intelligent transition, the Apostle who has devoted himself to mocking God and
treating His Word with contempt, said:
You must not become misled and stray (me planaomai you are
commanded not to wander away deceived, deluded, or mistaken) because a god
() is not sneered at or ridiculed (ou mykterizo he is not mocked nor treated
with contempt, derided). For then (gar for), whatever (o) if (ean) a man
(anthropos) may sow (speiro might potentially scatter), this (touto) also (kai)
he shall reap (therizo he will harvest). (Galatians 6:7)
God is mocked all the time. Christians call Him Lord, an epithet for Satan,
rather than referring to Him by His name. They mock God when they pray to
Jesus Christ and when they credit and blame God for everything, trivial or
significant, good or bad, that occurs in their lives.
Shauwl has been sneering at Yahowah from the onset of this letter. He has
derided and ridiculed His Torah, treating the Word of God with utter contempt,
suggesting that it enslaves and that it was annulledeven that it was impotent. As
a result of these letters, Christians uniformly turn up their noses at the Almightys
seven annual Invitations to Meet. And its hard to imagine wandering further from
the truth than saying that there are two covenants, not one, or that the Covenant
memorialized on Mount Sinai was established with Hagar and led to slavery. And
what could be worse than replacing the relationship God is offering with religious
delusions.
 So once again, Shauwl is being a blatant hypocrite. He has been doing the
misleading, the straying, the deceiving, and the deluding. He has been the one
sneering, ridiculing, mocking, and deriding. But ever the clever one, he wants the
faithful to believe that it is those who are exposing him as the fraud he has
become who are what he is. In politics, those who are crafty, falsely accuse their
opponents of the crimes they, themselves, are guilty of committing. That is what
is happening here.
Beyond duplicity and hypocrisy, in the world God conceived, as a result of
Passover and Unleavened Bread, we dont all reap what we have sown. We are
forgiven. Only those who deliberately lead souls away from God, as Paul has
done, will reap what they have sown. Shauwl will spend his eternity in the place
that shares his name: Sheowl.
In an ongoing effort to preclude Christian apologists from dismissing
Questioning Paul solely on the basis of my amplified and literal translations of the
oldest Greek manuscripts, I will continue to provide you with at least four other
renderings for your consideration. The scholarly NAMI published: Not be
deceived God not is mocked. What for if might sow man this also he will
harvest. The Roman Catholic LV promoted: Be not deceived: God is not
mocked. For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. The
Protestant KJV proclaimed: Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever
a man soweth, that shall he also reap. And last and least, the Evangelical NLT
printed: Dont be misledyou cannot mock the justice of God. You will always
harvest what you plant.
If Gods justice cannot be mocked, then every Christian publisher who has
encouraged believers to reject His Name, His Towrah, His Covenant, and His
Invitations based upon Pauls epistles is in serious trouble.
Speaking of reaping that which one sows, Shauwl continues to cultivate his
agricultural theme while advancing his Gnostic beliefs. It is, however, not a
revelation that flesh decays, which is why we wont have bodies in heaven, or that
a spirit is eternal.
Because (oti) the one (o) sowing (speiron scattering seed) into (eis) the
(ten) flesh (sarx corporeal nature or physical body) of himself (eautou), from
(ek out of) the (tes) flesh (sarkos the physical body or corporeal nature) will
reap (therizo will harvest) corruption, destruction, and dissolution (phthora
depravity and death, decay which leads to perishing). But (de) the one (o)
sowing (speiron) into (eis) the (to) spirit ( / pneuma Divine Placeholder
for the Ruwach), from (ek out of) the (tou) spirit ( / pneuma) will reap
(therisei will harvest) life (zoe) eternal (aionios). (Galatians 6:8)
 To his credit, this is the first time in six chapters that Paul has written
something that reads well. It even sounds nice. Too bad it isnt true.
In his own sneaky way, Shauwl was saying: the circumcised are cut off. But
in truth, this is nothing more than Gnostic propaganda. We actually reap many
wonderful things from our corporeal nature, and the greatest of them is children
born into a loving family. In the bodies Yahowah designed on our behalf, we can
use our eyes and ears to read and recite His Word, getting to know our Creator in
the process. And so it is through our human nature that we come to know, love,
understand, respect, and trust the source of life.
For Galatians 6:8 to have been useful, Paul would have had to have done
what Yahowsha did in His discussion with Nicodemus, and explain the process
of Spiritual birth. But that wasnt Shauwls intent. For him, the flesh remains
synonymous with the tangible and concrete nature of the Towrah (in part
because of its insistence on circumcision), and the spirit is represented by the
unseen and nebulous ether of faith. Therefore, he is saying that sowing the
seeds found in Gods Word leads to destruction and decay, while those who place
their faith in the spirit of his writing will find life eternal. The opposite is, of
course, true.
But not entirely so, because in the way Shauwl intended believers to
understand it, if they were to consider sowing as being actively engaged planting
and nurturing the lies of Pauline Doctrine, then they will reap eternal life.
Unfortunately, it will be in Sheowl.
And while it is a technical point, we dont sow into the Spirit. We can sow
the seeds of truth by conveying Yahowahs Word, and we can invite the Ruwach
Qodesh into our lives, but that is as far as we can go in this direction. Everything
else flows the opposite way, from God to us, not the other way around. So the
notion of sowing into the Spirit isnt sound literally, operationally,
metaphorically, allegorically, or Scripturally.
The following translations are accurate, but yet their message is not. NAMI:
Because the one sowing in the flesh of himself from the flesh will harvest
corruption the but one sowing in the spirit from the spirit will harvest life eternal.
LV: For he that soweth in his flesh of the flesh also shall reap corruption. But he
that soweth in the spirit of the spirit shall reap life everlasting. KJV: For he that
soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the
Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. NLT: Those who live only to
satisfy their own sinful nature will harvest decay and death from that sinful
nature. But those who live to please the Spirit will harvest everlasting life from
the Spirit. We are not called to please the Spirit, we are only told not to belittle
Her. And while our Spiritual Mother plays a crucial role in our salvation, eternal
life isnt the result of anything we do, including living to please the Spirit.
Not finished, Satans gardener continues to plow the fields of deception. In
this case, after having recast and inverted good and evil, he encourages believers
to harvest a field of human souls on behalf of his faith.
But (de) the one (to) good (kalon advantageous, fine, fitting, beneficial,
beautiful, sound, and handsome) doing (poiountes performing behaviors and
working assigned tasks) we do not become malicious (me egkakomen we do
not give into harmful emotions or disparaging behaviors; from ek out of and
kakos a bad nature, injurious actions, pernicious thinking and destructive
feelings). Because (gar) on occasion (kairo in an opportunistic time or
specific season), for oneself (idio on ones own, separately) we will reap
(therisomen we will harvest), not (me) being discouraged by being bound
(ekluomenoi being weary, exhausted, or collapsing as a result of ties which
bind; from ek out of and luo binding ties and bandages). (Galatians 6:9)
Egkakomen initially was a bit of a riddle until I realized that it was a
compound of ek from and kakos a bad nature or wrong mode of thinking.
Kakos speaks of injurious actions, a pernicious attitude, and destructive
emotions, and thus of maliciousness. But following me not, it becomes a
double negative, thereby denouncing the very thing Galatians has become.
Based upon several factors, it is obvious that Paul was taking another swipe
at Yahowahs Towrah. He has already called what he perceives to be the old
system malicious, and he made a career out of claiming that the Towrah binds
and controls us. Therefore, in Pauline Christianity, as well as in Greek
Gnosticism, the spirit is both good and liberating while the evil flesh enslaves.
There is another insight worth exploring, because the seven Miqraey are not
only directly associated with the reaping of saved souls, these propitious
harvests are all celebrated in season. In fact, specifically, three of the seven are
designated as harvests (First-Born Child, Seven Sabbaths, and Trumpets) and a
fourth, Shelters, is symbolic of a covered shelter or storehouse of saved souls. So
since Shauwl has told Christians to ignore Yahowahs Harvests, and impugned
the Torah which presents them, he is now offering a substitute not unlike what
Christmas and Easter have become.
And lest I forget, havent we been led to believe that working away at
assigned tasks was the bane of the Towrah? But now works are good, so long as
the workers are doing what Paul demands of them.
Having considered some of the many concerns surrounding this statement,
lets review the Christian renditions. NAMI: The one but good doing not we give
in to bad in season for own we will harvest not being loosed out. LV: And in
doing good, let us not fail. For in due time we shall reap, not failing. KJV: And
let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.
NLT: So lets not get tired of doing what is good. At just the right time we will
reap a harvest of blessing if we dont give up.
There are problems which arise in these translations which we should not
ignore. First, its Gods job, not ours, to reap the harvest of saved souls. And
second, far too many people go out ill-prepared and just spin their wheels
endlessly. Its like the person who has read some of the quotes in Prophet of
Doom and then runs off to debate Muslims in chat rooms and wonders why they
arent making any progress.
While there is nothing wrong with trying, those who are prepared get better
results with considerably less effort. That is not to suggest that pertinent
information and logical reasoning prevail with those still mired in religious
delusions. All a prepared person can hope to accomplish is to provide a trigger
that encourages open-minded individuals to approach their search for the truth
from a different perspective. The better prepared you are, however, the better the
chances are that you will eventually find a topic which resonates with your
audience. Further, once you make the transition in your mind from knowing to
understanding, you are equipped to enlighten the world.
This particular problem resonates throughout Pauls letter. He throws all
manner of poorly identified and unsupported things against the wall, hoping that
something will stick. But he hasnt presented sufficient evidence to educate
anyone or to prove any of the points he has sought to make. He seeks faith,
because in his world understanding isnt possible.
A long time ago, when I was a salesman in the retail consumer products
industry, I overcame my personal limitations (I was very shy) by being better
prepared than those I competed against. I studied my customers, researched my
factories, dissected my products, compared them to the competition, and then
invested another many hours preparing and tailoring each sales presentation for
each and every customer. Then, after the customer responded and purchased
products from the firms I represented, I invested countless hours following
through on the logistics of the shipment, making sure nothing went wrong. I was
prepared, and thus prevailed.
Before we leave Pauls field of lies, this appears to be an opportune time to
share something from this Apostles most famous prophecy, one specifically
related to a harvest, because it proves that he was a false prophet. While the
purpose of religion is to control and fleece the masses, clerics achieve this goal in
large part by artificially allaying peoples fears over the death of loved ones. So
the founder of the Christian religion said:
But (de) we really do not want or take pleasure in (ou thelo we do not
actually will, enjoy, or propose (present active indicative (denoting something that
is actual))) you all (umas) being ignorant and irrational (agnoeo ignoring and
paying no attention and thus not knowing, being mistaken and failing to
understand (present active infinitive (acting as a verbal noun))) brothers
(adelphos) concerning (peri about and because of) the ones sleeping (ton
koimomenon those who are deceased (present passive participle (a verbal
adjective))). So that you might not grieve (ina ue luphesthe in order that you
may not be sad or distressed (present passive subjunctive (suggesting a
possibility))), just as (kathos to the same degree and inasmuch as) also (kai) the
ones remaining (oi loipos the rest who are left over and lacking (present active
participle nominative)), the ones not possessing (oi me echo those not holding
or clinging to (present active participle)) hope (elpis),... (1 Thessalonians 4:13)
Hope, like faith, is likened to religion in that they are all bred in agnoeo
ignorance. But since we will soon discover that Shauwl was wrong with regard
to his prophecy, why would anyone who isnt ignorant trust his reassuring words
in this regard?
Also, how would it be possible, recognizing that this was his first letter to the
second community he visited, for those who had passed away before his arrival to
benefit from his faith? Was Paul trying to win the favor of the living by promising
to save the dead?
God cannot die, and thus believing that He did, isnt accurate nor beneficial.
It is one of the great myths of Christendom.
For if (gar ei because under the condition) we really believe (pisteuo
we actually have faith (present active indicative)) that (oti because namely)
Iesous ( ) actually died (apothnesko was physically dead (aorist indicative (at
some unspecified time in the past)) indicative (in reality))) and (kai) genuinely
stood up (anistemi actually was caused to stand (aorist indicative)), thus
likewise (houtos it follows in this way) also (kai) being God (o ), the ones
put to sleep (koimeoentas have been caused to be deceased (aorist passive
(meaning that they were acted upon at some unspecified time in the past))) by or
through (dia because) of the (tou) Iesou ( ), will actually lead (ago will
really bring, take, carry, and guide) (future indicative)) with Him (oun auto). (1
Thessalonians 4:14)
In keeping with the religious mythology echoed at most Christian funerals,
Paul said that God was responsible for putting people to sleep, and thus for
their death. Shauwls theology continues to be wrong.
 Beyond the errant notion that God is the reason we die, the verb ago to
lead is a strange choice. While it was written in the third person singular, since it
was not designated as masculine, it cannot be he or refer to the Iesou. So who
is guiding and bringing whom?
If youd like to gain a full appreciation from Gods perspective of exactly
what happened on Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread, and First-Born Children, and
why, and if youd like to understand how it applies to you and your relationship
with God and to your resulting salvation, you are invited to read the Salvation
Volume of Yada Yah, free at www.YadaYah.com. There you will discover that
Yahowahs Spirit departed from Yahowshas body and His soul on the upright
pole so that His physical body could die serving as the Passover Lamb while His
soul descended into Sheowl for the express purpose of enabling the promises
Yahowah had made to make the children of the Covenant immortal and perfect.
His soul, then reunited with the Spirit, became the living embodiment of First-
Born Children, enabling God to adopt us into His family.
The implication in this next statement is that Shauwl is attempting to quote
something Yahowsha said. If true, it would be the first time in any of his letters,
but it wasnt to be. Yahowsha never said anything like this. In fact, His depiction
of the Taruwah Harvest was remarkably different. So why do you suppose Paul,
other than speaking for his Lord, has been using we instead of I throughout
this doctrinal prediction?
For this (gar touto) to you all (umin), we actually say (legomen we speak
(first person plural, present indicative)) in (en) a word (logo a statement
(singular)) of the Lord (kuriou of the Master, the one who owns, controls, and
possesses slaves (genitive and thus possessive), that we (oti emeis), the ones (oi)
living (zontes alive (present active participle)), the ones (oi) presently left and
currently remaining (perileiphomenoi left behind; a compound of peri
meaning concerning, and leipo, being left behind, being inferior, wanting, and
forsaken (present tense, passive (currently being acted upon), participle (serving
as a verb and adjective))) unto (eis) the (ten) arrival and presence (parousia) of
the (tou) Lord (kuriou Master who possesses, owns, and controls slaves), by no
means might we possibly go prior to (ou me phoasomen certainly not and
never may we arrive beforehand, come to by preceding (first person plural, aorist
(as a snapshot in time) subjunctive (indicating a possibility)) the ones (tous)
having slept (koimeoentas having been put to sleep and having been caused to
die (aorist passive (meaning that they were acted upon at some unspecified point
in time))). (1 Thessalonians 4:15)
Feel free to speculate as to why Shauwl used the double negative ou and me
in succession. When written in this form, ou typically represents no and me
means not or lest. But when combined, rather than read as a negation of a
negation, ou me can convey a strong prohibition, communicating never, not at
all, by no means, and certainly not, which is how it was rendered above.
You may want to contemplate the reasons that Paul claims that his Lord
caused so many people to die, why Paul refers to death as sleep, why the fate of
the sleeping is universal and favorable, and why they must precede the living? I
suspect that it was a ploy, one designed to promote the merits of his faith so that it
would be more readily accepted. He told his audience what they wanted to hear.
The fact that it was inaccurate, inconsistent, and irrational did not matter.
You can also speculate on the identity of Pauls Lord and Master. But
while doing so, consider the inherent conflict between representing a Lord, who is
someone who possesses, owns, and controls slaves, and discounting the Torah
because it was allegedly controlling and enslaving.
You may even want to speculate on why Shauwl claimed to speak for his
god and yet neglected to cite any of said gods instructions. And if we are to
believe that Shauwl was speaking for Yahowah about His Taruwah Harvest,
why didnt he quote what God had His prophets write about this Miqra in His
Towrah, in Yashayah (Isaiah), Zakaryah (Zechariah), or Malaky (Malachi).
Yahowah had a great deal to say about this Spiritual Harvest of His children.
But getting past all of those inherent inadequacies, inconsistencies, and
internal conflicts, it is undeniably clear that Paul predicted that he would be
among the ones presently left and currently remaining (perileiphomenoi
scribed in the present tense and passive voice (telling us that they were currently
being acted upon)) unto the arrival and presence of the Lord. But he wasnt even
close. He died alone and miserable nineteen centuries before the fulfillment of the
still-future Taruwah Harvest. Moreover, his promises were hollow to those who
were sleeping and living.
Yahowah had long since established in His Word that the Taruwah Harvest
was predicated upon the concept of being a troubadour to trumpet His message.
So while the association of the harvest with this instrument, a showphar, or rams
horn in Hebrew, is accurate, it was not prophetic. As for the rest of this, while it is
neither correct nor prophetic. Further, the call of the archangel is reminiscent of
Islam.
Because, Himself (oti autos), the Lord (o kurios the Master who
possesses, owns, and controls slaves), in (en with) a command (keleusma a
shout, order, signal, and call) in the voice (en phone in the sound and language)
of the leading messenger (archaggelou of the chief representative, the ruling
envoy), and in (kai en the with) a trumpet (salpiggi) of god ( theou), will
descend, stepping down (katabaino will come down; a compound kata
down from and basis stepping), separated from (apo) of heaven (ouranos),
and the ones lifeless (kai oi nekros so the ones deceased) in (en) Christo ()
will actually stand (anastesontai will really rise) first (protos before). (1
Thessalonians 4:16)
The order of rising, if indeed there is a difference, will be completely
irrelevant in association with eternity. So this was spoken to accommodate
religious sensibilities. And as a result, Christians believe that their dearly departed
are already in heaven, looking down on them and waiting for their arrival. But
whats especially troubling here is Shauwls use of apo separated as opposed
to ek out of with regard to heaven. While Yahowsha can come from and out
of heaven, He cannot be separated from heaven.
Lastly, the reason for all of the colorful detail, the command, the voice, the
archangel, the trumpet, and the stepping down, and soon left behind, seized, air, a
meeting, and in the clouds, is to provide the semblance of knowledge.
Muhammad painted heaven, hell, and the day of judgment with similarly vivid
strokes.
In the conclusion of his errant portrayal, Shauwl predicts through the use of
emeis we and through his selection of verbs that he would be alive when the
harpazo violent snatching away occurred. Since he was wrong, he was a false
prophet.
Then later (speita thereafter) we (emeis the first person personal plural
pronoun includes the speaker who is Shauwl), the ones (oi) currently alive
(zontes living (present active participle)), the ones (oi) left behind and
remaining (perileipo surviving (present passive participle)) at the same time
(hama together in association), with them (sun autois) we will actually be
violently seized and snatched away (harpayesomeoa first person plural future
passive indicative of harpazo will be attacked, controlled, drug away, spoiled,
and plundered forcibly by thieves) in (en with) clouds (nephele obscuring
atmosphere) to (eis) a meeting (apantesis a rendezvous or encounter of those
going in opposite directions; from apo to be separated and anti to be
against or opposed) of the Lord (tou kuriou of the Master who possesses,
owns, and controls slaves) into (eis) air (aer). And (kai) thus (outos likewise
and in this manner) always (pantote at all times) with (syn) Lord (kurio), we
will actually be (esomeoa we will really exist (future indicative)). (1
Thessalonians 4:17)
It will be a long wait for those anticipating a rendezvous with the Lord in the
clouds. And these questions linger: why take the dead and the living to a place of
obscurity where nothing can be seen, where no one can stand, where light is
diminished, and where it is cold, neither on earth nor in heaven? Why did he
neglect to say whether this encounter would be for souls or reconstituted bodies?
Why not explain when this is going to occur? Why not reveal why some will go
and others will be left behind? Why not reveal what reaction should be expected
on earth as this occurs based upon how many go bon voyage? After all, Yahowah
explained all of these things many centuries before Paul penned this letter. And
why paint such a violent depiction of something that should involve a loving
embrace?
At issue, harpazo will be violently attacked, controlled, dragged away,
spoiled and plundered forcibly by thieves isnt the kind of word one would
normally associate with Yahowsha, although its a perfect depiction of Satans
(a.k.a. the Lords) idea of a good time. And whats particularly interesting is that
Yahowsha used a derivative of harpazo in Mattanyah / Matthew 7:15, harpax
exceptionally self-promoting and self-serving, to describe wolves such as
Shauwl:
At the present time, you all should be especially alert, being on guard
by closely examining and carefully considering, thereby turning away from
(prosechete apo you all should choose to beware, presently paying especially
close attention, actively and attentively watching out for and guarding yourself
against so as to separate yourself from (present active imperative)) the false
prophets (ton pseudoprophetes those pretending to be divinely inspired
spokesmen, from pseudo deliberately false, lying, deceitful, and deceptive and
prophetes one who speaks of hidden things, declaring what he claims to have
received from God) who (hostis) come to you, currently appearing before you
(erchomai pros umas who approach you, moving toward or up to you, making
public appearances or statements against you (the present tense reveals that the
false prophet is currently in their midst, the middle voice indicates that he is self-
motivated, that his statements are affecting him, and that the more assertive he
becomes, the more he is influenced by his aggressiveness and claims (i.e., one lie
leads to another), while the indicative mood affirms that this is actually
occurring)) from within (esothen as an insider and thus from the same race,
place, or group) by (en) dressing up in sheeps clothing (endyma probaton
cloaked in the outer garments of sheep (note: the root of probaton is probaino to
go beyond, to go farther and forward, to go on and on, overstepping ones
bounds)), yet (de but) they actually are (eisin they correspond to, represent,
are similar to, and exist without contingency as (present active indicative))
exceptionally self-promoting, self-serving, and swindling (harpax vicious,
carnivorous, and thieving, robbing, extorting, and destructive, ferocious,
rapacious, and snatching; extracting and compelling under duress; from harpazo:
to violently, forcibly, and eagerly claim and then seize for oneself so as to pluck
and carry away; itself a derivative of haireomai to take for oneself, choosing to
be)) wolves (lykos fierce individuals under dangerous pretenses who are vicious,
cruel, greedy, destructive, overreaching, voracious, avaricious, acquisitive, and
insatiable men impersonating beasts of prey). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew
7:15)
Recognizing these problems, it is telling that Paul concluded his false
prophecy with this related command: As a result (oste therefore), you all
must presently summon and plead with (parakaleite you are all commanded
to call out a summons while begging and imploring (present active imperative))
each other (allelon one another) in (en with) these (toutois) statements
(logois words, speeches, and treatises). (1 Thessalonians 4:18)
It would be his statements Christians would henceforth proclaim, not Gods.
As Roman Catholics, they would summon the world to their Lord and to their
Church. And as evangelicals, they would plead, imploring the lost to go astray.
Now that we know that Paul was a false prophet in addition to being a
deceitful messenger, and that he wanted believers to value and extol his words
rather than the Word of God, lets return to Galatians. There we find Comrade
Paul, the Devils Advocate, telling everyone to start working for the benefit of his
household:
As a result (ara), therefore (oun), likewise (hos in the same way and
time), on occasion (kairon period of time, moment, season, or opportunity), we
are presently able to experience (echo we really possess, hold onto, and
currently have (first person plural, present indicative)) the potential to work
(ergaxometha we may presently do business and perform, perhaps laboring) for
the (to) advantageous (pros as is necessary and needed) generous benefit
(agathos for the good) of all (pas), but (de) especially and exceedingly
(malista chiefly and above all) benefiting (pros) those belonging to (tous
oikeios the relatives, immediate families, households, and members) the (tes)
Faith (pisteos religion or belief; while pistis originally conveyed trust, that
concept is incompatible with Shauwls epistle). (Galatians 6:10) (While in P46,
the verb might work becomes ergaxometha, the noun work, my rendering is
consistent with the Nestle Aland in this case because their verbiage fits better in
the sentence.)
Therefore, according to Paul, man is enslaved when he chooses to act upon
the Towrahs guidance for his own benefit and for the enrichment of his family,
and liberated when Gods instructions are rejected. But that is only so that he can
now work for the benefit and enrichment of the Pauline Faith. Either way, its all
about works.
Also, youll notice that while all of Yahowahs benefits are for the
enrichment and empowerment of His Covenant family, other than choosing to
respond and participate in the Covenant, man does not make any contributions
because God does all of the work. But here, man is the one laboring. And the
beneficiary is Pauls religion. Rather than God empowering His Family, Paul
wants to exceedingly benefit members of the Faith he, himself, founded.
The Nestle-Aland 27th Edition McReynolds Interlinear renders the passage:
Then therefore as season we have we might work the good toward all especially
but toward the households of the trust. So it too reveals that after investing the
first three-quarters of this epistle criticizing works, calling them unproductive,
Paul is now promoting them as good. So much for consistency. But to be fair, or
unfair depending upon your perspective, Paul wants everyone to do what he
commands and not what Yahowah requests.
The Catholic Latin Vulgate reads: Therefore, whilst we have time, let us
work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the
faith. Therefore, the KJV says: As we have therefore opportunity, let us do
good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.
Toeing a similar line for a change, the New Living Translation published:
Therefore, whenever we have the opportunity, we should do good to everyone
especially to those in the family of faith.
In his own words, Shauwl wrote: But one must share, partnering with
the one making the ears ring, verbally informing the word, orally instructing
in all good. (6:6) You must not become misled and stray because a god is not
sneered at, ridiculed, or treated with contempt. For then, whatever if a man
may sow, this also he shall reap. (6:7) Because the one sowing into the flesh of
himself, from the flesh will reap corruption, destruction, and dissolution,
depravity and death. But the one sowing into the spirit, from the spirit will
reap life eternal. (6:8)
But the one good doing we do not become malicious, giving into harmful
emotions, disparaging behaviors, or pernicious thinking. Because on
occasion, for oneself we will reap and harvest, not being discouraged by
being bound. (6:9) As a result, therefore, likewise, on occasion, we are
presently able to experience the potential to work, laboring for the
advantageous generous benefit of all, but especially and exceedingly
benefiting those belonging to the Faith. (6:10)

Shauwls next line is perplexing. Most scholars assume that it means that he
has taken the papyrus and quill away from whoever was serving as his
amanuensis, and was now writing these words in his own hand. It didnt help. But
it did establish a trademark, and verify that Paul himself composed this epistle. He
will repeat this practice in subsequent letters as his way of demonstrating
authenticity.
To begin, if we are to prioritize the oldest witness, Paul wrote elikois as
old as and as tall as, not pelikois how large and how great. Elikos is from
elix, a comrade of the same age, height, and status, and thus elikos is said to
mean as great as, in addition to as old and tall.
What follows is one of many indications that Galatians was Shauwls first
letter. He is telling believers to closely examine his handwriting so that they
would be able to recognize it when they see it again, and thus be able to determine
if subsequent letters were bona fide Pauline.
You must look at and become acquainted with (idete you all are
ordered to see, notice, and become familiar with, paying attention to (written in
the aorist active imperative as a command)) how old, tall, and great (elikois) to
you (umin) the letters (grammasin written alphabetic characters) I wrote
(egrapha I actually inscribed with pen) with (te) my (emos) hand (cheir).
(Galatians 6:11)
We cannot say for sure if Paul was bragging that his penmanship was great,
or lamenting that his eyesight was so poor that his letters were large. But we do
know that Paul establishing the fact that he, himself, was to blame for what we
have read.
While the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear doesnt add anything to the
equation with: See how great to you letters I wrote in the my hand, should
Jerome be right, we cannot blame the scribe for butchering Pauls epistle. The
Latin Vulgate reads: See what a letter I have written to you with my own hand.
If this is correct, then Shauwl wrote all of this, from beginning to end, and whats
more, hes proud of it.
Following the Catholics lead, or more accurately, plagiarizing him, Francis
Bacon and the team he assembled to produce the King James Version, wrote: Ye
see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand. Here,
Galatians is being called substantive as opposed to great.
Always entertaining, and sometimes even accurate, the novelists at the New
Living Translation authored this in all caps (I suppose to be faithful to the text):
NOTICE WHAT LARGE LETTERS I USE AS I WRITE THESE CLOSING
WORDS IN MY OWN HANDWRITING. Thats hilarious. In modern social
media parlance, Paul is now screaming at us.
Whether this is the second sentence Paul wrote in his own handwriting or the
seventh from the last in his great and large letter, we still have to make
corrections based upon the oldest witness. Papyrus 46 adds a placeholder for
Yahowshas name after the one for the title, Maaseyah. And while there is also a
conflict regarding the mood of the final verb (indicative as opposed to subjective),
may or might works better in this context than does really or actually. And
recognizing this confusion, Im going to ignore the passive voice of the verb (as
reflected in the NA27 and LV) because it renders the concluding clause senseless.
And in case you may have thought that I had been presumptuous suggesting
that Shauwl was demeaning the Torahs instruction on circumcision under the
guise of the flesh, consider what the man wrote with his own hand...
As much as (hosos as great as, as far as, or as many as, even to the degree
that) they currently desire (thelousin they actually take pleasure in, propose,
and presently enjoy) to make a good showing (euprosopesai to make a
favorable impression) in (en) this (houtos) flesh (sarx) to actually compel and
force (anagkazousiv to obligate and necessitate) you all (umas) to become
circumcised (peritemno) merely (monon only and just) so that (hina to) the
cross ( / stauro Divine Placeholder for Upright Pillar indicating that God
is the Doorway to Heaven and that He serves as the Upright Pillar of Yahowahs
Tabernacle and Covenant Home (but since Shauwl has disassociated Gods
symbols from Gods purpose, it is unlikely that he would have made this
connection)) of the (tou) Christou Iesou ( / Christou Iesou Divine
Placeholders for the Maaseyah Yahowsha (but since the purpose of Galatians
has been to disassociate Yahowsha from Yahowah and the Maaseyah from the
Towrah, Shauwl most likely wrote the inaccurate Greek name and title)) they
presently may not pursue (me dioko they currently might not follow and strive
toward, running after). (Galatians 6:12)
Since Paul likes to namedrop, the Maaseyah Yahowsha was circumcised.
So Paul is saying that Christians shouldnt follow His example. He is also saying
that the sign of Christendom, which is the cross, is nullified by those who accept
the sign of the Covenant, which is circumcision. And this means that Pauls
religion and Yahowahs relationship are in irreconcilable conflict.
Whats particularly sickening about all of this is that Shauwl has
misappropriated the Maaseyah Yahowsha to appear as if He and Shauwl were
on the same side, when in fact they are adversarial. And that, more than anything
else, is the most beguiling aspect of Pauls Faith. He has established the illusion
that the religion he conceived was founded by Jesus Christ. And billions of
souls have succumb to this deceitful, destructive, deadly, and damning
proposition.
The big letters arent making a big difference. Shauwls premise and
conclusion are wrong. Moreover, he is a hypocrite many times over. He was
circumcised. He circumcised his lover, Timothy. Abraham was circumcised.
Yitschaq was circumcised. And Yahowsha was circumcised.
By stating his point this way, its obvious that desiring to make a good
showing in this flesh is to be read making it appear as if they are observing the
Torah. And with this in mind, observing the Torah is then cast as an excuse not
to pursue the benefits of Yahowshas Passover sacrifice. In other words, Shauwl
is once again distinguishing between the Towrah and Yahowsha as opposed to
connecting them.
Second, while Jews can be accused of many things, forcing you all to
become circumcised has never been one of them. Moreover, even if there were
such a thing as a Judaizer, the notion that these mythical people would obligate
and compel others to become circumcised so that they could avoid pursuing a
pagan symbol such as the cross is ludicrous. The opposite is true because
Yisraelites observe Passover, which is what the Christian cross has obscured.
Third, no one, not Yahowah, not Yahowsha, not the most fundamentalist
Rabbi, nor the most ardent Christian, ever postured the notion that circumcision
was a substitute for Passover. However, according to God, a man who is not
circumcised cannot benefit from Passover. So by avoiding circumcision, the
benefit of Pesach, which is eternal life, is forestalled.
Fourth, circumcision is not only the sign of the Covenant, the fifth of five
conditions for participating in the Covenant requires parents to see to it that their
sons are circumcised. So while circumcision does not in and of itself save, there is
no salvation apart from the Covenant. And therefore men and boys who are not
circumcised cannot be saved. Not being circumcised prevents us from benefiting
from Passover and thus from entering through the Doorway to Life.
And fifth, by associating the flesh and circumcision in this way, Shauwl
is reinforcing the madness behind his mantra. In his warped mind: the Torah can
be dismissed as being of the flesh because it encourages circumcision. Sure its a
weak argument and a flimsy case, but simply misrepresenting one of Yahowahs
symbols while ignoring and rejecting the rest was sufficient to lead billions of
souls away from God.
The NAMI, LV, KJV, and NLT all translate they may not pursue in the
passive voice with a tertiary definition, suggesting that Paul wrote: they may not
be pursued or suffer persecution. As many as want to put on good face in flesh
these compel you to be circumcised alone that in the cross of Christ not they
might be pursued. So for this rendering to be accurate, one would have to believe
that Pauls foes encouraged circumcision in order to avoid being pursued and
harassed. And yet this inverts the historical record and has Jews persecuting
Christians, as opposed to the actual legacy of Christians continually harassing
Jews.
While Christian apologists might protest, saying that Gentile followers of The
Way were acquiescing to circumcision to avoid being persecuted, that argument
wont fly either. Back in Pauls killing days, he harassed Jews (who were
circumcised at birth), not Gentiles. And he did so for the crime of acknowledging
the association between Yahowah and Yahowsha which was blasphemous
according to the Rabbis. At this time, the overwhelming preponderance of the
followers of The Way were Yahuwdym, not Gowymas was reflected in their
affinity for the Towrah. And since they were born Jews, circumcision was a
given, not something which was compelled later in life.
Reflecting this same inverted notion, and perhaps fanning its initial flames,
the Catholic Latin Vulgate reads: For as many as desire to please in the flesh,
they constrain you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer the
persecution of the cross of Christ. Surely Jerome was not attempting to equate
the pain of circumcision with the anguish of crucifixion?
The KJV parroted the Roman Catholic publication: As many as desire to
make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they
should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. But if this is the case, if Paul
wants us to believe that his foes encouraged circumcision to avoid Christian
persecution, then he is again a false prophet because this is the opposite of what
actually transpired.
As usual, the NLT has a novel rendition of this sentenceone which bears
very little resemblance to the actual text they were purporting to translate: Those
who are trying to force you to be circumcised want to look good to others. They
dont want to be persecuted for teaching that the cross of Christ alone can save.
Since Paul has positioned himself as someone who was persecuted for teaching
that the cross of Christ alone can save, this variation of the text presents Pauls
foes as cowards.
There are two additional discrepancies in this next sentence between Papyrus
46 and the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition. The opening word is houte neither,
instead of houde not even, although neither option makes any sense. One says
that those who were observing the Towrah were not even circumcised, which is
an eternal contradiction, and the other establishes a neither nor which does not
follow in the text. Further, the verb peritemnomenoi is rendered in the perfect
passive participle, and thus conveys: those who have already been circumcised
as opposed to who are being circumcised.
While it is a gnat among camels, no one boasts about being circumcised or
brags about circumcising others. It is a private choice, one which parents make
regarding how they intend to raise their children. It is made in quiet contemplation
as mother and father commit themselves to sharing Gods Covenant within their
home.
For (gar because then) neither / none of (houte) the ones (oi) already
having been circumcised (peritemnomenoi) themselves (autoi) carefully
observe (phulasso focus upon so as to be protected and preserved by) the
Towrah (nomon nourishing allotment which facilitates an inheritance; used
throughout the Septuagint to convey towrah source of teaching, instruction,
direction, and guidance). To the contrary and nevertheless (alla but
certainly), they presently want and take pleasure in (thelousin they purpose
and desire, even enjoy) you all (umas) becoming circumcised (peritemnesthai)
in order that (hina) in (en with) the flesh (te sarx) of yours (umetera) they
may boast (kauchesontai they might brag and be glorified). (Galatians 6:13)
Paulos, who was by his own admission so uncontrollably conceited that Satan
had to demon possess him to reign him in. The very man who had the audacity to
contradict God and start his own religion just called those with the good sense to
observe Gods Towrah boastful. Like most every politician today, Shauwl was
a complete hypocrite.
Shauwl has covered this ground before, so other than to demean the
Covenants Children in a completely hypocritical fashion, this is redundant. But
since he has once again contradicted Yahowahs testimony, here are the facts: In
the Torah, Yahowah asks parents to circumcise our sons on the eighth day as a
sign and symbol of our commitment to the Covenant and to raise our children so
that they become Gods children. Abraham did as Yahowah requestedand on
the very same day that he was asked, circumcised himself and Yitschaq. And
while that single act didnt save him, it demonstrated the appropriate attitude and
mindsetone which we should all consider adopting. Unlike Paul, Abraham
respected what Yahowah had to sayhe trusted Godand as a result, Abraham
followed and relied upon Yahowahs advice. And that is what saved him.
The process of discounting Yahowahs instructions, and renouncing His
symbols, not only displays a bad attitude, and thus irritates God, it stunts our
growth. But worse, when we openly criticize, even ignore, conceal, change, or
corrupt elements of Yahowahs plan, we dim the lights, blur the signs, and put
stumbling blocks on the path to salvation. And that is what Paul is doing here.
The NAMI rendering of this abomination is as follows: But not for the ones
being circumcised themselves law they will guard but they want you to be
circumcised that in the your flesh they might brag. Jerome had a somewhat
similar take on this verse in his LV to my own: For neither they themselves who
are circumcised keep the law: but they will have you to be circumcised, that they
may glory in your flesh. And following his lead, the KJV reported: For neither
they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you
circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. Taking this ball and running with
it, the NLT suggested: And even those who advocate circumcision dont keep
the whole law themselves. They only want you to be circumcised so they can
boast about it and claim you as their disciples. This is more of a commentary
than a translation, which would be fine if it was identified as such.
What these folks are all missing, including Paul, is that Yahowah is the one
who is advocating circumcision. It is one of many things He prescribes in the
Towrah. So, who are we to suggest that His advice is outdated and pass, or that
our advice is better?
The Torah is Yahowahs Way, His Operating Manual. Included therein along
with His words are symbols which aid our understanding. Circumcision is one of
these word pictures. Just as Yahowah cut a covenant with Abraham, one in
which he agreed to separate himself from Babylon and be set apart unto God,
trusting Him with his family, we can cut ourselves in on this same dealthe offer
of a lifetimeand join Yahowahs family by following His instructions.
Yahowahs Covenant is an open invitation. You and I are free to accept it or reject
it. We can even criticize it. But we cannot change it. The path Yahowah has
provided home isnt open to human copyedits or alterations.
Speaking of copyedits and alterations, the oldest witness to Pauls letter
reveals a third me not, this one following may it not become to make it not
boasting in this next statement. Therefore, the ultimate hypocrite and demagogue
wrote:
But (de) for me (emoi), may it not become (me genoito) not boasting (me
kauchasthai bragging), if (ei) not (me) in (en) the (to) cross ( / stauro
Divine Placeholder for Upright Pillar indicating that God is the Doorway to Life
and to Heaven (but since Shauwl has negated the purpose of Passover, the
symbolism is inconsistent with his letter)) of the (tou) Lord (KY / kuriou
Divine Placeholder for Upright One (but since Shauwl is speaking against God,
the Adversarys title is a better fit in this context)) of ours (emon), Christou
Iesou ( / Christou Iesou Divine Placeholders for the Maaseyah
Yahowsha (but since the purpose of Galatians has been to demean the Work of
Yahowah and to deny that Yahowah Saves, Shauwl would have used the
corrupted Greek name and title)), by (dia) whom (ou) my (emoi) world (kosmos
universe, earth, or world system) has been actually crucified ( /
estaurotai Divine Placeholder for being affixed to the Upright Pillar, identifying
the Door to Life and the Way to Heaven with Yahowah (something Shauwl has
sought to negate)) and likewise, I (kago) to world (kosmo). (Galatians 6:14)
 For those of you who needed proof that Shauwl did not include the Divine
Placeholders in his autographs of his letters, you have it now. The
placeholder was designed to convey the Upright One and the Upright Pillar
upon which He hung, fulfilling Passover, thereby denoting the Doorway to Life as
being Divine. But Shauwl has negated the purpose of Passover, and he never
refers to it as the Doorway to Life or to Gods Home. Also, KY is a Divine
Placeholder for the Upright One who is the Foundation and Upright Pillar of
the Tabernacle, concepts that are only understood based upon the deployment of
edon throughout the Towrah a book Shauwl has relentlessly demeaned. But
beyond this, by juxtaposing them in this way, if they were rendered appropriately,
Shauwl would have said: in the Upright Pillar of the Upright Pillar of ours.
It saddens me to realize that Christians believe that the man who routinely
contradicted Yahowsha and demeaned Yahowahs Word bragged in the cross,
rather than in his own perverted message, or that he was somehow crucified
with the Maaseyah he never knew. Yes, he crucified himself with his own words,
but that doesnt count.
If Pauls opening claim was actually true, then someone else other than Paul
wrote the first several chapters of this letter, as they were crafted to defend and
glorify Paul. If the self-proclaimed messenger of God was focused exclusively on
what happened on Passover, his personal reputation, status, and authority would
have been irrelevant. All that would have mattered was presenting Yahowsha as
the diminished corporeal manifestation of Yahowah fulfilling the Towrahs
promises on behalf of the Covenants children on the Miqraey of Pesach,
Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuwah. But that is the antithesis of what we have
endured throughout Galatians.
Further, there is no connection between Shauwl and Yahowshas sacrifice.
Pauls sacrifices, whatever they may have been, are completely irrelevant. Even if
Paul had told the truth rather than convolute it, his actions have not and cannot
save anyone. So its shameful that he continues to present himself as if he was a
co-savior. Paul was not crucified, not on this day or any day. And since he was
Towrahless, if he had been crucified a billion times over, it would not have
benefited anyone. And even if he had correctly represented Yahowshas name and
title, lying in Gods name is far worse than lying in ones own name.
The NAMI touts: To me but not may it become to brag except [n/a] in the
cross of the Master of us Jesus Christ through whom to me world has been
crucified and I to world. Jerome, setting a literary precedent for paraphrasing the
text, wrote the following in his LV: But God forbid that I should glory, save in
the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to
the world. The textually unjustified God forbid statement found in both the LV
and KJV serves as an indictment against the KJV claim that it is a translation of
the Hebrew and Greek: But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of
our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the
world. Continuing to buff and polish Pauls image, the NLT proposed: As for
me, may I never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Because of that cross, my interest in this world has been crucified, and the worlds
interest in me has also died. It appears as if the NLT translators have never read
Pauls letters. But alas, if only: the worlds interest in me had also died.
Like a bad habit that wont go away...
But (gar because then) neither (oute) circumcision (peritome) someone
(ti) is (estin) nor (oute) uncircumcised (akrobystia), on the contrary (alla but
yet nevertheless certainly) a new (kaine previously unknown) creation (ktisis).
(Galatians 6:15)
Just a moment ago, Shauwl claimed that those who were circumcised
negated their salvation, but now it does not matter. For those who prefer honesty
and consistency, this is known as an internal contradiction.
The only thing which has been newly created is Pauline Christianity. And it
is alla contrary to Yahowahs guidance on everything from circumcision to
salvation. Moreover, circumcision, itself, isnt the means to our renewal or
restoration. It is simply a condition to participating in the Covenant.
Had Paul wanted to be helpful here, as opposed to contradictory and
argumentative, he would have said: By closely observing the Torah, Prophets, and
Psalms, we can know Yahowah and come to understand how and why Yahowsha
came to fulfill our Heavenly Fathers promise to make us immortal and perfected
children of His Covenant. By respecting His instructions, and by relying upon the
seven-step path home He has provided, we can be born anew from above, by way
of our Spiritual Mother, and find ourselves enriched and empowered by God.
When we are born spiritually into Yahowahs family on Bikuwrym First-
Born Children, we are renewed by God, but that is not to say that we become a
new creation. We arent recreated but instead our souls are restored.
It has become increasingly obvious that Paul required the new creation, one
that became known as the New Testament, because he opposed the existing
Covenant. But how can his new creation be valid if its premise contradicts the
testimony of God?
As we have learned, Galatians was written as a rebuttal to the dressing down
Shauwl received as a result of being called to Yaruwshalaim to confront
Yahowshas Disciples. They were concerned about him because he was
denouncing circumcision, the Covenant, and the Towrah. And now you know
Shauwls reply. Rather than align his pronouncements so that they were
consistent with Gods teachings, Shauwl not only invented his own religion, he
demeaned everything associated with Yahowah in the process.
If this is what Paul scribed with his own hand, he shouldnt have bothered.
NAMI: Neither for circumcision some is not uncircumcision but new creation.
Trying to redeem the mother of his religion, Jerome proposed the following in the
Latin Vulgate: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor
uncircumcision: but a new creature. The KJV merely plagiarized him: For in
Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a
new creature. But yet as someone who was without exception Towrah observant,
Yahowsha was circumcised. And paraphrased in Elizabethan English, Yahowah
said that uncircumcised not availeth, in that uncircumcised men are explicitly
excluded from participating in Passover and His Covenant, and thus expressly
excluded from eternal life as part of Yahowahs Family and in His Home.
Speaking for themselves and Paul, but most certainly not Yahowah or
Yahowsha, the NLT promised: It doesnt matter whether we have been
circumcised or not. What counts is whether we have been transformed into a new
creation. So why do you suppose Yahowah and Yahowsha bothered with the
Torah or the Covenant?
The oldest witness of Pauls extraordinary penmanship says that he scribed
stoicheosin might follow in the next line as opposed to stoichesouin will
follow. But the question remains, who or what are they to follow?
The only person Paul has asked the Galatians to imitate is himself. He has
not asked them to follow in the footsteps of Yahowsha because that would cause
them to be Torah observant. In fact, Paul has assailed, belittled, convoluted, and
concealed the path the Maaseyah followed as it is laid out in the Torah.
And (kai) as many and whoever (osoi) in this (to touto) rule, principle,
and standard (kanoni measuring rod) might imitate, marching in conformity
by following along (stoicheosin will proceed arranged in military ranks, and
may walk compliantly in someones footsteps, harmoniously imitating (as in
onward Christian soldiers)), peace (eirene) upon (ep) them (autous) and (kai)
mercy (eleos compassion and affection, loving kindness and clemency). And
also (kai) upon (epi) the (tou) Yisrael (Israel a transliteration of Yisrael,
meaning Individuals who Engage and Endure with God) of the (tou) God
(). (Galatians 6:16)
If this rule is defined by his previous statements, that circumcision is either
condemning or irrelevant, then Paul is asking believers to fall in line and consider
Yahowahs Word meaningless.
 We first encountered stoicheion initial teachings and basic elements of the
physical world which were improperly formed and underdeveloped, representing
the first step in the worldly system of pagan mythology in Galatians 4:3, where it
was deployed to demean the Torah. It was there that we learned that stoicheion
was derived from stoicheo, which spoke of soldiers marching off (as in away
from the Torah) from one place to another (as in from the Old Testament to the
New Testament). We also discovered that stoicheo was similar to Yahowahs
depiction of His malak spiritual messengers who are: saba relegated to a
military command and control regimen where they follow orders, in that stoicheo
describes armies in orderly ranks, with each combatant simply following the
leader, and with everyone moving in a structured line, existing in conformity
with the orders they have been given. And thats important because it is Satans
quid pro quo: he wants mankind treated as he was treated. So while stoicheos
submit and obey connotation was meant to be derogatory when applied to God,
its just fine when believers relinquish the benefits of informed freewill, and fall
in line with Shauwls satanically-inspired commands. Its little wonder Christians
act like lemmings.
More telling still, albeit in a horrible way, the rule most important to Paul, the
one he wants all believers to walk in conformity with, following his example, is:
believe what I say. According to the Devils Advocate: eleos mercy is
afforded those who accept his standard which requires rejecting Yahowahs
standard.
And truthfully, there is only one rule, one measure, one standard which
matters according to YahowahHis Towrah. Even Yahowsha was measured and
found perfect by this standard. That is why when our sin was associated with
Him, in accordance with Second Samuel 7, Yahowah did not spare the rod. It
is the reason Yahowsha endured Passover and Unleavened Bread. It is how He
prevailed on our behalf.
And yet Paul has said that Christians should measure truth by the standard
born out of his duplicitous and irrational rhetoric. So sadly, those who believe him
will discover too late that neither his promises nor their faith will deliver peace
or mercy.
Shauwls ending clause was intentionally provocative. Whether he meant to
convey the Israel of the God or the Israel of this God, there is only one
Yisraeland the name already includes el, which is Gods title. So we must
assume that Shauwl was making a distinction between the Yisrael of the
Towrah, and his new creationthe Christian Church. And that is why a
distinction had to be made between Yisrael and his Faith. It was the seed of what
would become known as replacement theology.
 And speaking of provocative, by writing the Greek word eleos mercy at
the end of a letter in which a new religion was established based upon the Greek
goddesses Charis Charities, known as Gratia or Graces in Latin and English,
Paul proved conclusively that his elevation of the pagan goddesses to Christian
legend was deliberate. While eleos mercy, compassion, affection, loving
kindness, and clemency was the perfect word to convey the nature of Yahowahs
merciful gift, the man who listened to and heeded the words of Dionysus during
his conversion promoted the pagan gods daughters to receptive Greek and
Roman ears. In so doing, especially while simultaneously blending in a hefty dose
of Gnosticism, Paul established the religious model Catholicism would follow.
The Roman Catholic Church, by its own admission, was able to assimilate
cultures en masse into their religion because clerics were always willing to
incorporate pagan gods, rites, and holidays into the faith. This is a devastating
blow to those who promote: Grace alone.
As we conclude our review of this statement, youll notice that the Nestle-
Aland McReynolds Interlinear acknowledged the existence of tou of the, or of
this before theos God, when they scribed: And as many as in the rule this
will walk peace on them and mercy and on the Israel of the God. The Catholic
Vulgate published: And whosoever shall follow this rule, peace on them and
mercy: and upon the Israel of God. So why did the Catholics impose so many
additional rules if ignoring circumcision was sufficient? Thirteen hundred years
later, the Authorized Protestant KJV promoted: And as many as walk according
to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
Paul did not write Gods peace and mercy, nor did Paul suggest that these
gifts came from God. NLT: May Gods peace and mercy be upon all who live by
this principle; they are the new people of God. Are the Tyndale publishers so
anti-Semitic that they think they are justified in removing Yisrael? Do you
suppose they replaced Yisrael because they believe that they have become
Gods new people? Have they not proved my point that this was intended to
promote replacement theology whereby Pauline Christians became the recipients
of all of the promises made to Yisrael? But if so, why do Christians universally
ignore the basis of those promises: the Towrah?
The same Shauwl who went out of his way to antagonize and harass his foes
(who just happen to be Yahowshas Disciples), who made a career out of abusing
members of Yahowahs family, who demeaned his audience, calling them
moronic, like all insecure individuals, had chronically thin skin and would not
tolerate reprisals. This next statement is a command.
Furthermore, from now on (tou loipos for the remainder of time,
henceforth), do not let anyone continue to (medeis parecho allow no one to
cause (present active imperative) cause trouble or difficulty (kopous
bothersome hardships and laborious toils, exhausting tasks and wearisome works;
from kopos sorrowful beatings as a source of troubles) for me (moi), for I
(ego), indeed (gar because), the scars and brands (ta stigma the tattoos
demarking a slave owned by a particular master, a soldier controlled by a general,
or a religious devotee) of the (tou) Iesou ( / Iesou Divine Placeholder for
Yahowsha, meaning Yahowah Saves (which was most likely added by a
second century scribe because Shauwls letter disassociates Yahowsha from
Yahowah), in (en) the (to) body (soma) of me (mou), I actually bear (bastazo I
genuinely and presently carry, endure, remove, provide, and undergo).
(Galatians 6:17)
In this vast swamp of delusional megalomania, this may be the most
egotistical and depraved statement Shauwl has yet postured. Not only cant he be
bothered, the Galatians have been ordered to prevent anyone from giving Satans
Messiah any trouble, now and forever. And this is because he personally claims
that he actually bears the scars and brands of Iesou, an individual he never so
much as even met. As lies go, this one is as egotistical and psychotic as they
come.
Shauwl is presenting himself as Yahowshas savior, the one bearing his
burdens. But unlike Yahowsha, who willingly labored on our behalf, Shauwl
does not want to be troubled.
Incidentally, when loipos furthermore, from now on, and for the remainder
of time was used in the context of Shimown / Peters evaluation of Pauls
epistles, it was convoluted to mean other by most every English translation.
And that was to infer that all of Pauls letters were Scripture. But based upon
these translations of loipos, it wasnt because they didnt know what the word
actually means. They were trying to deceive you.
NAMI: Of the remaining labors to me no one let hold to I for the brands of
the Jesus in the body of me bear. LV: From henceforth let no man be
troublesome to me: for I bear the marks of the Lord Jesus in my body. KJV:
From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the
Lord Jesus. NLT: From now on, dont let anyone trouble me with these things.
For I bear on my body the scars that show I belong to Jesus.
This wannabe Apostle clearly needs an attitude adjustment. Can you
imagine Yahowsha telling Shimown, or you and me for that matter: If you
bother me again Ill have nothing to do with you? Such a command does not
bear the mark of God.
Since Shauwl has raised the specter of brands cut or tattooed into the skin,
by virtue of Qara / Called Out / Leviticus 19:28, we know that Yahowah is
opposed to both. So it is interesting that the man who has preached against Gods
instructions to cut ones foreskin as a sign of the Covenant has now proclaimed
that he bears a stigma in his body, all in direct conflict with the Torah.
It should also be noted that Muhammad issued the same command on similar
grounds. He ordered Muslims to stop bothering him (while he was having sex
with children in the apartments surrounding his mosque) because he bore the
mark and sign of Allahs prophet in his case, a hairy mole..
Christian apologists will no doubt capitulate that a stigma is a brand or
tattoo, but they will protest that figuratively (albeit by way of religious editing)
the word can convey the idea of a scar but that is only as a result of cutting
the brand into the skin. Disregarding this fact, they will say that Paul was actually
claiming that he bore scars on his body because he spoke on behalf of Jesus
Christ. But Paul never actually spoke on behalf of the Maaseyah Yahowsha
(misquoting Him once doesnt count), and his claims to have been beaten are no
more credible than the rest of his errant testimony. If you recall, each time Paul
has tried to recount his personal past, he has either contradicted or convicted
himself. (Although to be fair, knowing what we have come to know about Paul,
and appreciating the consequences of his false teachings on billions of Christian
souls, given the opportunity, Ive done my best to strike a mortal blow to his
credibility.)
But there is good news. We have finally reached the end of Galatians.
Unfortunately, Pauls concluding comments contain the names of three false gods,
five if you consider the Greek or English corruptions of the Maaseyah
Yahowsha. The first of these is especially incriminating, because just a couple of
statements ago the Devils Advocate acknowledged that he was aware of a perfect
Greek alternative to Grace, that being: eleos mercy. Disregarding it, and
promoting the pagan goddess yet again, Shauwl wrote the following on behalf of
his Lord:
Becoming the (H) Grace (Charis Charities; the name of the Greek
goddesses of lovemaking and licentiousness, from who the Roman Gratia, or
Graces, were named) of the (tou) Lord ( / Kuriou Master who possesses,
owns, and controls slaves), our (emon) Iesou Christou ( / Iesou
Christou Divine Placeholders for Yahowsha Yahowah Saves and
Maaseyah Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah (however, Shauwl
almost certainly wrote the corrupted Greek name and title which has been poorly
transliterated Jesus Christ)), with (meta) the (tou) spirit ( / pneumatos
Divine Placeholder for the Ruwach (however, Shauwls spirit (a.k.a. the Lord)
bears no resemblance to the Set-Apart Spirit)) of you (umon) brothers (adelpoi).
Amen (Amen the name of the Egyptian sun god, as reflected in Amen Ra and
Tutankhamen). (Galatians 6:18)
 If there were ever a place where an article was deadly, it is here. Tou of
the before the placeholder precludes the symbol from representing
Yahowahs name in this sentence. And that means that Paul purposefully left Him
out of this salutation.
More devastating still, since the Lord is Satans title (derived from the
Hebrew Baal Lord) and since Shauwl wrote emon our before he
personally scribed Iesou Christou with his own hand, we must assume that he
was speaking of he and his Lords personal creation of the mythical Jesus
Christ a caricature which bore no resemblance to Yahowah Saving Us, and
thus to the Towrah or Yahowsha. Paulos Jesus Christ was neither God,
Savior, nor the Word made flesh.
Also, Shauwl wrote The Charis / Charities of the Lord. And that is
actually a valid association, properly identifying the Greek goddesses with
Dionysus, the Greek god upon which his religion was conceived. So Paul has
come full circle from his conversion to his corruption.
Continuing to clean up Pauls mess, it should be noted that he forgot to
include a verb in his parting statement. Further, while mankind has a nepesh
soul, humankind does not have a pneumatos spirit. Yahowahs Ruwach
Qodesh, or Set-Apart Spirit, is from God. She is not with the spirit of you. And
since Shauwl has just asked believers to be spiritual, it has become obvious that
the spirit of Christianity is adverse to God.
And lastly, when transliterated and capitalized, rather than translated,
Amen is the name of a pagan godthe sun god of Egypt. Had the Greek
transliteration (amane) of the Hebrew word amen (also pronounced awmane)
been translated trustworthy and reliable, then the pagan association would have
been eliminated. But alas, it has become deified. Christians typically complete
their prayers: In Gods name, I pray, Amen, making Amen the name of the
Christian god. And this problem is exacerbated in Paulos concluding clause by
the fact that Yahowahs name was specifically excluded from a salutation which
began and ended with pagan monikers.
One last time, lets consider the scholarly Nestle Aland Greek New
Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear: The favor of the
Master of us Jesus Christ with the spirit of you brothers, amen. And as we
conclude, please notice that our trilogy of Christian publications transliterated the
name of the Roman goddess Grace, but then translated kuriou Lord rather
than acknowledge the placeholder. They ignored the placeholders for Yahowsha
and Maaseyah and transliterated the erroneous Greek name and title. Then,
adding insult to injury, they respectfully transliterated Amen, even capitalizing
it, demonstrating that it wasnt a common Greek word, but instead the name of an
Egyptian god.
The Catholic Latin Vulgate therefore reads: The grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen. The Authorized Protestant King
James Version promoted: Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with
your spirit. Amen. And the Evangelical Christian paraphrase and commentary
known as the New Living Translation authored: Dear brothers and sisters, may
the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.
The final stanza of Shauwls personal vendetta against Yahowah reads:
You must look at and become acquainted with, paying attention to how
tall and great the letters I wrote to you with my hand. (6:11)
As much as they currently desire to make a good showing in this flesh to
actually compel and force you all to become circumcised merely so that the
cross of the Christou Iesou they presently may not pursue. (6:12) For none of
the ones already having been circumcised, themselves carefully observe the
Towrah. To the contrary and nevertheless, they presently want and take
pleasure in you all becoming circumcised in order that in the flesh of yours
they may boast. (6:13)
But for me, may it not become not boasting, if not in the cross of the
Lord of ours, Christou Iesou, by whom my world has been actually crucified
and likewise, I to world. (6:14)
But neither circumcision someone is nor uncircumcised, on the contrary
a new creation. (6:15) And as many and whoever in this rule, the principle
and standard, might imitate, marching in conformity by following along,
peace upon them and mercy. And also upon the Yisrael of this God. (6:16)
Furthermore, from now on, do not let anyone continue to cause trouble
or difficulty for me, for I, indeed, the scars and brands of the Iesou in the
body of mine I actually bear, I presently carry, and endure. (6:17)
To be the Grace of the Lord, our Iesou Christou, with the spirit of you
brothers. Amen. (6:18)
Grace, Lord, spirit of you, and Amen, indeed.
 It is with a heavy heart that I provide you with this final summary of
Galatians. When Gods Word is used as the standard, Shauwls message is found
to be:
Accurate: 5.9. (1 @ 0.7%)
Irrelevant: 1.2, 1.13, 1.14, 1.19, 1.21, 2.15, 4.20, 6.11. (8 @ 5%)
Insufficient: 1.18, 3.1, 5.5. (3 @ 2%)
Half Truth: 3.8, 3.16, 3.17, 3.26, 4.4, 4.6, 4.22, 4.30, 5.22, 6.3. (10 @ 7%)
Unintelligible: 1.7, 2.14, 3.20, 3.29, 4.11, 4.13, 4.18, 4.21, 4.29, 5.7, 5.8, 5.11,
5.13, 5.15, 5.26. (15 @ 10%)
Inaccurate: 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.20,
1.22, 1.23, 1.24, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13,
2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.19, 2.20, 2.21, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12,
3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.18, 3.19, 3.21, 3.22, 3.23, 3.24, 3.25, 3.27, 3.28, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3,
4.5, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.12, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17, 4.19, 4.23, 4.24, 4.25, 4.26,
4.27, 4.28, 4.31, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 5.10, 5.12, 5.14, 5.16, 5.17, 5.18, 5.19,
5.20, 5.21, 5.23, 5.24, 5.25, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.12, 6.13,
6.14, 6.15, 6.16, 6.17, 6.18. (112 @ 75%)
Paul made one statement which was completely accurate. Little yeast the
whole batch yeasts. Therefore less than 1% of Galatians was accurate.
Paul made eight statements which were totally irrelevant and three more in
which he provided insufficient information for what he wrote to have had any
value. Collectively, this waste of papyrus and ink comprised 8% of the epistle.
There were fifteen statements which were essentially incomprehensible,
albeit there were many more which bordered on indecipherable. And while the
entire letter from beginning to end was poorly written, the utterly unintelligible
sentences represented another 15% of the total. If we were to add these to those
which were simply inarticulate and incoherent, we would have a perfect match for
the Quran.
But more than anything, Paul was wrong. A stunning one-hundred and twelve
statements were inaccurate, which is to say that there were elements which
contradicted Gods Word. His propensity to deceive was on display in a stunning
75% of all Galatians passages.
Therefore, our introductory challenge has been resolved. I had proposed that
if Paul pulled off the miraculous feat attributed to him, if he managed to
supersede something as well known and revered as the Torah, and if he
supplanted it with something as nebulous and mystical as faith, and convinced the
world that he had done so without contradicting God, Galatians would have to
have been the most brilliantly written theses of all time. It was not.
Beyond this sorry state of affairs, my hopes were dashed. Properly
identifying whether Paul was assailing Rabbinic Law or Yahowahs Towrah did
not reconcile a single statement throughout this letter. And while the translators
took great liberties with regard to Pauls words, the plethora of religious
deceptions which have been disseminated as a direct result of this epistle cannot
be blamed on errant translations. Therefore, all of my preconceived notions were
shattered. Paul played me for a fool, just as he has billions of Christians before
me.
The verdict is undeniable: Paul spoke for himself, and he was inspired by a
spirit in direct opposition to God. He was most often wrong. And the one time he
was right, the truth only served to make his lies more beguiling. That is the best
possible face we can put on the evidence.
So the Great Galatians Debate is over. You can trust the Creator of the
universe or a tent maker, the Author of the Torah or someone who rejected the
Torah. Perhaps its just me, but if the Author of life authored a book, it might be
in our interest to consider what He had to say.

For one last time, please hold your nose, here is the letter upon which the
religion of Christianity was conceived and from which all Christians were
doomed...
Paulos, an apostle, not of men, not even by the means of man, but to the
contrary on behalf of Iesou Christou and god, father of the one having
awakened Him out of a dead corpse, (1:1) and all the brothers with me to the
called out of the Galatias, (1:2) Grace to you and peace from god, father of us
and Lord Iesou Christou, (1:3) the one having given Himself on account of
the sins and errors of us, so that somehow, He might gouge or tear out,
uprooting us from the past circumstances of the old system which had been
in place which is disadvantageous and harmful, corrupt and worthless,
malicious and malignant according to the desire and will of god and father of
us, (1:4) to whom the opinion regarding the glorious appearance of the
shining light, a manifestation of Gods reputation, by means of the old and
the new systems, Amen, let it be so. (1:5)
 I am astonished, wondering in this way quickly you changed, becoming
disloyal, apostates and traitors away from your calling in the name of Grace
to a different beneficial messenger (1:6) which does not exist differently,
conditionally negated because some are stirring you up, confusing you,
proposing to change and pervert the healing message of Christou, (1:7) but to
the contrary, if we or a messenger out of heaven conveys a beneficial
messenger to you which is contrary to what we delivered as a good messenger
to you then a curse with a dreadful consequence exists. (1:8)
As we have said already, and even just now, repetitively, I say, if under
the condition someone communicates a useful message to you contrary, even
greater than that which you received, it shall be (in fact I command and want
it to exist as) a curse with a dreadful consequence. (1:9) For because
currently, men I persuade presently, actually use words to win the favor of,
seducing, misleading, and appeasing the god. Or by comparison and
contrast, I seek and desire to please and accommodate humans? Yet
nevertheless, if men, I was pleasing and accommodating, exciting the
emotions of and lifting up a slave of Christou, certainly not was me. (1:10)
But nevertheless, I profess and reveal to you brothers of the beneficial
message which having been communicated advantageously by and through
myself, because it is not in accord with man. (1:11) But neither because I by
man associating myself with it. Nor was I taught or instructed as a disciple.
But to the contrary, by way of a revelation, an appearance serving to uncover
and unveil Iesou Christou. (1:12)
For because indeed you heard of my wayward behavior in some time and
place in the practice of Judaism, namely that because throughout, showing
superiority, surpassing any measure of restraint, to an extraordinary degree,
and better than anyone else, I was aggressively and intensely pursued,
persecuting, oppressing, and harassing the called out of god, and I was and
am devastating her, continuing to undermine, overthrow, and annihilate her.
(1:13)
And so I was and continue to progress, accomplishing a great deal, and I
persist moving forward in the practice of Judaism, over and beyond many
contemporaries among my race, zealous and excited, devoted and burning
with passion to belong to the traditions and teachings handed down by my
forefathers. (1:14) But at a point in time when it pleased and was chosen
enjoyable and better for god, the one having appointed me, setting me aside
out of the womb of my mother (1:15) to reveal and disclose, uncovering and
unveiling the son of him in order that I could announce the healing message
among the races, immediately. I did not ask the advice of or consult with
flesh or blood. (1:16)
 I did not ascend into Yaruwshalaim toward the goal of being with or
against the Apostles before me, but to the contrary I went away, withdrawing
to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. (1:17) Then later in the sequence
of events, after three years time, I ascended up to Yaruwshalaim to visit and
get acquainted with Kephas and remained against / with him fifteen days.
(1:18) But other of the Apostles, I did not see, I did not pay attention to, or
concern myself with except Yaaqob, the brother of the Lord. (1:19)
But now what I write to you, you must pay especially close attention in
the presence of god, because I cannot lie. (1:20) Thereafter, I came to the
regions of Syria and also of Cilicia. (1:21) But I was not known and was
disregarded, I was either ignored or ignorant, not recognized or understood,
personally by appearance as an individual by the called out of Yahuwdah in
Christo. (1:22) But then only they were constantly hearing that the one
presently pursuing and persecuting us at various times now he presently
proclaims a healing message of faith which once he was attacking, continuing
to annihilate, he was consistently ravaging and destroying. (1:23) And so they
were praising and glorifying, attributing an exceptionally high value and
status, considering illustrious and magnificent, dignifying and magnifying in
me for god. (1:24)
Later, through fourteen years also, I went up to Yaruwshalaim along
with Barnabas, having taken along also Titus. (2:1) I went up from
uncovering an unveiling revelation which lays bare, laying down to them the
beneficial messenger which I preach among the races down from my own,
uniquely and separately, but then to the opinions, presumptions, and
suppositions, into foolishness and stupidity, without purpose, I might run or I
ran. (2:2)
To the contrary, not even Titus, a Greek being, was compelled, forced or
pressured, to be circumcised. (2:3) But then on account of the impersonators
who faked their relationship brought in surreptitiously into the group to spy
upon and plot against the freedom from conscience and liberation from the
constraints of morality that we possess in Christo Iesou in order that us they
will actually make subservient, controlling for their own ends, (2:4) to whom
neither to a moment we yielded, surrendered, or submitted in order that the
truth of the god may continue to be associated among you. (2:5)
But now from the ones currently presumed and supposed to be someone
important based upon some sort of unspecified past, they were actually and
continue to be nothing, completely meaningless and totally worthless, to me.
It carries through and bears differently the face of god of man not take hold
of or receive, because to me, the ones currently presuming and dispensing
opinions based upon reputed appearances, of no account, worthless was their
advice and counsel in the past. (2:6)
Contrariwise, nevertheless, the objection and exception, having seen and
perceived that because namely I have been believed entrusted with the
healing message and beneficial messenger of the uncircumcised inasmuch as
Petros / Rock of the circumcised. (2:7) Because then namely, the one having
previously functioned in Petro to an apostle for the circumcision, it actually
functioned also in me to the nations and ethnicities. (2:8)
And having recognized, becoming familiar with the Grace of the one
having been given to me, Yaaqob, Kephas, and also Yahowchanan, the ones
presently presumed and supposed to be leaders, the right place of honor and
authority they granted to me, and to Barnabas fellowship as a result. We to
the nations and ethnicities, but they to the circumcision. (2:9) Only alone by
itself the lowly and poor, the worthless beggars of little value that we might
remember and possibly think about which also I was eager and quick same
this to do. (2:10)
But when Kephas came to Antioch, I was opposed to and against his
presence. I stood in hostile opposition because he was convicted and
condemned, even ignorant. (2:11) Because, before a certain individual came
from Yaaqob, he was eating together with the different races, but when he
came, he was withdrawing and was separating himself, out of fear of the
circumcised. (2:12) So they were hypocritical, and also the remaining
Yahuwdym. As a result even Barnabas was led away and astray with them in
the duplicitous hypocrisy. (2:13)
Nevertheless, when I saw that they were not walking through life rightly
with the truth of the healing and beneficial messenger, I said to Kephas in
front of all: If you Jews actively being ethnic, how the ethnicities you compel
and force into being or acting Jewish? (2:14)
We are Jews by nature and are not from the social outcasts of sinful and
heathen races, (2:15) having come to realize without evidence, that by no
means whatsoever is man vindicated or made righteous by means of activities
associated with the Towrah, if not by faith in Iesou Christou. And we on
Christon Iesoun, ourselves, believed in order for us to have become righteous
out of faith in Christou, and not by means of acting upon the Towrah,
because by means of engaging in the Towrah not any flesh will be acquitted,
vindicated, nor made righteous. (2:16)
But if seeking to be made righteous and innocent in Christo, we were
found also ourselves social outcasts and sinners, shouldnt we be anxious that
Christos becomes a guilty, errant, and misled, servant of sin? Not may it
exist, (2:17) because if that which I have actually torn down, dissolved, and
dismantled, invalidated and abolished, subverted and discarded, this on the
other hand I restore or reconstruct, promoting this edifice, I myself bring
into existence and recommend transgression and disobedience. (2:18) I then,
because of and by the Towrahs law, myself, actually died and was
separated in order that to god I might currently live. Together with Christo,
I have actually been crucified. (2:19)
I live, but no longer I. He lives then in me, Christos. This because now I
live in the flesh, in faith I live of the god and Christou, the one having loved
me and surrendered, entrusting authority to control, influence, instruct, and
to betray exclusively and especially of himself for the sake of and because of
me. (2:20) I do not reject or disregard the Charity / Grace of the god if
because then by the Torah, righteousness as a result Christos undeservedly,
for no reason or cause, without benefit, for naught, and in vain, died. (2:21)
O ignorant and irrational, unintelligent and unreasonable, Galatians. To
whom were you bewitched, deceived, slandered, and seduced? (3:1) This
alone I want to learn from you: out of accomplishments of the Towrah the
spirit you received or alternatively out of hearing of belief? (3:2) In this way,
you are ignorant and irrational, lacking in knowledge and unable to think
logically. Having begun with spirit, now in flesh you are completing? (3:3) So
much and for so long these things you suffered. You were affected and you
were vexed, annoyed, and angry, without reason or result, if indeed, really
without result. (3:4)
The one, therefore, then supplying you the spirit and causing it to
function, operating powerfully in you, out of acting upon the Torah or out of
hearing faith? (3:5) Just as Abram believed and had faith in the God so it
was reasoned and accounted to Him as righteousness. (3:6) You know, as a
result, the ones out of faith, these are Abrams sons. (3:7)
Having seen beforehand then by contrast the writing, that because out of
faith makes the people from different races and places right, God, He, before
the beneficial messenger acted for Abram, that they would in time be spoken
of favorably in you to all the ethnicities and nations. (3:8) As a result, the
ones out of faith, we are spoken of favorably, even praised together with the
faithful Abram. (3:9)
For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks of the
Torah, they are under a curse, because it is written that All are accursed
who do not remain alive, persevering with all that is written in the scroll of
the Torah, doing it. (3:10) So with that Torah, absolutely no one is
vindicated or justified alongside God. It becomes evident: Those who are
justified and righteous, out of faith will live. (3:11) But the Towrah exists not
out of faith, but to the contrary, The one having done and preformed them
will live in them. (3:12)
Christos bought us back from the evil and hateful curse of the Towrah,
having become for our sake a maligning and malicious curse, because it has
been written: A vengeful curse on all those having hung on wood. (3:13) As
a result, to the people from different races, the beneficial word of Abram
might become in Christo Iesou that the promise of the spirit we might take
hold, being possessed through faith. (3:14)
Brothers, according to man I say nevertheless a man having been
validated with an agreement; no one rejects or actually accepts added
provisions. (3:15) But to Abram these promises were said, And to the
offspring of him. It does not say: And to the seeds, like upon many. But to
the contrary, as upon one, and to the seed of you which is Christos. (3:16) But
this I say, A promised covenant agreement having been ratified beforehand
by the God, this after four-hundred and thirty years, having become Towrah
does not revokes it so as to invalidate the promise. (3:17)
Because if out of the Towrah, the inheritance is no longer from promise,
but to the Abram by promise of God, He has forgiven and pleasured. (3:18)
Then, therefore, why the Towrah? Until the seed which might come to whom
it has been promised having been commanded by spiritual messengers in the
hand and control of a mediator or middleman. (3:19) But now, the mediator,
he is not of one, but the god, he is one. (3:20)
Indeed, consequently, the Torah accordingly is against the promises of
the god. Not may it become (although it might be, even though I dont want it
to be). For if, per chance, had been given the Torah the power and ability,
the capacity and resources, to impart life, certainly in the Torah would be the
righteous and vindicated. (3:21) But to the contrary, the writing imposed
restrictions, completely shutting the door on heaven, imprisoning everything
under error and evil in order that the promise out of the Faith of Iesou
Christou might be given to believers. (3:22) But before the arrival of the
Faith, under the control of the Towrah, we were actually being held in
custody as prisoners, restricted and trapped like fish in a net, to the bringing
about of the Faith was revealed. (3:23)
As a result, the Towrah has come to exist as our disciplinarian using
dogmatic old-fashioned methods extending until Christon in order that by
means of the Faith we might, at some point in time, while doing nothing
ourselves, be justified. (3:24) But now having come the Faith, no longer do we
exist under an old fashioned and strict disciplinarian. (3:25) For all sons of
God, you all exist by way of the Faith in Christo Iesou. (3:26) Because as
many as to Christon, you all were actually at some point baptized, Christon
you all clothe or plunge. (3:27)
No longer is there Jew nor Greek, no longer is there slave nor free, no
longer is there male and female, because then all of you exist as one in
Christo Iesou. (3:28) But if you all are Christou, then you are of Abrams
seed with respect to the promise heirs. (3:29)
So I say, as long as the heir exists childish and immature, he is no
different than a slave, belonging to the lord and master who owns and
controls everyone and everything. (4:1) Certainly, he is under the auspices of
foremen who control the workers and administrators until the previously
appointed time set of the Father. (4:2)
And also in this way it follows that when we were infants, under the
elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology, we
were subservient slaves. (4:3) But when came the fullness of the unspecified
time, the God sent out the Son of Him, having come to exist, originating from
a woman, having come to exist under Towrah (4:4) in order that the ones
under Towrah he might buy back in order to the son set we might receive
back and obtain from. (4:5)
But because you are sons sent out the god, the spirit into the hearts of us
shouts, Abbathe Father. (4:6) So as a result, you no longer exist as a
slave, but to the contrary a Son. But now if a Son and an heir by the chance
casting of lots through a god. (4:7)
Certainly on the other hand, not having known or acknowledged god,
you were enslaved to nature, not existing as gods. (4:8) But now having
known god, but whats more, having been known under god, how have you
returned, changing your beliefs back upon the incapacitating and
incompetent, the worthless, belittling, and terrifying elementary teachings
and rudimentary principles of religious mythology representing the
inadequate, simplistic, and improperly formed first step which back again
and again from above you are choosing to be controlled as a slave (4:9) by
observing and carefully attending days, and months, and seasons, and years?
(4:10)
I am afraid and fear for you that maybe somehow without reason and
for nothing I have grown tired and discouraged, struggling to demonstrate
effort toward you. (4:11) You all must become and are commanded to exist
like I. Then I as a emphatic priority as a result like you all become called
brothers and fellow believers, the means I want to compel, to bind, and to
control you all. In no way were you wronged, harmed, or treated unjustly as
a result of fraud by me. (4:12)
But you realize that because of an incapacity, timidity, weakness, and
limitation in the flesh I announced this healing messenger and beneficial
message to you all previously. (4:13) And my temptation to prove my
integrity and my submission to another, my fidelity and true nature of my
character) in my flesh, you did not ridicule, despise, or reject. To the
contrary like a spiritual messenger of god you received and believed me as
Christon Iesoun. (4:14)
Where, therefore and consequently then, the declaration of blessedness
and the pronouncement of happiness of yours? I witness and testify because
of you that if possible and competent, your eyes having gouged and plucked
out, you gave to me. (4:15) So as a result, a hostile and despised adversary of
yours I have become telling the truth to you. (4:16)
They are jealous of you, not rightly, but to the contrary, they want to
exclude and separate you, in order that you might be jealous of them. (4:17)
But good and right to be jealous in good and right at all times. And not only
alone in my presence with you. (4:18)
Children of mine whom also I have birth pangs, having engaged in the
labor of childbirth as far as that which might be formed becoming Christos
in you all. (4:19) But I would purpose to be present, to arrive and to come
with you now and to change, altering the nature and character of my voice
and language because I am at a loss, perplexed and puzzled, doubting and
embarrassed, uncertain and I dont know what to do in you. (4:20)
Speak to me those proposing and deciding to exist under the control of
Towrah: cant you hear the Towrah? (4:21) For indeed because it has been
written that Abram two sons had, one from the slave girl and one from the
free and unbound. (4:22) Certainly from the slave girl according to flesh has
been born, from the free by way of a promise. (4:23) Whatever is being
spoken of allegorically these then exist as two covenants or testaments, one
indeed from Mount Sinai into subservience, slavery, and bondage, giving
birth to whoever exists as Hagar. (4:24) So now Hagar exists as Mount Sinai
in Arabia, therefore, corresponding to the present Yaruwshalaim. She is
enslaved because of being associated with her children. (4:25)
But the Yaruwshalaim above in opposition, free and independent is who
is our mother. (4:26) For indeed, it has been written, Be glad infertile, the
not giving birth, violently lacerating throwing an angry fit, viciously ripping
things to pieces while distorting and convulsing, cry aloud, becoming the not
suffering birth pains because many the children of the desolate, forsaken and
deserted, more than of the possessing the man. (4:27)
But you brothers according to Yitschaq of promise children you are.
(4:28) Otherwise just as at that time this accordingly, flesh having given birth
pursued, persecuted, and expelled this according to spirit and so it continues
even now. (4:29) Nevertheless, what says the Writing, Throw out and expel
the slave girl and the son of her for will not receive by lots the son of the slave
girl with the son of the free. (4:30) Therefore, brothers, we are not children
of slave girl, to the contrary, the free. (4:31)
This freedom and liberty of ours being Christos it freed, so you all are
directed to stand firm. Therefore, also, not again in yoke of subservience and
slavery you are held based upon a grudge against you all, controlling you and
forcing you to surrender to someone who bears ill will, is resentful, violent,
and quarrelsome. (5:1)
You pay attention, I, Paulos, myself say to you all that if on the condition
that you may be circumcised, Christos is totally worthless and completely
meaningless, not in the least bit helpful or useful for you. (5:2) So then,
furthermore, repeating myself, I testify, insist, and protest to every man
being circumcised that he actually is obligated to do and perform the entire
and complete Towrah. (5:3)
You have invalidated and rendered inoperative, abolishing the purpose
of the separation of Christou whosoever is in unison with the Towrah. You
all having been declared righteous, and having been vindicated with the
Charis / Gratia / Graces, you all have fallen away and have been forsaken.
(5:4)
Because indeed, we in spirit out of faith hope. Righteousness we await
patiently. (5:5) In Christo Iesou neither circumcision is someone is capable,
powerful, and mighty nor uttermost part of the penis, on the contrary
through faith love operating. (5:6)
You were trying, running, and progressing well, in a fine way that was
pleasing. Who or what you it prevented and impeded, it offended and was
beaten of the truth not to be persuaded, to obey, and to follow along
faithfully? (5:7) The enticing persuasion and soliciting inducement not from
the one providing a name to you all. (5:8) A little yeast whole of the batch it
yeasts. (5:9)
I have been persuaded to coax and convince you, winning you over in the
Lord because nothing different other than this may you all regard or ponder,
potentially holding as a belief. So now, the one stirring you up and causing
you great distress, confusing, bewildering, and mystifying you will undergo
and endure the judgment, condemnation, and punishment, whoever this
individual might be. (5:10)
But now, I, brothers, if conditionally circumcision nevertheless still I
preach, why and for what further besides am I pursued and persecuted,
made to flee timid and fearful at the commands of another? As a result,
therefore perhaps it is possible, invalidated and annulled this offending trap
and stumbling block which ensnares and is offensive of the crucifixion. (5:11)
And also how I wish and pray for a malicious curse, that they might
castrate and emasculate themselves, suffering amputation of their penis and
testicles, those troublemakers among you who stir you up to rebel by
disseminating religious error and political seditions. (5:12)
For you upon freedom you all were named and were called brothers.
Only not in the liberty to the point of the starting point of the original violent
attack of the flesh. To the contrary, by of the love you all are slaves of each
other. (5:13) Because of this then all the Towrah in one word has come to an
end and is finished in the you loving of the nearby neighbor as yourself.
(5:14) But if each other you all bite and you devour, you all watch out, not
under one another you might be consumed. (5:15)
But I say in spirit you are all commanded to advance. And so the desire
and passion of lustful craving of the flesh deny, lest you might come to an
end. (5:16) For indeed, the fleshs desires and passions against the spirit, and
so then the spirit in opposition to the flesh, because of these one another it is
hostile and adversarial in order to negate what conditionally you all might
presently propose and want of these to possibly behave and do. (5:17) But if
in spirit you all are not guided, you are under the control of the Towrah.
(5:18)
But now evident, clearly seen, and widely known are the works and
assigned tasks of the flesh which indeed exist as sexual promiscuity, impure
materiality, sensuality, (5:19) the likeness manifesting what can be observed,
the use and administering of drugs, hatred and hostile antagonism, strife,
dissension, and quarrelling, deep devotion and jealousy, the desire to make a
sacrifice, selfish ambitions and hostile rivalries, discord and division, taking
another stand, the freedom to choose for oneself, (5:20) envious corruption,
drunkenness, public partying, and that similar to this which I previously
spoke to you inasmuch as I said before that the likes of such carrying out and
committing these practices, the reign and kingdom of God, they will not
inherit. (5:21)
 But the fruit of the spirit is: love, happiness, peace, patience, mercy from
an upright implement, being good through generosity, faith, (5:22)
gentleness, meekness, and humility, self-control over ones sexual appetite,
with regard to such there is no Towrah. (5:23)
But the ones of the Christou the flesh has been crucified with the
sufferings, passions, the deep desires, and longings. (5:24) If we live for spirit,
for spirit we march in a line, behaving by imitating, living in conformity.
(5:25) Not we might come to exist vainly boastful sharing opinions which are
baseless, one another provoking and irritating, each other jealous and
envying. (5:26)
And also brothers, if a man may have previously detected or caught
someone in a false step, you all, the spiritual ones, you must thoroughly
prepare and completely restore the one such as this with a meek and gentle
spirit, carefully observing yourself so then you, yourself, may submit and be
tempted, having tried to catch a mistake. (6:1) Of one another, the weighty
burdens you carry, remove, and endure and thus in this way you all supply
and complete the Towrah of the Christou. (6:2)
Indeed if someone supposes and presumes to be somebody, he is nothing.
He deceives himself. (6:3) But the work, performances, and accomplishments
of himself, he must examine and prove meritorious, and then to himself,
alone, at the exclusion of all others, the boast and brag, the justification for
pride and praise, the exaltation and glory that person will possess and
experience, and not for any other. (6:4) For each and every one their own
individual and distinct burden will carry and bear. (6:5)
But one must share, partnering with the one making the ears ring,
verbally informing the word, orally instructing in all good. (6:6) You must
not become mislead and stray because a god is not sneered at, ridiculed, or
treated with contempt. For then, whatever if a man may sow, this also he
shall reap. (6:7) Because the one sowing into the flesh of himself, from the
flesh will reap corruption, destruction, and dissolution, depravity and death.
But the one sowing into the spirit, from the spirit will reap life eternal. (6:8)
But the one good doing we do not become malicious, giving into harmful
emotions, disparaging behaviors, or pernicious thinking. Because on
occasion, for oneself we will reap and harvest, not being discouraged by
being bound. (6:9) As a result, therefore, likewise, on occasion, we are
presently able to experience the potential to work, laboring for the
advantageous generous benefit of all, but especially and exceedingly
benefiting those belonging to the Faith. (6:10)
 You must look at and become acquainted with, paying attention to how
tall and great the letters I wrote to you with my hand. (6:11)
As much as they currently desire to make a good showing in this flesh to
actually compel and force you all to become circumcised merely so that the
cross of the Christou Iesou they presently may not pursue. (6:12) For none of
the ones already having been circumcised, themselves carefully observe the
Towrah. To the contrary and nevertheless, they presently want and take
pleasure in you all becoming circumcised in order that in the flesh of yours
they may boast. (6:13)
But for me, may it not become not boasting, if not in the cross of the
Lord of ours, Christou Iesou, by whom my world has been actually crucified
and likewise, I to world. (6:14)
But neither circumcision someone is nor uncircumcised, on the contrary
a new creation. (6:15) And as many and whoever in this rule, the principle
and standard, might imitate, marching in conformity by following along,
peace upon them and mercy. And also upon the Yisrael of this God. (6:16)
Furthermore, from now on, do not let anyone continue to cause trouble
or difficulty for me, for I, indeed, the scars and brands of the Iesou in the
body of mine I actually bear, I presently carry, and endure. (6:17)
To be the Grace of the Lord, our Iesou Christou, with the spirit of you
brothers. Amen. (6:18)

LE: YY 09-20-2013
 Questioning Paul
Volume 1: The Great Galatians Debate
Is Christianity Right or Wrong?

12

Metanoeo Change Your Perspective

Are You Prepared to Change Your Thinking and Your Perspective

As is often the case, we achieve a better perspective when we step back. All
too often we get so close to our subject that we fail to see what is occurring in the
greater context of the human experience. In this light, I recommend that we
commence our closing arguments in the case of Yahowah v. Shauwl with Gods
opening statement regarding this man and his religion.
Approximately 666 years before Shauwl penned his first letter, sometime
around 615 BCE, Yahowah chose a man named Embrace This to expose and
condemn an individual named Question Him. Gods concern was that this
heinous man would lure billions of souls back to Babylon by negating His
Towrah and replacing His Covenant. This stunning prophetic witness began with
these words...
The prophetic pronouncement (ha masa the published prophecy)
which beneficially (asher) was received as a revelation by (chazah was
revealed and witnessed by way of a prophetic vision to (the qal stem is the voice
of genuine relationships and of literal truth while the perfect conjugation reveals
that this revelation was totally complete, lacking nothing)) Chabaquwq
(Chabaquwq Embrace This, which is to receive, accept, and act upon what is
being revealed), the prophet (ha naby the individual who proclaims the
message of God regarding future events). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This /
Habakkuk 1:1)
Therefore, we know that Yahowah brought Chabaquwq / Habakkuk to a
place in time where he was able to see the future. And based upon his reaction,
what he saw was horrible. The man cried out to God, pleading for what he was
witnessing to end.
 For how long (ad an where and when will the ancient and continual),
Yahowah ( ), shall I plead for relief (shawa should I vocalize this
request for help during a desperately horrible and dangerous situation (in the piel
stem the object (those observing this prophecy) are affected by the plea while the
perfect conjugation reveals that the call for help is sufficient, lacking nothing))?
But (wa) You will not actually listen (lo shama You will not actually hear
for an ongoing period of time (the qal stem is the voice of reality and imperfect
conjugation conveys that this condition endures)) to my genuine and continuous
appeal for help (zaaq to my cry and summons as a result of this emotional
anguish (qal imperfect)). Toward You (el toward the Almighty) there are
cruel lies and great injustice (chamac there is Towrahlessness as a result of
unrighteousness and error leading to death and destruction, ruining and wronging
the people, plundering them), so (wa) You continuously withhold salvation (lo
yasha You do not provide deliverance (in the hiphil stem the subject
(Yahowah) causes the object (in this case those influenced by the promotion of
the lies) to suffer the effect of the verb, which is the denial of salvation and in the
imperfect, this condition is ongoing)). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk
1:2)
There are those who will say that Habakkuks lament was over the treatment
of Yisraelites in Babylon after they were drug off into captivity. But since that
horrific reality was imminent and would become a current event in Chabaquwqs
lifetime, something he could have witnessed with his own eyes, there would have
been no reason for Chabaquwq to use masa prophetic pronouncement,
chazah prophetic vision received as a revelation, or naby prophet who
proclaims Gods testimony regarding future events in his introductory statement.
In addition, Yahowah had been clear, revealing to other prophets precisely why
the Yisraelites would be taken from the Land.
But also keep in mind that Yahowah is prone to foreshadowing, to using
contemporaneous events to shine a light on those which are of even greater
significance in the future. And in this light, Babylon represents corruption, and
thus religion. To this day, it remains the greatest impediment to salvation. It is the
first thing Yahowah asks us to leave in the Towrah before engaging in His
Covenant. And it is the last plea Yahowsha makes to humankind, asking us in the
waning chapters of the Revelation to Yahowchanan to come out of Babylon,
which is the realm of religion and most adroitly, Christianity.
Seeking the answer to the questions we have been pondering, Chabaquwq,
asks...
For what reason (mah for whom and why) are You having me witness
(raah are You showing me, revealing to me, and having me look at and
consider (in the hiphil imperfect God wants this revelation to influence the
witness forever)) this evil corruption (awen the vain and wicked injustice, this
immoral iniquity that has been perpetrated, this misfortunate act of deceit, this
troubling presentation of idolatry (from an unused root meaning to pant, exerting
oneself in vain)) and (wa) distressing and miserable labor (amal abysmal
situation brought about as a result of birth pangs) that You are considering
(nabat You are evaluating (hiphil imperfect))?
Cruel lies and great injustice (chamac Towrahlessness as a result of
unrighteousness and error leading to death and destruction, ruining and wronging
the people, plundering them) are conspicuous to me and are related (la neged
are present before my eyes and they correspond to one another from my
perspective). So he has been and continues to be (wa hayah so he is
continuously (imperfect conjugation scribed in the third person masculine
singular)) contentious, taunting, and quarrelsome (ryb insulting in a dispute
and hostile in opposition, harboring a different perception and opinion regarding
the proper standard which put God and man in conflict). And also (wa), strife
and dissention (madown a source of contention regarding judgment and
argumentative objections with regard to vindication) he brings, actually lifts up,
and continuously advocates (nasa he consistently raises, carries forward and
actually advances, he desires, honors, and exalts (qal stem imperfect conjugation
scribed in the third person masculine singular)). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This /
Habakkuk 1:3)
If Yahowah had taken Chabaquwq to Babylon to view his immediate future,
he would not have questioned why he was there. He could warn his
contemporaries because much had already been revealed to explain the
justifications behind the timeout. Chabaquwq knew that it was coming, and that
it was both required and deserved. However, if we move 666 years forward in
time to witness the quarrelsome contentiousness of Shauwl, it would be natural
for Chabaquwq to ask God this question, realizing that the people who would
benefit from this warning wouldnt be born for another six centuries.
Babylon is based upon the Hebrew word for corruption, and clearly, the
Babylonian religion was perverted. But the Yisraelite captivity in Babylon was
not an injustice. The people deserved what befell them. So while chamac the
cruel lies and great injustice that grow out of Towrahlessness leading to error,
death, and destruction was prominent in Babylon, including a steady diet of ryb
contentious taunts and quarrelsome insults, this vision is directly analogous to
Shauwl and his derisive arguments against the Towrah. And that is why ryb,
speaking of this insulting dispute and hostile opposition was scribed in the third
person masculine singular, and thus identifying a lone individual man who would
be responsible for harboring a different perception and opinion regarding the
proper standard which ultimately put mankind in conflict with God. Similarly,
this madown source of contention and dissention regarding the means to
vindication was nasa advocated and advanced by one solitary soul. Babylon
was a nation of millions. And the only named perpetrator is Shauwl, and no one
named Shauwl reigned over Babylon, not then or ever.
And now that we have completed our review of Shauwls first letter, we
know that Chabaquwq 1:3 is a fitting summation of it. But that is just the tip of
the iceberg gouging an irreparable gash in the hull of Christendom.
So likewise, therefore (ken), based upon this (al), he consistently and
completely incapacitated and genuinely paralyzed the purpose of (puwg he
invalidated the function, weakening by causing a numbness toward (qal
imperfect)) the Towrah (Towrah source from which teaching, instruction,
direction, and guidance flows). So he did not bring forth (wa lo yatsa then he
did not bring out or extend (qal imperfect)) the glorious and eternal approach
(la netsah the unending and everlasting means) to vindicate by justly resolving
disputes (mishpat to exercise good judgment regarding the Judges plan and
prescriptions to resolve relational issues).
For indeed (ky rather because), wickedness encompasses and guilt
abounds (rasha kathar hostile and unrighteous criminality surrounds and
encircles, hemming in the hopeful (hiphil participle)) against (eth) the righteous
and innocent (ha tsadyq the upright who are vindicated and acquitted). So
therefore in this manner (al ka), his judgment regarding his ongoing means
to vindication (yatsa mishpat his angry expression to actually bring forth
justice and to continuously resolve disputes (qal imperfect)) is perverted and
distorted (aqal is twisted and false (in the pual stem the object, which is
judgment, suffers the effect of the verbs action which is to change, misrepresent,
and twist)). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 1:4)
The Babylonians were never a party to the Towrah. The nation did nothing to
incapacitate Yahowahs Guidance nor twist His purpose. But the modern
incarnation of Babylon that grew out of Shauwls relentless assault against
Yahowahs Towrah has done these very things. Moreover, throughout Galatians,
Shauwls hostility abounded against Yahowshas Disciples, represented here as
the tsadyq righteous and innocent. There were no such souls in Babylon.
Furthermore, if we were to distill Galatians down to core, we find Shauwl
attempting to incapacitate and invalidate the Towrahs eternal means to vindicate
by justly resolving disputes. And as we know, he did so by assaulting the
innocent, expressly Yahowah and Yahowsha, Abraham and Moseh, Shimown
and Yahowchanan. Throughout his letter, the means to Shauwls madness was
consistently aqal perverting and distorting, twisting and falsifying the
Towrah Teaching and Guidance of God.
 That is not to say that Yahowah wasnt adverse to Babylon. He was. He is.
The nation became His eternal metaphor for religious and political corruption, for
the negative influence of militarism and jaundiced economic schemes, for the
integration of religion and politics. It is the state of mind from which He most
wants us to disassociate. Leaving Babylon, even for those who live two-thousand
years after the nation was destroyed, remains His prerequisite for participating in
His Covenant, and thus for salvation.
Throughout Yirmayah / Jeremiah, Gods most sweeping prophetic revelation
to Gentiles, replete with denouncing Christmas, Easter, Sunday Worship, and
calling Him Lord, Yahowah consistently paints Babylon as Christianity. And
He methodically presents all of the reasons He is adverse to the religion and
culture predicated upon Pauls New Testament.
Choose to witness (raah elect of your own volition to actually view and
consider (the qal stem denotes reality while the imperative mood expresses the
volition and will of all parties) among the Gentiles (ba ha gowym in the people
from different races and places), and elect to be consistently observant,
carefully considering and evaluating (wa nabat pay attention (hiphil
imperative)), and be astonished and astounded, amazed and surprised (tamah
tamah bewildered and stunned (hithpael and qal imperative)), that indeed (ky),
a work will be done (poal paal to be carried out (qal participle)) in your days
(ba yowmym) that you will not find credible (lo aman you will not find
reliable (hiphil imperfect)), even when it is written down and he is held
accountable (ky caphar even if what is known about him is recorded and
reported (the pual stem and imperfect conjugation addresses the continual
consequence that befalls the object of the verb, also scribed in the third person
masculine singular)). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 1:5)
Rather (ky indeed), look to Me, and pay attention to Me (hineh look
up and notice Me), standing upright (quwm take a stand and become
established, rising up restored (hiphil participle)) against (eth regarding) the
Chaldeans (ha Kasdym a synonym for the Babylonians), the nation of
Gentiles (gowy the heathen and pagan from different races and places) that are
disagreeable and poisonous (mar bitter and anguished), impetuous and
senseless (mahar the rash and disturbed (niphal participle)). He makes his way
(ha halak) to the vast expanses of the world (la merchab erets) as if an
inheritance, taking possession of (la yarash) inhabited places that are not his
(mishkan lo la). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 1:6)
Terrible, dreadful, and intimidating (aym yare frightening through
shock and awe (the niphal stem indicates genuinely but passively)): this from his
decision, his plan, and lofty status (huw min mishpat wa seth) which he
brings forth (yatsa which he advances and spreads (qal imperfect)).
(Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 1:7)
In that our goal is to align our perspective so that we are standing in a place
where our viewpoint is the same as Gods, the inclusion of Kasdym Chaldeans
makes an essential contribution. Immediately before Yahowah asked Abraham to
walk away from his country, establishing the Covenants lone prerequisite, God
told us that Abraham was living in Ur of the Chaldeans. Therefore, by negating
the Towrahs presentation of the Covenant, Shauwl took believers back to the
poligious and militaristic realm God wanted His children to leave. And that is
why, in the Revelation of Yahowchanan, Yahowsha concludes His prophetic
message to humankind asking those enduring the Tribulation to come out of
Babylon. The nation is long gone, but thanks to Paul, not its influence.
The religion Paul conceived has more in common with the mythos of
Babylon than any other. As was the case with the Babylonians, Christians are
fixated on their Trinity, on their Cross, on the celebration of the Winter Solstice
and Easter Sunday when their god is born, dies, and is resurrected, a god whom
they call the Lord, using Satans title.
And while there are a handful of nations which could claim the title of most
Christian, such as Italy, Greece, Spain, Mexico, Brazil, and America, Babylon
was condemned for more than just being religious. Their relentless deployment of
their military, one which was overwhelming in its day, and their corrupt
mercantilism where the empowered cheated and controlled the masses, were also
hallmarks of Babylonian influence. So when we bring these elements together,
today one nation stands naked and exposed before God America.
Finally transitioning from he to they, at least for a moment, Yahowah
temporarily broadens the scope of His warning from the man we know as Shauwl
to the warmongering nations and lethal institutions he inspired.

And they recede more swiftly (wa qalal they are disdained and despised
because they are vile in the contempt (qal perfect)) than the dregs of a scummy
remainder (namer a filtrate or panther). His horsepower (cuwc) is as fierce
and menacing as wolves (wa chadad min zed is harmful, destructive, and
predatory (qal perfect)) at dusk (ereb following sundown in the darkness of
night). His dispersed and fast running (puwsh his spread out and swift (qal
perfect)) chariots and mobile weaponry (parash wa parash mechanized
weapons of war which pierce and separate) come from afar (min rachowq bow
arrive from a great distance, pursuing by (qal imperfect)) flying and darting
about, even hovering (uwp continually and actually airborne (qal imperfect)),
like (ka) birds of prey (nesher), swooping down (chuwsh moving very rapidly
(qal participle)) to consume and destroy (akal). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This /
Habakkuk 1:8)
Since this warning has focused on the most vicious weapons of war, and
especially on fighters, bombers, helicopters, and drones, it is all too easy to see
Americas immense war machine, particularly its menacing birds of prey, in these
words. The nation has been in a continual state of way, dispatching its military
horsepower far and wide to swoop down, destroying nations around the world,
most recently focusing on the Muslim fiefdoms of the Middle East while
engendering shock and awe. And sadly, no nation on earth is more Babylonian,
more influenced by the vicious wolf known as Paul. No other nation has engaged
in fifteen wars in sixty years. No other nation has a military so enormous, it
exceeds the cost of all others combined. And that is sobering considering the fact
that Babylon was never duped by Shauwl and Rome never deployed aircraft.
This still sounds an awful lot like America, which facing east has fought on
behalf of and supplied twenty-five times more weaponry to Israels Islamic foes
than it is to Gods Chosen People, even right down to the nations cobbled
together coalitions and insatiable desire to impose its will on other countries.
With all of his (kol) violent and destructive pursuits (la chamas terror
and killing without restraint), he eagerly assembles and consistently brings vast
hordes (bow magamah eagerly arriving and assembling in mass (qal
imperfect)). Facing east (paneh), he assembles together and then moves (wa
acaph) like the sand (ka ha chowl) to control other countries (sheby to
capture territory). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 1:9)
And he at the kings (wa huw ba ha melek) mocks (qalac he makes fun
of, scoffing at, deriding (the hithpael stem reveals that the mocker causes others to
scoff at and deride him (as we are doing with Shauwl) and the imperfect
conjugation speaks of ongoing behavior)), and the governors (rozen rulers)
scoffs in scorn (mischaq as if at an object to be derided), toward them and to
all their fortifications and defenses (la huw la kol mibtsar) he laughs in
amusement (sachaq he considers a joke (qal imperfect)). Piling up rubble (wa
tsabar aphar - making a massive mess (qal imperfect)), he seizes them (lakad
seeking to control them (qal imperfect)). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This /
Habakkuk 1:10)
The most Pauline nation in world history, and thus a living embodiment of
Babylon, has made a habit of vilifying world leaders while ridiculing their alleged
weapons of mass destruction. America has amused itself with inferior
fortifications, all while turning one nation after another into piles of rubble. So
while our focus is on the natural extension of Pauline Christianity, for those who
might also be looking for references to America in prophecy, perhaps we have
found common ground.
Affirming what became obvious when Galatians turned Gnostic, Yahowah
warned us that Shauwl would promote the wrong spirit in his attempt to elevate
Babylons god. And in this next statement, our brief exposure to the consequence
of the Pauline epistles is over so that God can focus His condemnation on the
culprit, himself.
Then at that time (az), he will actually go with a new and completely
different spirit (chalaph ruwach he will discard the Spirit, sweeping Her aside,
actually exchanging the existing Spirit for a totally dissimilar spirit (qal perfect)).
He will become arrogant, meddling, intoxicating, and alienating (wa abar
he will transgresses and take away (qal imperfect)). He is totally guilty and will
genuinely suffer punishment (asham he is liable for complete wrongdoing
and will endure recompense for his acknowledged offenses (qal perfect)). For
this is (zu because this is regarded as) the influence (koah the power and
might, the resources and qualifications) of his god (la elowah). (Chabaquwq /
Embrace This / Habakkuk 1:11)
Paul was arrogant to a fault. Rather than create his religion out of whole
cloth, he cut, redyed, twisted, and rearranged snippets of Yahowahs Word,
meddling with His Covenant. He thereby alienated believers from God,
intoxicating them.
But more than anything, Christianity was born out of the spirit Paulos
admitted possessed him a messenger from Satan. The resulting religion was,
therefore, koah la elowah the influence of his god, a wannabe deity known as
the Adversary. And while we are addressing his chalaph ruwach different and
newly conceived alternative spirit la elowah of his god, be aware that like
the perpetrator of evil being prophetically exposed and condemned in these
words, both were singular. The Babylonians were not spiritual and they
worshiped a plethora of deities, further isolating this Divine sanction to the lone
individual named in the second chapter of Habakkuk.
While Pauls Christianity, and especially its expression in America,
represents Babylon today, there is still a distinction between Shauwl and his faith
and between ancient Babylon and its modern incarnation. Paul was guilty of
corrupting and negating Yahowahs testimony so he will spend his eternity in
Sheowl. Beguiled by Paul, most Christians in America will avoid this fate. Also,
while there were many rulers and many gods in Babylon, Shauwl was a lone
individual who had but one false god. So this condemnation continues to fit Paul
perfectly while also prophetically predicting the consequence of his faith and
spirit on the world all while using the negative aspects of Babylon as a
metaphor for the havoc the integration of religion, politics, economics, and
militarism unleashes on an unsuspecting world.
At this point, we find Chabaquwq wondering why anyone would oppose
Yahowah, especially by proposing a religion based upon His death, as is the case
with Pauline Christianity. And yet while the death of the Christian god is
reported to be the means to salvation, that wasnt the most indicting aspect of this
next prophetic revelation. God revealed the name He would personally give to the
individual He appointed to rebuke Shauwl: Shimown Kephas the Rock who
Listens.
Are You not from eternity, an unlimited duration of time (ha lo atah
min qedem), Yahowah ( ), My God (elohym), My Set-Apart One
(qodesh)? You cannot actually die (lo muwth who cannot be killed (qal
imperfect)), Yahowah ( ). Concerning this (la), judgment (mishpat) You
have actually appointed for him (sym You have placed upon him upon
examining him (qal perfect)).
And the Rock (wa suwr), You have established to argue against and
rebuke him (yacad yakach You have positioned, appointed, and ordained to
prove that he is wrong, to chide him, accusing and judging him (the hiphil stem
causes the object, Shauwl, to respond while the infinitive construct presents a
verbal noun, making Shauwl argumentative)). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This /
Habakkuk 1:12)
Paul was constantly focused upon the alleged death of his god on a pagan
cross. And yet God lo muwth cannot die. This is a blow to the heart and soul
of Christianity. It is why Shauwl has already been judged and found guilty.
But it is hard to imagine anything more incriminating than the concluding
sentence of this verse. Shauwls admitted foe was Shimown, the Kephas
Rock the Disciple who stood up against Paul in Yaruwshalaim to rebuke him.
It was even the moniker Paulos used to identify his adversary in this debate.
Too flawless (tahowr too pure and clean) are eyes to witness (ayn min
raah is understanding from observation to see (qal infinitive)) such malignant
and displeasing evil (ra such saddening and troubling wickedness, such
distressful and miserable, disagreeable and unpleasant injustice). To look upon
and consider (wa nabat or to observe and evaluate (hiphil infinitive)) such
grievous and perverse labor (amal the travail of childbirth this painful and
full of iniquity), You cannot endure (lo yakol You are unable because it is
opposed to Your nature (qal imperfect)).
Why would You look at or consider (mah nabat why would You pay
attention to, attend to, or show any regard for (hiphil imperfect)) treacherous
betrayal that is neither trustworthy or reliable (bagad the adulterous
transgressors and offensive deceit (qal participle))?
You are silent and still (charash You are inactive, neither listening,
speaking, nor taking action (hiphil imperfect)) in (ba) devouring (bala
swallowing and destroying) the wicked (rasha the unrighteous guilty of
violating the standard) more righteous than him (tsadyq min more upright and
proper than him, less wrong and guilty than him). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This /
Habakkuk 1:13)
This is to say that that the founder of the Christian religion was so vile, so
wicked, that Yahowah could not remain silent regarding his treacherous betrayal.
It also reveals that a copy of Shauwls letter made it to the Almighty, because
God is taking exception to the wannabe apostles claim to having endured a
painful labor to give birth to the faithful.
For the most part, however, Yahowah pays no attention to those who pay no
attention to Him. Live and let die is His motto in this regard. The malignant and
displeasing victims of religion are unknown to God, and thus when they die apart
from the source of life, their souls simply cease to exist. That is the reason
Yahowah is reporting that the promises manifest in religions like Christianity are
not reliable, making the faith a treacherous betrayal of trust.
Paul was fixated upon presenting himself as second to none, as not taking a
backseat to anyone, including Yahowah, Yahowsha, or the Disciples. He
pronounced himself to be the lone authorized apostle to the Greek and Roman
world. He ordered the faithful to follow him and obey him. And he spoke on
behalf of his Lord, the Adversarial spirit, who sought to possesses and control
humankind as if we were slaves. Therefore, Yahowah had His prophet write...
So You act and engage with (wa asah You fashioned (qal imperfect
consecutive)) humankind (adam men and women who have a nesamah /
conscience) in similar fashion to (ka as and according to) fish (dag) of the sea
(ha yam in the water), as creatures which move freely about (ka remes like
the multitude of highly mobile animals) without a ruler in control claiming
dominion (lo mashal without a controlling governor who claims to be in
charge (qal participle)) over them (ba among them). (Chabaquwq / Embrace
This / Habakkuk 1:14)
Fish dont have lords, and they dont submit to governmental authority, nor
should we. And fish are free to swim wherever they like, even at different levels,
some in the depths of darkness and others near the glistening waves of light. They
even swim in schools, which symbolically suggests that they, unlike the religious,
are receptive to proper instruction.
 I suppose that it would be nave to suggest that it is just a coincidence that
each and every criticism fits Shauwl as if every one was written to indict him.
And it is just per chance that nary a statement has been made that does not apply
to the author of half of the Christian New Testament.
Baiting and hooking his audience, and netting vast numbers of souls, Shauwl
killed everyone who took his bait. Worse, he was so depraved that he rejoiced in
what was nothing less than mass murder.
In everything associated with him (kol ba), a fishhook (chakah a small,
sharp implement used as a lure to snag, bait, and catch fish) is used to withdraw
(alah lift up, sacrificing (hiphil perfect)), and (wa found in the DSS but not
MT) he catches and drags away (garar in a whirling fashion, he tears apart) in
nets designed to trap (ba cherem he ensnares, bans, and utterly destroys), and
he gathers them (wa acaph so he harvests, collects, and removes them (qal
imperfect)) in his dragnets (ba mikmereth in his fishing nets designed to trap
and snare). But concerning this (al ken so therefore in this way), he actually
and continually rejoices (samach he consistently delights and is genuinely
elated (qal imperfect)) and he is glad and exults (wa gyl he shrieks and shouts
as if this was favorable and good (qal imperfect)). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This /
Habakkuk 1:15)
Considering the hundreds of millions of people Islam has slaughtered in
religious rage, its sad to report that Shauwl was more murderous still when one
considers the number of souls he lured to their demise. And keep in mind, not
only does religion constrain our freedom, similar to a net with fish, the reference
to ensnaring fish is indicative of Christianity, where the faithful used the image
of a fish to identify themselves with their religion. This symbol remains prevalent
today in the Christian Ichthus, the Greek for fish, where the letters IX were
formed inside the sign of the fish. It purports to be an acronym for Iesous
Christos, Theou Yios, Soter Jesus Christ, Gods Son, Savior.
So therefore in this way (al ken so concerning this), he kills every
living thing (zabah he sacrifices and butchers, slaughtering (piel imperfect)),
those approaching and ensnared in his trap (la cherem accordingly those
devoted to and destroyed in his snare which banishes). And he blows smoke to
illicit worship (qatar he kindles aromatic incense in a religious setting,
encouraging offerings; from qatar to bind and shut in, fumigating a living space
to drive out the occupants (piel imperfect)) for them to move toward his
dragnet (la mikmereth). For indeed (ky), with them he shares seductive words
regarding an easy life without any work (ba hem cheleq he offers a
persuasive plot which appears satisfying but is fattening so with him they share
the same fate). And so his food (wa maakal then his fruit) is fashioned to be
consumed leading to obesity (bary is created to be fattening and rank; from
bara barah created to be devoured). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This /
Habakkuk 1:16)
Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the 8HevXII rendering of Habakkuk 1:16
suggests that Shauwls bread grew large. And if that is what the prophet was
inspired to write, it means that it retains its yeast, and thus is rife with sin. This
could well be a reference to Pauls a little yeast the whole loaf of bread yeasts.
Muhammad inspired the massacre of millions with sharp swords while Paul
used seductive slogans. But with both, their religions became deadly.
So how is it (ha al ken) that he continues to pour out (ryq he
consistently brings out and dumps (hiphil imperfect)) his ensnaring net (cherem
his trap used for netting the devoted, banning and destroying them), only to
(wa) constantly (tamyd continually and regularly into perpetuity) kill (la harag
slay, commit murder, and destroy out of hand (qal infinitive)) Gentiles (Gowym
people from different races and places, the heathens and pagans), showing no
mercy (lo chamal sparing none while incapable of pity or compassion).
(Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 1:17)
Once again we are confronted by a discrepancy between the Masoretic Text,
first compiled in the 11th century CE, and the Qumran Scrolls, dating to the 2nd
century BCE. According to the DSS, Chabaquwq queried: So how is it that he
continues to bring out his sword, only to continually kill the Gentiles, showing
no mercy.
Shauwl indeed targeted Gentiles. And while professing his Gospel of
Grace, he showed lo chamal no mercy. The means Yahowah had provided
to mercifully save His children was rejected, and a deadly religion was put in its
place.
There are a number of reasons that we have returned to consider a wider
swath of Yahowahs prophetic pronouncement against Shauwl, and association,
against Christendom. But foremost among them was to forestall the inevitable
gymnastic apologetics that would otherwise be brought to bear against such
compelling evidence in opposition to the worlds most popular religion. So since
Pauls devotees have no hope of refuting the universal condemnation that
Yahowah levels against Shauwl in the second chapter of Chabaquwq / Embrace
This / Habakkuk, their only hope is to dissuade Christians from considering it by
protesting that the prophet was speaking exclusively of Babylon. Therefore, by
closely examining and carefully considering the preamble to the most damning
prediction found anywhere in the prophets, we have proven that God had Pauls
number a wrong and disconnected number out of touch with the truth.
 With this in mind, Ive taken the liberty of color coding the first chapter of
Chabaquwq, with burgundy pointing to Shauwl and blue addressing Babylon. I
suspect that you will enjoy the specificity of God as He lowers His sights and
takes direct aim at the worlds single most hideous person.
Even the prophets name, Chabaquwq Embrace This is telling when
considered next to Shauwl Question Him.
The prophetic pronouncement which beneficially was received as a
vision and revelation by Chabaquwq (Embrace This), the prophet who
proclaims the message of God regarding future events. (1:1) For how long,
Yahowah, shall I plead for relief? But You will not actually listen to my
genuine and continuous appeal for help.
Toward You, there are cruel lies and great injustice, error leading to
death and destruction, so You continuously withhold salvation. (1:2)
For what reason are You having me witness this evil corruption, wicked
injustice, and distressing and miserable situation brought about as a result of
considerable labor that You are evaluating and considering?
Cruel lies and great injustice are conspicuous to me and are related. So
he has been and continues to be contentious, taunting, and quarrelsome,
insulting in a dispute, and hostile in opposition, harboring a different
perception regarding the proper standard which put God and man in
conflict. And also, strife and dissention, even argumentative objections with
regard to vindication, he brings, actually lifts up, and continuously
advocates. (1:3)
So likewise, therefore, based upon this, he consistently incapacitated and
genuinely paralyzed the purpose of the Towrah (the source from which
teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance flows). So he did not bring
forth the glorious and eternal approach to vindicate by justly resolving
disputes.
For indeed, wickedness encompasses and guilt abounds, hemming in the
hopeful against the righteous and innocent. So therefore, in this manner, his
judgment regarding his ongoing means to vindication is perverted and
distorted, twisted and false. (1:4)
Witness among the Gentiles, observing, considering and evaluating, so as
to be astonished and astounded, amazed and surprised that indeed, a work
will be done in your days that you will not find credible even when it is
written down and he is held accountable. (1:5)
 Rather, look to Me, paying attention to Me, standing upright,
established, and restored against the Chaldeans (a synonym for the
Babylonians), the nation of heathens and pagans that is disagreeable and
poisonous, impetuous and senseless. He makes his way to the vast expanses of
the world as if an inheritance, taking possession of inhabited places that are
not his. (1:6)
Terrible, dreadful, and intimidating: this from his decision, his plan, and
lofty status which he brings forth, advances and spreads. (1:7)
And they recede more swiftly and are despised because they are more
vile in the contempt than the dregs of a scummy remainder. His horsepower
is as fierce and menacing as wolves, harmful, destructive, and predatory at
dusk in the darkness of night.
His dispersed and fast running chariots and mobile weaponry come from
afar flying and darting, continually and actually hovering about like birds of
prey, swooping down to consume and destroy. (1:8)
With all of his violent and destruction pursuits, killing without restraint,
he eagerly assembles and brings vast hordes. Facing east, he assembles
together and then moves like the sand to control other countries and capture
territory. (1:9)
And he at the kings mocks, deriding, and the governors scoffs in scorn,
toward them and to all their fortifications and defenses, he laughs in
amusement. Piling up rubble, he seizes them. (1:10)
Then at that time, he will actually go with a new and completely
different spirit, exchanging the existing Spirit for a totally dissimilar spirit.
He will become arrogant, meddling, intoxicating, and alienating. He is totally
guilty and will actually suffer punishment, genuinely enduring recompense
for his acknowledged offenses. For this is the influence of his god. (1:11)
Are You not from eternity, an unlimited duration of time, Yahowah, My
God, My Set-Apart One? You cannot die and cannot be killed, Yahowah.
Concerning this, judgment You have appointed for him.
And the Rock, You have established to argue against and rebuke him,
You have positioned, appointed, and ordained to prove that he is wrong, to
chide him, accusing and judging him. (1:12)
Too flawless and clean are eyes to witness such malignant and
displeasing evil. To look upon, consider, and evaluate such grievous and
perverse labor, the travail of childbirth this painful and full of iniquity, You
cannot endure.
 Why would You look at or consider treacherous betrayal that is neither
trustworthy or reliable? You are silent and still, inactive, neither listening,
speaking, nor taking action in devouring the wicked more righteous than
him. (1:13)
So You act and engage with humankind in similar fashion to fish of the
sea, as creatures which move freely about without a ruler in control claiming
dominion over them. (1:14)
In everything associated with him, a fishhook, a small, sharp implement
used as a lure to snag, bait, and catch fish, is used to withdraw, and he
catches and drags away in nets designed to trap and destroy, and he gathers
them, harvesting and removing them in his dragnets. But concerning this, he
actually and continually rejoices, and he is glad and exults, shrieking and
shouting as if this was favorable and good. (1:15)
So therefore in this way, he kills every living thing, slaughtering those
approaching and ensnared in his trap. And he blows smoke to illicit worship;
fumigating a living space to drive out the occupants for them to move toward
his dragnet. For indeed, with them he shares seductive words regarding an
easy life without any work, offering a persuasive plot which appears
satisfying but is fattening, so that his bread grows, therefore with him they
share the same fate. And so his food is fashioned to be consumed leading to
obesity. (1:16)
So how is it that he continues to bring out his sword and ensnaring net,
banning and destroying the devoted, only to constantly and continually kill
Gentiles, showing no mercy, sparing none while incapable of pity or
compassion. (1:17)
I dont suppose that it would be possible for a rational individual who has
carefully considered these words to think that this was all about Babylon circa
609 to 538 BCE instead of Shauwls ongoing influence commencing in 52 CE.
But if you are predisposed to see all of this as Gods fixation on the brief and
flickering history of the nation of Babylon, a brief history may be in order. In that
Chaldea includes Assyria, this story begins with the initial Assyrian conquest of
Yisrael which was led by Tiglath-Pileser III and Shalmaneser V. It began around
740 BCE, more than a century before this prophecy was written. Sargon II and his
son, Sennacherib, completed the twenty-year campaign, ending with the captivity
and demise of ten of Yisraels twelve tribes. This story is told in 1 Chronicles 5
and 2 Kings 15. By 722 BCE, Samaria was the final Northern Kingdom city to
fall (2 Kings 17 and 18). Assyrian cuneiform tablets reveal that 27,290 captives
were hauled away from Samaria as slaves.
 Shortly thereafter, with 185,000 Assyrians returning to finish off
Yaruwshalaim and the Kingdom of Yahuwdah, King Chizqyah / Hezekiah found
a copy of the Towrah. After reading it, he decided that destroying all vestiges of
religion while observing Passover, Unleavened Bread, and First-Born Children
would be the only way to spare the lives of his people. God agreed, killing the
assailants instead.
But the means to salvation was soon forgotten, and throughout most of the 7th
century BCE, Yahuwdah became a client state of the Assyrian empire. However,
once the Babylonians defeated the Assyrians, Egypt became concerned about its
survival and launched a preemptive strike, seizing territory up to the banks of the
Euphrates River in Syria. Babylon counterattacked, bringing Yahuwdah into the
fray, killing King Yowshyah / Josiah in the Battle of Megiddo in 609 BCE. This
was within five years of the time Yahowah inspired Chabaquwq to pen this
prophecy.
Upon losing the battle, Yahuwdah became a client of Babylon, forging a
treaty of alliance in Yaruwshalaim which kept Yahuwdah sovereign. But just a
decade later, Yahuwdym revolted against Babylon. So in 599 BCE, they picked
the fight that ultimately led to their demise, just as Rabbi Akiba and the warlord
Bar Kocpha would do in 133 CE, repeating this history with the Romans. As a
result, Nebuchadnezzar II began the Siege of Yaruwshalaim in early 597 BCE,
with resistance crumbling a few months later. While the city was not destroyed, it
was pillaged and a few prominent Yahuwdym such as the prophet Yachezqel /
Ezekiel were taken to Babylon.
Then, against the warnings Yahowah made through the prophet Yirmayah /
Jeremiah, King Tsidqyah / Zedekiah entered into an alliance with Pharaoh Hophra
of Egypt and revolted once more against Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar returned,
defeated the Egyptians and laid his sights on Yaruwshalaim, destroying the city
wall and the Temple. Zedekiah was blinded and taken to Babylon along with
many other Yahuwdym, and Yahuwdah became the Babylonian province of
Yahuwd Medinata (the Aramaic word for province) in 587 BCE, briefly losing
its sovereignty.
But after the fall of Babylon to Persia under the leadership of Cyrus the Great
in 538 BCE, the occupiers were gone and the enslaved Yahuwdym returned to
Yahuwdah to join those who had remained. And that was the end of Babylon at
least as a nation. Its menacing influence over Yahuwdah lasted less than fifty
years. Whereas Shauwls influence is still being felt 1,938 years after he penned
his first letter.
Moreover, when Yahowah had an issue with a Chaldean king, He called him
out by name. But the only individual named here is Shauwl, and no one by that
name ever ruled over any Mesopotamian nation. In addition, Yahowah devoted
most of Yirmayah / Jeremiah, a man much closer to the scene, to presenting His
overt condemnation of Babylon. And the prophets Yachezqel / Ezekiel,
Zephanyah / Zephaniah, and Danyel / Daniel were all better positioned to tell its
story.

While that was the end of the first chapter of Chabaquwq, as we discovered
early in Questioning Paul, Yahowah was just getting warmed up. Gods haunting
prediction regarding Shauwl continued by telling us that He isnt about to alter
any of the requirements to participate in His Covenant or change the approach
that He has taken to facilitate our salvation no matter what Paul has led billions
to believe.
Upon (al on this) My requirements and responsibilities (mishmereth
My mission which functions and serves as a safeguard to watch over and preserve
the observant; from shamar to observe, closely examining and carefully
considering, retaining My focus), I have decided I will literally and continually
stand (amad I will always be present, actually standing and thereby genuinely
enabling others to consistently stand, sustaining and enduring (scribed in the qal
stem which addresses actual events which are to be interpreted literally, imperfect
conjugation which reveals that Gods presence here will continue throughout
time, and in the cohortative which expresses volition and desire)). And (wa) I will
choose to always stand and present Myself (yatsab I will consistently stand
firm, appearing and presenting Myself (the hithpael stem tells us that God alone is
taking this stand, the imperfect conjugation reveals that His stand is consistent,
continual, and enduring throughout time, and the cohortative form conveys the
idea that where and how He presents Himself is His choosing)) upon (al on the
Almightys) that which protects and fortifies (matsowr the defensive
stronghold which safeguards, preventing a successful attack by the adversary).
So then (wa) I will be on the lookout (tsapah I will of My own volition
continually keep watch (scribed in the piel stem where the object of the verb
suffers its effect, imperfect conjugation which reveals that God is constantly
observant, and cohortative form, affirming that this is His decision)) in order to
see (la raah so as to observe, consider, and perceive) what he will say about
Me (mah dabar ba posing a question concerning what he will communicate
regarding Me and what message he will convey in association with Me). But then
(wa) how can I be expected to change My attitude, My thinking, or My
response (mah suwb why should I reverse course and mislead) concerning (al
 during and upon) My disapproving rebuke (towkechath My complaint,
correction, reproof, and strong disapproval, My rational arguments in response
and subsequent punishment). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:1)
When God announced that He would be on the lookout for the likes of
Shauwl, ready in advance to rebuke him for falsely testifying that He had
changed His plans, it should have stopped Paul dead in his tracks. No one other
than Shauwl in all of human history fits this prophecy. He not only tried to
change Gods requirements for participation in His Covenant relationship, he
sought to replace Gods conditions and provisions with his own. Worse, he
claimed to speak for the God he was contradicting and undermining.
And that is why Yahowah has infused this prophecy with an affirmation that
He isnt going to replace His specific requirements for participating in the
Covenant with something as nebulous as faith, especially in Grace. He isnt going
to shirk His own commitment to become the living embodiment of His approach
to salvation through His participation in Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread, First-Born
Children, or the Promise of the Sabbath.
Life was conceived in the real world by the one and only real God. His one
and only Covenant was affirmed in this same corporeal realm, its conditions and
benefits written down and communicated to us in the flesh, with Yahowah
providing His Guidance in His Towrah. And so God became corporeal, the living
manifestation of His Towrah, to fulfill His promises in the flesh. This is Gods
accounting, and it is wholly different than the Gnostic agenda that permeates
Pauls letters.
Then (wa) Yahowah ( ) answered, approaching me (anah
responded to me), and He said (wa amar), Write (katab use the alphabet to
inscribe) this revelation (chazown this communication from God), and then
(wa) expound upon and reiterate it using those letters (baar teaching others
its significance by plainly and clearly declaring it using large and distinct
alphabetic characters) upon (al) writing tablets (luwach engraving it in stone)
so that (maan for the express purpose and intent that), by reciting this (ba
qara by reading this), he might run and go away (ruwts he might flee).
(Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:2)
The lines of demarcation are clear, and the consequence of being deceived
are severe, so Yahowah left little doubt regarding this man, naming him as we
shall soon see, in this prophecy. And lets be clear: this entire prediction has been
positioned against one solitary man, which is why he is deployed throughout
using the third person masculine singular.
While a handful of individuals have earned a rebuke of this magnitude, only
one man meets all of the criterion that has been provided and he is a perfect fit,
right down to his propensities, peculiarities, and personal and proper name.
Shauwl deceived billions during the mowed meeting times. He was in
Yaruwshalaim, studying to be a rabbi, when Yahowsha was fulfilling the
Mowed Miqraey Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God. And as a
rabbi, he did an about face to attack God from an entirely new direction. Shauwl
even admitted to being conceited, to being demon-possessed, to being
preoccupied with Gentiles and circumcision things which will loom large in a
moment.
Since it would be six centuries before Shauwl would question Gods Word,
earning His disapproval, Yahowah encouraged those who first read these words to
be patient. This warning was for another day...
Still indeed (owd ky so therefore the expectation and subsequent
realization of), this revelation from God (chazown this divine communication)
is for the Mowed Appointed Meeting Times (la ha mowed for the time of
the Mowed). It provides a witness to and speaks, pouring out evidence
(puwach it reveals facts which condemn, trapping and ensnaring) in the end (la
ha qets). The extended period of time required for this question to be resolved
(im mahah question him, because no matter how long it takes) shall not prove
it false (lo kazab this revelation shall not deceive, delude, nor fail). Expect
him in this regard (chakah la be certain concerning this) because indeed (ky),
he will absolutely come (bow bow he will certainly come upon the scene and
make his appearance), neither being delayed nor lingering (lo achar).
(Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:3)
The first four Mowed Meeting Times Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and
Shabuwah were fulfilled by Yahowsha and the Set-Apart Spirit in year 4000
Yah, more commonly known as 33 CE. They enabled the Covenants promises
and our salvation. Shauwl was in Yaruwshalaim at this time training to be a
rabbi. Shortly thereafter, he began undermining the Mowed, beginning with this
letter around 52 CE. So I find it interesting that now, in 2013, just twenty years
shy of Yahowahs return, we are finally studying this prophecy and identifying it
with Shauwl. Better late than never.
And speaking of late, can you imagine God telling a prophet just a handful of
years removed from the Babylonian conflict: this revelation is for the Appointed
Meeting Time. It provides a witness to and speaks in the end. The extended period
of time required for this question to be resolved shall not prove it false? Since
that approach would be utterly absurd, this was not about what was going to occur
in six years (from 615 to 609 BCE), but instead in 666 years (in 52 CE).
Lest I forget, Yahowah loves to provide hints which facilitate understanding
among those who are observant. The mahah question to be resolved was to
shauwl question him. If you think about it, you will come to realize that God
has to be a bit coy. If he had written one-hundred years before the Classical
Hellenistic Period or the Roman Republic had begun that a religion named
Christianity, as a transliteration of a Greek word for drugged, would sweep
like a virus throughout the Roman world as a result of some letters scribed by a
Jewish man who changed his Hebrew name from Shauwl to the Roman,
Paulos, beginning in year 52 CE in a calendar that had not yet been invented, by
providing such specificity and making it easily accessible, He would have negated
the validity of the prediction, assuring that it would no longer occur. So while
God provided copious and convincing clues as to the identity, character, scheme,
and consequence of the perpetrator, only those who treasure Yahowahs Word
sufficiently to closely examine and carefully consider what He had to say become
sufficiently informed to understand. This is the same approach He has taken with
all of His end-times prophecies. They are all there for the taking, but most of the
fruit is out of the reach of those bowing down to false gods.
As bad as this has been thus far for Paul and Christianity, it is about to get
much worse. What follows strongly suggests that Yahowah is directly responding
to what Shauwl would later write in the letters that now dominate the Christian
New Testament. Above all else, this wannabe Apostle was egotistical and
irrational...
Pay attention (hineh behold), he will be puffed up with false pride
(aphal his head will swell and he will be haughty and arrogant, he will be lifted
up for being boldly presumptuous heedless of the truth). His soul (nepesh), it is
not right nor straightforward (lo yashar he does not consider anything
appropriately and is circuitous in his reasoning, he wanders away by twisting and
convoluting the teaching, and nothing is on the level) in him (ba).
So then (wa) through trust and reliance (ba emuwnah by being firmly
established, confirmed and upheld by that which is dependable and steadfast,
always truthful and reliable), those who are righteous and vindicated (tsadyq
those who are upright, innocent, and acquitted) shall live (chayah they shall be
restored to life, being nurtured and growing). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This /
Habakkuk 2:4)
While narrowing in on Shauwl in the first stanza, in the second, Yahowah
reminds us that vindication and life everlasting come to those who trust and rely
on His firmly established and always dependable testimony. This is and always
has been the antidote for religion, especially Pauls Faith.
In Galatians 3:11, in the midst of his initial assault against the Towrah,
Shauwl misquoted this verse, the very one which condemns him for mocking
God. Removing it from its context and truncating it, he used his perverted
variation to promote his faith: But because with regard to the Towrah
absolutely no one is vindicated or justified by God becomes evident because:
Those who are vindicated and righteous out of faith will live.
As is often the tendency of a daredevil when faced with the specter of death,
Shauwl was so transfixed by this damning and deadly prophecy regarding him,
he cited it once more, this time at the beginning of his most famous letter: For in
it the righteousness of God is revealed from belief to belief, as it has been
written, But the righteous shall live by belief. (Romans 1:17) Shauwl and
Satan were taunting God. In this way, their collective arrogance is unmatched.
Moving on, there are six specific details in this next prophetic statement from
Yahowah, all of which implicate Shauwl six-hundred and sixty-six years before
he incriminated himself. But one clue in particular removes any doubt about
whom God is warning us because Yahowah identifies His foe by his personal and
proper name. If you are a Christian, you may want to pay attention to this...
Moreover (aph), because (ky) the intoxicating wine and inebriating
spirit (yayn the consequence of the inebriation) of the man (geber the
individual human being) of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal
(bagad of adulterous and offensive behavior, of handing people over to the
influence and control of another without justification through trickery and deceit)
is a high-minded moral failure (yahyr is arrogant, meritless presumptive), he
will not rest, find peace, nor live (wa lo nawah then he will not succeed,
achieve his aim, or reach his goal, not be beautifully adorned nor abide (qal
imperfect)), whomever is open to the broad path (asher rachab the wide,
greedy, opportunistic, duplicitous, and improper way) associated with (ka
according to) Shauwl (Shauwl the personal and proper name of the individual
in question, it is also the name of the place of separation, the realm of the dead,
the dominion of questioning: Sheowl (sheowl and shauwl are written identically
in the Hebrew text (consider Strongs 7585 and 7586))). He (huw) and (wa) his
soul (nepesh) are like (ka) the plague of death (maweth a pandemic disease
that kills a large population of people).
And so (wa) those who are brought together by him, accepting him
(acaph el those who associate with and join him, those who are removed and
withdrawn by assembling with him, moving toward him and thereby gathered in
and victimized by him) will never be satisfied (lo saba will not find
contentment nor fulfillment (based upon the Dead Sea Scrolls)). Most every
Gentile (kol ha Gowym the people from every race and place) will gather
together unto him (qabats el will assemble before him), all of the people
from different races and nations (kol ha gowym). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This
/ Habakkuk 2:5)
 The oldest extant copy of this text from the caves above Qumran also infers
that he cannot be satisfied. This reveals that Shauwl, like all chronically
insecure megalomaniacs, is never satisfied. There is never enough adulation or
prestige, never enough power or devotees. This thought is then carried into the
text of the next verse.
And speaking of the Dead Sea Scrolls, most of Chabaquwq is extant,
including the specific reference to Shauwl. His identification cannot, therefore,
be dismissed to subsequent scribal exuberance.
In 1 Corinthians 11:20-21, Shauwl / Paulos tells those who have joined his
assembly not to participate in Passover, which is the ultimate plague of death, and
not to drink wine in association with it, which thereby nullifies the symbolism
associated with the blood of the Passover Lamb. This serves as a treacherous
betrayal of Yahowahs instructions regarding the narrow path He provided to
salvation. Attacking the heart of Yahowahs plan in this way is the epitome of
presumptuousness and immorality. Those who ascribe to such lies die. Those who
promote it will find themselves in Sheowl along with Shauwl. And yet, Pauline
Doctrine is popular, providing those who are open to it, mans broadest path to
destruction.
Yahowsha, Himself, picks up on this same theme, saying that the popular
and broad path away from the Towrah leads to death and destruction. He offered
this affirmation of Yahowahs prophecy at the outset of His Instruction on the
Mount, so it is hard to miss.
Shauwl promises the gift of life, but his religion, the most popular ever
conceived, is the plague of death. Shauwl promises heavenly rewards to those
who place their faith in his Gospel of Grace, and yet those intoxicated by this
myth will never be satisfied. They will remain estranged from God because,
unlike Yahowahs assurances in the Towrah, Shauwls hallow promises will go
unfulfilled. And that means that the people Shauwl claimed as his own, the
Gentiles individuals from many different races and places will suffer the
consequence of his New Testament.
Even if Shauwl had not been condemned by name, with the specter of the
Gentiles being raised twice, its hard to miss the Pauline fixation on the ethnos
races throughout his letters. Pauline Doctrine has influenced more people in
more places in this world than any other corruption of Yahowahs testimony. And
the means to this madness is consistent with Yahowahs prophecy, in that Paul
egotistically and irrationally claimed that God had authorized him to alter the
requirements upon which Yahowah had already taken His stand regarding eternal
life.
 In spite of the fact that Shauwl means Question Him, nary a Christian
considers the irresolvable conflicts between Pauls letters and Gods Word. So
while the following continues to identify the culprit, most Christians remain
oblivious to Yahowahs prophecy regarding them or him...
They do not ask questions, any of them, about him (ha lo eleh kol al
nor are any of them against him). Terse references to the Word they lift up as
taunts to ridicule (mashal nasa simplistic and contrived equivalencies, often
easy to remember aphorisms (clichs, dictates, and adages) become bywords with
implied associations with that which is well known to mock and to exercise
dominion through comparison and counterfeit), along with (wa) allusive sayings
and mocking interpretations (malytsah derisive words wrapped in enigmas
arrogantly spoken).
There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him
(chydah la there are difficult enigmas to be solved, dark and hidden secrets, and
double dealings, to be known regarding him). And (wa moreover) they should
say (amar they should declare), Woe (howy alas, expressing a dire warning)
to the one who claims to be great so as to increase his offspring, acting like a
rabbi (rabah to the one who thrives on numbers and who considers himself
exceedingly great (the basis of rabbi, something Shauwl claimed to be)),
neither of which apply to him (lo la which is not his). For how long (ad
mathay until when) will they make pledges (abtyt will they be in debt)
based upon his significance (al kabed pursuant to the weight and burden of
his testimony and the grievous honor afforded him)? (Chabaquwq / Embrace
This / Habakkuk 2:6)
The Qumran witness does not include the phrase ad mathay for how
long before the last sentence, turning a rhetorical question into a simple
statement of fact. It then becomes: They continue to make pledges based upon
his significance.
Shauwls modus operandi was to justify his allusive sayings through
terse references to the word. His mocking interpretations were all arrogantly
spoken. His arguments were simplistic and contrived, resulting in the most
popular counterfeit ever foisted against humanity, one bolstered by his always-
present clichs. He even claimed to bear offspring, experiencing birth pangs
to deliver the descendents of his faith. In this regard, Shauwl was fixated on
misapplying the connotations and significance of the Hebrew word for
offspring, zera, claiming that it gave rise to his faith. And as is the case with
most deceivers, Paulos made pledges and demanded that believers hold them
and him in the highest esteem. He even claimed that he was the co-savior,
completing the sacrifice and message.
 Shauwl dismissed and demeaned all those who would dare question him. He
claimed that by challenging him, a person was actually demonstrating their
animosity toward God, and that by implication, such a person was serving Satan.
Although the opposite is true, most Christians fall for this ad hominem ploy,
dismissing evidenced arguments against their religion and its author by claiming
that the critic is hell-bent.
Believers routinely commit the logical fallacies of ad hominem, non sequitur,
red herring, and straw man. Using the ad hominem fallacy, they readily discard a
valid proposition by demeaning the one who pronounced it. For example, the
overwhelming preponderance of Muslims were unable to refute anything in
Prophet of Doom so they dismissed the best documented, most comprehensive,
contextual, and chronological presentation of Muhammads words and deeds by
profane attacks on my character. A thousand pages of evidence were thereby
discarded with a flippant: the author is a jerk. With the non sequitur approach,
the faithful make general statements which are widely accepted, but such
statements, regardless of their veracity, do not support their premise. It is this
disassociation that makes such an argument fallacious. An example of this would
be: Since Gods Word is eternal that proves that my Bible is inerrant. With the
red herring fallacy, rather than deal with the evidence brought against their
religion, believers try to distract peoples attention from it. For example, rather
than deal with Pauls admission that he was insane, a person deploying this
fallacy will say something like: You cant tell me that I dont have a relationship
with Jesus or that Christ isnt my savior. And finally, as the straw man fallacy
implies, rather than attempt to refute the case which has actually been presented,
the apologist will errantly convey their opponents argument and then attack their
artificial construct. Someone deploying this fallacy would disprove the creation
account by criticizing religious interpretations of it rather than address the actual
Hebrew text Yahowah inspired.
The reason religious belief systems like Christianity are adverse to evidence
and reason, and the questions these tools raise, is because those who seek the truth
lose their faith. Neither facts nor logic matter in matters of religion. The believers
pledge, even in a vacuum, is considered sufficient and binding.
Before we press on, here is a summary of where we have just been. Of
Shauwl, Yahowah revealed...
Upon My requirements and responsibilities, I have decided I will
literally and continually stand. And I will choose to always stand and present
Myself upon that which protects and fortifies.
So then I will be on the lookout in order to see what he will say about
Me, observing how he will question Me. But then, how can I be expected to
change My attitude, My thinking, or My response concerning My
disapproving rebuke? (2:1)
Then Yahowah answered, approaching me, and He said, Write this
revelation and then expound upon and reiterate it using letters upon writing
tablets so that by reciting this, he might run and go away. (2:2)
Still indeed, this revelation from God is for the of the Mowed Appointed
Meeting Times. It provides a witness and speaks, pouring out evidence in the
end which entraps. The extended period of time required for this question to
be resolved shall not prove it false. Expect him in this regard, because indeed,
he will absolutely come, neither being delayed nor lingering. (2:3)
Pay attention, he will be puffed up with false pride. His soul, it is not
right nor straightforward in him. So then through trust and reliance, by
being firmly established and upheld by that which is dependable and
truthful, those who are righteous and vindicated live. (2:4)
Moreover, because the intoxicating wine and inebriating spirit of the
man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal is a high-minded moral
failure, and is arrogant with meritless presumptions, he will not rest, find
peace, nor live, whoever is open to the broad path, the duplicitous and
improper way, associated with Shauwl.
He and his soul are like the plague of death. And so those who are
brought together by him, accepting him, will never be satisfied. Most every
Gentile will gather together unto him, all of the people from different races
and nations. (2:5)
They do not ask questions, any of them, about him. Terse references to
the Word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, along with allusive sayings,
simplistic and contrived equivalencies, and mocking interpretations,
controlling through comparison, counterfeit and clichs, along with derisive
words arrogantly conveyed.
There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him,
and double dealings to be known regarding him. And so they should say,
Woe to the one who claims to be great so as to increase his offspring, acting
like a rabbi, when neither apply to him. For how long will they make pledges
based upon his significance, becoming burdened by his testimony?
(Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:6)
This next statement is associated with the previous prediction. It is rendered
from the Dead Sea Scrolls because the Qumran text differs considerably from the
Masoretic:
 And (wa) he loads himself down (taan he burdens himself) with (eth)
thick (aphelah dark and wicked) mud (tyt dirt and dust to be swept away), so
why not (ha lo) quickly, for a short period of time (peta instantly), rise up
and take a stand (quwm)? And (wa) those of you who are bitten and are
making payments to him (nashak those showing interest, earning money, or
becoming indebted to him), wake up from your stupor (yaqats take action and
alter your state of awareness) moving away in fear of him (zuwa in dread of
him, abhorring his terrifying and vexing nature). Because (wa) you will be
(hayah) considered (la) plunder, victimized by them (mashchah la as booty,
spoiled by them). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:7)
God is saying that the only thing kabed weighty and significant about
Shauwl is that he has covered himself and others in muck. Methinks Yah was
poking fun at Shauwls murky and messy prose. But clearly, God does not want
us to remain in the mud with him, which is why He is asking us to get off of our
knees and take a stand.
So we cannot say that we were not warned or advised. God even told us how
to respond to this horrible individual. He wants us to stand up against all forms of
corruption: political, religious, military, and economic. We are to confront lies
and liars.
Paul routinely solicits money from believers. It is one of many reasons
Christian clerics embrace him. Following his example, Christian institutions have
made merchandise of men. So Yah is trying to rouse his victims before it is too
late.
Because (ky) you (atah) have plundered, stealing the possessions of
(shalal you have looted and victimized) an enormous number of (rab a great
many; and serving as the basis of rabbi) Gentiles (Gowym people from different
races and places), so (wa therefore (from the DSS)) they shall loot and
victimize (shalal plunder and rob) all of (kol) the remaining (yether the
residue of the wealth of) nations (Gowym Gentiles from different races and
places) by means of (min) the blood (dam) of humankind (adam mankind)
and also (wa) through the violent and cruel destructive forces terrorizing
(chamac the immoral maiming and murdering which oppresses) the Land
(erets the Promised Land, singular, and thus Yisrael) and (wa) Yahs city
(qiryah to Encounter Yah, Yaruwshalaim the source of teaching regarding
reconciliation, also singular; from qarah to encounter and meet Yah an
abbreviation of Yahowah), even all of those (wa kol) living in her (yashab ba
dwelling in her (Yaruwshalaim is a feminine noun)). (Chabaquwq / Embrace
This / Habakkuk 2:8)
 Paul mercilessly attacks Jews throughout his letters, making them the
enemy of his new religion, thereby, creating the anti-Semitism that ultimately
took root in the Christian church. Paul, a Roman citizen, seeded the hatred of
Gods Chosen People that boiled over seventy years later with the destruction of
Yisrael and Yaruwshalaim by the empires legions. It happened just as Yahowah
predicted it would. Six-hundred and eighty-four years from the time this prophecy
was committed to writing, Yaruwshalaim was sacked and the temple was
destroyed. Sixty-three years later, Yisrael was salted, and those not murdered by
Rome where hauled off into slavery.
According to Yahowah, to be cut off from Him is to be estranged from the
Covenant, thereby, excluded from this relationship, and forsaken, which is to be
damned. Therefore, you do not want God to say of you what He said of Shauwl...
Woe (howy) to one who is cut off, coveting (batsa to one who is greedy
and dies), while wickedly (ra harmfully and immorally, adversarialy and
malignantly) soliciting ill-gotten gain (betsa theft through deception, and
threat of violence, immoral solicitation and plunder) in relation to him setting
(la sym for him to place and appoint) his house and temple (la beyth his
household and establishment) in association with heights of heaven (ba ha
marowm in an advantaged, desirable, elevated, and high place or status in
association with Gods home in heaven) so as to spare (la natsal for the
purpose of snatching away and delivering the plunder) the acquired property
and possessions (qan what has been confiscated through envy and religious
zeal, the nest egg and snare) from the paws (kaph hands and palms, the control)
of fellow countrymen (ra of those living in close proximity). (Chabaquwq /
Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:9)
The Roman Catholic Church, which was founded on Pauline Doctrine, not
only constructs gold-laden cathedrals and has storehouses filled with tens of
billions of dollars of ill-gotten gain, they have positioned themselves as having
sole possession of the keys to heaven. It is interesting, however, that recently they
have had to return more than a billion dollars to the families of children their
priests have molested, priests following the Pauline mandate not to marry.
Yahowahs next line is a succinct, unambiguous, and damning summation of
Galatians and the consequence of Pauline Christianity. Gods verdict regarding
this man is irrefutable.
You have deliberately decided upon and conspired at the advice of
another to promote a shameful plot to confuse (yaats bosheth after
consultation, you have come to an informed conclusion through deliberation to
conceive and perpetrate a lowly plan with the intended purpose to confound while
displaying an adversarial attitude; note: bosheth shameful, lowly, and confusing
is from bashan the serpent, associating this adversarial scheme with Satan, with
whom Shauwl admittedly consulted) those who approach your house (la beyth
those who enter and are associated with your household and your construct),
ruining and reducing by cutting off (qatsah severely injuring and destroying
by scraping away and ending the existence of) many (rab a multitude of)
people from different races and places (gowym Gentiles; Greeks in Shauwls
parlance who he claimed exclusively for himself) and in the process (wa) losing
(chata forfeiting by impugning guilt upon through missing the way and bearing
the loss on) your soul (nepesh). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:10)
This answers a question Im often asked: did Paul deliberately perpetrate this
fraud or was he misled. It also affirms the now obvious connection between
Shauwl and Satan, the very spirit he acknowledged had possessed and goaded
him.
Recognizing that beyth family and home serves as the basis for the
beryth family-oriented covenant relationship, with this second reference to
home, family, and household, God is inferring that Shauwls new covenant
is a shameful plot designed to confuse the unwary, leading them away from His
Covenant And remember, Paul referred to himself as the mother of the faithful,
and thus of his new covenant family. He even wrote about life in the household he
had conceived.
To be cut off from Yahowahs Covenant, the Covenant Shauwl condemned
in Galatians, is to die with ones soul ceasing to exist. So while the soul of the
perpetrator of this crime will be lost forever in Sheowl, the souls of his victims
are reduced to nothing, their lives squandered as a result of Shauwls shameful
scheme.
Since God has a lot more to say about Shauwl, while Id like to move on to
other tests and prophetic statements, lets linger here a while longer and see if
Yah has anything more to say that might be of value regarding His perceptions of
this man and his message. And what we find in the next verse is another reference
to the Rock, to the Disciple Yahowsha prepared, established, and named to
publicly question and confront Shauwl.
Indeed (ky surely and truly), the Rock (eben) as part of the structure of
a home (qyr as the walls and ceiling which provide protection for a family), will
issue a proclamation (zaaq will issue a summons for an assembly meeting and
will cry out (qal imperfect)), and (wa) that which connects (kaphyc the plaster,
the rafter, and the beam comprising the structure of a home) from (min) the
timber (ets the carpenters work, the tree, and gallows), he will answer and
respond (anah making a public declaration, providing a contextual reply (qal
imperfect)). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:11)
 And while we know that Shimown Kephas, the man Yahowsha personally
named the Rock, summoned Shauwl to Yaruwshalaim and issued a
proclamation against him, there are some other, less obvious, symbols in the
verse. And foremost among them is that Shimown acquired the moniker Rock
when Yahowsha, in Hebrew, told Shimown: Upon (al) this (zeth) Rock
(eben), I will build (banah) My Invitations to be Called Out and Meet
(Miqraey). Banah speaks of building and reestablishing a home for the
family, and thus is quite similar to qyr and kaphyc which represent the physical
sum and substance of the home its flesh the walls, ceiling, plaster, rafters,
and beams. Throwing the rock at the man who in Gnostic fashion hated the flesh,
by referencing the building materials associated with a home, is Yahowahs way
of rewarding and enlightening those who are observant.
Similarly, Yahowah associates Yahowsha with ets timber to reveal how
He, as the Passover Lamb and the Upright Pillar of the Tabernacle, provides
eternal life for His family by way of the upright wooden pillars of Passovers
doorway. And that is why Yahowah uses anah to answer and respond in this
context. It is the operative word of the Miqraey, where Yahowah asks us anah
to answer and respond to His Invitations to be Called Out and Meet, because
they provide the lone means to salvation.
Woe to (howy a strong warning to) the one who reestablishes (banah
the one who builds a family, erects and constructs a home (qal participle)) the
place of exposed naked flesh and anguish (iyr the city where terror is
exposed; from uwr to incite and to stir up by blinding and rendering the chaff
naked and laying the skin bare) in blood (ba dam through death; from damam
to destroy by making deaf and dumb), and he forms (wa kuwn he proposes,
prepares, establishes, and supports (the polel stem reveals that the subject suffers
the effect of the verbs action and the perfect conjugation affirms that the process
is complete)) a populated institution promoting (qiryah a city; from qarah
and qaryah to encounter, meet, and befall the foundation, beams, building, and
furnishings of an institution where people congregate based upon preaching)
that which is unrighteous, invalid, and harmful (ba awlah in wickedness
with evil intent, unjustly damaging others through perversity). (Chabaquwq /
Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:12)
Its interesting that immediately after using banah to make a point relative to
the previous verse, we find it in this one. Great minds think alike. Not mine, mind
you, but here we find Yahowsha and Yahowah communicating the same message
by juxtaposing rock and build. And here banah is being deployed to warn
readers against participating in his banah rebuilt and reconstructed family of
faith.
 In most English bibles, you will find both iyr and qiryah rendered city as
if they were translating a repetition of the same word. But considering Yahowahs
prowess for effective communication, when we find different words being
deployed to convey a similar idea, examining the etymology is always productive,
as it is here.
In that iyr is from uwr, we discover that it addresses the blindness so
many have to the flesh being naked and exposed or how they can be incited
so that they suffer anguish and perpetrate terror. And in that qiryah is a
derivative of qarah and qaryah, in this words history, we encounter the
foundation and furnishings of a popular institution where many people congregate
as a result of and to listen to preaching. These are loaded terms with Pauline
implications.
Blood is of the flesh. A miniscule amount is shed during circumcision, but it
is poured out in great abundance by the Passover Lamb.
While no connection may be intended, from a pronunciation perspective,
Uwr, the name of the Babylonian city that Yahowahs asked Abraham to yatsa
come out of in Kasdym Chaldea so that he could la halak walk toward
God in the Promised Land, sounds similar to iyr, in that it is actually based upon
uwr.
Shauwls testimony is awlah invalid and harmful, perverse and
damaging, unjust and evil, leading to unrighteousness. And while that was
Pauls intent, it is Yahowahs to howy warn us about him.
There is a much better choice...
Why not look here and pay attention (ha lo hineh why not look up and
behold (hineh pay attention is conveyed by the two found in )) by
means of an association with (min eth by approaching and being part of)
Yahowah ( ) of conscripts who provide assistance (tsaba vast array of
spiritual implements who are enlisted and arranged in a command and control
regimen, serving as effective tools by following orders)?
But instead (wa), the people (am family) expend their energy and grow
weary (yaga they toil and labor, growing tired for lack of rest (qal imperfect))
amongst an abundance of worthlessness (ba day esh with excessive trifling
uselessness which is of no value), and the nations which gather together
(laowm the peoples who congregate) in more than enough (ba day with an
excess of) delusions and fantasies which are poured forth which are unreal
and have no benefit, resulting in nothingness (ryq fictitious myths which are
unreliable, of empty and vain deceptions which are poured out, experienced, and
consumed) exhausting and destroying them (yaeph physically draining and
ruining them and causing them to be slighted, diminishing to nothingness (qal
imperfect)). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:13)
Here, am can mean people, family, or nation, and almost always speaks of
Yisrael. Laowm addresses large populations which gather or congregate
together, who seldom have an affinity with the Promised Land. The former,
representing Shauwl and Rabbinical Judaism, obeying their Talmud, toil for
nothing. The latter, representing Paulos and Christianity, believing the myths,
delusions and fantasies this man has extolled are destroyed by them.
As an interesting aside, esh, the word translated worthlessness, also speaks
of lightning, addressing the worthless flashing light Shauwl claimed to see in
the sky which became part of his conversion experience. It also means fire,
especially in the sense of that which combusts and consumes. In this role esh
serves as a metaphor for judgment.
And once again, there is a better, more satisfying and fulfilling choice...
Indeed (ky but this is reliable and true), She will fulfill, edify, and
completely satisfy (male She will impart an abundance of that which is
healthy, valuable, empowering, and satisfying (the niphal stem is the grammatical
voice of genuine relationships and the imperfect conjugation addresses ongoing
effects)) the land (erets realm, region, and world) to approach, to actually
know, and to become genuinely familiar with (la yada eth to move toward,
discover, and acknowledge, coming to understand and appreciate becoming
friends in association with (qal infinitive)) Yahowahs ( ) manifestation of
power, glorious presence, and abundant value (kabowd splendor, honor,
respect, status, and reward), similar to (ka) the rain (maym the waters)
providing a covering (kacah spread over and overflowing, filling and adorning
(piel imperfect)) for the sea (al yam upon a lake). (Chabaquwq / Embrace
This / Habakkuk 2:14)
She refers to the maternal manifestation of Gods light, the ishah, better
known as the Ruwach Qodesh Set-Apart Spirit. Our Spiritual Mother makes
us appear perfect before God by adorning us in Her Garment of Light. She not
only plays the leading role in fulfilling most of the Miqraey, She enriches and
empowers the Covenants children, imparting an abundance of valuable
information. She not only equips us to better know Yah, She makes it possible for
us to enter His presence.
When we consider what has preceded this statement, it is hard to miss the fact
that Pauls spirit weakens and destroys while Yahs Spirit enlightens and edifies.
Pauls spirit poisons while Yahs Spirit heals. And that is because Yahowahs
promises are all fulfilled by His Spirit during the Miqraey, while Shauwls
promises are all as vain and worthless as the spirit which possessed him.
 Erets land and kacah to cover are initially brought together in the
story of the flood, where Yahowah washes away the initial and vicious scum of
religion and politics so as to give humankind the opportunity to get to know Him,
to approach Him, and to be with Him to la yada eth Yahowah. Moreover, the
kacah covering in the sense of the Garment of Light adorning the Covenants
children, maym waters representing the source of life and cleaning, and
kabowd the manifestation of power and glorious presence of Yahowah, are all
references to the Set-Apart Spirit of God.
Also, by condemning the destructive mythology of Shauwl in verse 13 to the
completely satisfying presence of our Spiritual Mother in verse 14, we find
Yahowah doing what I have attempted to do throughout Questioning Paul:
comparing the empty myths of man to the glorious and satisfying nature of God.
We considered this next statement way back in chapter three. It not only
warns us about Shauwls profuse venom and his perverted sexuality, it addresses
Paulos little and lowly reputation in addition to his animosity toward
circumcision. So from Shauwl and Questioning Him to Paulos and his lowly and
little moniker, from poisonous toxins to an unacceptable approach to the sign of
the Covenant, this is an indicting summation of this mans legacy.
Woe to (howy a strong warning to) the one who causes and allows his
companions and countryman to drink (shaqah ra), thereby, associating them
with (caphach) this antagonizing venom upon you (chemah this poisonous
and serpentine toxin which injures and antagonizes you, making you displeasing
and antagonistic), but also (wa aph and yet surely) intoxicating (shakar) for
the purpose of (maan) looking at (nabat al) their genitals (maaowr male
genitalia). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:15)
You will get your fill of (saba you will be met with an abundance of (the
qal perfect indicates that his is completely reliable while the second person
masculine singular reveals that this is directed a lone male individual)) shame
and infamy, a little and lowly status (qalown dishonor, disgrace, scorn, and a
very small and humbling reputation) instead of (min) honor and glory (kabowd
the manifestation of the power and presence of God which rewards and
empowers).
Choosing to intoxicate (shathah deciding to actually inebriate (qal
imperative)), in addition (gam besides), you (atah) also (wa) elect to show
them unacceptable, going round about over their choice not to become
circumcised (arel muwcab choosing to deploy circular reasoning in altering
their perspective regarding their decision to remain uncircumcised for religious
reasons, you have chosen to actually make them unacceptable (niphal imperative
and qal imperative)).
 Upon you is (al before you is) the binding cup (kowc) of Yahowahs
( ) right hand (yamyn serving as a metaphor for judgment), therefore,
(wa) public humiliation and a lowly status (qyqalown shame and ignominy,
dishonor and disgrace) will be your reward (al kabowd the manifestation of
your reputation and attribution of your status (second person masculine singular
suffix thus addressing a solitary man)). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This /
Habakkuk 2:16)
Pauline Doctrine is an intoxicating poison, venom from the most vile of
serpents. But more indicting still, Shauwl, who never knew the love of a woman,
provocatively expressed his love for a young man, Timothy. And even though
Paul detested circumcision, and spoke hatefully about the sign and requirement of
the Covenant, he personally circumcised his love interest. Furthermore, Shauwl
so craved recognition and status, he heaped it upon himself. But here God is
saying that Shauwls poisonous and inebriating attack against the decision to be
circumcised will come full circle and engulf him in shame. The man who claimed
to be Gods exclusive apostle to the Gentiles has become the man of infamy:
Paulos Little and Lowly.
I dare say, in the whole of Yahowahs prophetic testimony, no prediction is
as dire as this one. But that is because no one ever did what Paul has done. It was
not required of anyone else.
If nothing else, Yahowah has provided His evaluation of Paul and His
assessment of his followers. In this light, the only way to view him and his
religion favorably would be to ignore God and estrange ourselves from Him. The
debate is over. The choice is black and white. If we are to be true to this prophetic
warning, we should question everything Paul says and writes. And we should hold
him accountable. It may be too little, but it is never too late.
Continuing to intertwine encouragement into the midst of this overwhelming
condemnation of Shauwl and his demonic associate, Yahowah reaffirms His
promise...
Indeed from (ky this is reassuring instead because from) this grievous
injustice against and blatant wrongdoing in opposition to (chamac this
unrighteous and unrestrained campaign of error and towrahlessness in destructive
conflict with) that which purifies, empowers, and enriches (labanown
typically transliterated Lebanon, but from laban purifying, cleansing, and
whitening and own being substantially empowered, growing vigorously,
while becoming enormously enriched), He will constantly keep you covered
and continually protected (kacah He will always provide a covering by which
He adorns you, clothing and forgiving you (the piel imperfect affirms that we, as
those being clothed, receive continuous protection) and as for (wa) the
destructive demonic (shed the Devils devastating and ruinous) beasts
(bahemah), He will shatter them (chathath He will astound them, causing them
to wane)... (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:17)
I was personally stunned that Shauwl actually and unequivocally admitted to
being demon-possessed, because back when I was a Christian, we constantly
speculated on what the thorn in my side represented, oblivious to the fact that
he answered the question not once, but twice. But even when I first came to be
troubled by the conflicts between Paul and God, I never thought that Yahowah
was this frank with us. And yet six-hundred and sixty-six years before the most
blatantly errant and hideously destructive man in human history perpetrated his
great crime against humanity, Yahowah referred to him and his wayward spirit as
demonic beasts.
While Paul and Satan have had their run, and their way with humankind, their
dominion is about to come to a crashing end. Babylon and the Beast will soon be
shattered. Their power will wane. And when that happens, when the unrighteous
campaign against the Towrah is snuffed out, those who remain under Gods
constant protection will stand tall, not unlike the once towering cedars of
Lebanon.
Those standing beside Yahowah upon His return will have four things in
common: 1) We will have come to know and love Yahowah. 2) We will have
accepted the conditions of the Covenant. 3) We will have answered Yahowahs
Invitations to be Called Out and Meet. 4) And we will have arrived at this place
and time because we devoted the time to observe His Torah and Prophets.
The rewards are priceless, but they do not come without a significant
investment of time. This verse is a classic example. Chamac could have been
superficially defined as violence against instead of this grievous injustice
against and blatant wrongdoing in opposition to. The former, however, requires
us to ignore the fact that nouns are defined by their verbal forms. And here the
verb chamac communicates: injustice and wrongdoing in opposition to oppress,
and unrighteousness based upon an unethical and false witness which is laid bare
against the standard.
Labanown could have been transliterated Lebanon instead of being defined
by its component parts. And as we now know, laban is defined as: purifying,
cleansing, and whitening. And own speaks of being substantially empowered,
growing vigorously, all while becoming substantially enriched. Therefore, the
translation of labanown as that which purifies, empowers, and enriches is more
relevant and edifying than a simple transliteration.
Kacah could have been flippantly rendered He conceals and hides you.
But, instead, He will constantly keep you covered and continually protected
enables us to incorporate the implications of the piel stem and imperfect
conjugation. And it is considerably more consistent with how kacah is deployed
throughout the Towrah and Prophets.
Shed was written as a construct noun, which means that it is forever bound to
bahemah the beasts in this sentence. That means that the beasts possess the
attributes associated with shed. These could have been inadequately translated
the havoc making and destructive nature of instead of the destructive
demonic. But by choosing the former, wed have to ignore the fact that prior to
the Masoretic diacritical marks the Hebrew word written Shin Dalet was equally
comfortable being rendered breast, demon and devil, or destructive havoc.
While bosom can be disregarded in this context, there is no valid justification
for selecting demonic over destructive. Therefore, when trying to
communicate the whole truth, the only responsible and sensible approach is to
include both definitions, especially since they work in harmony to define the
nature of the beasts.
Speaking of the bahemah, the plural form could have been conveyed as wild
animals rather than beasts. However, in light of Yahowshas integration of the
Devil, the Beast, the False Prophet, and the Whore of Babylon in the Revelation
to Yahowchanan, any other rendering would have been irresponsible.
Also, chathath could have been translated He will frighten and dismay
them instead of He will shatter them. However, since the primary definition of
the word provides a perfect foreshadowing of what we are told will be the
ultimate fate of Satan, His Beast and False Prophet, in addition to his religious,
political, economic and militaristic system known as the Whore of Babylon, why
not render the word accordingly?
So in every case I took the time to consider every aspect of each word,
consistently examining the roots. And as a result, the renderings I selected are
every bit as justifiable, if not substantially preferable, to those typically found in
popular bible translations. The only difference is that I was careful and strove to
methodically examine every word under an etymological microscope, while
striving to provide a rendering that was not only as correct and complete as is
possible, but also the most fitting within this context of this discussion.
Here now is the conclusion of Chabaquwq 2:17...
...as a result of (min) the blood (dam death) of humankind (adam), and
also (wa) this grievous injustice against and blatant wrongdoing in opposition
to (chamac this unrighteous and unrestrained campaign of error and
towrahlessness in destructive conflict with) the land (erets realm, region, or
world), the city (qiryah to encounter Yahs foundation, the upright pillar,
beams, and furnishings associated with the Word), and all (wa kol) of her
inhabitants (ba yashab who have settled there to meet, to marry, to be restored,
to be established, and to live (qal participle)). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This /
Habakkuk 2:17)
Keep in mind that during the Magog War, Satans little helpers, motivated by
their religion, will annihilate more than half of the worlds population in their
failed assault on Israel. Then a couple of years later, politically, militaristically,
and economically motivated men and women will return to finish what the
Muslims will have failed to achieve. They will raise havoc in the Land, ravaging
Jerusalem, killing two-thirds of the remaining Yisraelite population. So before
they are shattered, there will lots of blood shed at the behest of the Adversary.
In this case, either of our two renderings of qiryah apply because the erets
land is Yisrael and the qiryah city is Yahs City, Yaruwshalaim. It is the
place where we encounter Yah and also the place where we find the
foundation, beams, and furnishings associated with His Covenant and Word.
How does he succeed with a caricature (mah yaal pecel why does he
benefit by valuing an idolatrous image he has shaped (hiphil perfect))? Indeed
(ky), he will construct him (pacal he will shape it), fashioning him (yatsar
he will devise, form, and ordain him (qal perfect)) by offering a veiled form of a
pagan god (macekah by forming an alliance which conceals and an association
which hides, covering up the true identity (qal perfect)) and by teaching lies (wa
yarah sheqer and through deceptive, misleading, mistaken, and useless
instruction, guidance and direction (with the hiphil stem the subject, Shauwl, is
putting the lies into action while the participle is a verbal adjective, making Paul a
deceiver)), so that (ky) he adds credence and partiality to (batach he makes
credible and believable, even preferable, so that believers stumble and the
unsuspecting fall as a result of their penchant and fondness for and partiality to)
the one who created the construct of him (yatsar yetser the one who devised,
planned, prepared, fashioned, and formed such thoughts and reasoning regarding
him (qal participle)), for him (al) to make (asah to act and cause) the
shepherds (alylym) bound and mute (ilem tied up and negated, appearing
dumb). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:18)
There is another discrepancy here between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the
Masoretic text worth noting. Rather than saying fashioning him by offering a
veiled form of a pagan god and by teaching lies, the Qumran scrolls read: by
making a deceptive appearance, which is an invalid manifestation.
There are a number of additional clues in this statement, all of which point to
Shauwl. First, God is mah questioning him, a reference to Shauwl name and
to what we all should be doing.
 Second, Shauwl created a pecel caricature of Yahowsha, one which
bore very little in common with the Maaseyah. Third, Pauls Iesou was not
only a macekah veiled version of the pagan god Dionysus, his Christou was
yatsar devised to macekah conceal the true identity of Yahowsha by
covering up His nature and purpose.
Fourth, each time the Pauline caricature, offering, and construct is
presented, we find the third person masculine singular suffix, making this the
image of a man and not a thing. Moreover, there is only one of him, something
wholly incongruous with pagan idolatry.
Fifth, since yarah teaching, instruction, direction and guidance is the verb
upon which title Towrah is based, we find Shauwl promoting a Torah which is
sheqer deceptive, misleading, mistaken, and useless. And sixth, the full
implications of batach are especially Pauline. It reveals that Pauls deceptive
guidance regarding the caricature he devised batach would cause the
unsuspecting and nave to stumble and fall based upon what they were led to
believe.
And this leads us to the final phrase which is no less revealing. The
combination of yatsar yetser following batach was translated the one who
created the construct of him because the verb was scribed in the masculine
singular (the one) and the noun was written to include the third person masculine
singular suffix (him). This is relevant because Gods statement is saying that
Shauwls false characterization of Yahowsha was created to make Shauwl
appear more credible, not Yahowsha. The phony construct was devised because
Shauwl wanted readers to believe him. Shauwl wanted all those he encountered
to show partiality toward the one who conceived the false god, Iesou Christou,
causing the unsuspecting to stumble over Him while praising him.
Lastly, alylym can be rendered two very different ways, as idols or
shepherds. And while Shauwl effectively mooted Yahowshas voice, with his
letters overriding Him, alylym was written in the plural form, disassociating it
from Shauwl or his caricature. Further, since this is presented in Yahowahs
voice, He would never refer to Yahowsha as an idol even if the plural form had
not been used. But, we know that Yahowah routinely deployed the shepherd
metaphor to convey Yahowshas nature and purpose, one Yahowsha developed
even further. Also, Yahowsha specifically asked Shimown Kephas, the Rock, to
shepherd His sheep, explaining the use of the plural form. And in that discussion,
Yahowsha warned Shimown that Shauwl would attempt to bind and tie him,
so as to constrain his ability to care for Gods sheep. And in doing so, we are
afforded yet another clue linking this prophecy with the plague of death.
 Also interesting in this regard, the two most common Hebrew words
featuring the yl combination (the letters following el / al Almighty God in
alylym (noting also that the ym suffix denotes plural)) are yalad children
and yalak walking. And that makes alylym: children who walk with God.
Woe to the one who says (howy amar) to the wooden pillar (la ha ets
approaching the upright timber, tree, carpenter, and gallows), return from the
dead (quwts awaken from lifelessness and become alive again after death; from
the verbal form which addresses the idea of abruptly starting something after
having been asleep), rising up to blind by providing false testimony and
precluding further observation (uwr awake in the flesh, ready to blind the
observant so that they are unjustly deprived of an accurate recollection of what
was witnessed), to the Rock (la eben), he who consistently teaches (huw yarah
he who instructs and constantly provides guidance to the Rock (hiphil
imperfect)), be silent (duwmam be silenced and be struck dumb and mute).
Behold (hineh pay attention), he (huw) has actually been seized,
captured, controlled, and then covered (taphas has been grasped hold of and
wielded skillfully (qal passive having this actually done to him)), brilliantly
shimmering (zahab splendorous and golden), extremely valuable and
desirable (keceph ornamented and gilded in silver so as to be yearned for and
desired), but (wa) without (ayn devoid of) any (kol) spirit (ruwach) in his
midst (ba qereb in his corpse and physical being animating his life).
(Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:19)
Shauwl has repeatedly stated that the wooden pillar, more commonly
known as the Christian Cross, was the means to be quwts awakened from the
dead, or to be resurrected in religious parlance. He even equated sleep with
death and spoke of those who were sleeping rising up abruptly. So the initial
statement is an allusion to the Pauline fixation on the wooden cross, from which
he promotes resurrection from the dead.
With quwts scribed in the hiphil stem, imperative mood, and paragogic form,
Yahowah is revealing that Shauwl will show his desire to control the Upright
Pillar, commanding Him into action, demanding that He abruptly rise from the
dead to perform based upon Shauwls inclinations.
And as bad as that appears, it gets far worse with the addition of uwr, which
suggests that Shauwl contrived his variation of bodily resurrection following
death on the cross to provide false testimony which would blind, precluding
further observation. This trend continues south with the desire to duwmam
silence the eben huw yarah the Rock, he who consistently teaches and
instructs. While this is yet another reference to Shauwls desire to moot
Shimown Kephas, the Disciple (one who learns and thus can teach), the ultimate
yarah source of teaching and instruction is the Rock of our Salvation
Yahowah manifest as Yahowsha. And as a result of Shauwls
mischaracterization of Yahowsha, Christians have been blinded, no longer
observing Yahowshas message or Yahowahs Towrah, effectively silencing God.
The contrivance Shauwl seized upon and controlled was made to appear
valuable, even glorious and desirable, but with this corpse, there was no spirit.
And such is the case with the Passover Lamb. The Spirit departed prior to the
death of the physical body, and the remaining corpse in accordance with the
Towrahs instructions was destroyed that same night. God was not killed and His
body was not resurrected. But, pretending this to be so became the basis of
Pauline Christianity.
And so (wa) Yahowah ( ), in His set-apart (qodesh), brilliant,
prevailing, and enduring Temple (heykal capable, empowering, and
enlightening sanctuary; from yakol enabling and prevailing, powerful and
everlasting): Be silent and stop speaking (hacah hush, hold your tongue, and
be quiet and cease all this troubling talk) before His presence and appearance
(min paneh from His face and physical manifestation) all on the earth (kol ha
erets). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:20)
We have done more talking than listening, more contriving than observing.
So Yahowah is recommending that the likes of Paul shut up. He has said far too
much already. And yet sadly, every time a Christian opens their New Testament
to one of Paulos epistles, and recites it aloud, the hideous voice of the Adversary
continues to resonate on earth.
It should be noted that heykal affirms that Yahowah is fully capable of
delivering on His promises, and thus not impotent as Shauwl has cast him.
Moreover, the word following heykal brilliant, prevailing, enduring, capable,
empowering, and enlightening in most every Hebrew lexicon and dictionary is
Heylel the ruler of Babylon, also known as Satan. The Adversarys name
means Bears Light, confirming that as a spiritual being he would appear to glow
just as Paul saw him. And this is how Satan came to be rendered into Latin as
Lucifer the Light Bearer.
What follows is a wonderful affirmation of what Yahowah has done for us, of
His reliability, and of His willingness to personally and mercifully engage so that
we might live. But to understand any of this, we have to stop talking and start
listening...
A request for intervention (taphilah a plea and petition for justice)
concerning (la for) Chabaquwq (Chabaquwq Embrace This), the prophet
(naby the one who spoke about the future on behalf of God), on behalf of the
Almightys (al) exceedingly great owth (sigynowth awesome promise; a
compound of sagy exceedingly great and owth promise). (Chabaquwq /
Embrace This / Habakkuk 3:2)
Yahowah ( ), I have actually listened to the entirety of (shama I
have literally and completely (from the qal stem and perfect conjugation) heard)
Your announced message (shema the testimony You have reported to be
recited and thus heard). I respect and revere (yare I am in awe), Yahowah
( ), Your work (poal the things You have done) in the midst of the years
(ba qereb shanahym throughout the middle years). You make known that
(yada You reveal and acknowledge that (hiphil imperfect)) He will live and
restore life (chayah offering and restoring His life) throughout the middle
years (ba qereb shanahym in the midst of the years) in turmoil (ba rogez
with great hardship, agitated, and intensely anguished), making Your mercy
known (racham zakar making certain that Your genuine love and compassion
would continuously be remembered because of Your ongoing promise (qal
imperfect)). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 3:2)
According to Yahowah, He worked six days and then He rested on the
seventh. These six plus one days represent the seven thousand year history of
mankind that have and will transpire from the moment we were expelled from the
Garden of Eden to the time we are invited back inside. In year 2000 Yah (1968
BCE), God initiated the Covenant with Abraham. And in year 4000 Yah (33 CE),
God did His greatest work, fulfilling and enabling the first four Miqraey: Pesach,
Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuwah. Noting that His work began in 0 Yah and
concludes in 6000 Yah, 2000 Yah and 4000 Yah are the middle years.
From (min) the right hand (tyaman denominative from yaman the
right hand) of God (elowah), He will actually come (bow He will literally
and consistently arrive (qal imperfect)), and (wa) the Set-Apart One (qodesh
the purifying one) from (min) the Mount (har) of Glorification / Paran (Paran
where one is glorified (from paar); denoting the route of the Exodus and the
mountain upon which the Towrah was revealed). Pause a moment to weigh the
uplifting implications (celah). He adorns (kacah He decorates and covers) the
spiritual realm (shamaym the heavens) in His splendor and glory (howd His
majestic countenance and vigorous life). So (wa) with His love and renown
(tahilah with His shining brilliance and commendable nature) She fills up and
completely satisfies (male She abundantly furnishes and completes (qal
perfect)) the earth (erets the material realm or the land). (Chabaquwq /
Embrace This / Habakkuk 3:3)
Yahowsha is the right hand of God. He is the Set-Apart One. And He is
the living embodiment of the path away from being abused by mankinds
religious and political institutions and to God, so that we can live with Him in the
Promised Land. This is the Way of the Miqraey. It is the Guidance the Towrah
provides.
As such, Paran represents the mountainous desert along both sides of the
Gulf of Aqaba, and thus between the Sinai and Arabian Peninsulas. The region
encompasses most all of the noted encampments during the Exodus on the
western side and also Mount Horeb (where the Towrah was revealed) along the
eastern shore.
It is in this way that Yahowahs Set-Apart Spirit supplies Gods love, reveals
His glory, adorns us in a Garment of Light, fills our needs, and completely
satisfies. She also serves to enlighten us...
And also (wa) knowledge and enlightenment (nagah brilliant shining
and radiant) consistent with (ka) the Light (owr), She exists as (hayah She
was, is, and always will be (qal imperfect)) brilliant shining rays of illumination
(qeren the power, authority and strength symbolized by the rams horn, a
signaling showphar, or rams horn trumpet, conveying brilliant illumination from
a supernatural source on the summit of the mount) coming forth from His hand
(min yad) on His behalf (la). And here, His name (wa shem) is His fortified
and mighty (oz His dependable and empowering, unchanging and necessary)
covering of love (chebyown a veil of power which cherishes and conceals; from
a compound of chabab in fervent love and own being substantially
empowered, growing vigorously, while becoming substantially enriched).
(Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 3:4)
Its a lot to give up just to flirt with Paul.
I have enjoyed this voyage through Yahowahs prophetic witness. It is
always a pleasure and a good idea to check in with God when seeking answers to
important questions. His perspective on Paulos matters and His verdict is in fact
conclusive, irrefutable, and damning.

In the Towrah, and specifically in Dabarym 13, Yahowah tells us that if a

self-proclaimed prophet stands up, establishing himself, as Paulos has done, he is
a false prophet. If he claims to have performed miracles as proof of his calling, as
Paulos has done, he is a false prophet. If he encourages his audience to accept
other gods by other names, like the Roman Gratia or Greek Charis, even the
Babylonian Lord, all of whom Paulos sponsored, he is a false prophet. If he
encourages religious worship, which is the legacy of Pauloss letters, he is a false
prophet. If his writings dont affirm our love of Yahowah, the God whose words
and plan Paulos has called incompetent, impotent, and enslaving, he is a false
prophet. If he directs us to disregard the terms and conditions of the Covenant or
the Path Yahowah has provided for our salvation, he is a false prophet. And of
such self-proclaimed prophets, God says that they are in opposition to Him, both
ruinous and deadly, so we should completely remove their disagreeable,
displeasing, and evil corruptions from our midst.
With regard to (eth) every (kol) word (dabar statement) which
beneficially (asher) I am (any) instructing (tsawah providing guidance and
direction to) you with accordingly (eth eth), observe it (shamar closely
examine and carefully consider it, focusing your attention on it) for the purpose
of (la) engaging in and acting upon it (asah responding by profiting from and
celebrating it), not adding to it (lo yacaph al never increasing it (through a
New Testament, for example)) and not subtracting from it (wa lo gara min
reducing nor diminishing the intent (by suggesting that it can be distilled into a
single promise, a single act, a single statement, or a single profession of faith, for
example)).
Indeed, if (ky) a prophet (naby a person who professes to proclaim the
message of a deity and / or foretell the future) stands up trying to establish
himself (quwm rises up and exalts himself) in your midst (ba qereb) or an
interpreter of revelations (chalowm chalam), and provides (wa natan) a sign
(owth an omen via a consent decree (thereby claiming to be authorized to speak
for God as Shauwl did)) or (o) miracle (mowpheth something which appears
marvelous or wonderful, inspiring awe (as Shauwl claimed as well)) to you (el),
and the omen or miracle worker (ha owth o ha mowpheth) appears before
you (wa bow) who has spoken thusly (asher dabar who has communicated
and promised this) to you (el) to say (la amar), Let us go after (halak achar
later let us again walk toward and follow) other (acher different or additional)
gods (elohym) which (asher) you have not known (lo yada you do not
recognize and are not familiar with (as is the case with Grace, Lord, Iesous, and
Christos)) and let us serve and worship them (wa abad ministering on their
behalf), do not listen to (lo shama el) the words (dabar statements) of that
prophet (ha huw naby) or (o) interpreter of revelations (ha huw chalowm
chalam), because (ky) the test (nacah the means to learn if something is true) of
Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), accordingly (eth) for you (la) to know
(yada to recognize, acknowledge, and understand) is whether this affirms
your (ha yesh) love (ahab relationship with and affection) for Yahowah
( ), your God (elohym), with all (ba kol) your heart (leb) and with all (wa
ba kol) your soul (nepesh).
 After (achar following) Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), you
should walk (halak you should be guided and directed (which means following
His Towrah guidance)). And with Him (wa eth), you should always and
genuinely be respectful (yare you should actually show admiration, reverence,
continually and esteem (qal stem denotes a literal interpretation and genuine
response while the imperfect conjugation conveys that this respect should be
ongoing throughout time)). And (wa in addition) in concert with (eth in
association with and concerning) His terms and conditions (mitswah His
directions and prescriptions, the codicils of His binding covenant contract and His
instructions regarding the relationship), you should continually and actually be
observant (shamar you should consistently focus upon them, closely examining
and carefully considering them (qal imperfect)).
Concerning His voice (wa ba qowl then regarding His proclamations and
pronouncements), you should always and literally listen (shama you should
make a habit of continually hearing (qal imperfect)) so that (wa), with Him
(eth), you can consistently serve (abad always engage as a productive
associate (qal imperfect)). And (wa) to Him (ba with Him), you should always
choose to cling (dabaq you should literally and genuinely stay close, actually
choosing to join together and be united, tightly holding on (scribed in the literal
qal stem, the continuous imperfect conjugation and the paragogic nun ending
which serves as an expression of freewill)).
So therefore (wa), that prophet (ha huw naby) or (o) interpreter of
revelations (ha huw chalowm chalam) is deadly (muwth he is the absence of
life, is destructive and damning (with the hophal stem, the subject of the verb, in
this case, the false prophet, causes the object of the verb, which is those listening
to him, to participate in the action which is to die)). For indeed (ky because this
is reliable and true) he has spoken (dabar the entirety of what he has
communicated is totally (scribed in piel stem whereby the object suffers the effect
of the action and the perfect conjugation, collectively communicating that
everything the false prophet said should be considered revolting because it totally
separates us from God because it is)) rebellious renunciations (carah of revolt
and disassociation, of turning aside and departure, of defection and withdrawal, of
being removed) concerning and against (al) Yahowah ( ), your God
(elohym), the One who led you out (ha yatsa eth the One who descended to
serve you by extending Himself to lead you out) from (min) the realm (erets) of
the crucibles of Egypt (mitsraym human oppression and divine judgment) and
the One who redeemed you (wa ha padah the One who ransomed you) from
the house (min beyth) of bondage and slavery (ebed of servitude and
worship).
 His desire is to seduce and scatter you (la nadach his purpose is to entice
and compel you to be drawn away and thrust aside) from (min) the way (ha derek
the path) which beneficially (asher which fortuitously as a result of the
relationship), Yahowah ( ), your God (elohym), described, providing you
with a complete set of directions (tsawah He taught, told, and instructed you,
totally appointing these prescriptions for you (scribed in the piel stem, these
directions guide those who follow them, teaching and instructing them, and in the
perfect conjugation, it means that these existing directions are totally complete))
for you to walk in (la halak ba).
And so (wa) you can choose to completely remove (baar as an
expression of freewill, you can totally purge, completely ridding so that it no
longer exists (scribed in the piel stem, perfect conjugation, and consecutive mood
telling us that all things displeasing to Yahowah are completely removed from us
when we choose to follow His Towrah directions, including)) that which is
disagreeable, displeasing, and evil (ha ra that which is wicked, no good,
counterproductive, immoral, malignant, mischievous, troubling, undesirable,
unpleasant, distressing, injurious, and harmful) from your midst (min qereb
from your inner nature and thus from your soul). (Dabarym / Words /
Deuteronomy 13:1-6)
The intent of Galatians wasnt just to subtract Gods advice on His Covenant
and its sign, circumcision, it was also promoted to completely negate the purpose
of the Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God. Paul strove to negate the
Towrahs entire purposediminishing its status to the point that it would be
considered a liability rather than an asset.
Pauls condescending and antagonistic dismissal of Yahowahs Towrah
Teaching and its Covenant wouldnt engender love or respect for the God who
authored and offered them. Therefore, the only way to cling to Paul would be to
let go of God.
God says that no one has been or will be authorized to add to or subtract from
His Towrah. Therefore, if we witness the Towrahs role in our lives being
diminished, or if we find a writer adding something new, like a new covenant, be
careful because such a person isnt speaking for God. This realization alone is
game over for Christianity.
Yahowah has reinforced a simple, yet profound, truth: once we take the
Towrah seriously, closely examining and carefully considering its guidance, we
can no longer take Paul seriously. Pauls letters are the antithesis of Yahowahs
Towrah, and for that reason alone it would be wholly ignorant and irrational to
believe Paul.
 Yahowah revealed that the best way to know who isnt speaking for Him is to
closely examine and carefully consider every word the self-proclaimed prophet
and God have written. If they differ, the man is a liar. Therefore, knowing and
understanding Gods Towrah comes first. Then, compare what Yahowah said to
what the prophet is claiming. If they differ, expose and condemn the false prophet
and encourage others to disassociate themselves from him.
Simultaneously, it is always a good idea to act upon Gods guidance. So if
you havent already done so, consider acting upon the terms and conditions of the
Covenant Relationship.
Since opinions are to conclusions as faith is to trust, and since we have at our
fingertips another way to determine with absolute certainty whether or not Paul
was speaking for Yahowah or for himself, there was no reason for us to presume
anything. Here is Gods secondary means to determine the veracity of a witness...
Surely (ak indeed, emphasizing the point), the person who proclaims a
message on behalf of a deity (naby a prophet) who (asher relationally)
oversteps their bounds and speaks presumptuously and contemptuously (zyd
has an inflated sense of self-worth, demonstrating self-reliance while taking
liberties to defy, who arrogantly pretends to know, who insults others and is
disrespectful, displaying pride in the pursuit of personal recognition and acclaim
while despising rivals, who rebels against that which is established and is prone to
rage, who seethes with anger and is often furious, overbearing, rude, and
conceited in their plans (here the hiphil stem reveals that the prophet and his
statements are one, thereby sharing a similar effect and purpose, while the
imperfect conjugation speaks of their continual and ongoing influence)) for the
express purpose of conveying (la dabar for the intent of communicating a
verbally or in writing (piel infinitive construct by design and intent)) a
statement (dabar) in (ba) My (any) name (shem proper name, renown, or
reputation) which accordingly (asher eth inferring access, relationship, and
benefit which) I have not expressly appointed, taught, guided, nor entirely
directed him (lo tsawah I have not provided the totality of his instruction, nor
assigned, constituted, decreed, prescribed, or ordained for him, deliberately and
demonstrably making him My understudy (piel stem and perfect conjugation)) to
(la) speak (dabar), and (wa) who (asher relationally) speaks (dabar) in (ba)
the name (shem) of other (aher different and additional, even subsequent)
gods (elohym), indeed, then (wa) that prophet (ha naby that individual who
proclaims a message on behalf of that false deity), he (huw) is deadly (muwth
devoid of life and destructive). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:20)
Therefore, Yahowahs second test is a relatively simple one. It contains six
elements (with six being the number of man):
 1) Is the person a naby: someone who claims to speak on behalf of god?
This is a screening codicil. If a person admits that they are speaking for
themselves, then they would be excluded from this analysis. The evaluation,
therefore, does not apply to Obama but would apply to Osama. Pauls favorite
line, but I say to you, would ordinarily have been sufficient to exclude him from
this test (and thereby also exclude his epistles from consideration), because by
repeating this phrase, he was admitting that he was speaking for himself and not
for God. But since he was duplicitous and often vowed that he had been
personally selected and authorized to speak for God, he subjects himself to Gods
test. And yet, he has already failed the first codicil. And that is because the
preponderance of Pauls message was delivered under the banner of but I say,
instead of Yahowah says. That should have been more than sufficient to
disqualify Paul as Gods agent. So it is strike one. (Where one strike is deadly.)
2) Is the person zyd: someone who oversteps their bounds, acting
presumptuously with an inflated sense of self-worth, demonstrating self-
reliance while taking liberties, someone who arrogantly pretends to know,
who insults others and is disrespectful, displaying pride in the pursuit of
personal recognition and acclaim while demeaning competitors, someone
who rebels against the legitimate authority and is prone to anger, someone
who seethes with frustration and is often furious, overbearing, rude, or
conceited? Shauwl has insulted Shimown, Yaaqob, and Yahowchanan, in
addition to Yahowah / Yahowsha. His claim to the world as if it was his personal
domain has been overbearing and presumptuous. His assertion that he was
incapable of lying and that he was the perfect example to follow were conceited in
the extreme. He has been rude to the Galatians and disrespectful of most
everyone, consistently misquoting Gods Word and then twisting it. And he has
routinely shown great contempt for the Towrah, consistently demeaning it. Strike
two.
3) Does the person la dabar dabar ba any shem: openly and publicly
preach to others, communicating their message in the name of God? As was
the case with the first codicil, this is also a screening test. If the individual in
question has an insignificantly small audience, if their preaching is done in
private, if their influence is limited in time and place, then there would be no
reason to assess their credentials. But, Paul begins his epistle bragging that he was
speaking for God, not men. He claims to have had his own private session with
God. This, along with the fact that Pauls preaching in the book of Acts and his
letters comprise half of the Christian New Testament, and that his words are
quoted more often by Christians than Gods, puts a bulls eye on Paul. Strike
three.
4) Is the persons message lo tsawah: inconsistent with what God has
instructed and directed, does the message conflict with what God appointed,
constituted, and decreed, does it vary from His instructions? Galatians, like
Romans, is an attack on the Towrah. As such, Pauls letters represent the most
extreme breach of Yahowahs fourth test. The only thing worse than advocating
ideas which are extraneous to Gods witness is to promote things which contradict
His testimony. Pauls repudiation of the Torah, combined with his replacement
theology (which is essentially comprised of believing him), is therefore an
egregious and deadly violation of Gods fourth test. It is also a direct violation of
the Third of Three Statements Yahowah etched upon the First of the Two Stone
Tablets, for which there is no forgiveness. Strike four.
5) Does the person dabar ba shem aher elohym: speak in the name of
gods other than Yahowah? Pauls Gospel of Grace (Charis/Gratia) elevates the
Greek and Roman pagan goddesses above Yahowah. And in his parting comment,
Paul excludes Yahowahs name and signs off in the moniker of the Egyptian sun
god, Amen. He also revealed a proclivity for addressing his god as the Lord.
This is strike five in a life and death encounter where one strike is fatal.
6) Does the person hayah: accurately convey what is happening and
what has happened in the past, and do their predictions of the future bow:
materialize and come to exist as they have stated them? Pauls errant portrayal
of the Yaruwshalaim Summit is an undeniable breach of the hayah clauseas
was his testimony regarding his contradictory accounts of his conversion
experience and his mythical trip to Arabia. The fact that there were no prophecies
in Galatians, a false prophecy regarding his personal inclusion in the Trumpets
Harvest in his second letter, and no fulfilled predictions in any of his other letters,
serve as an undeniable breach of the bow clause of this codicil. So since Pauls
demonic source of inspiration was incapable of properly guiding his false prophet,
it is: Strike six. Therefore, it is off to Sheowl for Shauwl. And if you believe
him, your soul will be destroyed at the end of your mortal life. That is why this
test exists.
Yahowah, as we know, proved that He inspired the Torah, Prophets, and
Psalms by punctuating His words with prophetic predictionsall of which came
true, or are coming true, just as He had revealed. Since only God has seen the
future, He isnt actually predicting it, but instead reporting in advance what He
actually knows will occur. Thats why He is always right, and its why He uses
prophecy to demonstrate that His testimony is reliable.
Here is the conclusion of Yahowahs Dabarym 18 declaration...
And if (wa ky) you actually say (amar you genuinely ask over the course
of time (scribed in the qal imperfect)) in (ba) your heart (lebab your inner
nature and attitude where understanding becomes part of the fabric of your life),
How (eykah) shall we actually and consistently know (yada shall we
continually possess the information required to genuinely distinguish,
discriminate, understand and acknowledge (here the qal stem was used to convey
actually, genuinely, and literally while the imperfect conjugation reveals that the
ability to know is ongoing, consistent, and continual irrespective of time))
accordingly if the (eth ha whether the) statement (dabar written or spoken
communication) which (asher under the expectation of a beneficial
relationship) he speaks or writes (dabar his complete testimony (here the
prefect conjugation requires us to examine the totality of the persons written and
spoken communication while the piel stem reveals that our perceptions of the
objects writings, Yahowahs Towrah in this case, suffer the effect of the false
prophets testimony)) is not (lo) Yahowahs ( )?
If that which (asher) is deliberately spoken over time (dabar has
continually orchestrated through written or spoken communication (with the piel
stem the subject influences the object and with the imperfect conjugation the
consequence is ongoing)) by the one who proclaims the message (ha naby
prophet who claims divine inspiration) in (ba) Yahowahs ( ) name (shem
reputation and renown) is not literally and consistently present and established
(lo hayah is not actually instituted and existing (qal imperfect)), or it does not
actually come to be (wa lo bow does not consistently arrive (such as a
predicted harvest) or literally happen (such as an errant prediction) (qal
imperfect)), the message (ha dabar the written statement and spoken
communication) which (asher from the perspective of a beneficial relationship)
he (huw), himself, has deliberately spoken to influence (dabar the totality of
what he has communicated orally and in writing to effect ones perceptions
regarding the object, which is God (piel perfect)) is not (lo) Yahowahs ( ).
In (ba with) arrogance and presumptuousness (zadown with an inflated
view of himself, self-willed and self-motivated, this morally flawed, disrespectful,
imprudent, insulting, and shameless individual has taken great liberty while
overstepping all due bounds in contempt of the established authority), the
prophet (ha naby the one claiming to be issuing inspired statements from God)
has spoken and written (dabar he has conceived and presented his message
(piel perfect he has completely and deliberately sought to influence)). You
should not respect or revere him nor conspire to rebel with him (lo guwr min
you should not fear him, join him, congregate or live with him either).
(Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:21-22)
In a text where a single conflict portends the death of the one testifying
falsely, as well as the demise of those who are led to believe him, Paul has failed
all six. Thats not my opinion. It is an undeniable conclusion based upon
Yahowahs standard. It is case closed. The verdict is Guilty! Paul was a false
prophet. If you trust him, you do not know or trust God.
 There are two additional thoughts in this Towrah passage worthy of our
consideration. The first is an indictment on all religions, but especially
Christianity and Judaism. Indeed, when you come into the land associated with
Yahowah, your God, which is given to you, you shall not accept, teach,
imitate (lamad be trained in, instruct, become accustomed to, disciple others
in), or act upon ('asah engage in, celebrate, profit from, bring about, ordain, or
institute) any of the disgusting religious ways (tow'ebah abhorrent rites,
detestable idolatrous things, repulsive and loathsome rituals, abominable festivals)
of these Gentile nations. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:9)
Pauline Christianity is Dionysian, and thus Babylonian, while also being
steeped in Greek Gnosticism. To this, Constantines Roman Catholic Church
integrated their affinity for Mithras. The resulting religion remains disgusting.
Without the Torah, there is no call for Abraham to come out of Babylonto
flee mans religious schemes. And worse, Pauls epistles call believers in the
opposite direction, back to Babylon, which is why the faithful remain mired in
mankinds religious muck.
Then speaking of the Word personally delivered by Yahowah on Mount
Horeb, and of the promised arrival of the Word made flesh, God said:
According to all you inquired about and requested of Yahowah, your God
near Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the
thunderous voice of Yahowah, our God, nor let me see this great fire again,
lest I die, Yahowah said to me: They have successfully and rightfully
spoken. I will come onto the scene, standing upright, establishing them as an
inspired prophet from among their brothers, as Myself, in a point in time.
And I will put My Word in His mouth, and He shall say to them all that
which I direct and instruct. And it shall come to pass that any man who will
not listen to My Word, which He shall declare in My name, I will question
and judge him, holding him accountable. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy
18:18-19)
The fact remains, Paul didnt listen to Yahowsha speak Yahowahs Word.
He only quoted Yahowsha one time in all of his letters, and even then he
misquoted Him. And each time he attempted to recite something from Yahowah,
he not only truncated Gods testimony, he purposefully twisted Yahowahs
message.
And lets never forget Gods position on His family: Yahowah will enable
you to stand upright, restoring and establishing by Him, as a set-apart
family, because beneficially by way of association He has made a sworn
promise to you, if you closely observe, carefully examine, and closely
consider, the terms and conditions regarding the Covenant relationship of
Yahowah, your God, and walk in His ways. (Dabarym / Words /
Deuteronomy 28:9)
The purpose of the book Paul demeaned is to provide us with the opportunity
to get to know God and then participate in the Family-Oriented Covenant
Relationship with our Heavenly Father. Salvation, then, is a byproduct of that
relationship, making the Covenant and its children perfect and enduring.
Therefore, Yahowahs testimony remains diametrically opposed to Galatians.
Youll also notice that Moseh inscribed the Towrah on behalf of Yahowah,
not Hagar nor Ishmael, that there was only one Covenant, and that the Covenant
and the Towrah are inseparable...
And as soon as it came to be that Moseh finished writing the words of
the Towrah on the Almightys document, completing it, Moseh instructed the
Lowy to lift up and carry Yahowahs Ark of the Covenant, saying, Grasp
hold of this written documentation of the Towrah and place it beside
Yahowah, your Gods, Ark of the Familial Covenant Relationship, existing
there as the everlasting witness and restoring testimony among you.
(Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 31:24-6)
This is an unequivocal refutation of Shauwls claims that: the Towrah cannot
save, that the Towrah came to an end, and that the Covenant and Towrah are
unrelated. Gods position and Pauls are the inverse of one another.
Shauwls instructions and Yahowahs are completely irreconcilable. They
are mutually exclusive. And that means Shauwl lied when he claimed that he
spoke for God. As a result, absolutely nothing he said or wrote should be
considered trustworthy.
The Torahs message, its purpose, and its ongoing place in the lives of those
who seek to live with God remains incongruous with what Shauwl has written.
Moseh instructed them, saying, At the end of seven years, in the appointed
time, the year of canceling debts, releasing debtors from their obligations,
during the festival feast of Shelters / Sukah, when all Yisrael, the individuals
who engage and endure with God, come to see and experience the presence of
Yahowah, your God, at the place which relationally He chooses, you shall
read and recite this Towrah (towrah teaching and instruction, source of
guidance and direction) before all Yisrael (kol Yisrael every individual who
engages and endures with God), so that they can hear it. (Dabarym / Words /
Deuteronomy 31:10-11)
In that it is Gods hope that we answer His invitations and choose to campout
with Him, this might be an opportune time to consider Yahowahs guidance
regarding Sukah. He revealed...
 And Yahowah spoke to Moseh, for the purpose of saying, Speak to the
children of Yisrael, to say, On the fifteenth day of the seventh month is the
Festival Feast of Sukah Shelters for seven days for you to approach and be
near Yahowah. ...For seven days approach and come near the maternal
manifestation of the light to be with Yahowah.
On the eighth day, there exists, and will always be, a set apart invitation
to meet, a Miqra, on your behalf. And you should answer and respond to the
invitation, appearing before the enlightening Mother according to Yahowah.
Her joyous assembly does not engage in, doing any of the work of the
heavenly messenger who is Gods spiritual representative.
These Godly and specific designated meetings times of Yahowah, which
relationally and beneficially you are invited to attend as set-apart Miqraey,
as Invitations to be Called Out and Meet, reading and reciting, are for the
purpose of coming near and approaching the maternal manifestation of the
light of Yahowah and are a gift which elevates, a reconciling sacrifice for
forgiveness, and also a pouring out of the Word a day for His day.
As part of the Shabats, the seventh days, the days of promise, the days to
cease your ordinary work and reflect on the relationship with Yahowah, and
as part of your contribution to the relationship, as part of all of your vows,
and as part of your expression of your freedom to choose, relationally and
beneficially give yourself, entrusting yourself to Yahowah.
Indeed, on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have
gathered in your yield from the land, you should celebrate the Festival Feast
of Yahowah for seven days. With the first and foremost day, there shall be a
Shabathown for the promise of empowerment and enrichment, and on the
eighth day a Shabathown for resting and reflecting on this opportunity to
grow. ...Rejoice and be glad in the presence of Yahowah, your God, for seven
days.
Celebrate it as a Festival Feast in association with Yahowah seven days
during the year. It is a clearly communicated and inscribed prescription of
what you should do in life to live forever, throughout your generations.
Celebrate it in the seventh month. (Qara / Called Out / Leviticus 23:33-41)
And that leaves all of us with a clear choice. We can accept God and reject
Paul, or we can accept Paul and reject God. But no matter whom you choose to
trust or believe, one thing is certain: Paul lied.
 While the answers are overwhelmingly obvious, at least for those who are
rational, two questions may remain for the most ardent Pauline advocates. Are the
eight remaining epistles (1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans,
Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians), the four personal letters (1 & 2 Timothy,
Titus, and Philemon), and the citations in Acts attributable to Paul as errant and
repulsive as Galatians? And what motivated Paul to oppose God?
Over the course of Questioning Paul we have chronicled copious amounts of
material gleaned from Pauls letters to Corinth, Thessalonica, Rome, and Ephesus,
and we have studied his preaching as it is reflected in Acts, in addition to the
morose conclusions he conveyed to Timothy. What we discovered is that they
were even less credible and more condemning. That is not to suggest, however,
that nothing Shauwl wrote elsewhere was encouraging. I cite the following
example in Acts 24: Paul responded:But this I will admit to you, that
according to The Way, which they call the sect, I do serve the God of our
fathers, trusting everything that is in accordance with the Torah, and that is
written in the Prophets. (Acts 24:14) If that was all that Paul wrote, then the
verdict regarding his testimony would be different. But the same man also said
that he pretended to be Torah observant when it served his interests.
The fact is: liars lie, but not all the time, otherwise no one would believe
them. To make something false appear credible, every myth must include some
accurate elements.
Christian apologists might cite the Gifts of the Spirit in First Corinthians 12
as evidence that Paul was inspired by God. And yet, most everything he included
in his list was inconsistent with Yahs teaching. Others will protest that the next
chapter in Corinthians, which was dedicated to love, could not possibly be errant,
but it is nonetheless. Much of what Paul wrote departs from Gods perspective on
the same subject. And while I am going to leave you to verify the evidence behind
these conclusions for yourself (because Id rather study the Torah and Prophets),
it should be obvious to everyone that Shauwl was a living contradiction
routinely displaying behaviors which contravened his own testimony.
Recognizing that three-quarters of Galatians has been overtly opposed to
Gods revelation, for there to be any hope of finding some beneficial testimony in
the letters to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, and
Colossians, they would all have had to have been written by someone other than
the author of this epistle. And yet each was explicitly identified with Paul in their
salutations, and each was expressly associated with communities Paul visited
according to the book of Acts. So the odds Galatians was written by someone
other than Paul, the man depicted in Acts, and the author of the epistles to the
Thessalonians, Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians are
remote in the extreme. Consider the required makeup of an imposter, and the
circumstances under which a conman would have had to operate under to
perpetrate such an astonishing fraud.
The Galatians ghostwriter would have to have convinced the Disciple
Shimown Kephas that Paul wrote this letter to the Galatians, even though that
was not true. And that means the Pauline imposter would have had to have
perpetrated his fraud during the height of Pauls fame, and while Shimown was
still alive, because the Rock specifically, and adroitly, addressed the letter to the
Galatians in his second epistle. Considering the number of times these men met,
considering the enormous responsibility borne by Shimown, the imposter would
have had to have been the most adroit impersonator in human history.
This charlatan, should one exist, would have had to pull off this stunning
fraud without Paul himself knowing about it or objecting to it. And therein, the
hypothetical scenario of a ghostwriter crumbles, because as anal as Paul was
about signing his letters to prevent frauds from being perpetrated, as intense as he
was about not allowing anyone to alter his message, as self-indulgent and
paranoid as he was, it is ludicrous to think that Paul wouldnt have had a
conniption fit over someone pretending to be him, and writing a falsified letter in
his name.
And there is no way to credibly push out the timeline on Galatians beyond
Shauwls and Shimowns lives (which terminated around 65 CE), particularly
because these men left a lasting legacy of their reactions to people around them.
Especially relevant, its obvious that Galatians was written in 50 to 52 CE, and
that it was Pauls first letter, composed in the immediate aftermath of the
Yaruwshalaim Summit, when nerves were still raw and tempers enraged. This
was all very personal, emotional, self-serving and self-promoting, and thus very,
very Paul. The self-proclaimed Apostle would have had twelve subsequent
letters in which to expose an impostersomething Paul surely would have done
had there been one.
There are a score of reasons to acknowledge that Galatians was Pauls first
letter. Its the only one which details his life story from birth to the Yaruwshalaim
Summit, which strives to validate his calling, and which describes the inception of
his preaching. In his salutation, Paul uncharacteristically greets the Galatians
alone, having been recently separated from Barnabas (Pauls companion while in
Galatia) but not yet united with Timothy (whom Paul would meet in the
immediate aftermath of the Yaruwshalaim Summit).
Further, the Galatians epistle shares something in common with those penned
in haste to Corinth and Thessalonicain that these hurried and defiant replies
were written to the three most rebellious assemblies Shauwl encountered. And
since we know that he crafted both of his letters to the Thessalonians and to the
Corinthians within two years of his initial visits to these places, its instructive to
know that the timeline which can be deduced from the book of Acts places Paul
and Barnabas in Lystra, Galatia in 48 CE.
Moreover, this conman would have had to fool Barnabas and Timothy, and
then Luke as well. But knowing Lukes penchant for detail that would have been
impossible. If Luke smelled a fraud, his suspicions, Peters, Barnabas, or
Timothys protestations, would have been chronicled in Acts.
But there is more to consider. A potential impostor would have to have been
an expert in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. For example, in this letter, and
again in Romans, the author cited (albeit misquoted) Habakkuk, a book most
people dont even know exists. He identified a Torah passage which could be
misconstrued to associate the Torah with a curse. He even recognized that zera,
the Hebrew word for seed, was singular throughout Genesis. And yet this
imposter would have to have despised the Torah sufficiently to dedicate himself
to denying its purpose. You could count such individuals on one hand and not use
all of your fingers, meaning that the pool of potential applicants in line to
impersonate Paul in the mid-first century would have been very small. In fact,
there was only one: Paul himself.
Should there have been a pretender, the conman would have to have been
schooled sufficiently in Rabbinical Law to pass himself off as a former Pharisee
who trained under Gamalielthe most esteemed religious teacher of his day. And
yet, he would have to have hated Judaism sufficiently to demean the religion and
condemn Jewspositioning them as the faiths foe. And while it is not
uncommon, even today, to find Jews who are self-destructive and self-loathing,
Pauls condemnation of his own people in 1st Thessalonians 2:14-16 is a league
apartuniquely qualifying Shauwl as the anti-Semite who wrote Galatians.
Should Galatians have been penned by a mystery writer, the perpetrator
would have had to have received formal training in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic,
as well as in classic literature, mythology, and rhetoric (the basis of debate), at a
time when just being literate was rare. Keep in mind, that while Pauls message
has been hard to decipher, thats partly because elitists of the day sought to
impress one another by communicating in the fewest possible Greek words,
leaving the reader with the challenge of correctly interpreting them. And that is
some of what we are witnessing in Galatians, and is why the New Living
Translation has more than doubled the letters word count in their attempt to
convey its intent.
 The ghostwriter, should there have been one, would have to have
accompanied Paul and known the timing and nature of his travels during a time
bereft of rapid or public communications. He would have had to know intimate
details about his life, including the grotesque physical stigmata he bore while
visiting the Galatians. He would have had to have known what Paul said to this
audience during his previous visit, and also know why this remote province was
now rebelling against him. And he would have to have had a reason to intervene
in the midst of a nasty argument, and somehow benefit from such animosity.
The Galatians imposter would have had to be willing to perpetrate a fraud to
artificially elevate Pauls status above Yahowshas Disciples in the midst of
conceiving a new religious faith. And yet the only person in recorded history
known to hold such views, and to be similarly motivated, Marcion, hadnt even
been born when this fraud would have had to have been perpetrated. Further, in
the case of Marcion, entire tomes have been written to marginalize him, yet
nothing was ever said about this hypothetical ghostwriter who turned out to be
vastly more influential.
Pseudo Paul would have had to have been a party to the Yaruwshalaym
Summit, because rather than coming up with an entirely different story, he was
clever enough to twist what actually occurred, so that it would serve a wannabe
apostles peculiar agenda. And he would have to have been in the room when
Shauwl condemned Shimown for hastily leaving a meal and to have had a
reason for demeaning one of Yahowshas Disciples. And why if this person
wasnt Paul, was he so obviously angry and so emotionally involved in Pauls
affairs?
Whats more, this imposter would have had to be skilled at impersonating
Pauls handwriting, because the last half of the last chapter of Galatians claims to
have been penned in Pauls hand. And that would have been especially
challenging since its obvious that this is the first letter Paul wrote. Moreover, the
charlatan would have had to have had Pauls jargon down pat, including knowing
his propensity to use alla, charis, euangelion, stoicheion, and pistis, in addition to
the now ubiquitous: but I Paulos say...
The Galatians ghostwriter would have had to have hired a courier whom the
Galatians would have trusted as one of Pauls emissaries. And then he would have
had to convince the leaders of wealthier assemblies to pay scribes to copy his
fraudulent letter and include it in codices with other Pauline epistles.
And along these lines, since we know that Paul wrote a letter to the Galatians,
if the one we have is a fraud, the pretender would have had to have confiscated
Pauls original before replacing it with his own, and to have done so without
anyone noticing. I say this because the time interval isnt sufficient for an
authentic Galatians epistle to have arrived, been circulated, and then been
forgotten, so that the imposters letter could have replaced it without anyone
noticing that they were different.
And lastly, Pauls letter to Rome reprises the climax of Galatiansthe
existence of two covenants, one of the flesh, the other of the promise. This was
Pauls amazingly clever, albeit devastatingly deadly, means to circumvent the
Torah, bypassing it by going from Abraham to the Maaseyah, with nothing in
between. It is the crowning achievement of Pauline Doctrine, his signature.
Therefore the man who wrote Romans, also wrote Galatians.
Also, as we have discovered, Second Corinthians was penned by a man
whose ego, credibility, and spirit were a perfect match for those on display
throughout this epistle. Moreover, the adversarial attitude on display throughout
the Thessalonians letters is consistent with what we have read in Galatians.
But even if someone could pull off the greatest fraud in human history, why
would they? Who in the first century benefited from defending Paul by attacking
God? Who else met the criterion of the devastating prophecies Yahowah and
Yahowsha leveled against this man? Why did Yahowah call him Shauwl and
Yahowsha refer to him as Lowly and Little?
While we have covered some of this material before, in support of Galatians
being from Paul, we must recognize that the book of Acts reveals that Shauwl
had the kind of contentious relationship with the Galatians, and with Yahowshas
Disciples, which is reflected in this epistle. Shimown, specifically, wrote
critically of Pauls letter to the Galatians, so if not this one, where is that one?
Moreover, the language the Rock used to describe Galatians adeptly identifies the
issues which permeate this surviving copy. The subtle twists and clever
interpretations of the Jerusalem Summit, as chronicled in Acts, tells a similar
story.
And as we have learned, Galatians is all about Paul, about his childhood, his
education, his qualifications, his preaching, his detractors, and his trials and
tribulations, even his personal issues with God. Within its text, we find the author
referring to himself as the mother of the faithful, as the parent of his spiritual
children, as the perfect example to follow, as a person who can do no wrong, and
as someone who cannot lieall themes which are echoed in the other epistles
attributed to him. So if Paul didnt write it, why would anyone ascribe such a lofty
status on another, especially in the midst of a letter purported to speak on behalf
of God?
How was it possible that a copy of Galatians was included in the midst of the
oldest extant codex containing Pauls epistles: Papyrus 46? There we find in order
of their appearance: Romans, Hebrews (which is widely considered to have been
written by one of Pauls disciples), 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians,
Philippians, Colossians, and 1st Thessalonians. And since P46 is dated between 85
and 125 CE, there would be no way to attribute this fraud, if it is such, to someone
writing at a time when everyone who had actually known Shauwl was long since
dead.
And as we know, Paul had a propensity to sign his letters so that his audience
would have complete assurance that he was actually the author. But with
Galatians, he did more than just sign his name. The last chapter attests to having
been penned in his own hand. He even commands believers to pay particular
attention to the specific characteristics of his handwriting so that they could use it
later to verify the veracity of subsequent epistles.
Recognizing also that Shauwl knew the Torah, that he was an expert in
Judaism, that he was skilled in public debate, and that he was fixated on proving
his calling, all of which are prerequisites for authorship, that leaves us with only
one viable alternative: that the person depicted in Acts and associated with the
epistles to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians,
Colossians, and Timothy was the author of Galatians as well.
Therefore, the only informed and rational conclusion is that Paul wrote
Galatians to establish a new religion. As a result, the best possible spin we can put
on this disastrous tome is that he was clearly angry, and may well have dashed off
an emotional response that, from a more sober perspective, he would have thrown
away. But, then again, Pauls ego was way too big for somber reflection.

You dont need me to tell you that Shauwl was the plague of death...
Yahowah affirmed this in no uncertain terms in Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 666
years in advance no less.
You dont need me to tell you that Paul was a false prophet We now know
that he failed all of Yahowahs tests in Dabarym / Deuteronomy 13 and 18.
You dont need me to tell you that Shauwl lied We now know that his
testimony regarding our means to become part of Gods family was in complete
conflict with Yahowahs Towrah and Yahowshas testimony.
You dont need me to explain what happened on the road to Damascus. Paul
confessed to the crime. And in this regard, Yahowsha would be remarkably
specific about who the wannabe Apostle saw on the road to Damascus.
Describing Satans fall from heaven, and our dominion over him, Luke, in 10:18,
translates Yahowsha saying:
But then (de) He said (eipon) to them (autois addressing the seventy
witnesses He had sent out), I saw (theoreo I was watching) the Adversary,
Satan (ton Satanan the Devil who opposes; a transliteration of the Hebrew
satan adversary and antagonist who slanders and accuses in opposition), as (hos
like and similar to, approximating) lightning, a bright beam of flashing light
(astraphe a ray of light in the form of a natural, weather-based phenomenon like
lightning; from astrapto a shining and dazzling object) from (ek out of) the
heavens (tou ouranos the sky and the spiritual abode of God), having fallen
(pipto descending to a lower realm, now prostrate, bowed, failed, and
inadequate). Behold (idou now pay attention, indeed), I have given you
(didomi umin I have offered and provided to you all) the authority, ability, and
opportunity (ten exousia the legal jurisdiction and authorization, the control,
power, choice, and right) to trample (tou pateo to step and tread under foot, to
crush, subdue, subjugate, and devastate), being superior to (epano being above
and having authority over), serpents (ophis venomous snakes which serve as a
metaphor for Satan and his fellow demons) and scorpions (kai skorpios
poisonous insects which sting and supernatural demonic powers, from skopos,
skeptics who conceal). So upon (kai epi) the entirety of (pas all of) the
Adversarys (tou echthros the hated and odious hostile enemys) power
(dynamis ability and rule, capability and strength, especially the performance of
miracles), therefore (kai), you (umas) will absolutely never be harmed by his
fraudulent deceit (ouden ou me adikeo will not be injured by his wrongdoing
and injustice or his violation of the standard). (Luke 10:18-19)
Now, lets compare that to Pauls depiction of what he experienced: But
(de) to me (moi) it happened (ginomai it came to be), traveling (poreuomai
going to) and (kai) approaching (engizo nearing) Damascus (te Damasko a
transliteration of Damaskos, the capital of Syria; from the Hebrew Dameseq, a
compound of dam and tsedeq: justice torn asunder leaves the righteous weeping)
around noon (peri mesembrian near midday), suddenly and unexpectedly
(exaiphnes unforeseen and immediately) from (ek out of) the sky (tou
ouranou the atmosphere (singular masculine)), a nearby lightning strike
(periastraphai lightning glittering roundabout, shining brightly all around,
flashing nearby; a compound of peri about, near, and concerning, and astrape
lightning, a beam or flashing ray of bright light which dazzles (aorist as a moment
in time unrelated to any plan, active and thus doing the flashing or striking, and
infinitive, turning glittering into a verbal noun)), sufficient and adequate
(hikanos enough) light (phos) about (peri around and concerning) me (eme).
(Acts 22:6)
 Pauls depiction is exactly as Yahowsha had described the fall of Satan. Paul
even used the same words. So it is remarkable that Christians the world over
disregard the accurate prophecy to embrace the false prophet.
He even went on to say: And (kai) do not (ou) wonder (thauma marvel at
this miraculous vision, nor be amazed in admiration), for indeed (gar), he
(autos), the Adversary Satan (Satanas), changes his appearance
(metaschematizo masquerades, disguising himself, transforming his image) into
(eis) a spiritual, heavenly messenger (angelos divine representative) of light
(photos). (2 Corinthians 11:14) Hows that for an admission of guilt?
You dont need me to tell you who Shauwl heard on that frightful day. The
false prophet already did so by quoting the false god, Dionysus And everyone
(te pas) of us (emon) having fallen down (katapipto having descended from
one level to another, lower one) to the earth (eis ten ge), I heard (akouo I paid
attention, listening, comprehending, and obeying) a voice (phone a sound,
crying out) saying to me (lego pros ego speaking according to me) in the (te)
Hebrew (Hebrais) language (dialektos), Shauwl, Shauwl (Saoul, Saoul a
transliteration of the Hebrew name, Shauwl, meaning Question Him, a
designation synonymous with Sheowl the pit of the dead), Why (tis) are you
actually pursuing me (dioko me are you following me, really striving with such
intense effort to reach me, hastening and zealously running toward me)? Its hard
(skleros its demanding and difficult, even rough, harsh, violent, and cruel,
especially offensive and intolerable) for you (soi) to resist (laktizo to kick, to
strike with the heel) against (pros) the goad (kentron a pointed sharp stick used
to prick and prod and thus control animals featuring the stinger of a deadly
scorpion with the power to ruin and kill, making resistance vain or perilous).
(Acts 26:14)
Paul deliberately put a pagan proverb into the aberrations mouth in the third
of his three depictions of his conversion experience in Acts 26:14, wherein he was
defending himself before King Agrippa.
Pauls citation as you now know came from Euripides The Bacchae, where
rebelling against the goad was used to describe the consequence of personally
having to endure the havoc and madness that would be wrought by the Greek god,
Dionysius, on the kingdom if someone refused to worship him. But before we
reconsider why Dionysius was chosen by Paul (or Satan), please note the
intersection between the scorpions in Yahowshas demonic reference and
Shauwls quote. This too is telling.
When we examine the myths which grew out of Satans religious
counterfeits, we find that the closest pagan parallel to Yahowsha is Dionysius,
which is why he was chosen. Just as Yahowshas blood is represented by wine,
Dionysius (Bacchus in Roman mythology) was the god of wine. He died each fall
but was reborn at the Winter Solstice (December 25th on the Julian Calendar), and
then was supposedly resurrected each spring. This renewal, became an annual
religious festival celebrating the promise of an afterlife. Held over the course of
five days each Spring, the Dionysia set the stage for the Christian replacement of
Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread, and First-Born Children, with Palm Sunday
(Passion Sunday), Maundy Thursday (institution of Communion), Good
Friday (death and burial of Jesus Christ), Holy Saturday (where Jesus rested in
the grave), and Easter Sunday occurring during the last week of the Babylonian
festival of Lent, where there was great weeping for Tammuz the son of the sun.
Just as Yahowsha had a divine father (Yahowah) and a mortal mother
(Mary), Dionysius is said to have had a divine father (Zeus (the father of the
gods)) and mortal mother (Semele). And by his death and resurrection, Dionysius
was responsible for liberating his believers and thereby providing the faithful with
eternal salvation, in complete harmony with being liberated from the Torah by
way of faith in Pauls Gospel. And lest we forget, Pauls beloved Charis, the
Roman Gratia, were the progeny of Dionysus and Aphrodite. And I wouldnt be
surprised that Paul was inspired in this regard by the reverence he experienced in
Lystra, Galatia in 48CE, where he and Barnabas were worshiped as Zeus (king of
the gods) and Hermes (messenger of the gods).
You dont need me to tell you that Paul deceived believers when he claimed
to have represented Yahowsha Seventeen years in advance of the day they
would benefit from this advice, Yahowsha warned His Disciples to be especially
wary of the likes of Paul. His Olivet Discourse began with:
And Yahowsha (), having responded judgmentally (apokrinomai
having answered using discernment to separate fact from fiction; a compound of
apo from, and krino separation, thereby being discriminating), said to (eupen
spoke to) them (autos speaking of His Disciples), Its important that you
are observant and that you pay attention, presently being aware and
perceptive (blepete choose to look closely and watch out, consider carefully
and be discerning, think so that you understand (present active imperative)), lest
(ue) someone (tis) will try to cause you to wander away from the truth
(planeon umas he will intentionally deceive and will probably try to delude you,
attempting to lead you astray (aorist active subjunctive). (24:4)
In a private meeting in which only His Disciples were present, Yahowsha
told them to pay attention and to be careful, lest someone will cause you to
wander away from the truth, deceiving and deluding you. Since this warning was
stated specifically to and for the Disciples, might this someone be Paul, and the
occasion be the Yaruwshalaym Summit? And if not him, who? If not then, when?
 For (gar because) many (polys) will come (erchomai) in (en [from
Papyrus 70]) My (mou) name (onoma reputation), saying (lego claiming), I
(ego) represent (eimi am, exist for, belong to, and I stand for) the (o)
Maaseyah ( a placeholder used to convey Maaseyah, the Implement Doing
the Work of Yah). And so (kai) many (polys) they will mislead (planaomai
they deceive and delude, causing to go astray). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift /
Matthew 24:5)
I would count the billions of Christians who have been led away from
Yahowah and His Torah, who have been deceived and deluded by Pauls Gospel
of Grace, as many. In fact, it would be impossible to identify another individual
who has misled more people than Paul. And as for Yahowsha saying them
instead of him, just as was the case in Ephesus, Paul had a posse comprised of
his own disciples.
Then (tote) if (ean) someone (tis) might say (eipon may speak) to you
(umeis), Behold (idou indeed, suddenly now, look, and pay special attention,
emphasizing that), here in this place (hode), the Maaseyah (o ), or (e), In
this case, over there (hode), you should not think that this is trustworthy or
reliable (me pisteuo) (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 24:23)
Paul claimed to have seen the Maaseyah on the road to Damascus, and then
again in Arabia. And he is the only one to have made such a claim within the
lifetimes of Yahowshas audiencethe Disciples. So the sandal still fits him, and
he alone.
Because (gar) those pretending to be useful implements Doing the Work
of Yahowah (pseudochrestui) and (kai) false prophets (pseudoprophetai) will
arise and take a stand (egeiromai arousing and stirring the comatose), and
(kai) they will give (didomi they will claim the authority to provide, offer or
bestow) many great (megas significant and surprising, important and
astonishing) signs (semeion) and (kai) wonders (teras miraculous and
portentous events) in order to (hoste therefore as a result to) momentarily
deceive and mislead (planao to in a moment in time attempt to delude,
temporarily wandering away from the truth so lead astray (aorist active)), if
possible (ei dynatos if able), even (kai) those who choose to be called out
(tous eklektos those who select and are selected because of the word, from ek,
out of, and legos, the Word). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 24:24)
When Paulos took his stand against God and rose up before Yahowshas
Disciples in Yaruwshalaim and tried to impress them by bragging about the signs
and wonders he had performed, using the exact same phrasing Yahowsha had
warned them about, they should have remembered this conversation and
responded appropriately. And so should we. Paul continues to fail every test:
Yahowshas and Yahowahs.
Yahowsha would be even more specific regarding Paul, tailoring His
prophetic prediction to reflect the wannabe Apostles boast that he would meet
with Yahowsha in Arabiathe ultimate Scriptural wildernessand then report
this myth to the Disciples...
Pay close attention (idou indeed look, being especially observant,
encouraging the listener to focus upon this subject), Ive told you this
beforehand, forewarning you (proeipon umin I have spoken to you about this
previously, predicting in advance that it will actively and actually occur in your
future (perfect active indicative)). (24:25) Then when, therefore (ean oun
indeed when the condition is met and surely), someone says to you (eiposin
umin), Look, suddenly (idou calling everyones attention to emphasize a
narrative), in the wilderness (en te eremo in a deserted, remote, and
uninhabited place in the desert) it is currently present (estin it is presently,
actively, and actually (present tense, active voice, indicative mood in the third
person, singular and thus it exists, and not I exist), you should not leave
(me exerchomai you ought not go forth). Indeed, you (idou emphasizing this
to you) in the (en tois) inner room (tameion the reserved and secure chamber
of a household and storehouse where [the Spirit] will be distributed) should not
consider this to be truthful (me pisteuo you should not think that this is
reliable). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 24:25-26)
Juxtapose this with Pauls claim to have encountered the Messiah on the road
to Damascus, and then to meeting with Him in Arabia, and we discover that once
again, Paul is not only a perfect fit for this warning, he is the only candidate who
made these claims within the lifetimes of Yahowshas audience. So either
Yahowsha erred in this prophecy, or He was warning us not to trust Shauwls
claims. And let us not forget, Yahowsha told His Disciples that when He
returned, everyone on earth would see Him simultaneously, not just one man.
You dont need me to tell you that Paul and his traveling companions were
the only men who claimed to be Apostles in Ephesus during the short time span
covered in the Revelation 2 prophecy
I am aware of and recognize (oida) your (sou) works and undertakings
(ergon the things you have responded to and have engaged in), the difficult and
exhausting encounters (kai ton kopos the bothersome trouble burdens
encountered), and your (sou) unswerving and enduring perseverance (kai ten
hypomone continual steadfastness and unwavering dependability, fortitude
under circumstances where others would succumb) and that (kai oti) you cannot
possibly accept, tolerate, support, nor endure (ou dynamai bastazo you
havent the will, desire, ability, or state of mind to take up with, walk along side
of, lift up, or carry forward, advance, sustain, or promote) that which is
incorrect, immoral, injurious, pernicious, destructive, or baneful (kakos
errant, wicked, wrong, evil, harmful, noisome, morally corrupt, diseased,
culpable, mischievous, demonic, or hurtful having an ill effect, a bad nature which
is not as it ought to be, and a mode of thinking, feeling or acting which is invalid).
And you have observed, examined, and objectively tested (kai peirazo
you have scrutinized, coming to learn the nature and character of others through
enquiry, judging them and catching the mistakes of) those who claim and
maintain (tous phasko those who say, affirm, profess, declare, promise, or
preach) of themselves (eautous) that they are (eimi) apostles (apostolos
special messengers who are prepared and sent forth) but are not (kai ouk eisin).
And (kai) you have found them (heurisko autos you have examined and
scrutinized them, you have come to understand, discovering and learning through
closely observing them that they are) false, deceitful, and deliberate liars
(pseudes are pretending to be something they are not, they are erroneous
deceivers). (Revelation 2:2)
Frankly, this prediction is so specific, its a wonder Pauls reputation
survived it. Especially relevant in this regard is that Ephesus was the only city
listed among the seven described in Yahowshas Revelation letters where Paul
and his pals were known to have preached. And it is the only one with a warning
against false Apostles. Surely this is not a coincidence.
While Revelation is a prophetic book, Yahowshas commendation relative
the Ephesians was written in the present and past tense. And that is significant
because Yahowchanan scribed Revelation in 69 CE, less than seven years after
Shauwl wrote his letter to the Ephesians, and within close proximity of
Shauwls lonely and isolated death. So considering the fact that Paul and his
traveling companions were the only men who claimed to be Apostles in Ephesus
during this short span of time, Yahowsha was calling Shauwl an errant,
demonic, deceitful, charlatan. We are without excuse. Christians cannot claim
that they were not warned about this devil.
But there is even more to this prediction than just a scathing indictment
against Paul in the form of praise for not acquiescing to his false teachings.
Yahowsha would go on to suggest that while the Ephesians rejected the self-
proclaimed Apostle, they ingested some of his poison: Nevertheless, I hold
(echo regard, count, and consider) this against (kata in opposition to, as
something that is depressing about, a downer concerning) you, that you have
forsaken (aphiemi laid aside and sent away, departed from and left, dismissed,
divorced, neglected, abandoned, and rejected) your first (protos foremost, most
important, influential, honorable, and desirable) love (agape familial devotion,
benevolence, object of affection, and moral and caring friendship). Remember
(mnemoneuo be mindful of, think about, make mention of and respond to)
therefore the source from whence (pothen the place, origin, and condition
from where and why) you have descended from a higher place to a lower one
(ekpipto fallen and dropped away, become thrust down and lowered, gone from
standing upright to prostrate, bowing down and falling under judgment, overcome
by the attack of demonic spirits who bring grief, terror, and death). Change your
perspective and attitude and think differently (metanoeo reconsider and
change your mindset) and bring forth the most first, foremost, most desirable,
most important and influential investments of your time, works and deeds, or
else I will come suddenly and remove your light from its place unless you
reconsider, change your perspective, your thinking, and your attitude
(metanoeo). (Revelation 2:4-5)
The Ephesians were eventually swayed by Paul and thus they forsook Gods
Wordthe Towrah. We cannot love God without first coming to know Him
which occurs when we study His Towrah. Further, the lone path to a loving
Covenant relationship with God is through His Invitations to be Called Out and
Meetwhich is the Way of the Towrah.
The proof that Paul and his associates preached in Ephesus, that they
presented a contrarian view to that of Yahowshas Disciples, and thus singled
themselves out as being the deceitful liars who were falsely claiming to be
apostles, is recorded by Luke. And while we considered this evidence previously
in the 5th chapter, when it comes to knowing the truth, a little reinforcement is
always a good idea especially when myths are prevalent and the consequences
are so extreme. So then once again corrected and amplified modestly from the
Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinears presentation, here is the testimony which
demonstrates conclusively that Paul and his disciples represented the false
apostles of whom Yahowsha spoke:
But it became in the Apollos to be in Corinth, Paulos, having gone
through the uppermost parts, came down to Ephesus so as to find some
Disciples. (19:1) But he said against and regarding them, If conditionally,
spirit holy you received having trusted the ones but not him, then not spirit
holy there is we heard. (19:2) He said, But into what then were you
immersed? And they said, Into Yahowchanans immersion. (19:3) But
Paulos said, Yahowchanan immersed immersion of change mind to the
people, saying to the coming after him that they might believe this is in the
Iesous. (19:4) So having heard, they were immersed into the name of the
Lord Iesou. (19:5) And having set on them the hands of Paulou, it came, the
spirit of the holy on them. They were speaking but in tongues and were
uttering prophecy. Were but the all men as twelve. (Acts 19:1-7)
 While it is impossible based upon the writing quality to know for certain
what actually happened, it appears that Paul was threatened by the information he
received from Apollos in Corinth. He knew that his message was vastly different
than Yahowshas Disciples, and he was convinced that one or more of them was
treading upon his turf by speaking to these Gentiles. So he headed south, arriving
in Ephesus to find the Disciples who had challenged him. When he arrived, rather
than meeting with Shimown or Yahowchanan, Shauwl sought to undermine
them, suggesting that the Spirit they received as a result of responding to
Yahowchanan was not the right spirit substituting one of his own.
Then this dialogue gets a bit murky because Pauls next sentence has two
hypothetical conditions, three buts, and a negation in the original Greek text.
Navigating through them, it appears that Paul was troubled by the idea that the
Ephesians had been immersed in Yahowchanans message. So Paul immediately
claimed that Yahowchanan had instituted unauthorized changes. He then
questioned the nature of the spirit they had received. So after listening to Pauls
contrarian view, a dozen Ephesians were re-baptized by Paul, with Paul laying his
hands on them. This then imbued these men with an entirely different spirit, one
which caused them to blather on in tongues, believing that they were inspired
prophets. But whatever they were saying, the twelve were now Shauwls
disciples, just as Yahowsha had chosen twelve.
It is telling, however, that Yahowsha never once immersed or baptized
anyone, so there is no need for it and no established way to do it. Therefore, it was
absurd to suggest that Yahowchanans technique was wrong and Shauwls was
right. Further, baptism is not the means Yahowah or Yahowsha designated to
receive the Set-Apart Spirit. There is no mention of it anywhere in the Towrah.
And adding insult to injury, when the Spirit came upon those who were set apart
in Yaruwshalaim on Seven Sabbaths, they were empowered to speak the
languages of the nations surrounding Yisrael. They were not baptized, there was
no laying on of hands, they knew nothing of Shauwl, they did not speak in
tongues, and they did not prophesize.
Unfortunately, Paul was just warming up. But having gone into the
synagogue he was preaching fearlessly for three months, disputing
(dialegomai arguing and contending) and persuading (peitho to coax
followers to become disciples and to seduce them to obey) about the kingdom of
the god. (Acts 19:8)
Next we find Shauwls hypocrisy in full bloom. He presented his Gospel of
Grace as the alternative to obeying Gods Torah, which he presents as an
onerous set of laws. And while there is no Hebrew word for obey, and while
Torah does not mean law, Shauwl routinely demanded that his audience obey
him...
 But as some were being stubborn (sklerynomai were being hard headed
and obstinate, even offensive and intolerable, refusing to listen) and they were
disobedient (apeitheo they were disobeying, refusing to believe, rejecting faith,
being noncompliant, rebellious, and insubordinate), speaking abusively of and
maligning (kakologeo cursing and maligning, insulting and denouncing) the
way before the crowd. Having revolted against, forsaken, and alienated them
(aphistamai abandoned, avoiding association with them), he appointed and
marked off boundaries, separating (aphorize he set aside and excluded in an
attempt to get rid of) the Disciples (tous mathetes those who had been taught by
and followed Yahowsha) through daily disputes (dialegomai arguments and
speeches presenting a different message) in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. (19:9)
And this took place for two years so that everyone residing the Asia heard
the word of the Lord, both Judeans and Greeks. (Acts 19:9-10) (We are
continuing to rely on the Nestle-Alands McReynolds English Interlinear to
recount Pauls testimony, while augmenting and clarifying it using the most
highly regarded lexicons.)
If you recall, Yahowsha specifically stated that there were some in Ephesus
who did not believe the false apostle, a reality which has been resoundingly born
out in Pauls own words. And while Yahowsha praised the Ephesians for
rejecting the liar and his lies, Shauwl saw them differently. The very people
Yahowsha commended, Shauwl condemned, calling them sklerynomai
stubborn, hardheaded, and obstinate, even offensive and intolerable, for refusing
to listen. Based upon skleros, Paul viewed those he could not beguile as hard,
harsh, and rough men who were stern, intolerant, offensive, and violent. Thats
almost funny considering the source.
Shauwl went on say that his rivals were apeitheo, which means that he saw
the Disciples as being insubordinate because they disobeyed him and rejected
his faith. If that doesnt take your breath away, considering whom he was
rebelling against, you may want to check your pulse. One of the most egotistical
and presumptuous men to ever purport to speak for God called the Disciples God
had chosen apeitheo disobedient, and that was because they apeitheo
refused to believe him when his message differed from the one God had
conveyed to them in word and deed.
Paul was laying down the law, his law, to which everyone had to obey or
suffer the consequences. There was a new Lord in town.
Contentious to the bitter end, Paul once again bragged of dialegomai
arguing against and disputing the Disciples because their thinking was
markedly different. But this time, Paul was not to be found in the synagogue in
the place where those seeking to learn about Yahowah considered His Towrah.
Shauwl turned instead to the Tyrannos Schole, where Tyrannos denotes the
Lord is a Tyrant. There should be no mistaking that Pauls Lord was indeed a
despot seeking supremacy. And Paul was lecturing on his behalf.
It is a fact little known, but if Pauls preaching is reflected in his letters, he
never accurately conveyed anything Yahowsha said. In just one of his thirteen
letters, he made a brief passing attempt, citing a few words Yahowsha spoke
about Passover, albeit taking His testimony completely out of context while
misquoting Him. So rest assured, when Shauwl claims that everyone in Asia
heard him preach the word of the Lord, he was preaching Satans mantra.
Reinforcing this reality, Yahowah consistently refers to the Adversary as baal
lord because Satan craves supremacy, mastery, control, obedience,
subordination, enslavement, and ownership. Shauwls predilection for these
very same things is revealing.
Yahowah and Yahowsha routinely tell us that dunamis ability, inherent
power, miracles, signs, and wonders typify braggadocios false prophets. But
since Christians dont listen to either, they typically associate such things with
God. And yet here, Paul is saying that God had nothing to do with them. His
supernatural power and his extraordinary mastery and skill were the work of his
hands, conceived, fashioned, and brought forth without Gods assistance.
The ability to perform miraculous miracles and powerful supernatural
wonders (dynamis) and not having obtained in association with the god (te ou
tas tygchano o theos having disclaimed an experience with, having disavowed
happening upon or meeting with, even relationship with God) were performed
through the hands of (dia ton cheiron by way of the person, authority, control,
and power of) Paulou. (Acts 19:11)
I realize that this sounds too incriminating to be true, not unlike Paul
admitting to being both insane and demon-possessed. So I encourage skeptics to
verify the meaning of te (likewise and corresponding to, serving as the marker of
a relationship), ou (constituting a negation and denial), tas (the definite article in
the accusative form), and especially tygchano for yourself. It was negated in this
statement by ou not in any way and precedes tas theos of God. Therefore,
in this context it denotes having disclaimed an experience with God, having
disavowed happening upon or meeting with God, and of not having a relationship
with God. And while thats indicting, by turning to tygchanos secondary
connotation, we find Paul admitting to not hitting the mark regarding
extraordinary and unexpected performances which require uncommon skill.
Therefore, it appears that the very attitude which got Satan expelled from heaven
was now afflicting Paulou.
And his legend grew with these fanciful claims...Also that upon the weak
was to be carried away from the skin of him, handkerchiefs or aprons and to
be settled upon them the illnesses and annoying spirits (pneumata ta poneros
worthless, morally corrupt, seriously faulty, toilsome, and wicked spirits) to
depart out and leave. (Acts 19:12)
Paul is claiming that napkins or aprons were placed upon his skin and then
carried to those who were sick, and that as a result annoying spirits were
exorcised from the diseased. This is creepy in the extreme, not unlike todays
charlatans who fleece their flock by pretending to heal the sick during religious
spectacles. It is another case of Paul claiming to be divine. But this time he was
also incriminating himself by suggesting that evil spirits cause disease and
must be exorcised to heal the sick.
The spirits to depart out were called poneros annoying, burdensome,
harassing, troublesome, wicked, corrupt, worthless, faulty, and criminal. It is the
same revolting word Paul associated with the old system which he later
identified as the Torah. And here, the Spirit associated with Yahowchanan,
Yahowshas most beloved Disciple, was the one rejected by Shauwl and replaced
by another of his choosing during the rebaptism. So I suspect that the reason Paul
saw the Set-Apart Spirit as annoying is that She was opposed to everything he
said and did.
When Pauls own testimony is considered as a legacy of Yahowshas
denunciation of the apostles of Ephesus, he alone is convicted of that crime. His
confession was also scribed in his first letter to Timothy.
Paulos, Apostle of Christou Iesou by mandate, command, and direct
order of God, deliverer of us, and Christou Iesou, the hope of us, (1:1) to
Timothy, genuine, lawful, and legitimate child in faith, grace, mercy, peace
from god, father, and Christou Iesou, the Lord of us. (1:2) In as much as I
pleaded with you to remain longer and continue on in Ephesus while I was
proceeding to Macedonia in order that you might command certain
individuals not to teach a different doctrine... (1 Timothy 1:1-3)
As clearly as words allow, Paulos was confessing to the crime Yahowsha
told us had been committed in Ephesus. Shauwl admitted that Ephesus was the
primary battleground in his war against Yahowshas teaching as it had been
conveyed through Yahowchanan their first love. Having fought for years against
both, Paul would deploy every resource to keep Gods emissaries at bay.
Seeking to undermine the Torah with its long genealogies (wherein the
beneficiaries of the Covenant are documented), Paul wrote: ...nor give oneself
over to myths and fables or endless genealogies with unlimited family
lineages, or whatever worthless speculation and aimless arguments they
maintain and cling to instead of, alternatively, the administration and
oversight of god in the faith or belief system. (1 Timothy 1:4)
 They were disabled through avoidance, straying and turning away by
meaningless conversations, idle and empty talk, senseless and vain words.
(1:6) Deciding and desirous of being teachers of the Towrah, not ever
providing nor understanding, considering, or comprehending it, neither in
what they say nor what they are concerned about and state with such
confidence, insisting upon, maintaining, and proclaiming so assuredly. (1:7)
But we have come to be somewhat aware that the good use of the
Towrah is if conditionally someone might deal with it correctly in accordance
to the rules. (8) Having realized this, the Towrah is not in place for the
righteous or saved, but for the Towrahless, for the disobedient who are not
subject to religious beliefs, for unholy sinners and disobedient outcasts who
are mistaken, for those who are accessible and open-minded who kill their
own fathers, and for murderers of their own mothers, those slaughtering
mankind, (9) for the sexually immoral and perverted, for homosexual
pedophiles and sodomites, for slave traders and kidnappers, for liars and
perjurers who provide false witness, and also if some other, different, or
alternative thing be opposed to the accurate and sound doctrine (10) in
accord with the beneficial message of the brilliant and glorious, the blessed
and fortunate god which was entrusted to me, myself. (1 Timothy 1:8-11)
With this confession, Yahowshas warning regarding the false apostles
operating in Ephesus becomes nearly as incriminating as Yahowahs prophetic
revelation in Habakkuk.

You dont need me to tell you that Paul, to the exclusion of all other
individuals, became the living embodiment of what Yahowsha warned Shimown
Kephas about just before He ascended into Heaven
This was already the third time Yahowsha was revealed and seen with
the Disciples who were Learners, having been aroused, restored, and
equipped to stand up out of lifeless separation. (21:14)
As a result, while they ate breakfast, Yahowsha said to Shimown
Kephas, Shimown of Yahowchanan [He who listens to Yahowahs Mercy],
do you demonstrate your love for Me more than these? He said to Him,
Yes, Yahowah, You are aware that I am engaged in a loving and familial
relationship with You. He said to him, Nourish My sheep. (21:15)
 He said to him again, a second time, Shimown of Yahowchanan, do you
respect and love Me? He said to Him, Yes, Yahowah, You are aware that I
am engaged in a loving and familial relationship with You. He said to him,
Shepherd My sheep. (21:16)
He said to him a third time, Shimown of Yahowchanan, are you
engaged in a loving, family-oriented relationship with Me? The Rock was
saddened because He said to him a third time Are you engaged in a covenant
relationship with Me? So he said to Him, Yahowah, Upright One, You are
aware of everything. You know and understand that I am engaged in the
loving, family-oriented, covenant relationship with You. Yahowsha said to
him, Feed, tend to, guide, and care for My sheep. (Yahowchanan / Yahowah
is Merciful / John 21:14-17)
Yahowsha, whom it appears Shimown Kephas of Yahowchanan
thoughtfully and appropriately addressed as Yahowah in His post Bikuwrym
state based upon the Divine Placeholder, wasnt talking to His pupil about
grazing, about sheep, or about animal husbandry. The sheep were a reference to
Yahowahs Covenant children. It is why Yahowah is called My Shepherd in
the 24th Psalm, and is credited with guiding, nurturing, and protecting His flock.
Their food is the Towrah. As a shepherd, Yahowah through Yahowsha
was asking His Disciple to guide and protect His flock, keeping His sheep out
of harms way, while keeping the wolves at bay. And never forget, they were and
remain His sheep, not Peters, and especially not Pauls, not a popes or a
pastors.
Tending to Yahowahs Covenant children requires a shepherd to be
properly prepared, which means Shimown would have to diligently study
Yahowahs Towrah while comparing Yahowshas words and deeds to it, so that
he would be able to teach our Heavenly Fathers children what they need to know
to survive and grow, and to be properly nourished and guided.
To tend the most highly valued sheep in the universe, the Rock would have
to remain observant, which is to say that he must be vigilant, never letting his
guard down, lest a diseased or vicious predator, unfit food, improper guidance, or
an unauthorized shepherd mislead Gods flock. And the best way to do that would
be to nurture Yahs children on the merits of the Torah, so that they would be
equipped to care for their children for generations to come, keeping all of His
sheep out of harms way by keeping the wolves at bay.
Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself
and you walked whenever you intended and wherever you desired. But when
you grow older, you will extend your hands and another will gird you,
placing a yoke on you to control you, and he will move you to a place where
you do not presently intend or desire. He said to him, You should follow
My path. (21:18)
And then this, He said making the future clear, signifying what kind of
deadly plague (thanatos pandemic death and physical demise, judgment
separating diseased souls) he [speaking of the wolf in sheeps clothing] will
attribute to Yahowah (doxasei ton N he will impart and extol as being
supposedly worthy regarding his opinion on how to properly judge, value, and
view God). And this having been conveyed, He said to him, You should
choose to follow Me (akoloutheo moi you should decide to actively accompany
Me and engage as My Disciple, learning from Me and electing to side with Me on
My path; from a to be unified and one with keleuthos the Way).
(Yahowchanan / Yahowah is Merciful / John 21:18-19)
Yahowsha was asking Shimown to feed and protect His flock even in the
face of someone attempting to tie him up and drive him away, taking him to a
place he did not intend to go. One individual in Shimowns future dedicated
himself to dragging the Rock away from his God-given responsibilities.
Shauwl forced Shimown out of Antioch in the midst of feeding and protecting
Gods children, and then drove him back to Yaruwshalaim. Shauwls rhetoric
and force of personality caused Shimown to cower as he had before, and even
retreat, leaving Yahowshas flock to be devoured by a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Even Shimowns comments regarding Pauls epistles have been used in a
way he never intended. Rather than being seen as an overt warning to Gods
sheep to be on their guard lest Paul lead them to their own demise, Christendom
twisted what the Rock wrote to infer that Pauls letters were Scripture. Shimown
had indeed been taken to a place he did not intend to go.
You dont need me to tell you that the second most indicting statement God
made against Paulos was delivered during Yahowshas Sermon on the Mount In
light of what we have read, Gods every word specifically and comprehensively
undermines, utterly destroying, Pauls credibility and with it the foundation of
Pauline Doctrineand thus the religion of Christianity.
In that we considered Yahowshas first and most comprehensive public
proclamation in the first chapter of Questioning Paul, Ive once again elected to
remove most of the Greek nomenclature from this summary review.
You should not think or assume that I actually came to tear down,
invalidate, put an end to, or discard, subvert, abrogate, weaken, dismantle,
or abolish, any of the implications, influence, or validity of the Towrah or the
Prophets. I actually came not to create a division, to dismiss, to invalidate, or
to discard to abrogate, to weaken, or to abolish, dismissing any implication or
its influence, but instead and to the contrary, to completely fulfill, proclaim,
and complete, conveying the true meaning and thinking, to liberally supply,
accomplishing, and rendering it totally and perfectly. (5:17)
Because in deed and in truth, I say to you, up to the point that with
absolute certainty the heaven and the earth cease to exist, not ever under any
circumstance shall one aspect of the smallest letter, the Yowd, nor so much as
a single stroke of the pen distinguishing any aspect of any Hebrew letter
cease to be relevant, be averted or neglected, having any chance of being
ignored or disregarded from the Towrah until with absolute certainty
everything might take place, becoming a reality. (5:18)
Therefore, and as a result, whoever may at any time dismiss or attempt
to do away with, seeking to toss aside, invalidate, or abolish, tearing asunder
one of the smallest and least important of these prescriptions and
instructions which are enjoined, these authorized directions, precepts, and
teachings, and he might instruct or indoctrinate, expounding or explaining so
as to enjoin people in this manner, he will actually be provided the name and
will be judicially and legally summoned as Little and Lowly (elachistos
Paulos in Latin, meaning: small and inadequate, insignificant and insufficient,
irrelevant and unimportant, immaterial and inconsequential (with Paulos
representing the Latin name Shauwl adopted as his own)) by the kingdom of
heaven.
But by contrast, whosoever may act upon it, engaging through it, making
the most of it, while teaching it and sharing its instructions while expounding
upon it, this will properly be referred to, named, and called Great and
Important (megas astonishingly valuable, splendid and sensible, albeit
surprisingly uncommon) among those who reign within the heavens.
(Mattanyah / Yahowahs Gift / Matthew 5:17-19)
That was as unequivocal as it was opposed to the Christian traditions Paulos
contrived. To discount or discard any aspect of the Towrah, an individual such as
Paulos has to contradict Yahowsha. And it is irrational for anyone to claim to
have been granted authorization to speak on behalf of God when their message
contradicts His.
The notion of a New Testament is torn asunder because Gods original
testimony remains valid. So based upon this statement, Pauls letters which seek
to invalidate the Towrah must be discarded.
A Christian cannot discount this testimony without simultaneously
discounting Yahowshas credibility. And the moment that is done, everything
crumbles. But on the other hand, to believe God, you have to reject Christianity.
 Equally telling, especially since the Prophets were included, the majority of
Yahowahs prophecies, including His return and His ultimate renewal and
restoration of the Covenant with Yisrael and Yahuwdah, have not yet occured,
and the heavens and earth remain. Therefore, the Torah still stands. Now thats
something for Christians to think about, especially considering the subject and
speaker. Therefore, as a Christian reading this, since you are no longer ignorant of
this proclamation, your only options are to reject Christianity or be irrational. And
what do you suppose the merits might be of believing in something which is
invalid?
Since we are now undeniably aware of Yahowshas assessment of those who
attempt to dismiss and discard any portion of the Torah, and that He referred to
such attempts as Paulos, it is now impossible to consider Pauls purpose for
writing Galatians, which was to demean and devalue the Towrah, favorably. So
how is it that Shauwl convinced the world that God had authorized him to do
precisely what Yahowshas just testified should not, and could not, be done? Said
another way, is there any chance whatsoever that God inspired, even condoned or
endorsed, the writings of a man who invalidated His Torah in view of this
statement by Yahowsha? Do Christians honestly believe that Paul can contradict
God and still be trusted?
Indirectly incriminating Shauwl, a man who not only dismissed the Towrah,
but who also claimed to be a Rabbi and Pharisee, in addition to being a religious
expert, scholar, and writer, please consider what Yahowsha said next:
For indeed, I say to you all, that unless conditionally your
righteousness, integrity, and standing in the relationship is abundantly
superior to and immanently more appropriate than the religious teachers,
experts, scribes, and scholars (ton Grammateus government officials,
politicians, public servants, reporters, writers, clerks, lawyers, and judges), and
Pharisees (Pharisaios members of a fundamentalist religious party comprised
of hypocritical Jews who coveted authority, were overtly religious, set rules which
others had to abide by, established religious rituals and traditions, and interpreted
Scripture to their liking), you will absolutely never move into nor experience
the realm of the heavens. (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 5:20)
While the mythos of Christendom has been rendered moot by Yahowsha,
God had a lot more to say during His Instruction on the Mount that is germane to
our evaluation of Paul. Speaking to those who are willing to invest the time
required to actually know Yahowah, to those who actively seek to learn the truth,
to those willing to engage in the process which leads to admission into Gods
home, Yahowsha provided a set of instructions which completely undermines the
ignorance of blind faith...
 You should ask (aiteo at the present time it is desirable for everyone act
on their own initiative to earnestly request information, knowledge, and answers)
and it will be given (didomi in the future this will reliably produce the desired
result) to you. You should seek (zeteo currently it is desirable for everyone act
on their own initiative to attempt to find information, searching for knowledge
and answers) and you will actually receive an education. You should knock
(krouo everyone should act on their own initiative to physically demonstrate and
announce their presence at the door desiring acceptance and admittance) and it
will be opened to you. (7:7) For then the one asking receives, the one seeking,
earnestly trying to obtain information though personal interaction, actually
finds by participating in the discovery, and the one knocking, announcing his
or her presence at the door desiring acceptance, it will be opened. (Mattanyah
/ Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:7-8)
Yahowshas statement is wholly consistent with Yahowahs Towrah guidance.
God encourages us to be observant, which is to closely examine and carefully
consider His instructions, especially the provisions associated with the Covenant.
He encourages us to listen to His prescriptions for living so that we can act upon
what we discover and thereby come to be invited into His Home. This, however,
is the antithesis of Pauls proposition which is salvation through faith. Gods
method requires us to learn and then engage. But with faith, both the process and
response would be unnecessary, even counterproductive.
Yahowshas next statement further undermines Christianity because
Yahowsha is directing our attention not to Himself, but instead to Yahowah, to
our Heavenly Father, and to the Fathers gift something which is found in the
Towrah. But beyond this, by juxtaposing these thoughts, Yahowsha is also
revealing where we should look to find the door to seek acceptance. He is even
contrasting the merits of Yahowahs offer and promises with the statements and
promises of a man.
Should you be considering an alternative, what man currently exists
from among you whom when his son will ask for a loaf of bread will give him
a stone? (7:9) Or should you be considering a logical contrast between
opposites, when he asks for a fish, will he hand him a snake? (7:10) If,
therefore, you all presently and actively being troublesome and morally
corrupt (poneros seriously flawed, evil and annoying, blind and diseased) have
in the past been familiar with and have actually known how to give good and
beneficial gifts to your children, how much more by contrast will your
Father, the One in the Heavens, actually give, personally responding to
reliably produce, grant, and bestow something good, moral, generous, and
beneficial to those asking Him? (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:9-11)
 Paulos is offering the gift of faith and Yahowah is offering the gift of the
Covenant. Which offer do you suppose might be more beneficial? And since this
follows a presentation on asking and seeking, do you suspect that Yahowsha is
indicating where we ought to look to find something which is reliably good,
valuable, and kind? And since the answers to these questions are obvious, why do
Christians, who claim that their religion is based upon Yahowsha, ignore this and
turn to Paul instead? In light of this, how did Shauwl manage to convince them
that the Towrah was anything but good, generous, capable, or beneficial?
The moral of the story is that since we dont want a millstone, a premature
burial, a poisonous snake, or a serpent representing Satan given to us by men or
by their institutions, and would be vastly better served with Yahowahs good,
generous, and beneficial gift, we ought to offer our fellow man access to Gods
gift providing them with the valuable and kind offer found in our Heavenly
Fathers Towrah and Prophets.
Anything, therefore, to whatever to the degree or extent you might want
or may enjoy as a result of men being human doing so to you, also in this
way, you should choose to actively do to them.
This then actually and presently is the Torah (o nomos becomes the
means to being nourished by that which is bestowed to become heirs, existing as
the precepts which were apportioned, established, and received as a means to
prosper and to be approved, and prescriptions for an inheritance) and the
Prophets: (7:12) under the auspices of freewill, you all should choose at some
point in time to enter, personally engaging by moving through the narrow,
specific, seldom-tread, and exacting door (tes stenos pule the doorway with
strict requirements, the passageway which is unpopular and seldom walked, an
infrequently-trodden gateway whereby a stand will be taken to enable others to
stand, to be firmly established, and to be upheld).
Because broad, man-made, and crafted to be wide open (platys molded,
malleable, plastic, and easily crafted and plied, a wide and artificial thoroughfare;
from plasso formed and molded by man) is the door and spacious
(eurychoros as encompassing as nations, widely regional, and broadly societal;
sharing a base with eusebeia especially religious, speaking of belief systems
and their devout and pious practices) is the way which misleads and separates
(e apago that takes away, leading through deception; from ago directs, leads,
and guides to apo separation) onto utter destruction (apoleia needlessly
squandering and ruining the valuable resource of ones existence, causing it to
perish; from apollumi to be put entirely out of the way, to be rendered useless
and to be abolished, coming to an end and ceasing to exist). And a great many
(kai polys the vast preponderance, an enormous number) are those who are
influenced into moving while suffering the consequences of entering (oi
eiserchomai who as a result of being acted upon are affected by taking the first
step toward and then going in, manipulated in the process of beginning a journey
while experiencing the effect of going out) through it. (7:13)
Certainly, the specific doorway has strict requirements, it is narrow,
seldom-tread, and it is an exacting passageway (e stenos pule the doorway is
highly restrictive, the passageway is unpopular and infrequently walked), and it
completely goes against the crowd to the point of persecution (kai thlibomai
it is so totally unpopular the past act influences the future to the point of hardship
and harassment, even to oppression and affliction), the one way which leads,
separating those guided unto life (zoe vigorous and flourishing living, the
fullness of a restored and active existence), but very few (oligos an extremely
small quantity over a very short time) are those finding it (heuriskomai autos
presently learning and actively discovering the location of it, themselves
experiencing it). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:12-14)
This may be the single most devastating declaration ever made against
religion, because the one thing religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity,
Judaism, Islam, and Socialist Secular Humanism have in common is that they are
very popular. A great many people have placed their faith in them, ranging from
tens of millions to many billions. But Yahowsha, the diminished manifestation of
God, just said that the popular ways are not only artificial and manmade, they lead
to destruction, needlessly squandering countless souls.
So while this statement is catastrophic to Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism,
Islam, and Socialist Secular Humanism, when Yahowshas divine credentials are
established, there is no out for Christianity. Based upon this declaration alone in
the midst of the Proclamation on the Mount, the moment Constantine made the
Christian religion the official faith of the Roman Empire, there was no longer any
hope that it could be the path to life. It must, therefore, be one of the many ways
which lead to destruction.
Yahowsha did not say that Christianity was destructive because its popular,
but only that the path to life is unpopular. Christianity is deadly because it is based
upon Shauwls man-made and artificial path.
I am not trying to rub salt into an open wound, but I would be remiss if I
didnt remind Christians that in Habakkuk, Yahowah specifically revealed that
there would be a broad path, a duplicitous and improper way, associated with
Shauwl that would be the plague of death.
You do not need me to tell you that Yahowsha popped Pauls balloon twenty
years before the Devils Advocate began spewing hot air because Yahowsha was
not yet finished warning Christians about the consequence of disregarding the
Torah. With these words, He would tell everyone willing to listen to Him not to
trust Paul
At the present time, you all should be especially alert, being on guard
by closely examining and carefully considering, thereby turning away from
the false prophets, those pretending to be divinely inspired spokesmen, who
come to you, currently appearing before you from within, as an insider and
thus from the same race and place, by dressing up in sheeps clothing, yet
they actually are exceptionally self-promoting, self-serving, and swindling
(harpax vicious, carnivorous, and thieving, robbing, extorting, and destructive,
ferocious, rapacious, and snatching; extracting and compelling under duress; from
harpazo: to violently, forcibly, and eagerly claim and then seize for oneself so as
to pluck and carry away as) wolves. (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:15)
While the combination of Gods warnings and Pauls admissions are
devastating, leaving Shauwl and his associates as the only viable and known
potential culprits, there was a subtlety in Yahowshas depiction of the wolf. He
described the predator using a derivative of the same term Paulos selected to
present his harpazo rapture. It was such an odd choice for Paul, especially
considering its negative connotations that by being translated using it in His
public declaration, God gave us yet another clue regarding the identity of this
wolf in sheeps clothing.
And yes, God is into the details. In His Towrah, He revealed: Benjamin is a
wolf viciously tearing apart, continually mangling and actually killing,
plucking the life out of his victims, in the early part of the day, consistently
devouring his prey, and during the dark of night at the end of the day, he
divides and destroys, apportioning and distributing that which has been
spoiled. (Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis 49:27) And again, in his own
confession, Shauwl wrote in Romans 11:1: For indeed, I am an Israelite, from
the seed of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin (Beniamin a transliteration
of the Hebrew Benyamyn).
While there were many Benjamites, there is only one man known to have
publicly proclaimed to have been from the tribe of Benjamin who was present in
Yaruwshalaim during the time Yahowsha delivered His Instruction on the Mount.
Beyond this, Shauwl, who was learning to be a rabbi at the time, also admitted to
faking his true identity, which is the very essence of a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Proof of Pauls willingness to change his outward appearance to take advantage of
an unsuspecting audience is found in this confession...
And I became to the Jews like Jews in order that I might make a profit
by procuring an advantage over Jews. To those under the Towrah, I
appeared to be under the Towrah, myself not actually being under Towrah,
but instead for the purpose that to those under the Towrah, I might procure
an advantage. (1C9:20)
To those Towrahless, and thus without the Towrah, I appeared
Towrahless, not being Towrahless of God, to the contrary and making a
contrast, in the Torah of Christou in order that I might make a profit by
procuring an advantage and winning over those without the Towrah.
(1C9:21)
I came to exist to the inept and morally weak, incapacitated and
inadequate, in order that of those impotent and sick, I might procure an
advantage. To everyone I have become every kind of thing in order that
surely by all means some I might save. (1 Corinthians 9:20-22)
I dont suppose that Yahowsha could have made His message any clearer for
us. He told us we could rely upon the Towrah and then He warned us whom we
should not trust, revealing that a self-serving insider would feign an alliance with
Him so that he could more easily snatch souls away from God. He, of course, was
speaking about Pauland those who have allied themselves with him.
One would have to be nave not to see Paul in Yahowshas statement telling us
to be alert and turn away from false prophets who come to us from within
dressed in sheeps clothing who are actually self-serving and self-promoting
wolves. By examining Yahowahs test, we know for certain that Paul was a
false prophet. As a Jew, he came to this audience from within. We know
that Paul was effective, that he was believable, because he presented himself as
the ultimate insider. And yet while he claimed to speak for the Maaseyah, he
never quoted Him. As such, he dressed himself up as one of Yahowshas
sheep when he appointed himself Yahowshas Apostle. And as we know, Paul,
more than anyone who has ever claimed allegiance with the tribe of Benjamin
(something which can no longer be done in that all genealogical records were
destroyed in 70 CE) was the wolf Yahowah and Yahowsha predicted would
savage their flock. And then when we recognize that this warning came in the
midst of a discussion regarding the eternal role the Torah plays in our salvation,
the very thing Paul sought to undermine, we are left with a singular conclusion:
Paul of Tarsus was the false prophet, the wolf in sheeps clothing, the insider, who
led many to their death and destruction by way of his popular path.
This is especially poignant, because on another occasion Yahowsha spoke of
the comparative influence He would have versus Paulos. Gods statement is one
of the reasons that I consider Paul to be the most influential (albeit not in a
positive way) man who ever lived. Yahowsha revealed:
I, Myself, have come in the name of My Father, and yet you do not
accept Me nor prefer Me. But when another, completely different individual,
comes forth, presenting himself in his own name, that individual, that lone
and specific man, you all will actually receive, accept, choose, and prefer.
(Yahowchanan / Yah is Merciful / John 5:43)
If you do not know Yahowshas name, you do not know Him nor do you
know the Father who sent Him. His name defines who He is, from whom and why
He came. When it is changed or replaced, the result is no longer God. And when
the object of ones belief ceases to be credible, their faith is in vain.
Considering how often the founder of the Christian religion wrote: but I
Paulos say..., its a wonder more people dont recognize him as the one who not
only came in his own name, a moniker he actually chose for himself, but also as
the one so many have received. Paulos even said imitate me. He wrote: if
someone teaches in opposition to what I say let him be accursed. He was not
only fixated on himself, he claimed the entire world for himself. And today, the
vast preponderance of Christian bible studies, sermons, and quotations are based
upon Pauls letters rather than Yahowshas pronouncements and almost never
upon His Instruction on the Mount.
Recognizing that we last reviewed the conclusion to Yahowshas most
famous, longest, and most revealing public presentation in the first chapter, long
before we had considered the opening lines of Galatians, now with Paulos initial
letter behind us, lets listen to God conclude His argument against this man and
his faith.
From their fruit, by conducting a careful, thorough, and competent
inquiry in the future, you all will be able to use evidence and reason to
genuinely comprehend them. Is it even rationally possible to collect a bunch
of grapes from a thorn (akantha something sharp an pointed often found on a
thorny bramble or brier), or from a thistle, figs? (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift /
Matthew 7:16)
Just as we can delight in the subtlety of Yahowshas use of a harpazo
rapture derivative to direct our attention to Pauls false prophecy, akantha,
translated thorn in verse 16, is from akmen, which means point. God is
thereby directing our attention to two of Pauls most incriminating statements,
both of which we will reconsider later in this chapter.
Yahowshas instructions continued with... In this way, every good and
useful fruit tree produces exceptionally suitable and commendable, genuine,
approved, magnificent, admirable, advantageous, superior, attractive, fitting,
valuable, highly beneficial, and proper production and results. But a tree
which is corrupt, rotten, and harmful bears diseased and worthless (poneros
seriously flawed and faulty, annoying and perilous, malicious, troubling, and
painful) fruit. (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:17)
 With the test so simple, with the evidence so plentiful, with the stakes so
high, why do you suppose so few people have deployed this criterion to evaluate
the fruit of Pauls pen? Equally troubling, with God being so definitive, expressly
saying that cherry picking snippets from a rotten source isnt acceptable, why are
so many Christians willing to exonerate Paul because they rather like some of
what he has to say?
It is not possible for a good and useful fruit tree to produce seriously
flawed or disadvantageous (poneros diseased, faulty, annoying perilous,
troubling, counterproductive, or evil) fruit (karpos production and results), nor
a tree which is corrupt, rotten, and harmful (sapros bad, unprofitable,
unsuitable, and destructive) to make, create, produce, or provide suitable or
commendable fruit and results. (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:18)
A bad tree can on occasion produce something edible, but such is not the case
with a rotten prophet. If a person is speaking for Yahowah, everything they write
and say is beneficial and reliable. With His prophets, because He is directing
them, there are no mistakes and no misleading statements. But if there is a single
error, one putrid statement, the smallest corruption in someones testimony who
claims his words have been nurtured by God, we must reject that source entirely.
Therefore, any one of the statements Paul has made in the corpus of his letters is
by itself, individually, sufficient to require the rejection of the entirety of his
letters rejecting every word as harmful. Even that which may appear appropriate
in an inappropriate source must be rejected, because that appearance only serves
to make the venom more enticing to ingest.
When it comes to providing the proper perspective, there are few insights
more important than recognizing that Satan and his messengers make their
nauseating fruit appear delectable by coloring it with strokes from Gods brush.
These resulting counterfeits fool the unsuspecting, the unobservant, and the
indiscriminate into believing that a message crafted by the Adversary will lead
them to paradise. But just as a counterfeit bill is completely worthless even when
ninety-nine percent of its strokes are genuine, the more a false prophet says which
is true, the more deadly he becomes.
Credibility is Yahowahs strong suit, which is why deceivers like Paul
misappropriate it to make their lies appear credible. Paul has fooled five billion
souls deploying this strategy. And Satan, with the assistance of Paul, Akiba,
Muhammad, and Wieshaupt, has deceived ten billion souls, beginning long ago
with Adam and Chawah.
Any and every tree not producing suitable, fitting, genuine, approved,
commendable, and advantageous fruit shall actually be cut off and done
away with and toward the fire (pyr a metaphor for judgment), it is thrown.
(7:19) So then, indeed, as a result and in reality, by their fruit, their
production, harvest, and results, you will be able through careful observation
and studious contemplation to actually know and understand them.
(Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:19-20)
Since epiginosko speaks of that which can be known for certain based upon a
close examination and careful evaluation of the available evidence, this concept is
being presented as the antithesis of, and thus as the alternative to, faith. Therefore,
to the degree that Yahowshas statement was accurately translated, this is
especially relevant. And that is because faith is Pauls lone alternative to
observing the Towrah.
It is surprising, but nonetheless true, that God and man differ dramatically on
the concept which has become synonymous with religion. God, rather than asking
us to blindly believe Him, wants us to read His testimony so that we come to
know Him. That is why the Towrah and Prophets were written and given to us.
And this voyage of discovery which leads to knowing Yahowah is vastly superior
to believing that He exists. Similarly, actually engaging in His Covenant is better
than believing that you have a relationship with God.
Then, speaking of the consequence of being influenced by Shauwl and his
Lord, Satan, Yahowsha revealed:
Not any one saying to Me, Lord (kyrie master, owner, one who rules
over, controls, or enslaves) Lord, will actually as a result enter into the
kingdom of the heavens, but by contrast the one presently acting upon and
actively engaging in the purpose and desire of My Father, the One in the
heavens. (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:21)
If you are still among those referring to God by Satans title, then you are
unaware of Yahowahs will which is to serve His Covenant children as their
Father. Lord and father are mutually exclusive concepts. God cannot be your
Father if he is your Lord.
The only reason Yahowah created the universe, conceived life, engaged in
our lives, and provided His guidance was so that we would be able to choose to
engage in His family-oriented Covenant relationship. By mischaracterizing Gods
nature and purpose in the way Paul has done, those who refer to God as the
Lord are upending our Heavenly Fathers intent. This then bars entry into
heaven. And that is because salvation is a byproduct or benefit of the Covenant. It
is yet another thing Christians have reversed.
And should you be clinging to the myth that God is referred to as the Lord
throughout Scripture, the truth is just the opposite. God spoke or wrote His name,
Yahowah ( ), exactly 7000 times in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms.
Religious rabbis and Christians then copyedited God, substituting Lord for His
name.
Equally instructive, if one must act upon the purpose and desire of our
Heavenly Father to enter heaven, then salvation does not come by way of faith as
Paul asserts. To respond to Gods will, His intent, we must first come to know
what He is offering and what He wants. And that brings us right back to the
Towrah, to the one place Yahowah introduces His purpose and plan.
Since this comes as a shock to those lost in religion, as believers almost
universally refer to their god as Lord, especially Christians, Yahowsha
completely destroyed their every illusion.
Many (polys a very great number and the preponderance of people) will
say to Me in that specific day, Lord (kyrie master, owner, one who rules over,
controls, or enslaves) Lord, was it not in Your name that we actively spoke
genuinely inspired utterances, and in Your name, we drove out demons, and
in Your name, many mighty and miraculous things we made and did.
(Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:22)
But the answer to that question is a resounding no! Not one Christian in a
million knows or uses Yahowshas name. In fact, once a person comes to know
His name and understand what it means, he or she can no longer be a Christian.
And that is because Yahowshas name means Yahowah Saves. And that means
that the means to salvation is found in the Towrah rather than in the New
Testament.
Thanks largely to Paul, you will not find a church where the sermon is
delivered in Yahowshas name. Christians speak on behalf of Paul instead. They
are inspired by Pauline doctrine rather than by Yahowahs Towrah. In all of their
many books, in all of their vast libraries, in all of their superficial bible studies, in
all of their thoughtless radio and television programs, and in all of their religious
institutions, they never speak or write in the name of God. Most dont even know
it.
As for driving out demons, the moment you come to understand that
Christian clerics, like Paul, are inspired by Satan, it is easy to see why they would
be able to exorcise demons. The Adversary controls both. So casting out demonic
spirits becomes the perfect ruse.
Mighty deeds and miracles are so often claimed by those inspired by the
Adversary that Yahowah tells us that when we see them we ought to be especially
wary. Yahowah isnt a showoff but Satan is. God does not have to prove His status
or power, but Satan does. Moreover, Christians almost universally claim that their
lives or those that they love have been miraculously transformed, something they
errantly attribute to God. So Yahowsha is telling them that these things are
neither proof nor valid, neither good nor appropriate.
In an informed and rational world, Yahowshas conclusion would have
scuttled Pauline Doctrine and destroyed the religion of Christianity with it. And so
it is ironic Christians believe that their religion was created by the individual who
cratered it before it was born.
And then at that time, I will profess to them that because I never at any
time knew you (oudepote ginosko umas at no time was I acquainted with you,
not even once or for a moment did I acknowledge you or understand you), you all
must depart from Me (apochoreo apo emou you are now ordered to leave,
going away and separating yourselves from Me), those of you involved in
Towrahlessness (anomia who are in opposition to and have attempted to negate
the Towrah, thereby those of you without the Towrah, who demonstrate a
contempt for the Towrah and are thereby in violation of the allotment which
provides an inheritance). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:23)
There are two reasons the multitudes were sent away, both of which are
related, either of which results in being rejected by God. Initially, Yahowsha said
that He never knew them, which means that the overwhelming preponderance
of people dont know Him either. If they are involved in a relationship with god,
their god is not real.
When God says at no time was I acquainted with you, it means that these
individuals have all failed to capitalize on the Covenant. No matter what they may
have felt or believed, they were not engaged in a relationship with God. Beyond
this, when God says that not even once for a moment did I acknowledge you or
understand you, it means that He never heard any of their prayers and that their
opinions, even conclusions, regarding Him and their religion were
incomprehensible. And this means that every argument Christians pose to justify
their opposition towards Yahowahs name, towards observing His Towrah, or
towards engaging in the Covenant, are moot. God isnt interested in them.
The point Yahowsha is making here is one that took me a very long time to
fully assimilate. But Gods position is both simple and reasonable, even necessary.
Salvation is only afforded to the children of the Covenant. And in fact, salvation,
which entails becoming immortal, becoming perfected, being adopted while being
enriched and empowered, collectively serve as the benefits of the Covenant. It
would be senseless, even irritating, for God to save those who do not know Him
those who hold contrarian views toward Him. After all, God has to live with those
who are saved for eternity. And if He saved everyone, heaven would be like hell
no different than the mess we have made for ourselves here on earth through
politics and religion, militarism and patriotism.
 Yahowsha has just delineated the issue which has now defined our debate.
According to Yahowsha, to reject the Towrah is to be rejected by God. But
according to Paul, the inverse is true. He writes that a person must reject the
Towrah to be saved. So who do you suppose is right?
Or better question yet, since Paul claims to speak on behalf of the individual
his letters contradict, how could he be right? Said another way, based upon
Yahowshas statement regarding admission into heaven, why would anyone in
their right mind believe that Paul was telling the truth?
Have you been listening? This has been a scathing indictment of Pauline
Doctrine and Christian teaching. Yahowshas name matters, as does His Torah.
And the presence of miracles does not equate to the presence of God as Christian
apologists claim. Countless Christians have justified their faith by claiming to
have witnessed inspired healings and character transformations in the name of
Jesus Christ, unaware of the fact that the Maaseyah Yahowsha said that
observing the Torah, not miracles, was the proper means to evaluate whether or
not someone actually has a relationship with the Father.
Yahowsha further proclaimed and promised: Everyone, therefore, then
who presently and actively listens to these statements of Mine, and he or she
genuinely acts upon them, will be likened to a wise, intelligent and astute, a
prudent and sensible, a thoughtful and judicious individual who edifies and
strengthens his or her house upon the rock. (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew
7:24)
Second only to their disdain for Yahowahs testimony, as Gods Word is
written in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, the Christian aversion to Yahowshas
testimony is telling. They are somehow unaware that they spoke with the same
voice as did the Disciple known as the Rock who would become Shauwls
foe. So while Christians will acknowledge Yahowchanans assertion that
Yahowsha is the Word of God, there is a disconnect in their minds between that
statement and the realization that He was, therefore, the living embodiment of the
Torah and Prophets. And that means that to listen to Him, you will have to read
them. After all, that is why He began this instruction affirming the validity, value,
and enduring nature of the Towrah and Prophets.
And even when the rain (e broche a besprinkling (akin to a baptism))
descends, the rivers come, and the rapidly shifting winds blow, descending
upon this specific home and household (te oikia the family), then it shall not
fail because the foundation was previously established and is enduring upon
bedrock (petra solid rock). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:25)
While Christians will tell you that Paul won the argument over the viability
of the foundation God had laid with His Torah, Yahowsha begs to differ. He
recognizes that not only is it the primary source of guidance regarding the
Covenant and the Path to Salvation, it is also the most effective protection against
the torrents of rapidly shifting winds others would bring against us. Fortunately,
so long as we are grounded in the Towrah, our home is secure.
This knowledge is the reason Yahowsha provided this perspective on the
Towrah along with His conclusions regarding those who would seek to discount
its value in the midst of His initial public declaration. Gods guidance to mankind
begins here. This is where the journey to life begins as well.

And you dont need me to tell you that Shauwl was an egomaniac who
admitted to being demon-possessed
Because if I might want to brag, honestly I would not be imprudent or
unjustified. For then, I will say (ero) I am presently refraining. But someone
who not approaching me might have reason to promote an opinion beyond
what he sees in me, or something he hears from me, (12:6) especially
regarding the preeminence and awe-inspiring aspects of the revelations and
disclosures.
Therefore, in order that I not become overly proud and be excessively
lifted up beyond what would be justified, there was given to me a sharp goad
and troubling thorn in the body, a messenger and envoy of Satan, in order to
restrain me, so that as a result, at the present time, there is the possibility
that I might not be conceited, currently exalting myself beyond what would
be justified. (2 Corinthians 12:6-7)
Speaking of this thorny goad, he also said: And everyone of us having
fallen down to the earth, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew
language, Shauwl, Shauwl, Why are you actually pursuing me? Its hard,
demanding and difficult, for you to resist against the goad, the pointed sharp
stick used to prick and prod and thus control animals. (Acts 26:14) And as
we now know, he quoted Dionysus.
You do not need me to tell you that Paul was insane. He told you himself.
Having become insane (paraphroneo having become deranged, completely
irrational, and out of my mind, being senseless and devoid of understanding), I
speak for the sake of, about, and beyond me, myself, with exceedingly great
works and extraordinary burdens in overwhelming imprisonment by an
abundance of guards, in extremely severe beatings and blows, in death dying
many times, often, again and again. (2 Corinthians 11:23)
Since Pauls psychosis is germane to our investigation, lets reconsider some
of the other insane things the Devils Advocate had to say to the Corinthians.
Contradicting his own overt animosity toward legalism, the founder of the
Christian religion hypocritically wrote: And we are ready to punish all
disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete. (2 Corinthians 10:6) Not
only is obedience something Yahowah opposes, justice is His not ours.
Of his role promoting such rubbish, the always arrogant, self-promoter,
wrote: Even if I should boast somewhat further about our authority...I will
not be put to shame. (2 Corinthians 10:8) I imagine Satan thinking the same
thing.
This is followed by another odd and indicting comment: For I do not wish
to seem as if I would terrify you by my letters. (2 Corinthians 10:9) Sure, the
tone is condescending and the prose bizarre, but unless written by a despot with a
large and ruthless army, why would a letter terrify anyone? It is as if Paul was
trying dismiss his foes the same way homosexuals and Muslims do today, when
they refer to them as being homophobic and islamophobic.
An even more peculiar reference is conveyed by: For they say, His letters
are weighty and strong, but his personal presence is unimpressive, and his
speech is contemptible. (2 Corinthians 10:10) While we ought not care what
Paul looked like, youd have to be delusional to view his rhetoric as weighty. But
he was correct in this regard: his speech was contemptible.
Paul digresses further in opening of the 11th chapter of his second letter to the
Corinthians, writing: I wish that you would bear with me in a little
foolishness; but indeed you are bearing with me. (2 Corinthians 11:1) Unless
Im reading this wrong, to put up with Paul is to be foolish. But why would
anyone want to suffer such foolishness if he or she could instead observe Gods
brilliance by reading His Towrah?
Shauwl was afraid that his simplistic and erroneous presentation of the
Maaseyah would be exposed and criticized by those who knew better, so he
wrote: For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not
preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a
different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear beautifully. (2
Corinthians 11:4 from the NASB) And yet we know that Yahowsha bears no
resemblance to the Christian Jesus, a character who has far more in common with
Dionysus and Mithras than Yahowah or His Towrah. The Pauline Christian
misnomer is decidedly not the living manifestation of the Word of God, but is
instead a caricature contrived to annul it.
This leads to another arrogant and indeed errant announcement: For I
consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles. (2
Corinthians 11:5) Pauls pride became blinding.
Incapable of being rational, he considered himself brilliant: But even if I
am unskilled in speech, yet I am not so in knowledge; in fact, in every way we
have made evident to you in all things. (2 Corinthians 11:6) If Paul was a
fraction as smart as he claimed to be, he would have educated his audience by
drawing their attention to the terms and conditions of the Covenant. He would
have explained how the Covenants benefits were enabled by Yahowshas work
during the Miqraey. But instead, he condemned the Covenant, created a new one,
and denounced the Invitations to Meet with God because they got in the way of
his faith.
A systematic review of the literature emanating out of the mid to late first
century reveals that the only prophets and apostles which Paul could have viewed
as being in competition with him, and whose message was opposed to his, were
Yahowshas Disciples and perhaps those who had learned from them and thus
those filled and equipped by the Spirit on Shabuwa. That makes this next
statement especially toxic. For such are false prophets, treacherous and
deceitful (dolios tricky and clever) workmen (ergates perpetrators)
masquerading as (metaschematizo converted and transformed so as to appear,
disguised and pretending to be) Maaseyahs (P) Apostles (apostolos
prepared messenger who is sent out). (2 Corinthians 11:13)
So then this is Pauls perspective, his foolish and contrarian message:
Furthermore (palin also and again) I say (lego), let no one (me) presume of
me (oe tis me dokei someone should not be of the opinion) that I am (einai)
ignorant and irrational (aphron foolish, stupid, senseless, and devoid of
reason). But (de) even if actually like this and foolish (ei me ge kai os aphron
if perhaps ignorant and really senselessness), you will receive (dechomai
believe and welcome) me (me) in order that (ina) I (kago) as someone little (to
micron small) I may boast in myself (kauchaomai might brag and glory in
me). What (o) I say (lalo) is not (ou) according to (kata) the Lords (KN) way
of speaking (laleo sayings), but to the contrary (alla) as (os) in (en)
foolishness (aphrosyne recklessness and thoughtlessness, senselessness and
folly) in (en) this (houtos) substance and nature (hypostasis essence or
objective aspect and underlying reality behind everything; a compound of hupo,
under, and histemi, standing upright) of (tes) boasting (kauchesis pride and
glorifying oneself). (2 Corinthians 11:16-17) If this is correct, Paul is admitting
the obvious. He was not speaking for Yahowah or Yahowsha, but was instead
speaking foolishly by bragging on his own behalf.
But Paul wasnt finished exposing himself. Because (epei since) many
(polloi) may boast (kauchaomai brag and glorify themselves) according to
(kata) the flesh (sarx their physical prowess), I also (kago) glorify myself and
brag (kauchaomai boast). (2 Corinthians 11:18) His personality and Satans
began to morph, becoming indistinguishable.
It was at this point in the fourth chapter of Questioning Paul that we began to
realize that Paul was psychotic. For indeed (gar because), gladly (hedeos
with delight and enjoyment) you accept (anechomai bear, endure, and put up
with) the senseless and foolish (aphron ignorant and irrational) being (ontes)
wise (phronimos shrewd and intelligent). (2 Corinthians 11:19)
And if not psychotic, then surely nauseating. This is making my stomach
turn... Because (gar) you put up with (anechomai you accept as valid or true
and forebear) someone who and something which (ei tis whosoever and
whatever) makes you subservient, completely enslaving you (katadouloo umas
imposes their unrelenting authority over you), someone who and something
which (ei tis anyone and whatever) is exploitive (katesoiei devouring and
destructive, taking complete advantage by being divisive), someone who and
something which (ei tis anyone and whosoever) is controlling (lambano
grasps hold of and acquires, possesses and takes advantage of), someone who
and something which (ei tis anyone and whatever) is exalted (epairomai is
highly regarded), even someone who or something which (ei tis) flays the skin
(dero) of your (umas) person (prosopon being and head, frontal proximity,
appearance, and presence). (2 Corinthians 11:20)
His letter devolved into a volcano of verbal diarrhea: Relative to (kata) this
disgrace and shame (atimia this dishonorable approach, this vile ignominy and
disparaging way), I say (lego), in this manner (os) that (oti) we (emeis) have
been weakened and have become powerless (astheneo we have become
incapacitated and diseased, infirmed and feeble, through corruption and
perversion). But (de) in (en) this (o), whomsoever (an tis) might dare be so
extreme (tolmao may be so bold and fearless, defiantly go so far regardless of
the opposition) in (en) foolishness (aphrosyne thoughtless ignorance, foolish
folly without reflection or consideration, reckless stupidity, and rash senselessness
and irrationality), I say (lego), I also (kayo) am extremely daring and bold in
opposition (tolmao kago have the courage to actually and actively defy). (2
Corinthians 11:21)
Continuing to hallucinate, the delirious and deranged wannabe apostle wrote:
By Jews five times, forty besides one, I received. (2C11:24) Three times I
was beaten with sticks, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked. A
night and a day, I was caused to drown in the depths (bythos plunge to the
bottom, sinking into the deep or abyss). (2C11:25) Many times in perilous
journeys, in dangerous rivers, in threats from bandits, from perilous kin,
from dangerous races, in a threatening city, in perilous solitude, in a
dangerous body of water, by pseudo brothers, (2C11:26) in bothersome and
difficult work and in toilsome hardship, in constant sleeplessness, in
prolonged, severe hunger and thirst, in frequently going without food, in cold
and nakedness, (2C11:27) independently and by myself (choris without help,
apart, alone, disassociated, and separated, estranged without a relationship),
besides the addition of the constant stopping to quell rebellions (o epistasis
of halting to suppress attacks and upheavals, of the pressure, concern, burden of
authority, and disturbing hindrance associated with riotous mobs) of the extent of
my daily anxiety and distracting care of all of the called-out assemblies. (2
Corinthians 11:25-28)
Yes, not only was Paulos killed multiple times, evidently facilitating his own
personal resurrections, he was the first to cruise in a submarine, having spent
twenty-four hours at the bottom of the sea.
It isnt often that we are afforded a window into a deranged and psychotic
mind, but Paul in addition to being insane was a megalomaniac, so he was ever
ready to share his afflictions and affinities. And now he seems to be telling us that
when he is empowered, Yahowah and His Torah are weakened, becoming
incapacitated and impotent. And that so long as he isnt shot down in flames,
Gods credibility is questioned, with His Towrah becoming unbelievable as a
result of having been slandered and scandalized.
Who is weak and incapacitated (tis astheneo what is powerless,
incapable, and impotent by being corrupted and perverted) when I am not
incapacitated nor weak (kai ouk astheneo)? Who stumbles, ceasing to be
credible (tis skandalizomai what is slandered and scandalized becoming
unbelievable, even offensive, being trapped, distrusted and deserted) when I am
not (kai ouk ego) myself destroyed in the fire (pyroomai myself consumed by
flames, burning with passion, greatly worried and distressed, tempted with
desires, or aroused sexually, incensed or indignant)? (2C11:29) So since it is
necessary to brag (ei kauchasthai dei) of my limitation and weakness (ta tes
astheneia mou of this infirmity, lack of insight, frailty, incompetence and
inadequacy of mine), I will boast (astheneia I will brag, glorifying myself). (2
Corinthians 11:30)
And speaking of psychosis, after what we have just read, Pauls next
statement borders on schizophrenic. The God (o ) and father (pater) of the
Lord (tou ) Iesou () has known (oida has actually and completely been
aware of and has recognized and acknowledged) the one being (o on) praised
and worthy of commendation (eulogetos one being blessed; from eulogeo
with praiseworthy words and beneficial speech) throughout the universe and
forever (eis tous aion) because (hoti) I absolutely cannot lie (ou pseudomai
could never deceive or mislead by speaking falsely or conveying anything that is
not true). (2 Corinthians 11:31)
In the midst of his braggadocios diatribe, with Shauwl presenting himself as
the source of universal and everlasting truth, the most rational conclusion is that
Paulos is presenting himself as commendable and praiseworthy the source of
healing words and beneficial speech. As further affirmation, he has already told us
that God knew him and chose him before he was born. As such, this may be
Shauwls most presumptions, egotistical, and delusional statement.
Paul is doing such a great job incriminating himself, lets stick around a little
longer to see how this plays out. After all, this is serious business. This psychotic
megalomaniac bamboozled billions of people with this soaring rhetoric. It is
necessary to brag (kauchaomai dei), not advantageous (ou symphero not
beneficial). But now (de) as affirmation (men indeed, surely and truly), I will
go (erchomai I will come) onto supernatural visions (eis optasia to what
appears to the mind by supernatural means) and (kai) revelations (apokalypsis
revealing disclosures, uncovering and unveilings) of the Lord (). (2
Corinthians 12:1)
One way to avoid lying I suppose is to say that you cant remember. But
when they are allegedly transformative events in your life, encounters which
provide your authority, that wont fly. Nonetheless... I am aware of (oida I
know, recognize, recall, or acknowledge) a man (anthropos) in (en) Christo (
a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey
Yahowsha, meaning Yahowah Saves) before fourteen years (pro etos
dekatessares) whether if (eite) in (en) body (soma as a physical being) I do not
know (ouk oida I am unaware and do not recall) or if (eite) outside the body
(ektos tou somatos disassociated from a physical being) I do not recall or
remember (ouk oida I do not know, I am unaware, and I will not acknowledge).
The God ( a placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the
Septuagint to convey elohym, the Almighty), He has known and has
remembered (oiden he has recognized, recalled, and acknowledged) having
been violently seized and snatched away (harpazo having been viciously
attacked, ravenously plundered, forcibly possessed, harshly controlled, carried
away, swindled, and extorted) like this (ton toioutos in this kind of way) until
(heos as far as) the third heaven (tritos ouranos). (2 Corinthians 12:2)
So if he cannot remember how he encountered this individual, whether he
was out of his body or just out of his mind, how does he know whom he met or
what he was told? And if he cant recall what happened, why did he provide three
detailed, albeit conflicting, accounts for Luke to record in Acts? Also, if God can
be counted upon to remember either, then there would be no reason for Paul to
ask us to forget what He said. Or should we consider all of this deranged musings
and hallucinations the product of an insane mind?
And (kai) I recall (oida I know and remember, I am aware and
acknowledge) as such (ton toioutos like this) a man (anthropos) whether if
(eite) in (en) body (soma as a physical being) I do not know (ouk oida I am
unaware and do not recall) or if (eite) without the body (choris tou somatos
apart from a physical being) I do not recall or remember (ouk oida I do not
know, I am unaware, and I will not acknowledge). The God ( a placeholder
used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey elohym, the
Almighty), he has known and has remembered (oiden he has recognized,
recalled, and acknowledged) (2C12:3) because (oti) he was viciously attacked
and plundered, harshly controlled and extorted (harpazo He was violently
seized and snatched away, forcibly controlled, carried away, and swindled)
approaching (eis inside and with reference to) the paradise (ton paradeisos a
Babylonian / Persian Sanskrit word for garden enclosure and hunting preserve)
and he heard (kai akouo) words which cannot be spoken (arretos rhema
unspeakable and unsaid statements or matters which cannot be expressed; literally
the unexpressed words) which it is not permissible, possible, or lawful (a ouk
exesti which ought not be obligatory; literally out of existence) for a man
(anthropos) to speak (laleo). (2 Corinthians 12:4)
But to Paul, hearing what he didnt hear and saying what he could not say
was reason for him to brag which he did while not boasting, unless self-
glorification was in incapacitating timidity. I kid you not. On behalf of such
things like this (hyper tou toioutos), I will actually boast (kauchaomai I will
brag, engaging in self-glorification, expressing pride in myself) for the sake of it
(hyper). But myself (de emautou so on my own accord), I will not brag (ou
kauchaomai I will not engage in self-glorification) if not (ei un) in the (en tais)
incapacitating inadequacy of corruption and perversion (astheneia infirmity
and illness borne out of dishonesty, timidity and limitations associated with fraud,
weakness and sickness derived from defiling and profaning, inadequacy and lack
of insights caused by polluting and sullying the established conditions). (2
Corinthians 12:5)
This led, of course, to the declaration of being demon-possessed, the citation
from 2 Corinthians 12:7 upon which this section of the final chapter of
Questioning Paul began. And yet, somehow, it begs to be repeated... Because
(gar for indeed) if (ean) I might want (thelo I may decide, desire, propose, or
enjoy) to brag (dauchaomai to boast or to glorify myself) truthfully (aletheia
honestly), I would not be (ouk esomai) unjustified or imprudent (aphron
acting rashly without reason, inappropriate or foolish).
For then (gar because) I will say (ero) I am presently abstaining
(pheidomai I am currently refraining). But (de) someone (tis) not (un)
approaching (eis) me (eme) might ponder (logizomai may have reason to
logically conclude, embrace an opinion, or hold a view) beyond (hyper over
and above and because of) what (o) he sees (blepo he will be able to view and
discern) in me (me), or (e) something (ti) he hears (akouo he listens to,
receives, pays attention to) from (ek) me (emou), (12:6) especially of the (kai te
so with regard to the) extraordinary superiority of the (hyperbole ton
preeminence and exceedingly great, transcendent, magnificent, and awe-inspiring
aspects of the exaggerated and overstated) revelations (apokalypsis disclosures
with the appearance of instructions concerning the unknown).
Therefore (dio it should be self evident), in order that (hina for the
purpose that) I not become overly proud and be lifted up (me hyperairomai I
not become conceited, exalting myself beyond what would be justified, so as not
to be insolent, audaciously lifting myself above the source of my inspiration),
there was given to me (didomi ego there was deposited upon me, allowing me
to experience, there was granted and entrusted to me for my advantage) a sharp
goad and troubling thorn (skolops a sharp pointed prod used to control dumb
animals, featuring poisonous scorpions stinger) in the body (te sarx
incorporated into the flesh and as an aspect of my physical, animal, and human
nature), a messenger (angelos a spiritual envoy or demonic spirit) of Satan
(Satan a transliteration of satan, Hebrew for the Adversary), in order to (hina
so as to) strike and restrain me (kolaphizo adversely harm, beat, and torment
me, violently mistreating me to painfully afflict, attack, buffet, and batter me;
from kolazo to prune, control, check, curb, and restrain me), so that as a result
(hina), at the present time, there is the possibility that I might not be
conceited, currently exalting myself beyond what would be justified (me
hyperairomai I may not be overly proud nor excessively exalted or lifted up,
overdoing it (scribed in the present tense, meaning at this time, in the passive
voice, affirming that this is being done to him, with the subjective mood
indicating that this outcome is a mere possibility, and in the first person singular,
thereby identifying Paulos as the one being possessed and controlled). (2
Corinthians 12:7)
Regarding this (hyper toutou because of and about this), three times (tris)
of the Lord (ton kupion of the supernatural master who controls a person, the
owner of slaves to whom someone belongs, the one who lords over and exercises
supremacy, and the power to possess), I asked (parakaleo I begged, urged, and
pleaded) in order that (ina) it might be repelled (aphistamai at some point it
might possibly leave and be kept away, departing (aorist active subjunctive)),
separated from me (apo emou out of and disassociated from me). (2
Corinthians 12:8)
I dont suspect that Paulos much liked being demon-possessed. It must have
been maddening and manipulative. So he pleaded with his spiritual accomplice,
begging Satan to aphistamai to repel the demon, not only making it leave
but also keeping it away. He knew, of course, that every messenger of Satan,
and thus every demon, served the Adversary and thus would obey its Lord. And
just as arrhetos was the negation of the Word, aphistemi is the antithesis of
Yahowshas purpose: to stand up for us so that we might stand with Him.
Therefore, to be aphistemi is to be separated from Gods purpose.
If you are looking for Gods help, if you what Him to respond to you, that
will never happen if you call Yahowah or Yahowsha, Lord. This is not only
Satans title, and the name God uses to identify the Adversary, in that the name
Baal means Lord, it is the antithesis of the way our Heavenly Father wants us
to relate to Him in the Family Covenant. This is why Yahowsha said as much in
His Instruction on the Mount.
Therefore (dio for this reason it should be self evident), I am pleased
with and prefer, delighting in (eudokeo en I enjoy and take pleasure in, I
consider good and consent to) sickening perversions (astheneia the
inadequacies and infirmities caused by corruptions, illness borne of dishonesty,
weakness which results from the tendency to defile, to profane, and to dishonor
that which is set apart as common, incapacitation, weakness, and lack of insights
derived from a willingness to pollute and sully the established conditions), in (en)
presumptuous maltreatment and outrageously damaging insults (hybris
injurious treatment and harmful behavior, the invasion of the basic rights of
others, ignominious hardships and impudent insolence, pride and haughtiness,
wanton violence, and tempestuous wrongdoing), in (en) the necessity and
inevitability of compulsion and punishment (anagke obligatory trouble,
unyielding pressure, the destiny and advantage of distress and tribulation as well
as imposed calamity), in (en) persecution and oppression (diogmos
harassment and molestation which causes people to flee in fear, driving them
away through terror), and (kai) the difficulty of the distressing restrictiveness
(stenochoria the troublesome narrowness and resulting calamity and extreme
affliction) regarding (hyper associated with and because of) Christou ( a
placeholder used by Yahowshas Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey
Maaseyah) is the reason (gar indeed, because) I am sickened by my
perversions (astheneia I am inadequate and infirmed through my corruptions,
ill as a result my dishonesty, weakened by my tendency to defile, to profane, and
to dishonor that which is set apart as common, incapacitated with a lack of
insights derived from my willingness to pollute and sully the established
conditions), and at the same time (tote) I am (eimi) empowered, competent
and capable (dynatos plausible, expert, and important, mighty, powerful, and
influential). (2 Corinthians 12:10)
I have come to be (ginomai I have become) ignorant and irrational
(aphron senseless and foolish, stupid, acting rashly, essentially out of my mind,
lacking judgment). You (umeis), yourselves, compelled me (anagkazo me
forced this upon me, drove me to this, necessitating it). For this reason (gar),
you all (umon) are obligated to me, and under me, you owe me (opheilo upo
umon you are indebted to me and it is indispensable and obligatory that you are
required) to be commended and recommended (synistemi to be approved,
established, and legitimized). For indeed (gar because), I lacked nothing,
never falling short of (ouden hystereo I wasnt the least bit inferior to or
lacking any benefit or advantage of) the (ton) preeminent (hyperlian super and
exceptional) if even (ei kai) I am (eimi) nothing (oudeis a worthless,
meaningless, nobody). (2 Corinthians 12:11)
Turning to the ultimate authority on Shauwl, as if he were admonishing him,
Yahowsha used kerdaino, the very same verb deployed here four times, to warn
us: For what will be accomplished and who will be helped (tis gar opheleo
what value would there be and who would be benefited) by a man if (ean
anthropos on the condition an individual) the entire universe (ton holos
kosmos the totality of the whole world) he might gain, winning over, taking
advantage of and profiting from (kerdaino), but (de) his soul (autou psyche) he
forfeits (zemioomai he damages undergoing punishment)? (Mattanyah / Yahs
Gift / Matthew 16:26)
Gods insights are stunningly appropriate, especially when we consider
Shauwls elaborate justification for personal payment in 1 Corinthians 9:1-12. If
we knew where he was buried, this should be written on his tombstone.

Lets be clear: Shauwl / Pauls motivation for opposing God is irrelevant.

All that matters is that he did. Yet I recognize that human nature causes us to
wonder how Satan could have fooled Shauwl initially. And just as millions have
pondered the nature of the thorn in Pauls side, even though it was revealed in the
text, we are likewise curious to understand the impetus behind his willingness to
perpetrate the most deceitful, destructive, deadly, and damning fraud in human
history. Therefore, recognizing that Im moving away from that which you need
to know, and from that which can be objectively known, to that which we would
like to know, and which is purely speculative, I offer the following insights for
your consideration.
The Roman name from which we have come to know Paul, Paulos, means
Lowly and Little in Latin and not so coincidently, the common trait among all
of Satans little helpers is insecurity. A truncated sense of value manifests itself in
paranoia and ego. Hypocrisy reigns, which enables the wolf (which is actually a
timid creature) in sheeps clothing to devour unsuspecting foes who let their guard
down. Their victims are predisposed to trust an insider, believing that they are
telling the truth. And in this way, these predators share Satans persona and
methods, and are therefore especially easy for him to manipulate, and effective for
him to use.
To satiate their cravings to fill the painful void in their lives, insecure
individuals demand attention, even reverenceand they will do or say anything
they believe will serve their interests. In doing so, they become exceedingly
divisive. Its them against everyone, except those who are unrelentingly loyal,
pledging their unwavering support and yet even they are questioned. But these
wolves are deadly, killing everything they touch by biting an opponents heels. As
opportunistic hunters, they will devour most anything living or dead, including
their own. Their insecurity drives them to be excessively territorial, and they will
fight anyone who infringes on their turf. All of this makes insecure individuals
particularly vulnerable and especially susceptible to those who can fulfill their
yearning to be in control; to be admired.
Examples are: Paul (the wolf in sheeps clothing), Nero (the prototypical
Antichrist), Rabbi Akiba, Marcion, Diocletian (circa 303 CE with his
persecutions), Emperor Constantine, Muhammad, Maimonides, Adolf Hitler, and
Stalin. My father was hopelessly insecure, as was my most important customer in
my first business, even the man I unfortunately hired to replace me in my last.
Should you be interested in meeting them, I exposed the divisiveness of these
individuals in Prophet of Doom and In the Company of Good and Evil.
Every word of Galatians oozes arrogance and hypocrisythe telltale signs of
insecurity. Shauwls life was a living contradiction. After claiming that he was an
Apostle trained by God, Paul wallowed in self-indulgence. The first half of his
letter was so overtly egotistical and self-centered, it was obvious that Paul was
trying to compensate for his inadequacies and rise above his foes by putting them
down. After alleging to have been chosen by Yahowsha, he contradicted Him.
After telling countless lies, he said that he cannot lie. After disassociating
Yahowsha from the Torah which served as His exemplar, Paul told believers that
they should follow his example. After being welcomed by Yahowshas Disciples,
Paul demeaned them. His most repetitive phrases were but I say, and to the
contrary. Then after ruthlessly attacking his foes, calling for their castration, Paul
insisted that he not be troubled by their rebuttals.
Especially relevant in this regard, it is evident that Shauwl was rebuked by
Messianic Yahuwdym who publicly demonstrated that he was lying. Since
insecure men cannot tolerate criticism, Paul responded the same way Muhammad
would centuries laterby demonizing Jews: calling the Chosen People the
enemy of God. The argument he waged in Galatians against those who
observed the Torah, flowed directly into his next letter, Shauwls anti-Semitic
rant in First Thessalonians.
Sure, there were different strokes for different folks, which is why there are
different religions, but the point of vulnerability is always the same. Insecure and
egotistical people like Paul, and Akiba, Constantine, and Muhammad after him,
crave power, reverence, and control. The founders of religious schemes lust for
unbridled adoration, and will stop at nothing to garner the undivided attention
they need.
Based upon what we have read in this letter, Paul was the perfect patsy. He
was a Pharisee, the best student of the best teacher. He was among those
Yahowsha called hypocrites and a brood of vipersthe children of demons. He
was one of Satans children before he became Satans messenger. So, of course,
Paul thought that the lesser light and voice came from his god. It did.
Pauls life was also a living hell. His father sent him away when he was a
young boy. So he desperately tried to prove his worth by being a good student,
but something went desperately wrong. Rather than become a ranking Pharisee
and serve in the Sanhedrin, Paul was sent back home to sew tents. Can you
imagine how demeaning this must have been for someone desperate to prove
himself? For a boy who craved attention, who yearned to be respected, he was
doing womens work.
Never having enjoyed a mothers love, Paul turned on women. He grew to
hate them. And in a culture where homosexuality was considered an abomination,
he at the very least struggled with his sexual orientation, expressing his love for
only one persona man named Timothy.
Having witnessed his dark side, his penchant for tearing others down and
abusing them, Rabbis chose Paul to harass those who recognized that Yahowsha
was the Maaseyah. And even in this barbaric job, Paul would brag that he
excelled. Imagine a soul dark enough to boast about such a thing. And so it was in
this darkness, in the midst of being subhuman, that the man who had been rejected
by his father, who had been rejected by the Pharisees, and who was good at being
bad, was offered the one thing he craved: respect. The Adversary who wanted to
be worshiped as if he was God had found his kindred spirit. And together they
would reshape the world.
I suspect that Paul, like Constantine and Muhammad knew that something
was amiss during the conversion experience. While all three embellished their
account of it over time, only they know if they were actually fooled by Satan
pretending to be God or not. But such delusions were fleeting. All too soon they
were committed. Then up to their throats in their own self-serving charade, they
couldnt turn back and admit the truththeir egos wouldnt allow it. And that is
why Satan picked them in the first place. He knew that their need to be respected
and to compensate for their broken childhoods drove a lust for attention and
respect which he could manipulate.
So long before Paul wrote Galatians, he knew the truth. His ploy, the
conception of two covenants, was way too clever, way too diabolical, way too
false, for him not to have laughed at his victims for believing his story. But there
was no turning back. He, like Muhammad, was demon-possessed, and thus was
no longer in control. He had been betrayed by the Great Betrayer, the lord of egos,
the prince of lies. The first step toward the dark side had set things in motion
which could not be undone.
We know that Satan promised Muhammad, a dumb brute of a man, sex,
power, money, and immortality. And he delivered on all four accounts, not that it
did Muhammad any good. He was never satisfied. And we know that Satan
promised General Constantine victory in a battle that would transform his life
from becoming a slave as the loser, to becoming Emperor as the winner. And
what I suspect Satan promised Shauwla pompous elitistwas to be his
apostleto be the single most influential man who ever lived. He delivered.
Surprisingly, the infamy of being the worlds most influential man doesnt go
to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moseh / Moses, Dowd / David, Yashayah / Isaiah, or
even Yahowsha or His Disciples, because as a result of Pauls letters, too few
people consider what they had to say. But Paul founded a religionthe largest
and most influential in human history. He has been immortalized. Christians cite
his words far more often than Yahowahs and Yahowshas combined. He has
become Saint Paulthe most famous Apostle.
And as a result of what he has done, the man who was rejected by his father,
mother, religious teachers, Yahowshas Disciples, and God, took his revenge and
damned more souls than anyone in human history. Billions have been poisoned by
his words. He was the wolf in sheeps clothing; the one in the best position to
mutilate Yahowahs Word and devour Yahowshas sacrifice. He was a trusted
insider. And in the battle between knowing Yahowah and believing Paul, Satan
achieved his greatest victory, and Christianity as we know it is the result.
 If you are still a Christian, and are clinging to the notion that Paul spoke for
God as opposed to Satan, and that his epistles are Scripture, you are now without
excuse. The foundation of your religion has been torn asunder. Yahowah and
Yahowsha have presented their case against him, and have proven that he was a
false prophet as clearly as words allow. Pauls way of faith and his gospel of
grace are in direct conflict with Gods Word. So for Christians, it is time to
metanoeo: to change your perspective to that of the Torah, your thinking so that it
is consistent with Gods, and your attitude so that you rely upon Yahowah and not
men.
If you are unwilling to do these things, appreciate the consequence. The souls
of those who continue to believe Paul and reject God will cease to exist at the end
of their mortal lives. And for those who promote Pauline Doctrine, which is
essentially the religion of Christianity, you have put yourself in opposition to
God. As a result of having sided with the Adversary, such souls will endure
eternal separation in the place which shares Shauwls name: Sheowl. Dont say
that you were not warned.
But if you are now free of Paul, and if you are liberated from the enslavement
of his religious deception, then I invite you to turn to the God Paul rejected.
Embrace Him on His terms, and He will embrace you. You have His Word on it:
Yahowahs Towrah (towrah teaching and instruction, guidance and
direction) is complete and entirely perfect, lacking nothing, correct, healing,
beneficial, and true, returning, restoring, and transforming the soul.
Yahowahs enduring testimony and restoring witness is trustworthy and
reliable, verifiable and establishing, making understanding and obtaining
wisdom simple for the open-minded. (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:7)

LE: YY 10-1-2013